Hirt wrote a really good book here, especially good in its comparisons of American zoning to international practices, mainly in Europe. Hirt also includes sections analyzing the historical development of zoning practices, but those didn’t interest me quite as much.
Hirt writes
that Americans favored zoning because they thought it was straightforward in
its constraints of private actions, because they perceived it ats public
protections of private property, and because zoning rules guaranteed an
idealized housing form in the detached single-family home. Originally, zoning
was one of the weaker tools used by German bureaucrats in city planning, as
German cities could own land, tax heavily, and construct housing themselves.
None of these options are nearly as strong for municipalities in the United
States, and so zoning became a critical tool.
One of the
explicit arguments made in favor of zoning at the beginning of the 20th century
was that it was a way to raise property values. It still is. In the aggregate,
it seems like (although I don’t have data to back this up) that zoning raises
property values more than a lack of zoning due to the certainty it provides in
terms of what other things can be built nearby. However, what is good for the
owner is not good for the renter, as high property values are the same as a
high cost of housing, creating a direct conflict.
Comparisons to Other Countries
In one of the most interesting
portions of the book, Hirt compares the land use laws of the United States to
those of Europe. In their large cities, the vast majority of people live in
multifamily structures: 81% in Berlin, 97% in Rome and Madrid, and 99% in
Paris. The only city in the US that comes close is New York at 80%, dropping to
62% if we include the metropolis as a whole. Chicago hits 65%, Seattle 46%, New
Orleans 31%, and Philadelphia 25%. New York’s metro area is five times lower
than Prague’s and ten times lower than Mexico City’s. The key to understanding
the European countries’ differences in land use is that none of them give
nearly so privileged a position to the detached single-family home.
England
England and
Wales follow a “discretionary” system that does not presume that ownership
rights grant development rights. Even if someone plans to develop on land within
the development scheme, it is not a given that they have the right to do so. In
the discretionary system, local authorities have the discretion to allow or not
allow any and all development. There is no system of regulations that can
guarantee a right to build if follows. Instead, everything has to go through
public officials, who take into account the public considerations of the
development and may not consider the effects on land values or private
gain/loss. Hirt says that England is exceptional among the countries she
considered because of its extremely centralized and hierarchical planning
system, tilted heavily towards private sector goals.
One of the
most important things about English land use is the mandatory greenbelts that
exist around the cities. These preserve the English countryside, rather than
allow it to turn into sprawling subdivisions. It will be interesting to see how
that develops in South Florida, where the Everglades may act as a sort of
greenbelt. Supposedly there will be no more expansion west in South Florida, so
up is the only way to go.
France
The French
system includes Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Holland, Greece, Italy, and France.
Hirt says it is one member of the “Napoleonic family” of land use, which also
includes Germany and Sweden. France is somewhat less authoritarian than
England. While all private development requires permission, France grants
permission as long as the private party follows regulations in advance, unlike
England, where the local authority will still exercise discretion even if the
private party follows all the rules.
The French
system is therefore more similar to the American system with key differences.
First, France has much more fragmented local government, with about the same
number of municipalities as the USA in a country five times smaller. France
practices local planning, but also regional planning (more than the USA). But
the bigger difference is that France’s zones are much broader. For example, the
General Urban zone overs most of Paris and allows for houses, apartments,
shops, restaurants, cafes, and offices. The key determinant of building in
Paris is not the land or building use. Instead it is floor-to-area ratio.
Within General Urban Zone, there are two subzones, “residential protection sector”
and “sector where mixing housing and employment is encouraged.” However,
residential protection is a misnomer to American ears, because both allow for
mixed uses, just a higher percentage of residential in “residential protection
sectors.” This allows for French cities to be mixed instead of dividing them
into several zones with single functions.
Germany
Germany, Austria, and Switzerland
are part of the German planning family, which is really extremely similar to
the French family. In Germany, planning occurs at all levels: federal, state,
regional, and local. Like England, Germany highly protects non-urbanized areas
from further development, a concept completely foreign to Americans, who will
see subdivisions built in the middle of nowhere, sprawling out. As a result,
development is limited mostly to urban areas and the areas immediately
surrounding them.
Like France, the German segregation
of land uses is much softer than in the USA. There is no exclusive
single-family zone, and the “small-scale residential” areas include two-family
homes, farms, small shops, restaurants, crafts, and nondisruptive industries.
“Exclusively residential” areas permit all types of dwellings and even
sometimes allow for shops, crafts, hotels, and civic buildings. By US standards,
this is mixed-use.
Sweden
Sweden is part of the Scandinavian
planning family, including Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland. The national
government issues advisory plans and requires regional planning in select
areas. Probably due to the fact that Scandinavian countries are often made up
of people in far-apart cities, the localities have more control over land use
than in other counties. Like in Germany or in France, municipalities prepare
plans, and if developers comply with them, permission is granted to develop.
Like in Germany, there are two plans: one general, nonspecific, and nonbinding plan
that covers the whole territory, and then dozens or hundreds of smaller,
legally binding plans that cover specific areas. Like in all the others, there
is no specific “single-family” use, and while permits are required to subdivide
a property, they are almost always granted.
Russia
Russia’s municipalities are
required by law to adopt general plans that are nonbinding, like in the United
States and the other European countries. However, the government exercises more
actual control by selecting which private developers get to do the biggest
projects. Monofunctionality is out of the ordinary. Residential zones allow
social and commercial uses so long as they are not detrimental to the
residential environment. One similarity to the United States is that there is
single-family zoning, however, there is no single-family, detached zoning.
Height, bulk, and design rules are more important than the actual use of the land.
Hirt also covers a few countries
outside of Europe briefly:
Japan
In Japan, the national government
maintains a very strong role in land use law. Japan created similar land use
categorizations as other countries, the familiar residential, commercial, and
industrial. However, like all countries except the USA, Japan never completely
excluded other land uses. Besides restricting heavy manufacturing solely to
industrial zones and mandating that the noisiest commercial uses be solely in
commercial zones, the zones mix frequently. Like Germany and Sweden have two
levels of plans, Japan has three: strategic plans, master plans, and
implementation regulations. Like in Russia and the rest of Europe, the focus of
Japanese zoning is not to separate land uses, but to control based on form,
bulk, and density. All residential districts allow additional land uses, and
there is no mandated single-family housing.
Australia
Australian planning is conducted at
all levels of government, and regulatory schemes at town and local levels must
conform to each other, like in Europe but unlike in the USA. Australia uses a
single-family home designation, making it similar to the USA, but they are
still not as strict as most American plans.
Canada
This is the system most similar to
American zoning. Provinces have the greatest power over planning, while
localities create the actual general community plans and detailed community
plans. The Canadian provinces have autonomy, so each has somewhat different
practices, like Australian or American states. Canada is a hybrid of the
English, American, and continental European models, with elements of all three.
Like the US, Canada has restrictive single-family zones, however, “secondary
suites” (known as accessory dwelling units in America) are generally allows, as
well as daycare centers and bed and breakfasts, things that would be somewhat
radical in the US setting. Another critical difference is that the even
lowest-density districts still require smaller lot sizes than we usually have
in the US, making them must more dense than comparable American communities.
Back to America
The most
unique element of American zoning is how intensely local it is. The US model,
while closest to Canada and Australia, has far weaker states than the provinces
and states in those countries when it comes to land use. America lacks strong
federal control mechanisms because of this, and government power is further
weakened by strong protections against government taking of private land. But
the fundamentally unique aspect of American land-use is the privileged position
of mandated single-family zoning.
Conclusion
Hirt makes
a very convincing case for changing some aspects of American zoning. One is
that some of the polluting and hazardous activities that most zoning laws
prohibit may not longer be so problematic. For example, a lot of cities still
ban laundries due to fumes and restaurants due to fires thanks to century-old ordinances,
but those risks aren’t nearly as big anymore. Other ordinances are based on old
myths, like that children who live above grocery stores will get diseases from
flies. Now, grocery stores don’t even attract flies indoors in the air conditioning.
Additionally, legal separation of homes and work is outdated now that people so
often work from home.
Many
supposed benefits of the strict style of American zoning never played out. No
one has ever shown a clear causation between separation of physical spaces and
a reduction in crime. Jane Jacobs has even posited that it does the opposite by
emptying certain areas at certain times of day. Additionally, zoning causes us
to drive much more, reducing public health due to bad air quality and crashes;
more driving also means more climate change. Americans drive far more than Europeans
and spend more time in traffic too.
Ultimately,
Hirt’s recommendations make a lot of sense. She points out the irony of the
incredibly strict American zoning style is that housing is so strictly residential
because it is so strictly commercial. Because Americans are so mobile and
because we often see houses as investments to be sold, most people demand the
ironclad assurances of zoning to raise their property values and make as much
money possible from the eventual sale.
Miscellaneous Facts:
- America is not actually a leading country in homeownership. Hirt says that home ownership rose dramatically abroad after WWII, and now the USA is 17th out of 26 “economically advanced countries” in home ownership.
- The Netherlands and many Scandinavian countries practice aggressive urban containment by purchasing land at the edges of cities below market values. Then, they have power to hold onto the land or sell it with conditions to meet public goals.
- While other cities had been narrowing in on it for a while, the first zoning ordinance creating mandated single-family detached housing was passed in Berkely, California.
No comments:
Post a Comment