While not an issue as hot as public "safety" or immigration, it probably should be. Even though the financial crisis has caused housing prices to implode, housing prices still are pretty steep, especially in the cities. Which is problematic, because cities usually have more jobs available, so it is safe to assume high housing prices and rents contribute to unemployment.

Now rent control is often used as a tool to make housing cheaper. But that causes shortages if nothing is done to adress the causes of the steep prices: There simply isn't any room to build new housing. And not because there is lack of space to do so, but because space may not be used... because zoning laws.

Now do you think zoning laws are too strict? Should they be simplified, perhaps completely abolished?

My personal opinion is that for most part, zoning laws should be abolished, and landowners should be able to with their soil as they fit, with exceptions to prevent destruction of natural and historical heritage and to facilitate the creation of infrastructure and recreational areas

I wouldn't say that were too strict, because they gives a false impression of the problem. Instead it should be looked at as they are often made for the wrong reasons and so designed wrong. Zoning laws are often meant to be exclusionary for reasons that have nothing really to do with what could be considered a legitimate reason.

So while I think there can be some legitimate uses, I think that they probably most commonly are not used legitimately.

For example, more intermixing of light commercial with residential would reduce travel times for many shoppers. More apartments in commercial zones would allow more low income workers to work in those places. Doing away with mandatory lot sizes would allow more low income housing.

What would be the benefit of the abolishment of zoning laws? I don't see it! To me they make sense.. although I do hate it when all you see around you are residential cookie-cutter neighbourhoods with no commercial buildings or parks in sight.

What we need is better urban planning (no cookie cutter homes, more parks, roads designed with pedestrians in mind, no parking lots facing streets, etc.), not am abolishment of zoning laws - that would just lead to chaos

Absolutely not, if we don't want our cities to look like those in Africa. Zoning laws are an important tool for managing urban development.

In this country, we've been continuously building new and new houses and apartment buildings since the fall of Communism, yet the prices aren't going down even as population had barely changed (10.3 million in 1990, then 10.1 mil. in 2003, and 10.5 mil. now). It's not about lack of housing, it's simply about people wanting more luxurious houses and flats, or perhaps people living alone more.

I understand situation may be different in the Netherlands (it's far more crowded there), but here, lack of space isn't the problem.

Zoning laws are incredibly important, but most cities in North America are simply using them wrong. Having residential only suburbs (plus a gas station and corner store) has proven to be fairly disastrous. It's a perfect example of when you try and apply 19th century concerns to 21st century life.

Zoning laws should be amended to encourage urban density, especially around existing traffic corridors. Mixed commercial street level, residential towers, probably no buildings less than two storeys (or at least two storey height). Parking needs to be handled cleverly as well, so there aren't huge parking lots everywhere (perhaps the most important part of urban design). You can put it underground, or in separate towers, or just behind the buildings so they're out of the pedestrian space.

Zoning laws are incredibly important, but most cities in North America are simply using them wrong. Having residential only suburbs (plus a gas station and corner store) has proven to be fairly disastrous. It's a perfect example of when you try and apply 19th century concerns to 21st century life.

Zoning laws should be amended to encourage urban density, especially around existing traffic corridors. Mixed commercial street level, residential towers, probably no buildings less than two storeys (or at least two storey height). Parking needs to be handled cleverly as well, so there aren't huge parking lots everywhere (perhaps the most important part of urban design). You can put it underground, or in separate towers, or just behind the buildings so they're out of the pedestrian space.

I couldn't agree more :goodjob:

I am strongly against zoning laws. Rent control methods also do much more harm than good. We ought to simply collect land value taxes, redistribute these rent payments to each individual in the community, and charge extra to those who are polluting the environment (with toxins, radiation, bright lights, loud noises, etc). When negative externalities are internalized then the price mechanism leads to more efficient organization than central planning ever could.

I don't really care so long as city dwellers build their rat complexes up instead of out. Leave my space out of it! :lol:

While not an issue as hot as public "safety" or immigration, it probably should be. Even though the financial crisis has caused housing prices to implode, housing prices still are pretty steep, especially in the cities. Which is problematic, because cities usually have more jobs available, so it is safe to assume high housing prices and rents contribute to unemployment.

Now rent control is often used as a tool to make housing cheaper. But that causes shortages if nothing is done to adress the causes of the steep prices: There simply isn't any room to build new housing. And not because there is lack of space to do so, but because space may not be used... because zoning laws.

Now do you think zoning laws are too strict? Should they be simplified, perhaps completely abolished?

My personal opinion is that for most part, zoning laws should be abolished, and landowners should be able to with their soil as they fit, with exceptions to prevent destruction of natural and historical heritage and to facilitate the creation of infrastructure and recreational areas

Abolishing zoning laws wholesale in order to spur housing development is sort of akin to shooting yourself with a shotgun to cure an rash. It'll probably work, but the attendant consequences are far more damaging than the original problem.

Abolishing zoning laws wholesale in order to spur housing development is sort of akin to shooting yourself with a shotgun to cure an rash. It'll probably work, but the attendant consequences are far more damaging than the original problem.

I'm not in favor of completely abolishing zoning laws, but rather, that governments only should be able to use zoning for infrastructure and heritage protection purpouses. Being able to use zoning laws to make infrastructure already gives municipalities large amounts of power in planning cities, since building alongside municipal-onwed streets is much more attractive financially speaking than having to build your own.

Absolutely not, if we don't want our cities to look like those in Africa. Zoning laws are an important tool for managing urban development.

In this country, we've been continuously building new and new houses and apartment buildings since the fall of Communism, yet the prices aren't going down even as population had barely changed (10.3 million in 1990, then 10.1 mil. in 2003, and 10.5 mil. now). It's not about lack of housing, it's simply about people wanting more luxurious houses and flats, or perhaps people living alone more.

Tell me, do cities in Africa look like Houston, Texas? That city hardly has any zoning laws.

Also, the simple fact more housing is built in Czechia, doesn't mean there still is enough housing.

I understand situation may be different in the Netherlands (it's far more crowded there), but here, lack of space isn't the problem.

Well, alot of land in the Netherlands is (unecessarily) used as agricultural soil, but could much more effectively used for the development of residential areas.

I was about to mention Houston, which actually does not have zoning laws.

Also, the simple fact more housing is built in Czechia, doesn't mean there still is enough housing.

But always remember, more housing does not necessarily mean the right housing. Developers love building suburbs; it's cheap and risk averse, since the majority of cost is hoisted off on the municipality. In just about any city (in North America anyway), there's lots of people who want to live in a more urban (as opposed to sub-urban) zone, but can't, as they're priced out of the market, due in no small part to zoning laws.

I believe the American approach to zoning has destroyed the American city and, in the last half-century, created a physical landscape that is not only ghastly to look upon and devoid of value, but forces us into a lifestyle that is costly to the point of being impossible to sustain. Scrapping our current zoning laws and housing policies that make traditional urban areas illegal is the first step to not only creating cities worth living in, but securing our financial future.

zoning laws keep a factory from being built next to my apartment. I like zoning laws.

zoning laws keep a factory from being built next to my apartment. I like zoning laws.

If it kept jobs in the US would you put up with it? I have been in Chicago and Houston and there is not that much difference to me. In fact I am waiting for the day when Chicago gets hit with a Hurricane. Not really, but if the jet stream keeps sending larger well formed low pressure systems that way, it may happen.

zoning laws keep a factory from being built next to my apartment. I like zoning laws.
It is one thing to establish a special zone for factories (and that sounds sensible, unless a factory managed to somehow blend in), it is a whole nother things to say "that's were are shops, that's where is other business, that's where is one-family-houses". That may seem tidy and efficient, but I think such an approach is terribly wrong already in principle. Because as I see it all the different aspect of a city are prone to benefit each other, There are idstances to shops or the worke place for one, but IMO it simply is also about creating a diversity of impressions and especially people. By having life choose its own natural way of diversity, I think it enriches life.
Sure, some city planing is advisable, hell absolutely necessary. Factories, infrastructure or historic sites were also named. A city should IMO also make sure that there are green spots. But the enforcement of artificial "sterile" areas is IMO an abomination. A product of the clumsy tries of public authorities to play social engineer (you go there for this, you stay there for this).

Tell me, do cities in Africa look like Houston, Texas? That city hardly has any zoning laws.

I wouldn't like to live there either.

Also, the simple fact more housing is built in Czechia, doesn't mean there still is enough housing.

People aren't living in shacks or on the streets, so there clearly is enough housing. What drives the prices up isn't the lack of it, it's people's tastes. That won't change if you give up on active urban planning and let people build whatever and wherever they want.

Well, alot of land in the Netherlands is (unecessarily) used as agricultural soil, but could much more effectively used for the development of residential areas.

I on the other hand think that a lot of land which should be used for agriculture (or just turned into parks or reforested) is being paved over. Not necessarily with residential buildings, but that's not that important. Urban sprawl needs to to be combated.

zoning laws keep a factory from being built next to my apartment. I like zoning laws.

Are there factories besides apartments in Houston? Does it make economic sense to open up a factory besides your apartment?

Here's an article about how Houston gets along without zoning laws. And Houston doesn't look like Mogadishu to me.


Houston is a different kind of town. Brash, booming, it has sprawl and air pollution, but also vibrancy and a can-do spirit. One of the things that really makes Houston different is its absence of a zoning code. That absence strikes many people in the rest of the country as quirky in the extreme, if not downright dangerous. CB Richard Ellis, the big property company, fields a lot of questions about land use in Houston. The following is an article in the second-quarter edition of Investment Research Quarterly, a publication of CB Richard Ellis Investors LLC.

What No Zoning Really Means …

Houston is well known as the only major U.S. city with no formal zoning code. Such a seeming lack of order is difficult to grasp by those unfamiliar with the area. The absence of a comprehensive land use code conjures up images of a disjointed landscape where oil derricks sit next to mansions and auto salvage yards abut churches. To some degree these anomalies exist, yet for the most part Houston is like any other large North American city.

What is unique about Houston is that the separation of land uses is impelled by economic forces rather than mandatory zoning. While it is theoretically possible for a petrochemical refinery to locate next to a housing development, it is unlikely that profit-maximizing real-estate developers will allow this to happen. Developers employ widespread private covenants and deed restrictions, which serve a comparable role as zoning. These privately prescribed land use controls are effective because they have a legal precedence and local government has chosen to assist in enforcing them.

Some investors are understandably apprehensive about the lack of clearly defined rules. Houston developers have long recognized these concerns and have responded, particularly in suburban markets, by producing planned business and industrial parks that have rigorous covenants and deed restrictions. Not surprisingly, the sites receiving the attention of institutional investors, especially in suburban markets, tend to be in planned parks.
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2007/10/how_houston_gets_along_without_zoning.html


The chaos and doom created by lack of zoning laws:
http://www.texasfreeway.com/houston/photos/downtown/images/i45_downtown_view_A_21-july-2001_hres.jpg

http://www.destination360.com/north-america/us/texas/houston/images/s/downtown-houston.jpg

http://industrialradioservices.com/pgPics/4b4f87e53a993bar3__3_.jpg


Also note that many economists (including the likes of Paul Krugman) have attributed a good part of Texas' better economic performance compared to many other states is due to looser zoning laws.

If it kept jobs in the US would you put up with it? I have been in Chicago and Houston and there is not that much difference to me. In fact I am waiting for the day when Chicago gets hit with a Hurricane. Not really, but if the jet stream keeps sending larger well formed low pressure systems that way, it may happen.
Of course I wouldn't. I'd move to another side of town where I didn't have to live right next to pollution.

I also can't see any real similarity between Houston and Chicago. I suppose if you compare them both to a 10,000 person town, they would seem like sprawlly nightmares, but from the buildings to the layout to the culture...they're awfully different.
It is one thing to establish a special zone for factories (and that sounds sensible, unless a factory managed to somehow blend in), it is a whole nother things to say "that's were are shops, that's where is other business, that's where is one-family-houses". That may seem tidy and efficient, but I think such an approach is terribly wrong already in principle. Because as I see it all the different aspect of a city are prone to benefit each other, There are idstances to shops or the worke place for one, but IMO it simply is also about creating a diversity of impressions and especially people. By having life choose its own natural way of diversity, I think it enriches life.

Yeah, I think its hard to have a discussion about this without being really specific. Every city has totally different regulations. Some make sense. Some are surely stupid. I think living in a city 100% them would be awful though.

The chaos and doom created by lack of zoning laws:

Weee, shiny skyscrapers. That of course changes everything.

:p

Look, for me, living in a pleasant environment trumps any and all arguments like "but but we* will be much richer if we resign on XYZ" (*-which of course means mostly the rich, not average people).

Are there factories besides apartments in Houston? Does it make economic sense to open up a factory besides your apartment?.

I live in a totally different market. Chicago (and other rust belt cities) are *way* older, and more geographically constrained than a newer city like Houston. Geographically, the city of Houston is heeee-uge, and if I remember correctly, was also able to annex a few suburbs.

Having fairly heavy industrial and residential is not unheard of even in Chicago, in neighborhoods without a lot of clout (i.e, immigrant neighborhoods, poor people). I live in a a pretty working class, immigrant heavy hood, but my local alderman has enough juice to keep our open spaces for commerical or residential development (or parks). If there was nothing, the proximity to major streets or highway 90/94, plus the cost of real estate, could certainly drive undesirable developments into residential neighborhoods.

Do you drive much in Houston? I wouldn't exactly call it the pinacle of urban development in the US either.

Do you drive much in Houston? I wouldn't exactly call it the pinacle of urban development in the US either.

No one pretended it was. The point was that this city seems to do fine without zoning laws, so why bother wasting money and housing space by insisting on having them?

Are there factories besides apartments in Houston? Does it make economic sense to open up a factory besides your apartment?

Basically this. While it is theoretically possible to encounter such situations, I doubt a landfill owner would pick an expensive residential neighbourhood as its area of choice.

Planning laws in the UK are notoriously complicated and really need to be loosened. Part of the reason UK house prices rose so ridiculously during the boom was the belief that the long-term house prices were always going to rise, because demand for housing outstripped developers's abilities to build more houses. The reason for that was partly that planning laws were so complicated. Our house prices fell dramatically during 2007 and 2008, but nowhere near as much as in Ireland, Spain or the USA, and have since recovered. And that's partly because of those same forces above: more demand for new housing than construction of new housing.

This isn't really the same thing as zoning laws. As SiLL pointed out, there's a difference between industrial zoning and commercial/residential zoning, and in the UK, it's generally expected that a new 10-story residential tower block in London will have its ground floor dedicated to commercial space. And in older buildings, flats about shops are commonly rented out anyway. "Zoning" is not such a huge deal, I think.

Light industrial near housing isn't really a problem. People see "industrial" and they immediately jump to a facility that belches smog and noise. Many of them don't produce much of either. You have to take it on an individual basis.

Yeah I lived across the road from a bunch of warehouses in an "industrial estate" that were certainly not bothersome at all. EDIT: I don't know if they were all warehouses, some of them could have been other things, including actual manufacturing. I wouldn't have noticed either way.

Light industrial near housing isn't really a problem. People see "industrial" and they immediately jump to a facility that belches smog and noise. Many of them don't produce much of either. You have to take it on an individual basis.

Light and/or noise pollution aren't the only considerations though. I wouldn't want to live beside a warehouse either - I'd prefer to live in a part of town with restaurants, bars, museums, parks, etc.

Basically this. While it is theoretically possible to encounter such situations, I doubt a landfill owner would pick an expensive residential neighbourhood as its area of choice.

No, but if land was cheap, they could move near poorer houses. Expensive houses would have residents with enough political clout to ward off undesirable development, with or without legal protection. Clearly deliniated zoning laws can project poorer residents from living next to a factory.

I live in a totally different market. Chicago (and other rust belt cities) are *way* older, and more geographically constrained than a newer city like Houston. Geographically, the city of Houston is heeee-uge, and if I remember correctly, was also able to annex a few suburbs.

Having fairly heavy industrial and residential is not unheard of even in Chicago, in neighborhoods without a lot of clout (i.e, immigrant neighborhoods, poor people). I live in a a pretty working class, immigrant heavy hood, but my local alderman has enough juice to keep our open spaces for commerical or residential development (or parks). If there was nothing, the proximity to major streets or highway 90/94, plus the cost of real estate, could certainly drive undesirable developments into residential neighborhoods.

Do you drive much in Houston? I wouldn't exactly call it the pinacle of urban development in the US either.

But there's a reason why most factories located within city limits in the likes of NYC, Chicago, etc. have shut down in the last 50 years. They're not economically viable places to build factories. You don't need any law to prevent people from building a landfill in Manhattan.

While some zoning regulations may be appropriate for historical cities, usually it is a waste of time and resources, and counter-productive too. As I said, prominent left-wing economists like Krugman have blamed the strict zoning laws of the American Northeast as the reason for lack of affordable housing and even part of the reason of poor economic performance.

Light and/or noise pollution aren't the only considerations though. I wouldn't want to live beside a warehouse either - I'd prefer to live in a part of town with restaurants, bars, museums, parks, etc.
If there were no zoning laws then those things wouldn't be confined to a certain part of town :p (Specifically, in the situation I'm describing, there were plenty of those things around as well. But part of that was exactly because of planning laws...)

Light and/or noise pollution aren't the only considerations though. I wouldn't want to live beside a warehouse either - I'd prefer to live in a part of town with restaurants, bars, museums, parks, etc.

Yea, that's pretty much my point. One warehouse is actually a pretty good neighbor. Fifteen warehouses would be really dreary.

No, but if land was cheap, they could move near poorer houses. Expensive houses would have residents with enough political clout to ward off undesirable development, with or without legal protection. Clearly deliniated zoning laws can project poorer residents from living next to a factory.

For industrial developers, residential areas, even the poor ones, are by definition expensive.

For industrial developers, residential areas, even the poor ones, are by definition expensive.

Not so expensive that they don't exist. Is a 2,000 person oil processing plant likely to move in the middle of a suburban cul-de-sac? No, but there are reasons for that above just "expensive land".

I see smaller industrial setups near poorer houses *all the time* (think metal spinning, tube bending, under 40 employees). These can still make pretty crappy neighbors, with all the trucks and unsightly equipment lying around. Ideally, you'd want some sort of buffer between that and your apartment.

I'm not saying they're all justified. I think there are a lot of them that may end up jacking up the price on homes, (like rent-control measures), or just appear to be stupid and petty (like keeping people from building a shed in their yard). I do think there are specific cases where they might be justified, in certain cities though.

Stupid and petty zoning regulation like prohibiting sheds is justified by pretty much exactly the same reasoning as "unsightly equipment lying around." :dunno:

Light and/or noise pollution aren't the only considerations though. I wouldn't want to live beside a warehouse either - I'd prefer to live in a part of town with restaurants, bars, museums, parks, etc.

If there were no zoning laws then those things wouldn't be confined to a certain part of town :p (Specifically, in the situation I'm describing, there were plenty of those things around as well. But part of that was exactly because of planning laws...)

What the planners term contributing to the public realm. Car parks or blank walls facing the street blight a neighbourhood.

One advantage of nimby activists in the uk is that when developers want to have a large project in a half way desirable neighbourhood they often have to kiss some fairly serious booty in this regard. The US had to kick a couple of hundred million into extending the northern line to it's new embassy to get planning permission, had to design the security to look like parkland etc. Unison had to build key worker housing into the back of their new hq.

This model can work. When the council are pushing in the right direction, the land value is high enough to make it worth the developers while and when the locals have enough social capital to fight their corner but not so much as to mire things completely. But as with any adversarial system it only really functions if the adversaries are reasonably evenly matched. All too often poor local councils are so desperate for the benefits of some development they let horror shows be built, and the locals dont have the influence/ awareness to get involved. All too often the areas that people want to live in have powerful nimbies that wont let dense housing be built anywhere anyone actually wants to live.

Yeah, I feel that that trade-off in the UK is completely different to that in the US. In the US it's all about central planners deciding what gets to be built in what areas. But in the UK, it's about the central planners being forced to negotiate with local residents. So the effect of stricter zoning laws in the US is to give the government more power, whereas stricter planning laws in the UK takes power away from the government (and developers) and places it in the hands of local people.

Problem with that is NIMBYism, but at the same time, I'd rather decide between NIMBY and a new Tesco anyway. I feel that this is the right place to have the debate. When I argue for looser planning laws, then, I'm not arguing for the government to be given more control over the decision, or for it to be allowed to bulldoze over local residents' concerns. Rather, I'm saying that there are a lot of areas that are currently off limits for developers, which could be freed from planning restrictions without harming other local residents -- and even increasing property values and public welfare (as with the "Stratford City" redevelopment, amongst others).

Yea, that's pretty much my point. One warehouse is actually a pretty good neighbor. Fifteen warehouses would be really dreary.

I wouldn't want to live beside 1 warehouse either.

If there were no zoning laws then those things wouldn't be confined to a certain part of town :p (Specifically, in the situation I'm describing, there were plenty of those things around as well. But part of that was exactly because of planning laws...)

The solution should be better zoning laws.. I don't know too much about that realm, but they can't be that great judging by the poorly thought out neighbourhoods that are going up all over the place in most north american cities.

I wouldn't want to live beside 1 warehouse either...

...the poorly thought out neighbourhoods that are going up all over the place in most north american cities.

These issues are linked! :lol:

If people with any amount of pull refuse to be "part" of the greater city environment guess who gets to live next to not 1, but all the "undesirable" buildings.

Statement one is pretty much the cause of much of the urban blight and suburban sprawl we get in the states.

But there's a reason why most factories located within city limits in the likes of NYC, Chicago, etc. have shut down in the last 50 years. They're not economically viable places to build factories. You don't need any law to prevent people from building a landfill in Manhattan.

While some zoning regulations may be appropriate for historical cities, usually it is a waste of time and resources, and counter-productive too. As I said, prominent left-wing economists like Krugman have blamed the strict zoning laws of the American Northeast as the reason for lack of affordable housing and even part of the reason of poor economic performance.


It's not even that they are not economically viable. More factories have moved because of the subsidies of the suburbs than the costs of the cities.

I wouldn't want to live beside 1 warehouse either.

What if it was a meat warehouse with a storefront that sold bacon?

What if it was a meat warehouse with a storefront that sold bacon?

The shop front would be contributing to the public realm. This is rather the difference between the underlying attitudes to zoning in the uk and us. In the uk single use developments are very much frouned upon in an urban context, in the us they are often mandated. Done well people in a mixed use development should be fairly unaware of the existence of the warehousing, just as they are of the underground car parking. Underground access/ parking/ warehousing is fairly standard on big developments these days. Canary wharf has a whole underground layout mirroring a lot of the above ground roads, roundabouts the whole deal. The recent redevelopment of kings cross has a single entrance to a big underground service road for the stations and a bunch of offices shops etc. The new westfield in stratford has all it's warehousing undergroundish - hard to really say what constitutes ground level, under the street level at any rate. The Unison building and the new us embassy I mentioned above have the same deal with underground access, parking and whatever warehousing they require. The recently revamped (more like finally finished) Brunswick Centre goes down level after level with housing above the ground floor shops and cafes,warehouses under the shops, deliveries under the warehouses, parking under the deliveries and more ramps down to god-knows-what.

The point being that the stuff that does not contribute to the public realm can simply be buried. The problem is not the existence of warehousing or parking but that they create dead space.

Yeah, I feel that that trade-off in the UK is completely different to that in the US. In the US it's all about central planners deciding what gets to be built in what areas. But in the UK, it's about the central planners being forced to negotiate with local residents. So the effect of stricter zoning laws in the US is to give the government more power, whereas stricter planning laws in the UK takes power away from the government (and developers) and places it in the hands of local people.

Problem with that is NIMBYism, but at the same time, I'd rather decide between NIMBY and a new Tesco anyway. I feel that this is the right place to have the debate. When I argue for looser planning laws, then, I'm not arguing for the government to be given more control over the decision, or for it to be allowed to bulldoze over local residents' concerns. Rather, I'm saying that there are a lot of areas that are currently off limits for developers, which could be freed from planning restrictions without harming other local residents -- and even increasing property values and public welfare (as with the "Stratford City" redevelopment, amongst others).

Mrs Tonic lives in Stratford so I've spent a fair bit of time around the recent developments. It makes an interesting counterpoint to the kings cross redevelopment. Both regeneration zones with subsidies and an acknowledgement that dense redevelopment is going to happen, both kickstarted by the HS1/ channel tunnel development. The higher land value and somewhat higher social capital among it's residents of Kings Cross led to the outstanding redevelopment while Stratford's is just pretty good.

TBH I'ld point to the social capital of the residents of Kinks Cross/ Somerstown as just about the sweet spot for redevelopment. They were just about able to squeeze every last concession from the developers but not block the project.

These issues are linked! :lol:

If people with any amount of pull refuse to be "part" of the greater city environment guess who gets to live next to not 1, but all the "undesirable" buildings.

Statement one is pretty much the cause of much of the urban blight and suburban sprawl we get in the states.

Well, it's entirely possible to build all residential neighbourhoods that aren't terrible. The problem is that North American developers won't do it, and I can't see an obvious reason, so the only conclusion is that it must be cheaper somehow (I don't see how).

Basically you get away from all the curvilinear streets and cul-de-sacs, and all the other things that are difficult for outsiders to navigate, and impossible to efficiently bring transit to. Replace those with a standard British-Dominion grid system, with an arterial road every 4-5 blocks. No traffic lights unless absolutely necessary either; traffic circles are to be preferred.

Zoning, like anything else, is not a black and white thing. No zoning would be bad, and overly strict zoning is also bad. There is a happy medium: "good" zoning. I know, I know, this is truly insightful and brilliant, thank you, you are too kind.

*ahem* This is important to point out for this discussion: the alternative to zoning is not "no zoning." It is not accurate to say Houston has no land use controls; Houston just does it in a different way, through private deeds and encumbrances enforced by the government. See this article. So the real question is: do you want legislated voting, or do you want private land use controls that you can only control to the extent that you have the economic means to do so? Or do you simply want no land use control at all? (I think we can all agree that would silly, as it would involve preventing private parties from controlling the use of their own property.) That is the real question.

Anyway, stopping the factory from being built next to the house you currently have a 30 year mortgage on is a good thing, albeit a far fetched example. Public zoning gives property owners (and renters, to an extent) transparent predictability, which is important for property values; if you have absolutely no clue what is going to be built in that open field next to your house, do you really want to spend your savings and encumber yourself and your family for a significant portion of your remaining years on this earth hoping that a 7 story apartment building is not built there that blocks your nice view of the ocean? Or a morgue? Or a bar? Or a strip club? If there is a private encumbrance that needs to be negotiated, or that was already negotiated Houston style, it might not be as easy to either re-negotiate it or figure out what it says, as opposed to a public zoning code you can go look up online.

That's the extreme example. And yes it can happen. The more common example however is density; e.g., a residential zone can have "light commercial" and low density housing, which is not just important for property values, it is important for government planning for things like: how many parking spaces they need, the adequacy of thoroughfares for traffic planning, plumbing, electricity, and things like that. Zoning laws typically follow a "general plan" which is a document a municipality makes once ever few decades to literally plan how their city or county will look. There are bad ones, and there are good ones. As History Buff mentioned, there are trends right now towards more "mixed use" to encourage walking, biking, and public transit, but owing to the extended timeframes (and the fact that a lot of places are, well, already built up) more "progressive" (e.g. forward thinking, not political) communities are still a ways away.

Good post. I like the "mixed" approach. I just think that segregation, while not absolutely bad, should be handled very carefully if it is something the government can influence. For instance, the city planing of my current home town is marvelous. The whole town is kind of one big lively whole, where everything comes together. And I just intuitively think that the different environments and the different people living in them should not be totally estranged to one another. Though this may sound crazy to Americans living in big cities, where there are areas one is basically told to NEVER go.

I should clarify that while I agree that complete segregation (e.g., cookie cutter suburbs square mile after square mile) is bad, bad, bad (IMHO) it is just as easy to get there with no zoning, or with inadequate land use controls.

In California you see it in a lot of unincorporated county areas, (unincorporated means not an incorporated city) where huge swaths of land are openly designated on county maps, and huge real estate developers buy all of it and build massive swaths of tract housing. Which is awful. The only hoop they need to jump through is maybe subdivisions on county plots and building permits. The only future thinking going on here is short term: maximizing real estate investments. in my opinion, the future livelihood of a community is not always in lockstep with maximizing real estate development profits. You get maybe a single "mall sprawl" area with a few gas stations, a McDonalds, and an Olive Garden, surrounded by unending sea of boring single and multifamily residential homes, with a highway in the middle. All of it built to capitalize on a quick sale of most of it in a short period of time, and the investors have no long term investment to keep them motivated to develop anything with an eye towards the future. Drive up the 5 from Fresno to Redding, or 80 from SF to Sacramento, and you see this everywhere. This often occurs because there were no adequate* land use controls to prevent suburban sprawl, and it was up to private developers, Houston style, to dictate what type of community it would be, as opposed to zoned areas that controlled density or dictated a mix of commercial and residential, or whatever.

*"adequate" obviously being in the eye of the beholder, I think these types of communities are bad for a variety of reasons, forcing the use of the automobile and not designing anything with any sort of public transit plan in place being one of the primary ones. But if you are a total laissez faire type then much of what I am saying is going to fall on deaf ears. "If people want to live there" and so on. (Ignoring the fact that so many of these sprawling suburban areas now lie empty due to the housing crisis, further deflating housing costs and leaving the home owners who bought into these messes holding the bag, while the developers by and large made all their money and got out.) But now I am kind of ranting...

This is a decent POV. Just as I don't say "Let the government handle it just for the heck of it!" I am also no total laissez faire type. Maybe the procedures which lead to zoning can be modified so be less prone to special interests and more the merit of the grand scope, but I don't know enough (that is - next to nothing) to truly talk about that.

*"adequate" obviously being in the eye of the beholder, I think these types of communities are bad for a variety of reasons, forcing the use of the automobile and not designing anything with any sort of public transit plan in place being one of the primary ones. But if you are a total laissez faire type then much of what I am saying is going to fall on deaf ears. "If people want to live there" and so on. (Ignoring the fact that so many of these sprawling suburban areas now lie empty due to the housing crisis, further deflating housing costs and leaving the home owners who bought into these messes holding the bag, while the developers by and large made all their money and got out.)

Sorry for the nitpick, but I doubt the zoneless free areas are of such size to have a serious effect in general, for good or ill. Idem dito if the situation was to be reversed.

Government-enforced zoning is inherently immoral. It distorts the market and deprives the people the oppotunity to freely choose where they live.

When you want to purchase a house, if you don't want those so-called "undesirable" stuffs pop up in your residential area in the future, you can simply ask the developers if they will be allowed or not. If they say yes, then you can simply go away, no one is forcing you to purchase it. If they say no, and they breaks their word after you moved in, then you can sue them for breach of contract, simple as that.

If the developer said yes and you still move in, then it's your free choice. Housing development that allow "undesirable stuffs", are typically cheaper. By depriving the people to make such choices, you are depriving the right of the people to purchase cheaper houses. Moreover, some people might simply prefer to have these "undesirable" things in vicinity. One man's garbage is another man's treasure.

It's all about freedom. You statists obviously does not value it very much, and seek to deprive the people of it by imposing your own personal preferences.

Private deed restrictions have their downsides too. In the affluent counties north of Dallas, you can hardly buy into a new neighborhood without subjecting yourelf to a homeowners associations and many of these abuse the covenants. Want to choose your phone, internet and cable provider? Too bad - the private developers have taken that freedom away in many area subdivisions. Give me the "oppression" of a zoning board over the "freedom" of a Homeowners Association.

I agree JR. Homeowners Associations are generally abominations.

Since when there is a seperation of home-owner association and zoning laws? They co-exist. And in the case of home-owner associations, you can freely choose whether you want to be under their influence by purshasing or not purhasing property under their control. Zoning laws are much harder to "escape".

If anything, it is the government who created the strong power of home-owner association by restricing the land supply via regulations such as zoning laws and so-called "environmental protection", placing some so-called wetlands or endangered species above cheap housing. The limited land supply means less competition among developers, and the increased price means lesser ability of residents to move out and find a new place, all these streghten the power of the association.

Id much rather live under a zoning code than be bound to the whims of the little crone across the street who has influence with the homeowner's association.

Homeowners guidelines tend to be much more specific and far more restrictive as well. They can, and often do, have rules that apply to minor details backed by heavy fines. Slow payment of low sums of fines levied by your neighbors in the association(think less than 200 bucks) can easily balloon to several thousand dollars one the association's lawyer triggers to generate the fine's paperwork - particularly a problem because many associations have shown great eagerness in foreclosing on houses for small sums of money.

Private deed restrictions have their downsides too. In the affluent counties north of Dallas, you can hardly buy into a new neighborhood without subjecting yourelf to a homeowners associations and many of these abuse the covenants. Want to choose your phone, internet and cable provider? Too bad - the private developers have taken that freedom away in many area subdivisions. Give me the "oppression" of a zoning board over the "freedom" of a Homeowners Association.

If homeowners associations are not in the common interest, why not just ban requiring such memberships in the first place instead wholesale enforcement of zoning laws?

If homeowners associations are not in the common interest, why not just ban requiring such memberships in the first place instead wholesale enforcement of zoning laws?

That would interfere with private contracts...

That would interfere with private contracts...

That would only be a problem if I were arguing from a Libertarian perspective, but I'm not.

That would only be a problem if I were arguing from a Libertarian perspective, but I'm not.

The people who are blocking laws that interfere with these contracts often are libertarian. Sometimes conservative. Whichever politics they follow, they don't want the government to take away their petty monopoly on power because they want the power to serve their own interests at the expense of others. And they have the political clout to prevent governments from overruling them.

This is a direct refutation of the concept that the least government or the lowest level of local government promotes greater liberty. It in fact very often works just the opposite.

Having the property developer tie homeowners in to phone, internet, TV, water, electricity, gas, etc supply deals means that the property developer is more likely to make a return on his investment, which means that there will be (a) cheaper housing developments, and (b) a greater stock of housing. If housing is already cheap and abundant enough that you don't consider (a) and (b) above particularly "beneficial", then you can probably find a house without restrictive covenants of the kind JR is describing anyway. Either way, I don't see a problem.

The phone and internet restrictions tht I speak of are in high-end develpments (and most, if not all high end developments in the area have HOAs) and are not less expensive to the homeowner than getting such service (even the same brand) on the open market. Its sole purpose is to provide a kickback to the developer and managemnt company. They really should be illegal under Texas law (and they actually violate the covenants in the HOA I am aware of). I've got a test case that I may file, but I need to win the judge lotto when it gets assigned. I know of one judge in particular that would uphhold the restrictions.