View Single Post
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 6:05 PM
Always Sunny in SLC Always Sunny in SLC is online now
Registered User
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by FullCircle View Post
Ha! But you made them much more thoroughly. I think the regulation aspect is interesting. If this article is from a libertarian think tank, then yeah, it would seem that them arguing against a developer's preference to build densely would be internally inconsistent. But is there a case here for a less regulated approach to density in cities? By which I mean, clearly it is more difficult to go through the planning and approval process for a midrise downtown than it is for a cul de sac in Eagle Mountain, which would raise the costs for the downtown development, and therefor drive up the housing prices for the individuals renting/buying in the downtown property. Of course, lack of regulation can lead to more chaotic/inappropriate development, so there's a trade off. Hypothetically, the market could dictate that if developers built shabby, inappropriate, or otherwise undesirable developments then people won't live there, but often people in the real world will take whatever housing they can get, so it seems to me that there is a pretty reasonable argument for at least some regulation. Does anyone know of real world examples of cities with very strict zoning and cumbersome regulation versus a more laissez faire paradigm? Is one cheaper than the other, and also is one a more "livable" city than the other?
Yes, there is a correlation between restrictive zoning and housing affordability and cost. The website Market Urbanism tracks that here.

As for changing how we zone I love form based zoning. I don't get the impression there is much love for this kind of zoning on this forum, but from what I see it has way more upside than down.
Reply With Quote