https://marketurbanism.com/2016/07/19/quantifying-the-effects-of-california-zoning-rules/ Liberalizing cities | From the bottom up Fri, 14 Jan 2022 17:30:52 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.1.1 https://marketurbanism.com/2016/07/19/quantifying-the-effects-of-california-zoning-rules/#comment-21272 Fri, 22 Jul 2016 02:57:00 +0000 http://www.marketurbanism.com/?p=6651#comment-21272 The purpose of land use regulation is to protect the value of existing development, housing in particular. Stable value long term is critical to financing. Standards for development tend to increase over time, in units and for developments. Developers pay for nothing. Any donations for infrastructure, rights-of-way, etc. are put into the unit price and financed at market rates. Home owners count on appreciating value and the system supports that trend. Owner occupied housing has always been favored, as such people have been considered more stable and community oriented. The U.S. has a housing stock that is primarily single-family detached, which is high maintenance and does not make good rental property, yet that is the stock the “urban vulnerability” fears, post WW-II, have generated in the auto-dependent suburban world. Planners can analyze all day. The 1974 “Costs of Sprawl” proved that suburban development was not cost-effective, but that did not lead to correction to an historic city-building approach. Densities for units and household size declined, so there are fewer and fewer people in any built-out area. The built-environment looks dense; each person needs an auto for most trips, yet these areas can’t support transit. Why the low density, automobile dependent suburbs in the U.S.? Urban Vulnerability-Fear of Nuclear Attack led to U.S. Policies to Disperse Population in the 1950’s-Oops, that’s Sprawl

]]>