Should Zoning in cities be thrown out?

[1Boston]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

What I favor is Japanese style zoning + a "By Right" approach to permitting. Have a small number of very broad zoning classifications organized into a hierarchy of less to more restrictive/intense. The more intense zoning types would allow less intense uses as well. For example, "High Density Commercial" would allow low density residential uses but not heavy industrial uses. There could be a few exceptions, like limiting mixing of certain noxious or polluting uses mixing with residential, but most types of mixed use development would be accepted. What "By Right" means is that if a project adheres to the zoning of the site, it must be accepted. I might also be in favor of some limited form-based code on top of that. Nothing overbearing, just prevent buildings from putting loading docks facing retail or residential streets.

This would greatly reduce NIMBY power in urban neighborhoods where there is no good reason to not build tall buildings or mixed use, but still allow cities to focus development in areas where public infrastructure can handle it and still protect people from harmful externalities.

YES, Japan does zoning right! Zoning can be used for good and evil, like any other power given to the government. But is definitely necessary and should strive to reflect what the Japanese are/have been doing. Devon Zuegel did a informative blog post comparing American vs. Japanese zoning. But you did a good summary. Here is a good graphic from the blog post of what Japanese zoning looks like:

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by 1Boston

YES, Japan does zoning right! Zoning can be used for good and evil, like any other power given to the government. But is definitely necessary and should strive to reflect what the Japanese are/have been doing. Devon Zuegel did a informative blog post comparing American vs. Japanese zoning. But you did a good summary. Here is a good graphic from the blog post of what Japanese zoning looks like:

But the hard part is deciding where the zones go. Nobody wants to live next to an industrial zone if they can avoid it. I think most people can agree that residential and office densities should be much higher near transit stations and hubs. But in L.A. and SF areas the NIMBYs are even fighting that obvious point. It is almost impossible to get a building over 5 stories built in Santa Monica, the terminus of the popular EXPO line.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

The auto hellhole that is Houston is not due to lack of zoning. It’s due to the era in which it is growing—now—and the lack of mass transit infrastructure.

New York, Chicago, Boston, Philly, etc also largely got built out in the prezoning era, and they are obviously nothing like Houston.

But Zoning is what is holding these latter cities back, particularly the more expensive coastal cities. In Chicago you can still play the game and get the Zoning you want, but of course I still think it’s a bad thing. Zoning is a tool for NIMBYs to stop everything, but it’s also a tool for corrupt officials to solicit “donations”.

I think Zoning has done more harm than good.

MSA/CMA	         Popn1950/51 Popn2010/11 PostWar% Density Transit%
Las Vegas             48,289   1,951,269     97.5  1747.0      3.6
Phoenix              329,255   4,192,887     92.1  1222.1      2.2
Miami                488,689   6,158,824     92.1  1715.2      3.7
Austin               160,381   1,716,789     90.7  1005.7      2.6
Atlanta              664,033   5,883,736     88.7   659.1      3.4
Calgary              139,105   1,214,839     88.5  1554.8     15.9
Barrie                21,771     187,013     88.4   969.0      4.6
Sacramento           275,659   2,149,127     87.2  1421.4      2.7
Houston	             802,102   5,920,416     86.5  1150.0      2.6
Oshawa                51,582     356,177     85.5  1770.9      8.5
Edmonton             173,075   1,159,869     85.1  1122.4     11.3
Dallas-Fort Worth    969,828   6,426,214     84.9  1111.5      1.6
San Diego            535,967   3,337,685     83.9  1558.7      3.3
Denver               560,361   2,888,227     80.6  1372.4      4.6
Kitchener-Waterloo    93,697     477,160     80.4  1417.0      5.4
Toronto            1,117,470   5,482,064     79.6  2930.5     23.3
Guelph                30,387     141,097     78.5  1551.6      6.2
Ottawa-Gatineau      281,908   1,236,324     77.2  1860.0     20.1
San Antonio          496,090   2,142,508     76.8  1136.9      2.2
Salt Lake City       264,208   1,087,873     75.7  1419.0      3.2

All these of places grew predominately in the post-war era, and it's hard to see why single out Houston and its lack of zoning as the model for acheiving urbanity.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

^- yeah, and it sucks.

Well not everyone can afford to pay $4000 in rent to live in Manhattan you know..

There's a lot more people who WANT to live in cities than actually live in them, but some of the best cities are also completely unaffordable to most people. That goes back to zoning though as cities like San Francisco are so expensive almost entirely due to zoning 80% of the land to single family homes.

[RC14]

I have believed for some time that we should eliminate zoning. I think more often than not, it hurts the urban environment more than it helps.
I don't believe Houston to be prof otherwise. As has been pointed out, most cities in the west are autocentric and they all have zoning. It is not Houston's lake of zoning that made it the way it is.
Yet, I have seen many projects fall through or move to the suburbs due to excessive restrictions.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by RC14

I have believed for some time that we should eliminate zoning. I think more often than not, it hurts the urban environment more than it helps.
I don't believe Houston to be prof otherwise. As has been pointed out, most cities in the west are autocentric and they all have zoning. It is not Houston's lake of zoning that made it the way it is.
Yet, I have seen many projects fall through or move to the suburbs due to excessive restrictions.

Exactly, I’m stunned that some of the intelligent people in this forum lack the ability to understand this.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Doady

[
All these of places grew predominately in the post-war era, and it's hard to see why single out Houston and its lack of zoning as the model for acheiving urbanity.

I don't see how the data confirm this point?

Putting aside the Canadian cities, which are totally irrelevant to discussion, Houston seems pretty typical of such cities.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Well not everyone can afford to pay $4000 in rent to live in Manhattan you know..

80% of high density NYC is outside of Manhattan, and the majority of Manhattan renters pay less than 4k (usually far less).

Originally Posted by BrownTown

There's a lot more people who WANT to live in cities than actually live in them, but some of the best cities are also completely unaffordable to most people.

You can find an apartment share in a great neighborhood in NYC for like $800. That's basically what you pay for 1 bedroom in Bumblefunk, MO. Basically anyone can move to NYC (which is, in part why you have dirt-poor immigrants and flat-broke recent grads moving here all the time).

And, unlike basically everywhere else in the U.S., you don't need vehicles or furniture.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't see how the data confirm this point?

Putting aside the Canadian cities, which are totally irrelevant to discussion, Houston seems pretty typical of such cities.

Houston is "typical" and that supports the argument for throwing out zoning?

Of course we can throw out zoning if ignore every evidence that it works and declare them "totally irrelevant" or "fake news" or whatever. Maybe this forum should be retitled "US City Discussion" so that people discuss the "relevant" cities only.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

.

You can find an apartment share in a great neighborhood in NYC for like $800. That's basically what you pay for 1 bedroom in Bumblefunk, MO. Basically anyone can move to NYC (which is, in part why you have dirt-poor immigrants and flat-broke recent grads moving here all the time).

And, unlike basically everywhere else in the U.S., you don't need vehicles or furniture.

Which is OK if you're 20 but who wants to deal with that when they're 35 or 40?

[the urban politician]

^ Nobody

[Doady]

the urban politician, there is one city that can back up your argument for no zoning and it's Houston. I have posted stats for Houston and a bunch of post-war/autocentric-era cities. Use those stats to explain to us how zoning has held back those other places compared to Houston. I am waiting for your answer.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by JManc

Which is OK if you're 20 but who wants to deal with that when they're 35 or 40?

Or have kids.

[mhays]

In a decently functioning city, a lot of middle-class families live in dense neighborhoods and don't have cars. It's relatively rare in the US outside of New York because our cities don't function very well.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by Crawford

You can find an apartment share in a great neighborhood in NYC for like $800. That's basically what you pay for 1 bedroom in Bumblefunk, MO. Basically anyone can move to NYC (which is, in part why you have dirt-poor immigrants and flat-broke recent grads moving here all the time).

Well that sure is a massive loss in quality of life just to move somewhere. Most people don't want to deal with living in an apartment with a bunch of strangers. Plus some of us have families and kids etc. That idea of yours is only plausible if you're a young single person with no kids.

Originally Posted by RC14

I have believed for some time that we should eliminate zoning. I think more often than not, it hurts the urban environment more than it helps.
I don't believe Houston to be prof otherwise. As has been pointed out, most cities in the west are autocentric and they all have zoning. It is not Houston's lake of zoning that made it the way it is.
Yet, I have seen many projects fall through or move to the suburbs due to excessive restrictions.

Surely you can't actually believe in absolutely no zoning right? I'm all for more intelligent zoning laws, but letting people put up an oil refinery across the street from a hospital or a nightclub in the middle of a residential neighborhood is pretty absurd. You definitely need some zoning laws.

[mhays]

There's a huge gap between "most people" and what's plausible.

[jd3189]

We just need better zoning laws that allow for higher residential/mixed use densities in and near the core and around transit nodes and we have to make it very easy to build in these areas.

[dc_denizen]

A city can have plentiful auto ownership and low transit usage, active street life, and a thriving core.

Look at Seattle or Portland. transit mode share is overrated.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

A city can have plentiful auto ownership and low transit usage, active street life, and a thriving core.

Look at Seattle or Portland. transit mode share is overrated.

Yep. As of this summer I barely use transit. However, I am walking or biking almost every day to do...whatever(go to a park, go to the dog store, eat out, pick up food, go shopping, library, museum, zoo, post office, court(for CC license), fireworks on the water, haircut, and parking authority all in the last 30 days). On paper I don't add anything since I am not working this summer however I am adding almost zero emissions every week and I am adding to street activity by just doing what I do.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

A city can have plentiful auto ownership and low transit usage, active street life, and a thriving core.

Look at Seattle or Portland. transit mode share is overrated.

Your argument would make sense if Seattle and Portland had low transit usage. But they don't, and so it doesn't.