As an architect trying to build density, I constantly think about the mindset one has to be in in order to do the work, knowing that there will be opposition to it no matter what. Accepting it as part of the process is an important first step has been a key realization.
I completely agree with this assessment, and in fact gave a presentation on a similar idea a couple of months ago. I even explicitly call out using an LVT to judge underutilization in restricted areas.
The fundamental difference between my concept and yours, though, is my mechanism for neighbors to regulate land use. I think it should happen under more generalized institutional bodies, which I’m calling “Neighborhood Councils”. Residents can incorporate and give powers to one of these bodies in their neighborhood. The benefit of this, I think, is that it provides a greater platform to socialize and build community, with a built in incentive to meet through impactful neighborhood business. It also helps confer status to more ordinary people, particularly small business owners, which I think is critical in helping quell the unrest in modern society.
I haven’t completely decided the mechanism of land use regulation these Councils should possess, but making it temporary is a valuable idea I hadn’t considered before.
If you’re interested, here’s the full presentation I gave with more of my thoughts on this, and I’m going to soon start an essay series exploring this idea in depth: https://youtu.be/ebAxARgVybs
You wrote “As we pursue progress in a democracy we have to work with people who want things we don’t want. If our proposals require us to overcome what other people want, to force them to accept our preferences instead of their preferences, we have a much, much harder road ahead of us, especially when they have the status quo on their side.”
I really, really think you would get much further limiting the geographical scope, rather than pursuing statewide de-regulation of zoning. Geographically, the large majority of land in almost all states is relatively lightly regulated agricultural or wilderness land, and in most states, they have limited political power because agricultural land is not dense. The problem you are addressing is essentially for people who live in or work in urban areas, not insufficient dense growth in far flung small communities.
Those non urban areas have been growing faster, not slower, than cities. They have very little flexibility in their budgets. They generally do not have elasticity in their infrastructure and growth is typically hard limited by lack of public water, public sewer, roads, etc. Removing all local control and expecting urban planners to know how best to regulate agricultural use is pretty horrifying.
Many people care about having gardens, dogs, and horses. They like having a big kitchen garden. They are not going to want to live in an Amsterdam clone no matter how charming it is.
Thanks, Lisa. For what it’s worth, I agree, and I think your argument rhymes with what I’m trying to say in this post. One-size-fits-all doesn’t usually work very well and in large cities that’s part of why things have ended up in a bad status quo.
I think your comment is also referencing a note I posted the other day. FWIW I’m not advocating for state preemption, I’m generally skeptical of state preemption. But then I have the case of states removing parking requirements at the state level, which I think is a great outcome with no real downside. So I’m wrestling with, can I come up with a coherent “first principles” rationale for when I would and when I would not support state preemption? And where I think I’m leaning right now, is that if the state action is defining the limits of government power, that seems appropriate. In fact that’s something that can only really happen at the state level. But if the idea is to replace local control with state control, then I’m very skeptical, because I agree with you that moving the authority from the community to the state has a lot of downside.
Separately from that, I personally am skeptical of zoning as practiced today, and would rather see our cities take a different approach to development regulation. But I’m not advocating for just moving where today’s zoning system is administrated - I don’t think moving a bad system would solve much and I see a lot of downside risk.
Thanks for your comment, and for giving me a chance to unpack that a little bit.
As a matter of fact, nuisance regulations have not worked in the City of Houston and within the region. Railroad facilities and industrial facilities located near or within subdivision are numerous, exposing many residents to poisons. Some of these are legacies of the pre-regulatory era, such as in the Second and Fifth wards, especially the neighborhoods near the Inglewood and Settegast rail yards in the Fifth. Other former towns later annexed to Houston have similar problems, including Harrisburg and Manchester.
I don't take this counterexample as proof that nuisance regulation cannot be effective, only that Houston is not a good example of effective nuisance regulation.
Unfortunately almost every city has facilities like that, especially around the original freight rail lines, which predate environmental regulation and are fully or partially exempted from it. It is a problem, but not really one that most cities could afford to “solve” since it would require paying to relocate industries, which is very expensive.
You are right, the railroad legacies are tough cases.
Any post-modern post-modern facility is a counterexample, and there are plenty of those in Houston.
I also think we are right to question how well zoning handled those nuisances, too. The Germans have the best zoning scheme: isolate industrial uses, and prevent other uses from co-locating.
As an architect trying to build density, I constantly think about the mindset one has to be in in order to do the work, knowing that there will be opposition to it no matter what. Accepting it as part of the process is an important first step has been a key realization.
I completely agree with this assessment, and in fact gave a presentation on a similar idea a couple of months ago. I even explicitly call out using an LVT to judge underutilization in restricted areas.
The fundamental difference between my concept and yours, though, is my mechanism for neighbors to regulate land use. I think it should happen under more generalized institutional bodies, which I’m calling “Neighborhood Councils”. Residents can incorporate and give powers to one of these bodies in their neighborhood. The benefit of this, I think, is that it provides a greater platform to socialize and build community, with a built in incentive to meet through impactful neighborhood business. It also helps confer status to more ordinary people, particularly small business owners, which I think is critical in helping quell the unrest in modern society.
I haven’t completely decided the mechanism of land use regulation these Councils should possess, but making it temporary is a valuable idea I hadn’t considered before.
If you’re interested, here’s the full presentation I gave with more of my thoughts on this, and I’m going to soon start an essay series exploring this idea in depth: https://youtu.be/ebAxARgVybs
You wrote “As we pursue progress in a democracy we have to work with people who want things we don’t want. If our proposals require us to overcome what other people want, to force them to accept our preferences instead of their preferences, we have a much, much harder road ahead of us, especially when they have the status quo on their side.”
I really, really think you would get much further limiting the geographical scope, rather than pursuing statewide de-regulation of zoning. Geographically, the large majority of land in almost all states is relatively lightly regulated agricultural or wilderness land, and in most states, they have limited political power because agricultural land is not dense. The problem you are addressing is essentially for people who live in or work in urban areas, not insufficient dense growth in far flung small communities.
Those non urban areas have been growing faster, not slower, than cities. They have very little flexibility in their budgets. They generally do not have elasticity in their infrastructure and growth is typically hard limited by lack of public water, public sewer, roads, etc. Removing all local control and expecting urban planners to know how best to regulate agricultural use is pretty horrifying.
Many people care about having gardens, dogs, and horses. They like having a big kitchen garden. They are not going to want to live in an Amsterdam clone no matter how charming it is.
Thanks, Lisa. For what it’s worth, I agree, and I think your argument rhymes with what I’m trying to say in this post. One-size-fits-all doesn’t usually work very well and in large cities that’s part of why things have ended up in a bad status quo.
I think your comment is also referencing a note I posted the other day. FWIW I’m not advocating for state preemption, I’m generally skeptical of state preemption. But then I have the case of states removing parking requirements at the state level, which I think is a great outcome with no real downside. So I’m wrestling with, can I come up with a coherent “first principles” rationale for when I would and when I would not support state preemption? And where I think I’m leaning right now, is that if the state action is defining the limits of government power, that seems appropriate. In fact that’s something that can only really happen at the state level. But if the idea is to replace local control with state control, then I’m very skeptical, because I agree with you that moving the authority from the community to the state has a lot of downside.
Separately from that, I personally am skeptical of zoning as practiced today, and would rather see our cities take a different approach to development regulation. But I’m not advocating for just moving where today’s zoning system is administrated - I don’t think moving a bad system would solve much and I see a lot of downside risk.
Thanks for your comment, and for giving me a chance to unpack that a little bit.
As a matter of fact, nuisance regulations have not worked in the City of Houston and within the region. Railroad facilities and industrial facilities located near or within subdivision are numerous, exposing many residents to poisons. Some of these are legacies of the pre-regulatory era, such as in the Second and Fifth wards, especially the neighborhoods near the Inglewood and Settegast rail yards in the Fifth. Other former towns later annexed to Houston have similar problems, including Harrisburg and Manchester.
I don't take this counterexample as proof that nuisance regulation cannot be effective, only that Houston is not a good example of effective nuisance regulation.
Unfortunately almost every city has facilities like that, especially around the original freight rail lines, which predate environmental regulation and are fully or partially exempted from it. It is a problem, but not really one that most cities could afford to “solve” since it would require paying to relocate industries, which is very expensive.
You are right, the railroad legacies are tough cases.
Any post-modern post-modern facility is a counterexample, and there are plenty of those in Houston.
I also think we are right to question how well zoning handled those nuisances, too. The Germans have the best zoning scheme: isolate industrial uses, and prevent other uses from co-locating.