Here is Wikipedia's definition of exclusionary zoning:

Exclusionary zoning is the use of zoning ordinances to exclude certain types of land uses from a given community, especially to regulate racial and economic diversity. In the United States, exclusionary zoning ordinances are standard in almost all communities. Exclusionary zoning was introduced in the early 1900s, typically to prevent racial and ethnic minorities from moving into middle- and upper-class neighborhoods. Municipalities use zoning to limit the supply of available housing units, such as by prohibiting multi-family residential dwellings or setting minimum lot size requirements.

This is a common way to think about it. Prohibiting multi-family residential is a way to try and keep renters away. And mandating minimum lot sizes is a way to ensure that lots don't get subdivided and that nobody builds homes of, you know, lesser value.

It's more or less a way of setting a minimum bar, which is why the term exclusionary zoning is used. If you don't meet this minimum bar, you are excluded.

Many of you will know my views on this (related post, here). But for the purposes of today's post, consider this question: Should there also be an upper bound? In other words, should there be things like maximum lot sizes?

Manhattan Beach, California seems to think so, which is why when Rob DeSantis bought three adjacent lots in 2000 for $13 million and proceeded to build a 12,640 square foot home -- one that is currently on the market for $150 million -- the City reacted by forming a "Mansionization Committee."

And ultimately they decided, through the passing of a new ordinance, that mansions of this fortitude should not be allowed in Manhattan Beach. It's just too much.

So it turns out that exclusionary zoning actually cuts both ways. You can be too poor for a particular community. Or, you can be too rich.

This morning I spoke to the Globe and Mail about the evolving nature of Dupont Street here in Toronto. The impetus for the discussion was this: Dupont Street is now seeing a lot of residential intensification, but the street itself remains a bit of a crosstown highway. It's not yet a "complete street." And since Junction House is effectively on the west end of this midtown artery, John Lorinc asked to get my thoughts.

The point I tried to make is that, in my opinion, this is first and foremost a zoning issue. Dupont Street is seeing intensification, but it is largely happening on the north side of the street, abutting the rail corridor (purple and red in the above Official Plan map). The south side of the street is, for the most part, a low-rise neighborhood (yellow in the above map).

This kind of edge condition is somewhat unique in the city: low-rise on one side of the street; higher density housing, retail, and office on the other. But it is particularly problematic if you're trying to create a great main street, because single-sided retail streets generally don't work very well.

We could certainly have a discussion about sidewalk widths, bike lanes, and other streetscape improvements; but in my mind, there is nothing inherently bad about the cross section of this street. The right-of-way width is 20 meters, meaning there are generally two lanes going in each direction. This is a dimension you'll find all over the city, including on beloved streets like Queen Street.

The problem here is what is abutting the street, and it is something that is systemic across the city: we have too many arterial roads that only allow for low-rise housing. So if you were to ask me what to do next, and I was asked this morning, the first thing I would do is up-zone the south side of Dupont and allow for non-residential uses at grade.

And once this is done, I am certain it will snowball many other positive improvements.

This is an interesting article about the neighborhood-based social network, Nextdoor, and how it has become a tool for housing politics:

Overall, activists both for and against more housing regard Nextdoor as an increasingly influential and even critical tool in the fight, which conflicts with the platform’s marketing as a friendly, kinder social media. Rather than being the neighborhood bulletin board, Nextdoors around the country are looking more like the local zoning commission hearing.

Housing debate is no stranger to social media, but in the case of Nextdoor, the audience gets focused down to the scale of a neighborhood. And that clearly changes things.

For the full article, click here.