Question

[Patrick]

So I have been thinking about something and I was interested what, if anything, others had to say. It regards zoning and the development of dense cities. Actually, the lack of zoning. So Houston is a major city without real zoning laws in place, and it has developed predictably sprawlish in many respects. But need this necessarily be the outcome of abolishing zoning? What if we retained only two types of zoning ordinances - Nuisance and Transportation based? Specifically, what if we did away with all automobile based travel except interstate (for argument's sake), would zoning even be necessary then, to create the sorts of mixed use, dense areas that urbanites rave about these days? I guess another way of putting it is, other than to curtail nuisances, does zoning really have any advantages, or is it merely an administrative response to accommodate the automobile? The reason I ask is that it seems like many of the city districts in America that are most successful developed before zoning, based just on sheer land economics, rather than a planned effort. If anyone has any thoughts I would be very interests to hear them. If not that's alright too.

 

[tobyjug]

Patrick,

Historically, zoning is a reaction to the problems of human population congestion, public health and safety, and the incompatability of uses. As examples: limiting building height in proportion to the state of fire fighting technology; banishing to outlying districts noisome trades, e.g. tanneries, piggeries, dairies and stockyards; granting broad exemptions to companies offering desired developing technologies: railroads, electricity, gas, telephones, street railways, water companies. I suppose the availability of sanitation facilities played a role too.

My own opinion is that the single biggest factor in explaining the pattern of eastern cities is the mass European migration from 1840 to 1920. Without it, Boston today would probably look rather like Newburyport does today. The automobile wasn't a player until the 20's.

I don't know enough about Houston history to comment on the reasons for a lack of zoning regulation. My guesses are: land was so cheap that economics worked against residential congestion, undercutting the root reasons for zoning; Houston did not have boatloads of hundreds of impoverished immigrants landing daily in Galveston creating instant residential congestion; the promotion of desired industry and utilities was more important than regulating the impact of adverse secondary effects upon a relatively uncongested region; Houston's development occurred during the automobile age, so that the automobile was a factor in a way that it was not in the "European" style cities of the east.

If you de-invented the automobile, Houston might have developed around public transportation nodes. But in this alternate history, Houston might not have developed at all, since we wouldn't have needed all the oil that gets refined into automobile fuel!

Toby

 

[Patrick]

Patrick,

Historically, zoning is a reaction to the problems of human population congestion, public health and safety, and the incompatability of uses. As examples: limiting building height in proportion to the state of fire fighting technology; banishing to outlying districts noisome trades, e.g. tanneries, piggeries, dairies and stockyards; granting broad exemptions to companies offering desired developing technologies: railroads, electricity, gas, telephones, street railways, water companies. I suppose the availability of sanitation facilities played a role too.

My own opinion is that the single biggest factor in explaining the pattern of eastern cities is the mass European migration from 1840 to 1920. Without it, Boston today would probably look rather like Newburyport does today. The automobile wasn't a player until the 20's.

I don't know enough about Houston history to comment on the reasons for a lack of zoning regulation. My guesses are: land was so cheap that economics worked against residential congestion, undercutting the root reasons for zoning; Houston did not have boatloads of hundreds of impoverished immigrants landing daily in Galveston creating instant residential congestion; the promotion of desired industry and utilities was more important than regulating the impact of adverse secondary effects upon a relatively uncongested region; Houston's development occurred during the automobile age, so that the automobile was a factor in a way that it was not in the "European" style cities of the east.

If you de-invented the automobile, Houston might have developed around public transportation nodes. But in this alternate history, Houston might not have developed at all, since we wouldn't have needed all the oil that gets refined into automobile fuel!

Toby

thanks for the reply. I guess I didn't ask my question as straightforward as I perhaps should have...let me try again. It seems like many cities these days try to use zoning ordinances (at least "progressive" cities anyway) to achieve a certain type of healthy urban atmosphere, i.e. mixed use. I'm wondering if we just did away with zoning altogether whether the same result wouldn't happen automatically, by sheer economic forces, rather than a planned effort. in other words, it seems like many cities developed along the lines of what is today considered smart urban growth WITHOUT zoning to assist in their patterns. So, would abolishing zoning (with exceptions for nuisances of the sort you referenced above) lead to the types of cities being advocated today (think new urbanism type ideals...)? It seems to me that it probably would.....but for the automobile. So, this made me further wonder, is zoning an administrative response to the advent of widespread automobile use (in the sense that it strives to maintain the results achieved by the land economics of a pre-car society, in some respects, in a land dominated by automobiles)? I understand the euro influx, and that cars weren't a significant factor until the 1920s (and really until the 50s in most places, when they began to be coupled with more efficient routes), but it is odd that Euclid v. Amber Realty (the SCOTUS case that upheld the constitutionality of zoning) coincided with the era you highlighted as the first to witness significant effects of automobile travel. It seems that, without the car as dominant transportation system, zoning would really only be beneficial in one respect: curtailing nuisances. Otherwise, it seems like many of the ideas being promoted by things like smart growth and new urbanism would in fact happen on their own, naturally, and this is sort of the abstract point I have been wondering about a bit. It seems like today, zoning of the sort that promotes dense, mixed use is only necessary because of the car. w/o the car, this sort of stuff would likely be being built the same as it always has....or am I wrong? Is there any other reason that city sections like newbury street, or portland's old port (i.e. main street USA) are no longer built, other than the car and official responses to regulate the growth stemming from its transportation routes? you'll have to pardon my confusingly worded blabbing, as the more I think about this stuff the more questions it brings up, and not always in a coherent way. I hope some of what I said was intelligible.

 

[a630]

hey patrick,
You have raised an important question. i'll address what you said one thing at a time.

"It seems like many cities these days try to use zoning ordinances (at least "progressive" cities anyway) to achieve a certain type of healthy urban atmosphere, i.e. mixed use. I'm wondering if we just did away with zoning altogether whether the same result wouldn't happen automatically, by sheer economic forces, rather than a planned effort."

Mixed use ordinances are pieces of "positive" legislation to induce certain types of development that may or may not happen if you just liberalized zoning under the current circumstances of the autocentric city.
Currently, it is signifcantly harder to finance a mixed use project than a 100% commercial or residential project. Some cities allow a significant FAR bonus for mixed use projects. Mind you, a lot of "mixed use" and TOD is sort of a sham, as they have pathetic reductions in parking requirements, if any. It doesn't really get to the point.

" So, this made me further wonder, is zoning an administrative response to the advent of widespread automobile use (in the sense that it strives to maintain the results achieved by the land economics of a pre-car society, in some respects, in a land dominated by automobiles"

Not exactly, see tobyjug's response. In practice zoning came into being to address very immediate threats, real and imagined. In California cities introduced "districting" in the first decade of the 20th century first to segregate laundries (an industry dominated by the Chinese who suffered significant discrimination at the time), then for slaughterhouses, mortuaries, and eventually all industry. In NYC, two things brought it into being (1) due to the construction of the equitable building downtown, the massing of which significantly diminished the value of abbutting parcels and (2) the 'invasion' of the 5th avenue luxury retail district by garment factories and the south/eastern european immigrants they employed.
So before the widespread use of the automobile, zoning was developed to prevent nuisances by segregating uses and distancing them from eachother as they assumedly would cause economic and political turmoil if too close together.

" It seems that, without the car as dominant transportation system, zoning would really only be beneficial in one respect: curtailing nuisances. "

Zoning in the 1920s was blessed by the courts as a "planning" mechanism in addition to a method of nuisance control in cases legalizing single family districts. And the proliferation of single family districts was made possible by the automobile. If the market was allowed to run its course, even in the autocentric society, many single family districts would probably further urbanize than they do now. Zoning plans for and protects low-density development.
The FHA's assessment standards in the 1930s solidified this role for zoning. Since the depression, zoning has simply expanded to more and more protect the virtues of autocentric living with ever larger minimum lot sizes, stricter height regulations, and ever more significant parking requirements. But zoning is not essentially about planning for low-density, as I think you're implying, it can be made to encourage low density development, or encourage dense mixed use development as said before.
I suppose, if the car was less prelevant, we would still have zoning not only to prevent nuisances, but create certain benefits the market may not automatically provide - for example preserve open space, encourage attractive pedestrian environments etc. But I think you're right in suspecting that its role would be significantly different, and likely smaller and more clearly associated with nuisance avoidance and abatement.

 

[Patrick]

I suppose, if the car was less prelevant, we would still have zoning not only to prevent nuisances, but create certain benefits the market may not automatically provide - for example preserve open space, encourage attractive pedestrian environments etc. But I think you're right in suspecting that its role would be significantly different, and likely smaller and more clearly associated with nuisance avoidance and abatement.

thanks to both of you, I appreciate your responses on what I consider to be a very intriguing topic...I think things are in a bit sharper focus for me now...so many variables to consider when pondering the forces--political, social, economic, geographic, etc--that shape cities. It really is fascinating.

 

[ablarc]

...other than to curtail nuisances, does zoning really have any advantages...

No, but it long ago grew cancerously to absorb other considerations, most of which are highly questionable.

...or is it merely an administrative response to accommodate the automobile?

Too often, the answer is yes.

The reason I ask is that it seems like many of the city districts in America that are most successful developed before zoning, based just on sheer land economics, rather than a planned effort.

Bingo!

 

[a630]

just in regards to the "bingo" from ablarc - yes your observation is a smart one, but don't think an end to zoning would suddenly deliver the city you prefer. It is still an automotive society, and I think the scenario of the car becoming smaller and more energy efficient is far more likely than people discarding it.
look at houston - though it doesn't have zoning, it does have parking requirements for different uses. also never underestimate the power of private cc&rs. (covenants, codes and restrictions) Development in Houston can mimic many of the conditions produced by zoning through private action. These have been around much longer than zoning - see Bob Fogelson's "Bourgeois Utopias" for some good history.
CC&Rs can regulate use, bulk, density and design. While initial agreements usually may last only 20 years, residents can renew covenants from then on, if there is majority consensus in the subdivision.
Overall however, in the long term, I think this still creates a more flexible situation than zoning. If zoning were to magically dissappear, certain things would change: elasticity of the housing supply, and affordability would increase, and yes you would see many developed areas densify and rejuvenate, (fyi, you would get greater infill but just as likely and even moreso outward spread, just look at houston), and you would get more diverse design in subdivision. The situation would better reflect the range of consumer tastes better than zoning can. This may lead to some of the design environments you prefer, and certainly have exciting consequences for urban areas where subdivisions tend to be vertical rather than horizontal, but in most cases probably not; people have their cars, they want their surroundings built accordingly, and they will devise a method to keep it that way to ensure the stability of their investments; don't forget Houston.
And there's still environmental and historic district regulation.

 

[Patrick]

just in regards to the "bingo" from ablarc - yes your observation is a smart one, but don't think an end to zoning would suddenly deliver the city you prefer. It is still an automotive society

If zoning were to magically dissappear, This may lead to some of the design environments you prefer, but in most cases probably not; people have their cars, they want their surroundings built accordingly, and they will devise a method to keep it that way to ensure the stability of their investments; don't forget Houston.
And there's still environmental and historic district regulation.

In regards to the quoted material above, I guess this is what I have been trying to get at (admittedly not in a very coherent way, since I write as I think on this forum, rather than planning what I write...). It seems like both of you are answering my questions perfectly, and it appears that what I suspected was right...

But for the car (which alters consumer preferences) abolishing all zoning ordinances except for those relating to nuisances would actually have a lot of positive consequences and effects from a design and planning perspective. As you noted, though, A630, the car has changed this, and I guess it is in this sense that I am wondering if the modern zoning regime practiced in many cities is really just an administrative outgrowth of widespread automobile use.

Basically, it sounds like both of you are agreeing that abolishing the majority of zoning ordinances would, in a world without transportation dominated by the car, achieve many positive outcomes. It seems, then, that in this sense zoning is in large part a response to consumer land use preferences which have, in the last century, been defined by the use of the automobile. Basically, I guess what I am saying is that abolishing zoning would seem to be a good thing, except for the fact that the car would take this notion and ruin it, because people would further sprawl into the countryside...making me believe that the true benefit of retaining most zoning ordinances is to combat the otherwise destructively altered land economics created by the car. in a world without the car, I see no purpose for zoning other than nuisance control, because it seems like the form of cities I enjoy (and many enjoy...i.e. dense mixed use vibrant neighborhoods and commercial centers) is in fact the form that they are most likely to take on their own, naturally, in a world lacking the dispersed land use patterns enabled by the car. COnfusing for me to write this stuff out, but I think everyone who has responded has answered my questions indirectly in the affirmative

 

[a630]

Personally, I think the biggest tragedy about zoning is its constraint on housing supply, such that the market cannot adequately respond to positive demand shocks. As a result, in many places where the economy has historically been healthy over the last few decades, such as boston, new york, or SF, increased demand combined with high land costs translates into higher housing prices, which force people out of the market. In places such as houston, the supply of housing is more elastic, in large part due to the lack of zoning, so that the price of housing stays more stable as demand increases. That, combined with more conservative lending practices in texas over the last decade, meant that houston avoided the bubble (even as it grew rampantly) and the worst effects of the subsequent crash, and has really come out of this decade the biggest winner of any metropolitan area in the country in terms of job growth, housing opportunities etc. (with the population increases to show for it, consistent through the recession unlike many other sunbelt cities, wow)

 

[Patrick]

I hadn't thought about that before, but you make a very good point. A similar point, phrased in somewhat of a different manner, is that made in the book Cities Without Suburbs, which in many ways argues for the same sort of elasticity you seem to want, but doesn't dwell on zoning so much as it does annexation. It compares the inelastic cities of the NE with cities like anchorage, which continually expand to incorporate their burbs so as to allow a more centralized planning effort and regulation of land uses (which I guess is in an indirect way implicating zoning). Interesting. http://www.amazon.com/Cities-without-Suburbs-Woodrow-Wilson/dp/0943875730

 

[a630]

yes although i have my doubts about larger jurisdictions making better land use judgments. the city of los angeles has reproduced the scenario of multiple smaller jurisdictions due to decades-long pressure for decentralization. the state of CA has presented some significant challenges to local parochialism in response to the now decades long chronic housing crisis: for example in state density bonus legislation or accessory dwelling unit legislation. but it also has forced environmental regulation of questionable efficacy into the permitting process.

 

[Ron Newman]

I'm from Columbus, Ohio, which has continually annexed its sprawling edge in order to avoid being hemmed in like Cleveland or Cincinnati. The results are not very encouraging.

One of the towns that got surrounded by annexation, but remained independent, is conspicuously better planned than its surroundings. (Bexley, Ohio, for those familiar with the area; it may remind you a bit of Brookline.)

 

[Patrick]

I'm from Columbus, Ohio, which has continually annexed its sprawling edge in order to avoid being hemmed in like Cleveland or Cincinnati. The results are not very encouraging.

One of the towns that got surrounded by annexation, but remained independent, is conspicuously better planned than its surroundings. (Bexley, Ohio, for those familiar with the area; it may remind you a bit of Brookline.)

Hey Ron, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Somerville, MA similar to the town you are describing in that it is independent governance, whereas places like charleston, DOT, etc used to be until they were annexed? I don't know all of the information, so I am hoping someone can correct any mistakes I make about Boston geopolitical info...how does somerville compare with the neighborhoods and sections of boston that used to be independent?

I guess the argument in the book cities without suburbs was that if cities cannot expand their boundaries so as to incorporate all that they truly influence, then the majority suburbs will take advantage of the minority urban core by doing anything they can to keep certain people and industry out, thereby contributing to the destruction of urban cores. It is not to say that having elastic annexation policies necessarily makes for better planning, but that without such policies cities are necessarily less well equipped to face many of the challenges inherent in the metropolitan urban arrangements characteristic of modern settlement. So, acting like Columbus can, but won't necessarily, make things easier, but acting like a hartford necessarily DOES foreclose a lot of land use and other planning based decisions that would otherwise be available. I could be getting the argument wrong, but that's my assessment of what the book argues for...although it has been a few years since I read it

 

[Ron Newman]

I'm comparing Bexley to Brookline rather than to Somerville because Bexley is heavily Jewish, tree-lined, affluent, and 'genteel' in look and feel.

Columbus has its virtues and some nice urban neighborhoods (Short North, German Village, the areas around OSU). But much of it is a sprawling mess, and much of the sprawl has visibly deteriorated over the past 30 years as people continue to move outward. Its downtown is now entirely devoid of retail, and they have just finished demolishing a downtown shopping mall that opened just 20 years ago.

 

[Patrick]

I know you weren't comparing to Somerville, but I am asking about Somerville to see how your basic premise applies to the town in general. Im not sure, but it sounds like the character of the town you referenced and Brookline might have more to do with factors other than lack of political annexation, if looking at other towns in the Boston area that similarly have not been taken over reveals a wide discrepancy in town planning efforts/successes. I was just curious, because I know Brookline is very uppity and Somerville is the densest town in New England, but other than that I don't know how the two compare, so I wanted to leave their lack of being annexed as a constant to see how your argument applied to Boston....just curious.

 

[statler]

I'm from Columbus, Ohio,

I did not know this. I always assumed you were a born and bred local.

 

[Patrick]

Has anyone here worked on Form Based Codes or know anything about them (in addition to what the FBC institute relays on their website)? Any case studies would be very helpful and any critiques would be as well. support also welcome. I just want to get a better idea of the issues involved, and I have a basic understanding to begin with. any experts out there?