HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2021, 7:58 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 52,200
To Create More Affordable Housing, Make Zoning Hyperlocal

To Create More Affordable Housing, Make Zoning Hyperlocal


February 19, 2021

By John Myers and Michael Hendrix

Read More: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...g?srnd=citylab

Quote:
When Sacramento proposed changing its zoning rules to allow four homes on land that had permitted just one, something remarkable happened: The reform passed city council, unanimously, with little of the outrage over new housing that’s long haunted California politics. The public comments were overwhelmingly supportive. Politicians lined up to praise the measure, which passed this January, even San Francisco Mayor London Breed, who presides over a city where such “fourplexes” are mostly illegal. Sacramento now joins other U.S. cities, including Portland and Minneapolis, that have legalized the construction of more homes in more places.

- Even in cities that have passed modest reforms, the politics of local planning often stand in the way of more ambitious change. We know what helps fight high housing prices: loosening minimum lot size requirements that don’t allow homes to be built on small tracts, for instance, or allowing backyard apartments and “missing middle” housing like duplexes and triplexes. — The problem is not identifying reforms to allow more homes; it’s getting them passed at the city or state level. Without such reform, in local planning meetings across the U.S. where decisions about new developments get made, the voices of opponents are frequently the loudest and most influential. What passes for community participation in America is too often limited to a privileged few with the time and resources to attain an outsize influence on the workings of government.

- What if there’s a way to overcome the political obstacles in the way of development with support from local stakeholders? Not a substitute to state and local housing laws, but a complement: what we call hyperlocal zoning reform. Local governments would give streets and blocks the right to decide for themselves if they want to allow denser housing. Neighbors could pick from a menu of modest reforms, from reducing minimum lot sizes and green-lighting “granny flats” to allowing missing middle housing and apartments. — A single street or block could simply hold a vote and reach a goal the city sets, say, a 60% “yes” from residents. One key feature is that hyperlocal zoning would be a supplement to existing zoning codes, meaning it could simply be implemented by a planning department, and wouldn’t stop cities from passing other broader reforms.

- Experts from the late economist Robert Nelson to Yale Law School’s Robert Ellickson have suggested devolving zoning down to the neighborhood or even block level, much like how we implement parking meters, or as we see in business improvement districts and homeowners’ associations already. — Of course, upzoning a single street will not solve America’s housing crisis. But upzoning many streets could help to end it. The idea should catch on as people see other residents radically improve their lives. The virtue of hyperlocal zoning reform is that it would make policies more incremental and less visible and, because the residents themselves decide, more likely to favor winning proposals that will actually improve a neighborhood. — What’s more, the targeted nature of street or block votes would make it easier for planners to respond to local demands, whether for more parking or better design standards, while giving owners more flexible property rights that could expand housing availability.

.....



__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2021, 10:30 PM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,854
Yeah, this could work.

If you're looking to change the zoning for a city of 500,000, odds are there's going to be enough militant NIMBYs in that pool of residents to fill a community consultation meeting room.

But if you're doing it for a couple city blocks with a population of 50-100, they're more likely to give it a pass. And even if 75% of the city blocks reject the zoning change, 25% is still much better than 0. If the implementation in those 25% of blocks is done well, it could help win over some of the other blocks. Or maybe the NIMBY that lived on one block moves to a different neighbourhood and the block goes from rejecting the proposal one year to accepting it a few years later.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2021, 1:04 AM
SFBruin SFBruin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,189
It's definitely possible that this could work.

I don't see a downside, as most of the negative externalities of housing, e.g. loss of parking, noise, are hyper-local as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2021, 12:49 PM
eschaton eschaton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,182
At first I was like "no way in hell this would work" - as I've seen too many projects defeated (including large projects with wide support in the community) by small group or even a single NIMBY who was willing to challenge in court.

But I suppose it could work with one caveat - that it actually operate under the principle of a majority vote, and not the idiotic idea of total consensus which zoning variances now require. If you don't need 100% community buy-in, a lot more becomes possible. Also, presumably it would be a majority of voters, not property owners, who would be determinative, which would allow renter-dominated neighborhoods to drown out the voices of a few rich NIMBY homeowners.

That said, aside from a few lower-income neighborhoods without a whiff of gentrification, I can think of few neighborhoods where the public is actually clamoring for new development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:57 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.