Hacker News Reader

Comment by wollsmoth | Hacker News Reader

Zoning makes sense in some cases. I might not want someone to build factory on a residential street for example. But we need more units being built. I don't think it really matters if they're affordable or not, rental or for purchase. Add a million or so units to any city and it should sort itself out I'd think.

View on HN

It really depends on the kind of factory. I live in a residential neighborhood with 'factories' right down the street. The factories produce small batch food, artisanal crafts, etc (there's a lovely chocolate factory 10 blocks away). Many sell to large audiences, or have national brands. I don't see what the big deal is at all. The neighborhood is lovely. It is more walkable than 95% of American neighborhoods. It's a historic neighborhood with lovely trees, beautiful architecture, and lovely ornamental details. It is highly priced and inhabited by well-to-do people. There is a natural limit on factory growth (namely lack of space). If a company outgrows its space, it'll have to move somewhere more appropriate and let a smaller growing business occupy its space.

Why fear such factories?

Of course, factories with toxic waste and pollution? Yes those should be built far away from people, but actually, my parents, who live in the suburbs are closer to that sort of thing than I am even though there spot feels more 'open' due to zoning.

While I agree with your example, I think we can do better than we do now. Having strictly residential zoning, then strictly commercial zoning, increases reliance on driving everywhere.

My first house had very interesting/interspersed zoning. Basically, businesses lined the main street, then houses were built immediately behind them all. I didn't have a neighbor behind me, it was a giant flower warehouse. It felt so private. It was amazing being able to have a house with a big yard, AND be able to walk anywhere. Vet, immediate care center, several restaurants, gas station, and much more all in short walking distance. I think the only thing I had to drive for was grocery and clothes shopping.

Everywhere I've lived since seem to put residences by themselves, far from any business. I can't stand it, and wish I could find something like my old setup again.

It’s a bit amusing that you noted the gas station as being within walking distance.

LOL yeah, the irony isn't lost on me. I guess I meant to paint it more as a place to grab snacks, drinks, foods, medicines, etc. Not the whole gasoline part :).

Yeah I live in a city and don't own a car. Mixed commercial/residential is fine usually. Noise from machinery and stuff should be watched though. You might not want an outdoor EDM club in your backyard. A flower warehouse seems fine!

Replace your flower warehouse with a metal shop. Welding, metal cutting/bending etc. Sure sounds like a fun place to live.

There's a reason people generally prefer not to live next to businesses. And despite a lot of rhetoric about how cities are the future, there's an awful lot of people who prefer suburbs.

A childhood friend lived next to a metal working shop as you suggest being so terrible.

Well, maybe it was noisy at times. On the other hand, one hole in the fence and hoo boy did we pilfer scrap and offcuts enough to build forts that would have put Helms Deep to shame.

I don't care if people who prefer suburbs choose go live in them, but I would like them to stop imposing their preferences on the rest of us. If someone wants to live next to a metal shop, why should anyone else stop them? If living next to a metal shop sucks, wouldn't that be reflected in the rental price? Maybe it's worth it. Maybe someone who's deaf or hard of hearing will move in, and feel like they're getting a great deal. Who knows? By regulating such things out of existence, the zoning code pretends it knows better than all the rest of us, but it really cannot.

I used to live in an apartment above a makerspace, and that was pretty great.

Lived in a suburb a plot away from such shop, at least I think it was one as there were regularly metal shawings outside. Never any issue with noise or anything.

Yup, this is my neighborhood. I can walk down to a corner store gas station. Walk a bit further to a grocery store. Walk to a bakery, walk to a taco shop. I had a back spasm recently and my wife was out with the kids in our car, and I walked to urgent care. Was no big deal at all. Just lovely. On top of the restaurants and services that line the 'big street' next to me, there are several manufacturers of goods. Chocolate shops, woodcrafters, bakeries, some crafty things, textile manufacturer, even a noodle maker. Perfectly lovely neighborhood. Better than 99% I've lived in.

The prospective factory owner doesn't want to locate their facility on a residential street either; there are no attractive amenities there. There's inadequate power, expensive waste disposal, inconvenient shipping, and no access to similar facilities.

Zoning wasn't invented to protect residential neighborhoods from factories, it was devised to protect mansions from apartment buildings.

https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9780801479878/zone...

Why would someone build a factory where housing will doubtless have better returns sooner?

Japan’s maximum nuisance zoning seems more sensible to me than either our status quo and 0 zoning.

why do you think 'housing will doubtless have better returns'? If that was the case, then there would be zero factories.

If housing already exists in a place there’s probably demand there and existing infrastructure suitable for residential use.

A factory will need access to wider enough roads, a highway/railhead/port, high voltage power lines/gas lines, skilled labor, and so on. A residential area probably isn’t a suitable site along those lines. I’m sure exception exist.

That said I like the idea of max nuisance zoning, as I mentioned.

My city is mostly low rise, but there is one area 'the business district' where there are exclusively 10+ storey buildings being built. The funny thing is that this used to be an area full of traditional houses (50+ years old), and some plots still are traditional houses. So when walking down the street you have office building, traditional house, office building, car park, traditional house, high rise apartment. 15 years ago before the first office buildings were built this was a bit of a slum area, and some houses are still poorly maintained.

I'm sure at first the residents complained big about this, but now the value of their land has skyrocketed for two reasons:

a) Developers want to buy their houses and build more office blocks and apartments

b) Wealthy individuals want to buy their houses so they can live within walking distance of their office

> Zoning makes sense

I don’t want to live next to a factory, nightclub, power plant, airport, munitions depot, gas station, homeless shelter, drug rehab clinic, massage parlor

And that’s fine if you do - I’ll just self segment into the zoned neighborhoods

Op did call out exceptions for “egregious externalities.”

A factory could reasonably be considered to have egregious externalities.

But filtering out egregious externalities is… “zoning” so their logic seems circular.

Doesn't seem circular to me, they are against current zoning because it goes beyond what they consider "egregious". Lighter zoning that only dictated limits for sound levels and chemicals used would probably fit their definition of good zoning.

Limits like 'no metal dumps within 1000 feet of residential areas' are fine. They're not zoning, as no pre-existing zone is set up. According to wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoning), zoning is when a city divides land up into zones and then dictates use. Limits like these are just externality captures. They're good and necessary for good urban life.

As an example, I was going to buy land in a rural town to develop into a nice little mini tiny home resort. It was going to be super cute. However, the zoning meant I couldn't do it. Not because there wasn't something just like it next door (like other resorts). No, just beacuse the letter next to the property in the registry wasn't the right one, and changing it would be a nightmare. Why? As long as I'm not dumping heavy metals onto neighbor's property, the water, or the air, why do these letters hold so much sway? Exactly why do we need 'recreational-only' property right next to an existing vacation business? It only serves to entrench existing competition, and make new ventures more difficult.

Semantic wank aside; it’s not really up to one poster on HN to dictate what is and is not acceptable within a community.

Satisfying their definition is not an obligation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com