That's probably true everywhere. If you build for certain requirements, your building won't meet a different set of requirements.
I suppose you could go to smaller cities/towns and say that it would also be illegal to build apartments there - but the types of houses in suburban towns built 50 years are still very legal today.
A title like "Zoning laws explicitly forbid increasing density" or something would be more interesting/accurate. Saying "X% of houses would be illegal OMGZ!", while true, is not particularly productive as it implies its bad, but the a solution using zoning to increase density could have the exact same headline.
I'm fairly certain you could buy an apartment building in Manhattan, demolish it, and build a picket-fence house there. It was just lose you tens or hundreds of millions of dollars so no one has done it.
From what I can tell the way that interactive was constructed it would also highlight a lot if it fell into the category you mentioned but I can't find any where this is the case. It is a one-side problem and to pretend like it is two-sided is a bit detached from reality.
I'm not from U.S but why would black people decrease property values? Isn't this really about poor people (that in the U.S are more likely to be black) decrease property values?
Here's an example of the same house in the same neighborhood being appraised much higher when the appraiser didn't know there was a black occupant:
https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/nation-world/jacksonville-...
Money quote: "... because in the Black community, it’s just common knowledge that you take your pictures down when you’re selling the house."
"White communities are more likely to have strict land use regulations (and whites are more likely to support those regulations).[25][26] Strict land use regulations are an important driver of housing segregation along racial lines in the United States.[25]"
Further reading: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-s...
But also, the point is that SF keeps changing the rules. Places that don't change the rules as often won't have this problem.
I've lived in newer homes over the last couple of decades. It's awesome to have smoke detectors in every room, grounded outlets, GFCI outlets, well-insulated windows and exterior walls, firewalls, plenum-rated cables, safe and easy-to-maintain plumbing.
The market would've only demanded a subset of these improvements. And the least expensive builders would've just built residences without them.
Also, newer homes are amazing in terms of heath retention and isolation. Having lived in buildings from before the war with either none of very little isolation.or even worse, i once lived in a home with a split in the wall thanks to a WW2 bmobin raid. The crack was not an issue in regards to the structural integrity, but it made isolation mood.
It's just regulation promoting low density is bad.
Libertarians love this example to troll the statist left that the state can't be trusted to control things wisely, but I'm just happy to hope undoing these things can be bipartisan, because the real estate lobby is so strong it's needed.
That’s the refrain.
The places that are not built up get borders around them too. Those places are zoned for a particular use based on the wild ass guess of some elected officials. Since those elected officials cannot see the future, those wild ass guesses are often wrong.
And then there was Isla del Sol. Dredged from Boca Ciega Bay, it destroyed the incredibly productive fishery and is the reason the ACoE became involved in reviewing projects for environmental impact.
That's they way cities are. They build and learn.
Most dangerous regulations are taken quite seriously however, Electrics are usually old(80's and later) but not ancient(pre-ww2 - reconstruction).
Water and gas supply is usually in good order because of the strict laws regarding those regulations.