Tag: single use zoning

• Everything looks in place here

  

  I was in the mood for some light reading before bed earlier this week, and so I pulled out this comparative critique of Euclidean zoning. Many of you are probably familiar with how single-use zoning works. It is the dominant form of zoning in North America and it is predicated on the idea of “everything in its place.” Meaning, land uses are best off when they are segregated and put into distinct zones: commercial here, industrial over there, residential in these areas, and so on.

  But there are a whole host of arguments for why this is bad cities. Among other things, it makes them less sustainable, because typically you need to drive between zones when you want to do things. It makes them less resilient, because you’ve now created monocultures. And it also encourages segregation, because if this zone is only for 2-acre single-family lots, then only people who can afford a 2-acre lot get to live there.

  I’m sure that many of you are already aware of these arguments. So what I found most interesting from this light bedtime reading was the comparison to the French model of urbanism. One of the key differences in cities such as Paris is that the French have historically preferred to zone for structures over uses. In other words, aesthetics and how buildings look have long been a priority, but what happens inside of them has been less of one.

  The result is an incredible mix of uses that makes the city what it is today. And this is perhaps the great irony of Paris. Its visual harmony might make you believe that “everything is in its place.” But really things are often all over the place — as they should be in a city. Adding to this irony is the fact that many single-use cities do not actually appear very orderly, even though they’re kind of supposed to by design.

  I thought this was an interesting way of looking at these two different models of urbanism. It makes the case that not everything needs to be in its place; maybe it just needs to look that way and the rest will figure itself out.

  2023.05.03

• Anachronistic employment areas

  Today I was at the Land & Development Conference here in Toronto. I started live tweeting during the breakfast, but my vintage iPhone 6 couldn’t keep up, so I had to stop. Some insights throughout the day. But a lot of what you would expect. I suppose it’s more about the networking.

  I would, however, like to reiterate something that Ken Greenberg mentioned about Employment Areas/Lands in Toronto. For those of you who aren’t familiar, these lands are essentially intended to serve one, and only one, purpose: employment. And the process for introducing a mix of uses, including residential, is an onerous one to say the least.

  I appreciate why this is the case. But I agree with Greenberg in that this kind of single use zoning is antiquated. It does not reflect the realities of the market today. There are other mechanisms we can use to maintain and provide for employment, and ensure that we don’t end up with a city of all residential.

  2018.05.15

• To connect rather than isolate

  

  When I was
  a kid growing up in the suburbs of Toronto, I never played in the backyard. I
  played in the streets. That’s where all the kids came together.

  We would
  play baseball in somebody’s driveway, using one of the garage door “squares” as
  the strike zone. We would play football on corner lots, where it was tackle on
  the grass and “two-hand touch” on the street. And we would wax our curbs so
  that we could skateboard them.

  None of these
  spaces were ever really intended for baseball, football, or skateboarding, but
  we kids repurposed them.

  As people,
  including families, continue to move into urban centers around the world, I
  have no doubt that the next generation of children will once again repurpose
  spaces for play. But that doesn’t mean that we don’t have work to do when it
  comes to properly preparing our communities for people of all shapes and sizes.

  One of the
  most interesting design challenges facing us today has to do with our towers.

  Architects
  have long been obsessed with the idea of vertical villages. Le Corbusier’s Unité
  d’habitation in Marseille had two shopping streets embedded within the tower
  that were intended to act as public spines. I don’t know how well they did, but
  it was a highly progressive idea for the time.

  Following
  on this idea, I was recently watching a
  TED talk with architect Ole Scheeren (thanks Mariane) and I was fascinated
  by his obsession with breaking down the raw verticality of towers.

  His belief
  was that, yes, cities are and will continue to become more dense through tall
  buildings, but that most towers isolate rather than connect people. His work strives to do the opposite.

  And this
  one of the big trends that I think we will see more of in our cites. We will see
  new forms of urban connectedness and a blurring of private, public, and
  semi-public spaces. Screw Euclidean zoning.

  On that
  note, I am reminded that I owe the ATC community a post on my predictions for
  2016. I hope to get that out shortly.

  Diagram via Büro Ole Scheeren

  2016.01.22

• In worship of the single-family residential zone

  Daniel Hertz of City Observatory recently published an interesting post talking about what makes American zoning unique compared to the rest of the world. It is based on the conclusions of a book published earlier this year called Zoned in the USA.

  Here are 2 snippets that I liked from his post:

  Hirt’s major claim is that what really sets American zoning apart is its orientation, explicit or implicit, to putting the single-family residential zone at the top of the hierarchy of urban land uses. Not only are single-family zones listed first in many zoning codes, but they make up significant pluralities, or even majorities, of total land area in most American cities. Interestingly, Hirt points out that this wasn’t necessarily true when zoning was first introduced: New York’s famous first zoning law didn’t even have a single-family zone at all.

  As Hirt points out, Americans appear to be unique in believing that there is something so special about single-family homes that they must be protected from all other kinds of buildings and uses—even other homes, if those homes happen to share a wall. The recent revolt in Seattle over a proposal to soften that city’s single-family districts, in other words, would not be possible anywhere else in the world, not least because very few people live in single-family districts to begin with.

  I don’t know if Canada is covered in the book, but we clearly share many similarities with that of the US.

  I would say more, but at this point in the day I should probably rest my eyes and stop looking at a computer screen. Hopefully we can continue this discussion in the comment section below.

  2015.09.16

• Who should zone cities?

  

  The Old Urbanist has just published an informative post called “Where Zoning Went Wrong.” In it, he talks about some of the defining characterstics of American city planning and suggests that the delegation of planning authority from states to local municipalities is what has caused many of the challenges that city builders now face.

  But before we get into that discussion, let’s outline the characeristics. By way of Edward Bassett’s handbook on zoning (1922), the Old Urbanist outlines 9 characeristics of American planning. They are:

  1. Approval of the exclusion of commercial activity from residential zones
  2. Failure to disapprove of the exclusion of multifamily from residential zones
  3. Extreme deference to localities
  4. Insistence on a “comprehensive” plan
  5. Irreconcilable conflict between planning and zoning
  6. Heavy reliance on legal process as a substitute for sound policymaking
  7. Rejection of aesthetic concerns
  8. Concern with protecting the wealth of well-to-do homeowners
  9. Lack of comparative focus

  If you’re a planner or city geek, some of these items will be familiar to you – particularly the first one. Single-use zoning (or Euclidean zoning) is widely criticized as being hugely detrimental to cities, which is why mixed-use is so much in vogue right now. We’ve realized that there are tremendous benefits to creating neighborhoods and precincts where people can live, work, play, and learn. And not just do one of those things.

  But one point that somewhat surprised me was number 3: the deference to localities. The Old Urbanist’s argument is that around the world – from Germany to Japan – state and federal governments play a much more active role in city planning as compared to the US. And that the result is a different kind of city. As one example, most other countries don’t have single-family detached-only residential zones. The US does.

  Now, you could argue that it’s partially cultural. The US is all about individualism, whereas many other countries around the world have a greater sense of collectivism. But as the Old Urbanist suggests, it could also be because local municipalities are more prone to NIMBYism, which can ultimately lead to downzoning and more restrictive land use policies. Interesting.

  It was surprising to me though because I’m a firm believer in strong cities. They drive the economy and I generally believe that they deserve to look after themselves. And so could it really be that they need higher levels of government to keep advocacy groups and community opposition in check?

  Immediately I thought of the planning environment here in Toronto and Ontario. The Places to Grow Act, which is largely responsible for the intensification we’re seeing across the region, is provincial legislation. And “the Board” (OMB) that hears appeals arising from the municipal planning level is also provincial. So in other words, provincial decisions trump municipal ones.

  Many people believe that the OMB should be abolished. But probably an equal number of people believe that it’s critical to keeping development moving in Ontario. And, given our discussion here, it could be keeping our land use policies in check.

  But at the same time, I wonder if there isn’t a way to structure local planning such that it doesn’t succumb to individual interests and instead keeps the greater city building agenda at the forefront. If you have any thoughts on this, I’d love to hear from you in the comment section below.

  Image: Old Urbanist

  2014.07.29

• The tale of 2 Chicagos

  Over the long weekend I wrote a post called “On medium density development.” My argument was that Toronto has gotten exceptional at building infill towers, but not so great at midrise and other medium density infill solutions. Though to be fair, we are starting to see more and more of that today.

  Well it turns out that Chicago is in a similar, if not worse, position. According to Aaron Renn of the Urbanophile blog, most of the city (outside of the city center) only allows for single family homes. Though in some cases you may be allowed a duplex or triplex.

  Here’s a map:

  

  The red is where you’re only allowed to build single family homes. The yellow represents non-residential uses (parks, industry and so on). And the remaining black is where you’d see high density development. Note how it runs all along Lake Michigan. Both Toronto and Chicago are developing in a similar “T” formation.

  Now, some of you may be saying to yourself: So what? But it’s important to remember that this type of zoning effectively creates a supply constraint in the market, which, as I’ve argued before, will drive up prices. Chicago may as well be surrounded by mountains, because that red area seems almost untouchable from a development standpoint.

  With so many people rushing back to cities today, a lot of them are struggling to create the same market environment that our parents enjoyed. You know the one where you finish school, get a job, and then you’re able to buy a house. But I think it’s because many of our cities are at a turning point, and yet are clinging to outdated principles of city building, such as single-use zoning.

  But I’m certainly no expert on Chicago, so if you are, please speak up in the comment section below.

  2014.02.18