> rent hikes caused by zoning codes and regulations that push the price of building up higher and higher
-bostonjeff
-bostonjeff
Legislation like "new construction must not be more than N floor(s) higher than surrounding properties" might help, rather than the simple fixed height limit many areas set.
'Heritage' is a different issue - most western countries are far too conservative here
This video is really informative in this regard and has changed my opinion on a few things:
we know that we don't want it get too big or loud - no 50 story office building, or vape shops and bars on every corner - so we write blanket rules restricting certain kinds of construction and grant power to the people already living there for changes to the code itself and approval over all buildings matching the existing code
this puts all the power in two types of people - those entrenched in this process with political and financial power, and existing homeowners. Both of these groups then use their power to preserve what they already have and impose their ideal of a neighborhood over everyone else
and because we live in America not only do the people in power act knowingly in the interest of preserving their wealth and power but also incorporate their biases - especially against members of a class or race - into exclusio
this is so fundamentally broken and yet as a fundamental construct American cities lack any mechanism for questioning the concentration of power in homeowners and it is crazy.
in a transit starved stretch of Brooklyn, homeowners blocked a bus lane from going up just because they wouldn't let go of a hundred parking spots during weekday business hours. entire communities suffer because people who own homes and cars refuse to compromise
wood frame is cheaper to build than either concrete or steel, which are the other predominant building materials (which allow much taller builds).
There are always exceptions. There are always circumstances. There are always NIMBYs. AFAICT, you cannot regulate how land is used — which isn't necessarily a bad thing — without bumping into those things, which seems invariably to compromise, or at least complicate, the effort.
I would still very much prefer zoning over someone who can afford to do so deciding, simply on that basis, that he's going to build, say, a tannery up-wind of my home.
Imposing your externalities upon others is, IMO, a bright-line breach of the NAP. (Since it's so often Libertarian-leaning folk who are all, "But zoning!")
EDIT: phrasing
The peoblem with zoning is that it allows you to stop lots of things that would not qualify as a nuisance. And it prevents lots of things that would be an economic win (buildimg a high rise in a previous low rise neighborhood if property owners were willing to sell out).