As a left of center dude, I’m embarrassed that it’s the blue states that are most guilty of the restrictive zoning preventing new construction of multi family housing. NIMBY is keeping peopke in the streets. However, I’m curious Andy on this. If less restricted zoning spreads, what’s to stop investors from building into the AirBnb market, or large firms from snatching up property to build rentals? Could this not create a new set of problems? At the core of our issues is the massive inequality. Zoning won’t cure that.
The shortest answer is that getting rid of zoning won't guarantee abundant housing, but the presence of zoning will guarantee housing shortages.
Zoning exists to isolate things in sections. There are tons of other rules that exist (some helpful, some harmful) about how public and private spaces are used.
Houston, for example, doesn't have zoning, which is part of why it's regularly ranked as one of the most affordable & diverse big cities in the country. Housing options are legal there. But it has lots of rules that lead to road expansions like any other city, making parts of it look like an auto-centric hellscape. Does that make sense?
I hear you. I didn't mean to imply that the regulations in place didn't at one time serve a great purpose (i.e., protecting vulnerable citizens from eminent domain and development and racist legislation). And I would not necessarily want to see regulations created to protect us from deregulation! But in a place like my hometown of Seattle, where tourist demand is high, I can easily see new mother in laws developed for AirBnb. You're right...there is no guarantee, but it's worth the effort to consider workarounds.
"Abolish zoning" is a bad slogan, just as "defund the police" a bad slogan - it gives opponents an opportunity to paint the proposals as radical craziness (they do this anyway: proposals to abolish single family residential zoning get misrepresented as proposals to ban single family houses; but there's no need to hand them a weapon by using a bad slogan). Instead, something like "abolish single-use zoning' or "abolish exclusionary zoning" or "smart zoning" - which unfortunately aren't very catchy - might be better.
"Legalize housing" sounds pretty good - and it's also a positive slogan, not a negative one.
I presume you'd be happy with Japanese-style zoning, which has succeeded in meeting housing demand (some urban areas have net immigration, despite the overall population decline): http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html
After all, nobody wants a tannery in their residential neighborhood; and the though of a multi-unit apartment next door might also be scary, even though it's common in much of Europe and east Asia, even in upscale neighborhoods.
I get where you're coming from, but I'm a fan of "abolish zoning" for two reasons.
(1) I mean it literally. There are several ways that the tannery complaint is addressed without zoning. Even medieval settlements had rules for the land uses like blacksmith that no one wanted nearby.
But like the title of this post, I also use the positive -- "legalize housing." But it's not a full replacement b/c zoning preserves car dependency. It's what outlaws walkable neighborhoods.
Taking the example of the slogan "defund the police" -- it gave the opposition an opportunity to exaggerate what was being proposed. If it had been "fund police alternatives" (less catchy, I know), there would have been less opportunity to spread disinformation.
Similarly, "abolish zoning" allows anti-urbanists to claim that "8-plex welfare housing" will appear next door, or that single-family houses will be outlawed. (I've seen such comments on nextdoor.com)
"Zoning reform" is less threatening than "abolish zoning", just as "police reform" is less threatening than "defund the police".
People can be surprisingly emotional about parking.
If parking minimums can be abolished (both residential and commercial), what else needs to be done?
Alarmists will make any claim about any issue regardless of slogan.
From a messaging POV, it's both/and not either/or. But to be clear, you could abolish zoning and still have housing rules that prevent the old "strip clubs by schools!" fear. Zoning as we know it does not need to exist. Its tradeoffs are lopsided in the direction of harm, rather than benefit.
Alarmists will make claims of course -- but no need to hand them ammunition by using a slogan that can be easily misinterpreted. If your slogan requires an explanation, it's a bad slogan.
You and I disagree on whether or not it's a good or bad slogan. But it doesn't require explanation. I think zoning should be abolished. I don't expect everyone to agree, but that's my POV.
George Lakoff has explained how "framing" is very important in making a convincing argument. If people believe that zoning prevents a tannery or "8-plex welfare housing" being built next door, no amount of "that's not what I mean by zoning" will convince them otherwise.
As it is, most people don't understand the difference between building codes and zoning rules; they aren't going to be persuaded by a 5-minute explanation of the nuances of your definition of "zoning".
Has any country abolished zoning? - as opposed to have much less restrictive zoning than in the US and Canada. "Nuisance regulations" are an alternative to zoning; it's not clear to me that they're an improvement over well-written zoning rules.
As to parking: the only place I know of with rational parking is Japan (at least in the big cities, such as Tokyo and Osaka), where street parking more-or-less doesn't exist and people need to show that they have a parking spot when they register their car (many people rent a separate parking spot because they don't have any place for a car on their property). Here's an example of some paid suburban parking spots (costing about $150/month) on what was a main road a thousand years ago: https://goo.gl/maps/rrkU7JvBKNZqZypr8 (the nearby convenience store is unusual in providing a few free short-term parking spots: https://goo.gl/maps/2bpRz8SQVzPNaDzx7) (StreetView makes this street look much worse than it is in reality - here's a nearby "grand shrine" that's over 1800 years old: https://goo.gl/maps/qzsBCi48J8B9bcPo7https://www.japan-guide.com/e/e4007.html)
As a left of center dude, I’m embarrassed that it’s the blue states that are most guilty of the restrictive zoning preventing new construction of multi family housing. NIMBY is keeping peopke in the streets. However, I’m curious Andy on this. If less restricted zoning spreads, what’s to stop investors from building into the AirBnb market, or large firms from snatching up property to build rentals? Could this not create a new set of problems? At the core of our issues is the massive inequality. Zoning won’t cure that.
The shortest answer is that getting rid of zoning won't guarantee abundant housing, but the presence of zoning will guarantee housing shortages.
Zoning exists to isolate things in sections. There are tons of other rules that exist (some helpful, some harmful) about how public and private spaces are used.
Houston, for example, doesn't have zoning, which is part of why it's regularly ranked as one of the most affordable & diverse big cities in the country. Housing options are legal there. But it has lots of rules that lead to road expansions like any other city, making parts of it look like an auto-centric hellscape. Does that make sense?
I hear you. I didn't mean to imply that the regulations in place didn't at one time serve a great purpose (i.e., protecting vulnerable citizens from eminent domain and development and racist legislation). And I would not necessarily want to see regulations created to protect us from deregulation! But in a place like my hometown of Seattle, where tourist demand is high, I can easily see new mother in laws developed for AirBnb. You're right...there is no guarantee, but it's worth the effort to consider workarounds.
"Abolish zoning" is a bad slogan, just as "defund the police" a bad slogan - it gives opponents an opportunity to paint the proposals as radical craziness (they do this anyway: proposals to abolish single family residential zoning get misrepresented as proposals to ban single family houses; but there's no need to hand them a weapon by using a bad slogan). Instead, something like "abolish single-use zoning' or "abolish exclusionary zoning" or "smart zoning" - which unfortunately aren't very catchy - might be better.
"Legalize housing" sounds pretty good - and it's also a positive slogan, not a negative one.
I presume you'd be happy with Japanese-style zoning, which has succeeded in meeting housing demand (some urban areas have net immigration, despite the overall population decline): http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html
After all, nobody wants a tannery in their residential neighborhood; and the though of a multi-unit apartment next door might also be scary, even though it's common in much of Europe and east Asia, even in upscale neighborhoods.
I get where you're coming from, but I'm a fan of "abolish zoning" for two reasons.
(1) I mean it literally. There are several ways that the tannery complaint is addressed without zoning. Even medieval settlements had rules for the land uses like blacksmith that no one wanted nearby.
(2) I want to shift the Overton window. https://speakeasy.substack.com/p/the-overton-window-concept-describes?r=b7z2u
But like the title of this post, I also use the positive -- "legalize housing." But it's not a full replacement b/c zoning preserves car dependency. It's what outlaws walkable neighborhoods.
Taking the example of the slogan "defund the police" -- it gave the opposition an opportunity to exaggerate what was being proposed. If it had been "fund police alternatives" (less catchy, I know), there would have been less opportunity to spread disinformation.
Similarly, "abolish zoning" allows anti-urbanists to claim that "8-plex welfare housing" will appear next door, or that single-family houses will be outlawed. (I've seen such comments on nextdoor.com)
"Zoning reform" is less threatening than "abolish zoning", just as "police reform" is less threatening than "defund the police".
People can be surprisingly emotional about parking.
If parking minimums can be abolished (both residential and commercial), what else needs to be done?
Alarmists will make any claim about any issue regardless of slogan.
From a messaging POV, it's both/and not either/or. But to be clear, you could abolish zoning and still have housing rules that prevent the old "strip clubs by schools!" fear. Zoning as we know it does not need to exist. Its tradeoffs are lopsided in the direction of harm, rather than benefit.
Parking is def the most emotional. I hosted a Twitter Spaces w/ president of Parking Reform Network you might like: https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1OyKAVdeLQaGb?s=20
Alarmists will make claims of course -- but no need to hand them ammunition by using a slogan that can be easily misinterpreted. If your slogan requires an explanation, it's a bad slogan.
You and I disagree on whether or not it's a good or bad slogan. But it doesn't require explanation. I think zoning should be abolished. I don't expect everyone to agree, but that's my POV.
George Lakoff has explained how "framing" is very important in making a convincing argument. If people believe that zoning prevents a tannery or "8-plex welfare housing" being built next door, no amount of "that's not what I mean by zoning" will convince them otherwise.
As it is, most people don't understand the difference between building codes and zoning rules; they aren't going to be persuaded by a 5-minute explanation of the nuances of your definition of "zoning".
Has any country abolished zoning? - as opposed to have much less restrictive zoning than in the US and Canada. "Nuisance regulations" are an alternative to zoning; it's not clear to me that they're an improvement over well-written zoning rules.
As to parking: the only place I know of with rational parking is Japan (at least in the big cities, such as Tokyo and Osaka), where street parking more-or-less doesn't exist and people need to show that they have a parking spot when they register their car (many people rent a separate parking spot because they don't have any place for a car on their property). Here's an example of some paid suburban parking spots (costing about $150/month) on what was a main road a thousand years ago: https://goo.gl/maps/rrkU7JvBKNZqZypr8 (the nearby convenience store is unusual in providing a few free short-term parking spots: https://goo.gl/maps/2bpRz8SQVzPNaDzx7) (StreetView makes this street look much worse than it is in reality - here's a nearby "grand shrine" that's over 1800 years old: https://goo.gl/maps/qzsBCi48J8B9bcPo7 https://www.japan-guide.com/e/e4007.html)
Lessons learned from your reading collection: Everything is negotiable, even land use regulations.