Category Zoning

Zoning

EcoDensity: Scary Name, but Not-so-Bad

Vancouver’s City Council has approved an “EcoDensity” policy. How is EcoDensity different from regular density, which already comes pre-equipped with environmental benefits? Well, its just an environmental-sounding catch-prefix and comes with less bureaucracy for green developments. Planetizen – EcoDensity Approved in Vancouver Amongst the additional actions, Council has approved in principle the development of bylaws that could allow lane-oriented housing (coach houses and apartments above garages) potentially throughout the city (what we’ve called “hidden” density); new secondary suite options in every housing type (what we’ve called “invisible” density – Vancouver currently allows one secondary suite in single-detached housing, but not in other housing forms such as rowhouses and apartments); exploration of new mid-rise building typologies and associated zoning; a new “Green means Go” priority approval system for exemplary sustainable projects; the removal of numerous existing regulatory disincentives to green design approaches; EcoDensity demonstration projects on city-owned land; the development of new amenity and services funding tools to support quality density; and so on. One action in particular will represent the culmination of much of our thinking – the development over time of a new EcoCityPlan, respecting and building on the highly successful and influential CityPlan developed in the mid-90’s with incredible public engagement. It’s interesting how they are able to make an environmental case to make the bureaucratic approval process not seem so bad. “Hey, if you make it green, we’ll actually try not to slow you down as much as we usually do.” Why can’t all projects be given a speedy approval process? All-in-all, this seems like a good example of how market liberalization (while only incremental here) can be made to appeal to typically anti-market progressives. I guess all you have to is add the “Eco” prefix. How about “EcoProfits”, “EcoTrade”, “EcoPrivatization” or “EcoTaxCut”?

Adam Hengels
June 18, 2008
1 Comment

Economics, housing, Transportation, Zoning

Want Density? Turn the Free Market Loose

Matthew Yglesias – What Price Density The solution, as Ryan Avent says, is to build denser communities. We ought to build more transit infrastructure, of course, but it’s cheaper to use what we already have more intensively. And, of course, it’s more practical to build new infrastructure if there’s a reasonable expectation that it will serve intensive development. Beyond that, density also serves to make walking and biking more practical for more trips. And best of all, getting denser could be accomplished mostly through growth-enhancing relaxation of regulatory burdens. And of course if the supply of housing in central cities and nearby suburbs were radically higher, then it would be much easier for people to afford to live in them. Instead, restrictions on the supply of conveniently located housing lead to high prices and the “drive until you qualify” phenomenon that’s currently leaving many Americans in deep trouble as they try to pay for fuel. In general, relaxing density restrictions will ease housing prices. But, a couple notes: Creating more socialized infrastructure, whether transit or roads, disperses development. High densities create demand for transit, not the other way around. Transit creates demand to locate near the stations, but not elsewhere. This is because as commuters are diverted from roads, congestion subsides, allowing drivers to commute from further-out places. So, if density is the goal, I would privatize highways & parking, while putting the breaks on construction of new public highways & parking prior to building new expensive transit. If individual commuters were to pay for their use of the roads, many would alter their habits and perhaps where they choose to commute to / from. The change in location preference will, no-doubt, increase density. Building densely has higher construction costs per unit as land costs are dispersed among more units, […]

Adam Hengels
June 10, 2008
8 Comments

Zoning

“Cockamamie” Neighborhood Zones

Thanks to loyal reader, DBM for the tip on the photo link. David Weigel – Highway to the Neighborhood Zones refers to DCist – Police to Seal Off D.C. Neighborhoods The Examiner has the scoop on a controversial new program announced today that would create so-called “Neighborhood Safety Zones” which would serve to partially seal off certain parts of the city. D.C. Police would set-up checkpoints in targeted areas, demand to see ID and refuse admittance to people who don’t live there, work there or have a “legitimate reason” to be there. Shelley Broderick, president of the D.C.-area American Civil Liberties Union and the dean of the University of the District of Columbia’s law school, said the plan was “cockamamie.” “I think they tried this in Russia and it failed,” she said. Good luck opening a business and bringing jobs to those areas if customers have to pass through a checkpoint every time they enter the zone. I can’t see things getting any better in these neighborhood zones. Almost sounds like an exclusive luxury community. If they want their neighborhood sealed off, they could buy the streets from the district, build a wall, and hire their own private security. But, I assume it’s not a luxury community and they can’t afford their security.

Zoning

Carroll Gardens, Choose Only One: Setback or Height Restriction?

NY Times – Carroll Gardens: The Big Front Yards That Rob the Streets Although the yards serve as leafy margins to the streets, creating ample open space between the rows of brownstones arrayed on either side, they also put those streets into the “wide” category for zoning purposes. This means developers can build structures on those streets that are taller than would otherwise be allowed. In recent months, some local residents, with one eye on all the construction, have been objecting to this rule. Carroll Gardens, Brooklyn NIMBYs will do anything to stop development in their neighborhood. The buildings are set back so far from the street with gardens, yet they don’t want to allow taller buildings in their neighborhood, claiming the streets cant handle it. In my opinion, either allow taller buildings or end the setback requirements. Otherwise, your NIMBY selfishness is just too much.

Zoning

Over 200 Illegal Hotel Buildings in NYC

From AMNY: Report: 200 illegal hotels exist in the city There are more than 200 apartment buildings in the city that have been illegally converted to hotels, according to a report released Sunday, significantly reducing the number of rent-stabilized units available. … Illegal hotel operators frequently take advantage of tax loopholes designed to encourage the construction of residential units, according to Raskin. … Advocates are calling for increased penalties and changes in the zoning laws to clarify where hotels can and cannot operate. And today’s Sun: Crackdown Sought on Illegal Hotels in the City What does this tell us about the housing/hotel markets? It seems to me that tax structures (and probably zoning) favor housing, while there is significant unmet demand for hotel rooms. Nonetheless, there is definitely a shortage of built space in NYC, which could be better accommodated by loosening zoning restrictions on new development. Any other thoughts?

Adam Hengels
June 2, 2008

rent control, Zoning

Rent Control Part 4: Conclusion and Solutions

Welcome to the final post in the series discussing the consequences of rent control. Thank you to the subscribers who have patiently awaited each new post. I hope everyone found it enlightening. If you haven’t read the entire series, you can catch up with these links: Rent Control Part One: Microeconomics Lesson and Hording Rent Control Part Two: Black Market, Deterioration, and Discrimination Rent Control Part Three: Mobility, Regional Growth, Development, and Class Conflict Conclusion Rent control is not just a simple price control setting the price at which willing renters and landlords are permitted to do business, it is much worse. It is a coercive act that gives landlords no legal option, but to rent to a tenant against his will, often at a financial loss. Rent control adds a non-voluntary burden to landlords which deepens over time because landlords do not have the option to rent to a tenant at below market rates. Not only does rent control cause huge distortions in the housing market, but the burdens fall disproportionately on the poor and underprivileged people it was intended to benefit. Although particular people are able to live with the comfort of low rent payments, even those renters will see their living conditions deteriorate as landlords neglect repairs and maintenance. As the situation gets worse, middle class residents are able to move away, leaving behind the poorest residents who have become reliant on the reduced rent. In effect, rent control grants property rights to renters, that originally belonged to the original property owners. Rent control becomes a redistribution of wealth to rent control tenants away from apartment owners, market apartment renters, and newcomers to the area. Nonetheless, over time the quality of life decreases for all residents of a city where rent control is imposed. Solutions So, it […]

corruption, Zoning

Watch as “Expediters” Become Scapegoats of Corruption and Incompetence

It’s easier to look at the symptom: corruption, than treat the disease: government over-regulation: Chicago Tribune: Role of expediters under scrutiny as federal probe targets City Hall corruption The unsung and highly specialized role these private individuals play in the workings of city government gained notoriety last week when investigators revealed that for the last year, an expediter had been secretly recording conversations to help build an ongoing bribery case that so far has led to federal charges against 15 people. Expediters have multiplied and become fixtures at City Hall in recent years. During the height of the building boom a few years ago, the permit process stretched for many months, creating a cottage industry of people offering their expertise in the byzantine ways of the city’s zoning and building codes. These expediters will be made out as the bad guys, though most serve a valuable roll: wait in line, deal with city staff and other menial things professionals don’t want to waste valuable time doing. These guys are not squeaky clean – many expediters are people you wouldn’t want your daughter dating, but dig deeper to find the real bad guys: the bureaucrats who thrive on bad bureaucracy. The harder it is to do your business, the more it’s worth to hire someone to “expedite” the approval process. They get their kickbacks, campaign contributions, and SkyBox tickets just because they are not competent enough to get the job done quickly, and/or aren’t properly funded to do the job properly. Meanwhile, important projects are delayed, investment capital sits idle, materials wait in a warehouse, and people wait for their homes, offices, or stores to be built. Dig deeper below the surface, and you’ll see the whole crooked system of patronage, political contributions, payoffs, and deal-making fueled by government regulation, lobbying, […]

corruption, Zoning

Bribery for Property Rights: Federal Charges in Chicago

NBC5 has an update listing the people involved and video here: New Corruption Charges Hit Building, Zoning Departments Chicago Tribune: U.S. to announce charges against 15 in city bribe-taking probe (thanks to Dan M. for the tip) Federal authorities are set to announce charges Thursday against 15 people, including seven City of Chicago employees, after an investigation into bribe-taking at the city’s Zoning and Building Departments. City Hall’s zoning process is the subject of the Tribune’s ongoing “Neighborhood for Sale” series. The stories detail how millions of dollars in campaign donations greased zoning changes that transformed the city during the real estate boom of the past decade. What’s scary is that land use is so regulated and the stakes are so high, that developers have to bribe government employees in order to exercise their own property rights. But, that’s how it works: politicians downzone areas, knowing that developers will have to scratch the politicians’ backs to build what the market tells them. There’s often the added political bonus of downzoning to pander to NIMBY factions. The downzoning creates a barrier to entry so that only the developers who are politically savvy can get things done. (see Tony Rezko) It makes the whole planning/development system corrupt. Should we be a bit surprised bribery is happening?

Zoning

Lower East Side Now “Endangered”?

photo by flickr user paytonc The National Trust for Historic Preservation announced that New York City’s Lower East Side, famous for it’s history of tenements and slums, is one of 11 architectural, cultural, and natural heritage sites that are most at risk “for destruction or irreparable damage.” By “damage”, they mean new luxury towers filled with wealthy people, replacing aged tenements filled with yuppies and hipsters. From the NY Sun: ‘Endangered’ Is Designation as Lower East Side Waxes Professor of Urban Policy and Planning at New York University, Mitchell Moss: “The overall neighborhood is witnessing a transformation. And just as young people move into that area, I certainly hope they are not planning to bring back historically dangerous conditions like cholera, typhoid, and open sewers,” Of course, this comes with downzoning, which will limit supply, drive up rent and land prices, and increase the incentive to tear down more buildings. Thus, quickening demolitions and gentrification. I can understand protecting a few particular locations or buildings, but to downzone the entire area will put a huge burden on the City’s housing supply. Also, Curbed: The Lower East Side is an Endangered Species

Adam Hengels
May 21, 2008

Zoning

A Recipe to Destroy Affordability in Any City.

Austin Contrarian discusses an article that describes how Seattle has become less affordable in recent years. He prescribes a recipe for Austin to become what he calls a “Superstar City” such as New York, Boston, San Francisco, or Seattle. By “Superstar City”, I assume he means an ultra-hip place where housing prices rise rapidly, NIMBY activism grows, and development is restricted, making it even less affordable for many, except the wealthy and subsidized. The agenda would work for any city: Here’s the agenda I’d propose for propelling Austin into the “Superstar City” pantheon: (1) discourage the construction of traditionally affordable housing like garage apartments and duplexes; (2) restrict the amount of land available for multi-family housing; (3) strictly limit multi-family density; (4) limit the construction of upscale condos and townhomes in order to force affluent homebuyers to compete for the scarce supply of close-in housing; (5) ban small-lot and “urban home” zoning; (6) require property owners/developers who build dense developments to shoulder the financial burden for things like affordable housing, parks and infrastructure; and (7) impose onerous design standards to increase the cost of new construction. We can call it the “progressive” agenda. We’ll be in the superstar ranks in no time. Austin Contrarian: Sound familiar?

Adam Hengels
May 14, 2008

Trending now