Thawing the Frozen City: Rethinking Urban Zoning for Dynamic Communities

 In the realm of urban planning, zoning serves as the backbone of how cities are structured and developed. The United States predominantly employs a method known as Euclidean zoning, named after the landmark 1926 Supreme Court case, Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. This system categorizes land into specific types of use, such as residential, commercial, or industrial, and dictates what activities can occur in each zone. Euclidean zoning emerged as a response to the rapid urbanization and industrialization of the early 20th century, intended to protect residential areas from the encroachment of factories and commercial enterprises.

However, this prescriptive approach, which clearly delineates what must occur in each zone, often leads to a lack of flexibility and creativity in urban design. It can result in segregated communities where residential, commercial, and recreational spaces are isolated from one another.

The Mismatch Between Modern Development and the Human Experience

In the United States, contemporary development has strayed from the human experience in several ways. Most developments are designed around the experience of drivers, not accommodating to human beings as children or the elderly. They do not foster the sort of human interactions that contribute to community development. Life is replaced by vacuous, uninspired places where community space isn't owned by the members of the community, and people do not feel a sense of connection to the places they live.

The New Urbanism Movement: A Critical Analysis

 

The New Urbanism movement has gained significant attention in recent years for its efforts to promote more walkable, sustainable, and vibrant urban environments. By advocating for mixed-use development, denser housing, and better public transportation, New Urbanists have challenged the car-centric sprawl that characterized many American cities in the latter half of the 20th century.

However, while the New Urbanism movement deserves praise for its contributions to urban planning, it is essential to apply a critical eye to its solutions and the underlying economic assumptions that inform them.

The Challenge of Replicating Traditional American Towns

One of the key goals of the New Urbanism movement is to create artificial replicas of traditional American towns. While this approach can be appealing, it is important to recognize that the economic and social conditions that shaped these towns are no longer present. Attempting to recreate the past without addressing the underlying economic factors can lead to unsustainable and artificial developments.

The Lack of an Economic Underpinning

The New Urbanism movement often focuses on creating a desirable physical environment without fully considering the economic factors that are essential for the long-term viability of a community. For example, while walkable streets and mixed-use development can be attractive features, they may not be economically sustainable if there is insufficient demand for housing, retail, or commercial space.

A More Holistic Approach

To create truly sustainable and vibrant urban environments, it is essential to adopt a more holistic approach that considers the economic, social, and environmental factors that shape cities. This includes:

• Economic Development: Promoting economic growth and job creation to support the local economy.
• Affordable Housing: Ensuring that housing is affordable for a diverse range of residents.
• Public Transportation: Investing in robust public transportation systems to reduce reliance on cars.
• Community Engagement: Involving residents in the planning and development process.

Conclusion

The New Urbanism movement has made valuable contributions to urban planning, but it is essential to approach its solutions with a critical eye. By considering the economic factors that shape cities and adopting a more holistic approach, we can create sustainable and vibrant urban environments that benefit all residents.

The Zoning Paradox: Planning for Success or Stifling Experimentation?

 

By Mark Merton - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=75701499

Cities are dynamic ecosystems, constantly evolving and adapting. Yet, traditional zoning laws often act as a straitjacket, dictating land use with a rigid hand. This post explores the tension between the desire for predictable development and the need for flexibility in a changing world.

The Allure of Order: Zoning for Guaranteed Success

Zoning serves a purpose:

• Maintaining Order: Zoning regulations categorize land uses, separating residential areas from industrial zones. This creates a sense of order and predictability, ensuring that a quiet neighborhood won't be disrupted by a noisy factory.
• Protecting Property Values: Zoning can help stabilize property values by preventing incompatible uses from moving in next door.

Zoning Out Progress: How Regulations Stifle Cities and Fuel Suburban Sprawl

 

By Chris J - originally posted to Flickr as Beverly Hills of Chandler, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=4378163

The American Dream of a single-family home with a white picket fence has long been synonymous with suburbia. But what if zoning regulations, intended to maintain that idyllic image, are actually the culprit behind urban decline? Let's explore the argument that zoning, rather than simply responding to a demand for sprawl, has actively created conditions that push businesses and residents away from city centers.

The Competitive Disadvantage of Overly Regulated Cities

Cities offer a unique blend of advantages: a concentration of talent, a vibrant mix of businesses, and a dynamic environment for innovation. However, excessive zoning regulations can turn these strengths into weaknesses.

• Parking Minimums: Mandating a certain number of parking spaces per unit can discourage dense development, a hallmark of walkable, vibrant city centers. This prioritizes car-centric living over pedestrian-friendly infrastructure.
• Setback Requirements: Regulations requiring buildings to be set back a certain distance from the street can create vast stretches of unused space, hindering the creation of lively, densely populated urban areas.
• Restrictions on Mixed-Use Development: Zoning that segregates residential, commercial, and industrial areas can stifle the organic synergy that occurs when these uses co-exist. Imagine a bakery next to a residential building, creating a convenient and vibrant neighborhood. Zoning restrictions can prevent such possibilities.

These regulations essentially force cities to mimic the very suburban sprawl they're trying to avoid. The consequences are far-reaching:

• Business Flight: Companies seeking a dynamic, collaborative environment might be discouraged by cities lacking density and a mix of uses. They might opt for suburban campuses with ample parking and space for expansion, further draining the life out of city centers.
• Housing Affordability Crisis: Restrictions on dense housing development artificially limit supply, driving up housing costs in cities. This pushes residents, particularly young professionals and families, to seek more affordable options in the suburbs.
• Transportation Woes: Car-dependent sprawl necessitates a reliance on personal vehicles, leading to traffic congestion and environmental pollution. Cities designed for walking, cycling, and public transportation offer a more sustainable and efficient alternative.

The Characteristics of Living Cities

In biology, there are seven accepted characteristics of living things. These characteristics are used to determine whether a thing is living or non-living. Likewise, I think we can apply this logic to urban development. In my last post, I suggested that many of the large-scale developments that are meant to emulate an actual city are little more than a 'decorated corpse'. This time I hope to flush out how we can tell whether a development is a 'living' city or just a decorated corpse. I would like to use a list of characteristics somewhat like the example in biology, although I hope not to get bogged down in the analogy. Cities are, of course, not living organisms. They do not literally consume 'nutrients' and then excrete waste, though consumption and waste disposal are important parts of city planning. The point here is not to work hard on making a literal analogy with a living organism, but to figure out what the markers are that indicate that a city is healthy, unhealthy, or downright dead. There may be a better analogy than a living organism anyway, such as animal herds or insect hives. I'll leave fine-tuning the analogy to a future post. For now, we'll simply leave it as the 'living city'.

(As a side note, I would like to acknowledge the Center for the Living City, which does great work in advancing the understanding of cities and which, like myself, takes the term from Jane Jacobs. They do not, however, endorse my particular viewpoint or this blog.)

The first thing we must ask when trying to determine what characteristics we should look for is: What do we mean by 'living city' or 'healthy city'? Since we're not talking about an actual living organism, what determines whether the city, or some portion of it, is alive or dead? Healthy or unhealthy? To answer that, I think we have to ask what the city is for. Why do we have them? One might tread the path of history to define what a city is for, but I rather think that if the reason for the city isn't currently valid, then it isn't a valid reason for the city's (present tense) existence. So the question is: What is the city for. What does it do that other forms of human settlement can't? And let's be clear: I'm not only talking about the biggest cities. When I talk about cities, I'm also talking about the small ones. As long as the place is thought of as a city by the people who inhabit its sphere of influence, I think we can consider it a city. Not every development is a city, for sure, but I'm not interested in a hard line that defines cities vs other types of human development. At least not for the purposes of this discussion.

They will never take... My freedom!

By The original uploader was MarianZubak at English Wikipedia. - Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons., CC BY 2.5, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3402935

 One of the oldest precepts in Western government is ex post facto. The thing that makes the free world free. Euclidian zoning turns that concept on its head. Euclidean zoning functions by designating the thing (usually singular) that you can do with the land that you own and, if you wish to operate outside its defined parameters, then you must ask special permission. Such a flagrant violation of basic freedoms should be roundly condemned by everyone but, instead, it is almost universally supported in the United States by liberals and libertarians alike.

Euclidean zoning is a system of land use regulation that divides a municipality into different zones, each with its own set of permitted uses. This type of zoning was first introduced in the United States in the early 20th century, and it has since become the standard zoning system in most American cities.

Euclidean zoning has had a significant impact on the current concept of freedom and property rights. On the one hand, it has helped to promote order and predictability in land use patterns. This has been beneficial in some cases, such as by preventing incompatible uses from being located next to each other.

On the other hand, Euclidean zoning has also been criticized for restricting property owners' freedom to use their land as they see fit. For example, a property owner in a residential zone may not be able to open a business or build a home that is larger than a certain size.

In recent years, there has been a growing movement to reform Euclidean zoning. Critics of Euclidean zoning argue that it is outdated and inflexible and that it does not adequately reflect the needs of modern communities. They advocate for more flexible and mixed-use zoning policies that allow for greater diversity of land uses in a given area.

Here are some specific examples of how Euclidean zoning has affected freedom and property rights:

• Restrictions on home-based businesses: Many Euclidean zoning ordinances restrict or prohibit home-based businesses. This can limit the ability of people to work from home or to start their own businesses.

• Minimum lot size requirements: Euclidean zoning ordinances often have minimum lot size requirements. This can make it more difficult for people to afford housing, especially in urban areas.

• Restrictions on mixed-use development: Euclidean zoning ordinances often separate residential, commercial, and industrial uses into different zones. This can make it difficult for people to live, work, and shop in the same area.

• Bans on certain types of businesses: Some Euclidean zoning ordinances ban certain types of businesses, such as adult entertainment establishments or liquor stores. This can limit the choices available to consumers and can also restrict the ability of businesses to operate.

The debate over Euclidean zoning is complex and there is no easy answer. On the one hand, it is important to protect property owners' rights and to allow them to use their land as they see fit. On the other hand, it is also important to promote order and predictability in land use patterns.

Ultimately, it is up to each community to decide how to balance the competing interests of property owners and the public good. In recent years, there has been a growing trend towards more flexible and mixed-use zoning policies. These policies may offer a better way to balance the competing interests of property owners and the public good.