|
Cicero posted:gently caress "selective zoning reform", America's zoning is monstrously broken and needs a complete overhaul. The mandatory SFH zoning that dominates the country is classist as all hell, and you can't support it and be a progressive. It shouldn't exist, anywhere. Wrath v. Seldin a case decided in 1975 basically said zoning is perfectly fine because income is not a protected class. That article is a proread to understand how we use our zoning to lock out the suburbs from the "wrong" people.
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 00:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 09:25 |
|
|
luxury handset posted:nah. there's a complicating factor here which is that wealthier people are more likely to live in historic preservation districts, aka super old housing which is special in some way and so can't be torn down. but otherwise apartments are "allowed" equally in rich and poor areas. it's just that, if you want to buy a dozen rich people homes, you have to fork over a shitload of money to buy out the land. if you want to buy a dozen poor people homes, either the landlords are willing to pay if the price is more than adequate, or you have generally older homeowners who are amenable to a big cash payout as their retirement fund, if not a half dozen heirs of which one is likely to want to cash out. basically you profit more from building in poorer areas to house rich folk because the margin is much higher as it is way way cheaper to get the land and tear down the houses I think there's a bit of chicken and egg thing at play here. Rich people are better at getting their neighborhoods classified as historic preservation districts, and thereby preempting development. Developers aren't leveraging the government to rezone, but rather wealthy areas are able to leverage their existing political influence to prevent change. I haven't seen any academic discussion on this issue, but I feel like local feedback can have a big influence on citywide zoning changes. https://www.governing.com/topics/urban/gov-zoning-density.html quote:Michael Bloomberg became mayor of New York in 2002, and in less than six years his zoning reform campaign rezoned 6,000 city blocks. The process was uneven. Low-income neighborhoods such as Long Island City in Queens and black and Latino neighborhoods in Brooklyn were up-zoned to allow greater density. Developers didn’t drive this process -- policy did. The intention, Lind says, “was to incentivize demand.” Meanwhile, affluent neighborhoods like Park Slope in Brooklyn and Richmond Hill in Queens were down-zoned. The net result: High-rise luxury apartments went up in Long Island City; market-rate condominiums replaced older single-family homes in overwhelmingly black Bedford-Stuyvesant; and affluent Park Slope and Richmond Hill remained virtually untouched. quote:When Seattle settled on its “Grand Bargain” for up-zoning, it may have fallen into the same trap New York City did more than a decade ago. Only 6 percent of the exclusive single-family zones in the city will be up-zoned. Much of the up-zoning will occur along Seattle’s Link light rail line and in what have long been low-income neighborhoods. Like New York before it, Seattle’s decision could unleash the brute force of the market on its low-income residents, while sparing many of its more affluent residents from the impacts of up-zoning. The placement of public transit are not independent of local political lobbying. Many rich neighborhoods have used their influence to change transit routes and this feeds back into zoning. There's also the unique weirdness of Houston. Houston might not have normal zoning, but most of the affluent suburban neighborhoods have private restrictive covenants which basically amount to single use zoning. The result is that development gets concentrated in poorer neighborhoods. I don't know how strong these effects are relative to other motives, but I'm not sure we can ignore them. Blanket state and citywide changes appeal to me in part because they completely eliminate this as an issue. Pairing upzoning with transit development is a pretty sensible policy. It's annoying that even after public transit is constructed some areas are able to prevent upzoning. Here's a picture of transit stations in the San Fernando Valley colored by neighborhood income and density:  The low density areas would have been forced to upzone by the recently killed SB50. Low density housing around mass transit stations. It's so stupid. Squalid fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Jul 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 00:54
|
|
|
Cicero posted:gently caress "selective zoning reform", America's zoning is monstrously broken and needs a complete overhaul. The mandatory SFH zoning that dominates the country is classist as all hell, and you can't support it and be a progressive. It shouldn't exist, anywhere. it isn't that broken. the bigger issue is the lack of regional coordination in zoning, which empowers small jurisdictions to enact socioeconomically exclusive zoning drilling down on restrictive zoning as the biggest problem contributing to expensive housing is conflating two distinct but related issues. places that have the most restrictive zoning also tend to have more affordable housing - i'm talking about small suburban and exurban cities which are the foundational component of sprawl. you're also not going to get anywhere trying to overturn local authority over literal thousands of local jurisdictions within CMSAs without pushing for stronger regional coordination as a state-level agency with teeth. and expanding transit access in conjunction with zoning reform is more sustainable and equitable than uncapping zoning and hoping arcologies appear my biggest issue here is sticking to "zoning!  " as if land use control is generalizable across the united states, or if we could just eliminate it somehow then our problems would be solved. zoning is just a tool, wielded by the inheritor jurisdictions of a 20th century legacy of political and economic exclusion. that is the root of the problem, and so long as localities are allowed to put economic fences around themselves then any sort of regulation can be used to reinforce exclusionary barriers. but at that point we're talking about zoning reform in suburbs, not cities, and the two are kept largely distinct by inadequate and expensive transportation modes (cars)
Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Jul 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 01:00
|
|
|
Part of it is the problem is so big and complicated its difficult to talk about the big picture, so instead we focus on little details where we feel like we have influence. Or there are things we all agree on and therefore there's no point arguing about them. I think probably everybody who posts in this thread is already going to support expanding public transit and bikes and stuff, so there's nothing to say about it. However the debate over zoning, rent control, and housing development cuts across party lines, which means we have more to say to each other on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 01:11
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Part of it is the problem is so big and complicated its difficult to talk about the big picture, so instead we focus on little details where we feel like we have influence. yeah, i see this. exclusionary single use zoning is A problem, but it is not THE problem
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 01:18
|
|
|
the issue with getting rid of zoning without heavy levels of investment and planning, it is very possible you’re going to end up with density with low levels of services and infrastructure. Personally, I would just go with the “international” method of planned high density communities with high infrastructure investment including large amounts of public housing. Also, it is possible to preserve historical areas without protecting every random subdivision.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 10:52
|
|
|
I’m watching a NewsHour special interest segment about experimental architecture in Rotterdam, and I have a really dumb question: does western Europe just not have the concerns about earthquakes, windstorms, etc that we do? This sort of thing obviously inspires the “why can’t we do that here” thinking, but when I think of it I have heard of earthquakes and tsunamis in Asia but Europe’s problems often seem to be acts of man and of nature. The most obvious problem is that while they let architects build their wildest dreams there seems to be regulation against putting logos and names on the buildings in big signage, and there just isn’t enough disgust with capitalism and advertising to achieve that sort of “public’s skyline” image.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2019 23:56
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I’m watching a NewsHour special interest segment about experimental architecture in Rotterdam, and I have a really dumb question: does western Europe just not have the concerns about earthquakes, windstorms, etc that we do? Italy has a shitload of earthquakes. Northern Europe is pretty far from any active faults tho.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
northern europe has to deal with the occasional not-hurricane aka exatropical cyclone, and in holland specifically flooding is a concern
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 00:38
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I’m watching a NewsHour special interest segment about experimental architecture in Rotterdam, and I have a really dumb question: does western Europe just not have the concerns about earthquakes, windstorms, etc that we do? This sort of thing obviously inspires the “why can’t we do that here” thinking, but when I think of it I have heard of earthquakes and tsunamis in Asia but Europe’s problems often seem to be acts of man and of nature. The concern in Rotterdam is flooding and no amount of building code is gonna protect your building from being in the middle of the risen ocean.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 03:11
|
|
|
Socialism is going to sweep America and local planning issues will be destroyed in the rise of collectivism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2019 03:56
|
|
|
JIZZ DENOUEMENT posted:Socialism is going to sweep America and local planning issues will be destroyed in the rise of collectivism. Lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 21:26
|
|
|
JIZZ DENOUEMENT posted:Water is going to sweep America and local planning issues will be destroyed in the rise of water.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 21:39
|
|
|
I’m horney for providing all human beings with dignity, human rights, and social services so that they may live a prosperous and fulfilling life
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2019 06:27
|
|
|
JIZZ DENOUEMENT posted:I’m horney for providing all human beings with dignity, human rights, and social services so that they may live a prosperous and fulfilling life Same but that isn't going to make your community planning board happy
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2019 08:11
|
|
|
JIZZ DENOUEMENT posted:I’m horney for providing all human beings with dignity, human rights, and social services so that they may live a prosperous and fulfilling life Have you considered how this will affect my ability to park my car for free on public property
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2019 12:53
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Have you considered how this will affect my ability to park my car for free on public property free parking is a human right.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2019 12:59
|
|
|
pointsofdata posted:free parking is a human right. Hello, crowd of old men at every single municipal bike infrastructure pilot program meeting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2019 13:54
|
|
|
pointsofdata posted:free parking is a human right. And so it is I am undone
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2019 14:49
|
|
|
I still kind of like the idea of the government requiring car insurance policies have minimums of $10 million rather than $50K or whatever. It's neoliberal as gently caress is the problem, and the consequence is that only rich people can drive cars, but anything to dent the culture of impunity around motorists can't be bad, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2019 15:23
|
|
|
nrook posted:I still kind of like the idea of the government requiring car insurance policies have minimums of $10 million rather than $50K or whatever. It's neoliberal as gently caress is the problem, and the consequence is that only rich people can drive cars, but anything to dent the culture of impunity around motorists can't be bad, right? Only rich people do x is true of many things in our society. It's already true that the very poorest few percent in the USA and more elsewhere either don't own a car or can't afford to drive it regularly. There are lots of priorities that a state/market manages and allocates resources to (this is true under socialism as well as capitalism) and if we allocated more to social care* and public transport and less to fossil fuel extraction and car making that would clearly be an improvement both for the planet and for social justice. The mechanism you use to get there might not matter much, unless it is super inefficient.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2019 15:34
|
|
|
Elderly homeowners in my area are throwing a shitfit over an upzoning proposal. Affordable developers are allowed to build an extra floor, and up to 3 extra floors near a transit hub.  THIS COULD HAPPEN ON YOUR STREET I love that blue building, I'd happily live in it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2019 02:01
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Elderly homeowners in my area are throwing a shitfit over an upzoning proposal. Affordable developers are allowed to build an extra floor, and up to 3 extra floors near a transit hub. I've been following this drama on facebook and its basically affordable housing is GREAT! In Area IV, or East Cambridge, or better yet Boston, keep it over there. TOTALLY not against affordable housing though. And the they can't articulate why it's bad for the area other than developer give away. Cape Cod is even worse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2019 02:32
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Elderly homeowners in my area are throwing a shitfit over an upzoning proposal. Affordable developers are allowed to build an extra floor, and up to 3 extra floors near a transit hub. Oh now you've done it. You've tipped off Insanite and now the councilors are going to have to listen to him yell about the loss of neighborhood character along with the rest of the nimby peanut gallery at the next planning meeting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2019 02:47
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Oh now you've done it. You've tipped off Insanite and now the councilors are going to have to listen to him yell about the loss of neighborhood character along with the rest of the nimby peanut gallery at the next planning meeting. I live next to Cambridge and am fine with this, though I’m obviously disappointed that the People’s Republic can’t get a little more ambitious? Not NIMBY—anticapitalist. With so much of Cambridge doomed to flood routinely by mid-century, anyhow, I think the answer is really a universal right to houseboats. Insanite fucked around with this message at 11:58 on Aug 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2019 11:30
|
|
|
Insanite posted:I live next to Cambridge and am fine with this, though I’m obviously disappointed that the People’s Republic can’t get a little more ambitious? Public housing would be great, but as long as we're still generally relying on private actors for housing, opposing having more of it is super dumb and regressive and bad. This is not more Starbucks or avocado toast cafes or whatever, people actually need housing. Plus, some of the reasons they're opposed here, as you can see blatantly written out, are anti-environment. They're pro sprawl, it's a conservative, reactionary position.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2019 22:39
|
|
|
The overlay is more supportive of affordable housing than your typical upzoning-based plan. It’s largely good in a business as usual sense, but only massive, direct state involvement can fix what needs fixing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2019 23:07
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Elderly homeowners in my area are throwing a shitfit over an upzoning proposal. Affordable developers are allowed to build an extra floor, and up to 3 extra floors near a transit hub. Lol at the "BOX LIKE BUILDINGS!!!!". What the gently caress do they want, grain silos?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2019 23:47
|
|
|
Cambridge has a lot of pretty older homes. You can live in one if you have a couple million bucks handy. Maybe they’re agitating for mansions for all. Insanite fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Aug 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2019 23:54
|
|
|
Cambridge is one of many Boston-area communities whose zoning code is apparently based on how things look like in a Wisconsin suburb rather than a New England urban area. Step one of "preserving community character" might be to make the code permit what's already typical. e.g.: https://mobile.twitter.com/ahoreality/status/1158090223697317890
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 00:15
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Lol at the "BOX LIKE BUILDINGS!!!!". What the gently caress do they want, grain silos?  change is scary
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 02:09
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
suck my woke dick posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 01:48
|
|
|
Regardless of its national rep, I don’t think Cambridge will ever be a place for all. Assuming some sort of impossible GND + federal transit-oriented development program in the future, the commuter rail towns might be, maybe. Trains can do anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2019 02:07
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Lol at the "BOX LIKE BUILDINGS!!!!". What the gently caress do they want, grain silos?  I posted something to this effect on nextdoor and here’s the response I gotquote:It is obvious you do not have a sense of aesthetic or culture. There is such a thing as proportion, massing, context, look at older houses and there are bays, wings, asymmetry. But you dont seem to understand what i am talking about. Then again, neither does some of the councilors. Sigh... quote:It is very difficult in this city when you are out numbered by renters that have the right to vote on issues that
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 17:45
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:
Landowner/homeowner rights can get hosed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 18:47
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:
Nextdoor is always a pit. What's built will probably be fugly, but I don't really see why that matters. It would be cool if it weren't fugly, but /shrug if it is. I'd rather people concentrate some of this stupid aesthetic rage on improving community spaces than policing the aesthetics of private property. That said, this whole area needs way more rowhouses with cool little gardens out back. Rowhouses rule. Rowhouses by right. Insanite fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Aug 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 22:10
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:
Isn’t it the rule in Shanghai that no two buildings can look the same?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 22:25
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Elderly homeowners in my area are throwing a shitfit over an upzoning proposal. Affordable developers are allowed to build an extra floor, and up to 3 extra floors near a transit hub. I am not American, are the houses on either side of the blue building owned by single families, or are they apartment buildings/old mansions subdivided into multiple apartments?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 22:31
|
|
|
Red Bones posted:I am not American, are the houses on either side of the blue building owned by single families, or are they apartment buildings/old mansions subdivided into multiple apartments? They're multi-family and were always built as such. Most likely 6 families for each, each getting half of a floor. Context: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-decker_(house) (Which the original of this photoshopped photo was taken from).
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 22:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 09:25 |
|
|
Red Bones posted:I am not American, are the houses on either side of the blue building owned by single families, or are they apartment buildings/old mansions subdivided into multiple apartments? they look very much like old (relatively, for america) purpose built apartment buildings, probably 6 or 12 units in the foreground and less so in the structures behind the new blue structure when people whine about historic character of a neighborhood what they're mostly mad about is changes to something they've been experiencing for many years if not decades, and this reminds them of the passage of time and the ever nearer swing of the reaper's scythe
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 22:38
|
|