Comments on: Links

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 02:48:00 +0000

http://reason.com/archives/2001/06/01/city-views

By: Stephen

Stephen — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 00:03:00 +0000

Jane Jacobs bought into the myth of no zoning in Houston, too?? If I can find the quote, that totally deserves its own post.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 00:01:00 +0000

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.

By: Alex B.

Alex B. — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 18:51:00 +0000

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.

By: Mike M.

Mike M. — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 23:50:00 +0000

“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

By: Mike M.

Mike M. — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 23:50:00 +0000

“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

By: Alex B.

Alex B. — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:49:00 +0000

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.

By: Alex B.

Alex B. — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:49:00 +0000

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.