1. A report on (Western) European parking policies. Abstract of the abstract: Big on charging market rates for on-street parking, but also big on capping private developer’s ability to build parking. I’d be interested to see an analysis like this done to see if the caps are actually set lower than the market equilibrium. Streetsblog also has a good summary.
2. It’s unfortunate that this developer chose to express himself in such an unsympathetic way (someone should teach him the meaning of the word “corruption,” in particular), but his analysis of NYC’s recent property tax assessment hikes is consistent with what we’ve seen before: people who live in apartments are taxed at higher rates than people who live in single-family homes.
3. Urbanists are trying to change Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and HUD’s policies of not funding small mixed use projects. From what I understand, the GSEs’ role in financing American mortgages has actually increased in the wake of the financial crisis, so the federal bias against mixed use may actually be stronger than it was before the recession.
4. Washington, DC may speed through zoning changes that require parking to not be out front. I’m not sure, but I think that DC currently has some laws mandating that it be out front, which means this would be yet another example of zoning codes going from density-forbidding to density-forcing without any intermediate stop.
5. Remember yesterday when I said that Gallaudet was a bigger drag on its neighborhood than the industrial-looking blight nearby? DC lawmakers may try to one-up Gallaudet by replacing the buildings with a soccer stadium.
Regarding DC’s parking regulations – I’m not sure I follow you on the density comment. These regulations have nothing to do with density at all. They don’t even have anything to do (yet) with the number of parking spaces to be provided – they only specify where those spaces should go. It’s a design measure.
Yeah, you’re right – but still, you get my point…they went from mandating that stores look suburban to mandating that they look urban, without stopping and maybe just letting developers decide for themselves what they wanted their projects to look like.
Yes, I get your point – but I don’t necessarily agree. Regulating the basic bulk and orientation of a building is exactly what a zoning code is for. Even the most free-market of real estate developments back before zoning would constrain themselves to some basic rules of building massing and orientation so to provide an efficient and consistent outcome.
In short, I don’t buy the idea that there must be a continuum within the scope of an regulation like this. The actual breadth of the regulation hasn’t changed, just the content of it.
Yes, I get your point – but I don’t necessarily agree. Regulating the basic bulk and orientation of a building is exactly what a zoning code is for. Even the most free-market of real estate developments back before zoning would constrain themselves to some basic rules of building massing and orientation so to provide an efficient and consistent outcome.
In short, I don’t buy the idea that there must be a continuum within the scope of an regulation like this. The actual breadth of the regulation hasn’t changed, just the content of it.
“Considering the hazard of monotony, the most serious fault in our zoning laws lies in the fact that they ‘permit’ an entire area to be devoted to a single use.” – Jane Jacobs
“Considering the hazard of monotony, the most serious fault in our zoning laws lies in the fact that they ‘permit’ an entire area to be devoted to a single use.” – Jane Jacobs
That’s a fair point, Mike, and I agree – but also irrelevant to the question at hand for DC’s zoning code. This is a minor change about the location of parking lots. It says nothing about the underlying use of the land, the density, etc.
DC is undergoing a long and tedious process to re-write the entire zoning code, hopefully to eliminate those kinds of maladies that Jacobs refers to. This is one small step in that process.
The way I’m reading it, the regulators think that there’s a market failure, in that developers are used to building suburban-style development and will need some government regulations to build urban-style retail; this was the explanation for Houston’s urban form given by Jane Jacobs, who was not familiar with details like parking minimums, setbacks, and minimum lot sizes. In principle the government could make a lot of money from such market failures, but it’s pretty much illegal for the government to be a for-profit developer, instead of a builder of public housing.
Jane Jacobs bought into the myth of no zoning in Houston, too?? If I can find the quote, that totally deserves its own post.
http://reason.com/archives/2001/06/01/city-views