Let's discuss zoning laws

[Tahuti]

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?

Spoiler :

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

 

[Cutlass]

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.

 

[warpus]

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

 

[Winner]

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.

 

[History_Buff]

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.

 

[Winner]

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

 

[MagisterCultuum]

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.

 

[Farm Boy]

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

 

[Eat_Up_Martha]

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?

Spoiler :

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.

 

[Tahuti]

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.

 

[madviking]

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

 

[History_Buff]

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.

 

[Smellincoffee]

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.

 

[downtown]

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

 

[timtofly]

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.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

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).

 

[Winner]

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.

 

[luiz]

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_thr...10/how_houston_gets_along_without_zoning.html


The chaos and doom created by lack of zoning laws:

Spoiler :

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.

 

[downtown]

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.

 

[Winner]

The chaos and doom created by lack of zoning laws:

Weee, shiny skyscrapers. That of course changes everything.



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).