I don't see the distinction. Zoning laws are NIMBYism encoded in policy.
You don’t want heavy industry to be co-located with residential areas, for no other reason than heavy industry occasionally have catastrophic accidents that destroy many square miles of buildings. You don’t want residential buildings in that blast radius.
Equally zoning laws that specify the exact type of housing in a residential area strikes me as counterproductive, and clear case of NIMBYism encoded in policy.
I am fan of planning policy that restricts building types in order to mitigate obvious health risks. And provides guidance on where commercial and residential areas are (but doesn’t introduce strict restrictions). After that I think people should be allowed to build where they want. If they want a house in the middle of a commercial district, that’s their choice. Just don’t complain about the noise.
It is very much true that you need zoning, but the most egregious elements of american zoning are the outcome of NIMBYism and racism, and yet american zoning will allow schools within the blast radius of chemical plants. Horrifyingly, I was thinking of the 2013 West Fertiliser plant and checking whether my recollection that there had been a school nearby was correct (it was) when I discovered that in 2019 a TPC plant blowing up also damaged a nearby school.
> After that I think people should be allowed to build where they want. If they want a house in the middle of a commercial district, that’s their choice. Just don’t complain about the noise.
IIRC, japanese zoning works in terms of "nuisance levels" (noise, pollution, traffic, …). You could have a house in the middle of a mid-level nuisance commercial district, but not a noisy business in the middle of a (low nuisance) residential district; however low-nuisance businesses would be allowed just fine.
Would you be ok with a strip club and liquor store next to a elementary school? I wouldn't, and appreciate zoning laws for that reason.
Simply blaming NIMYism feels like lazy analysis. Every community is different.. how, why, and where things are built is far too complex to explain w/one word.
There is a link between the availability of liquor stores and fast food restaurants near school, and students consuming unhealthy levels of both. (For liquor you just pay some random in the street to buy for you, or you find a store that doesn’t ID). As with many things in life, if you make something convenient, people will use it more.
As a result fast food restaurants and off licences are generally restricted from be built near schools, and for fast food restaurants, also delivering to schools.
Obviously elementary school children are probably to young to be influenced by either, the but the above applies for older age groups.
I don’t think strict zoning is the right approach to solve issues like this, it’s an extremely crude tool for urban planning. But specific, evidence backed (I.e. there’s strong evidence that co-locating these buildings have significant negative impacts on local populations), restrictions on what types of buildings can co-exist seems reasonable.
Not in your backyard indeed. Others don't want multi-family low-income housing in their neighborhood either for presumably similar reasons.