Cities Start To Question An American Ideal: A House With A Yard On Every Lot

[M II A II R II K]

Cities Start To Question An American Ideal: A House With A Yard On Every Lot


JUNE 18, 2019

By EMILY BADGER and QUOCTRUNG BUI

Read More: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ly-zoning.html

Single-family zoning is practically gospel in America, embraced by homeowners and local governments to protect neighborhoods of tidy houses from denser development nearby. But a number of officials across the country are starting to make seemingly heretical moves.

- The Oregon legislature this month will consider a law that would end zoning exclusively for single-family homes in most of the state. California lawmakers have drafted a bill that would effectively do the same. In December, the Minneapolis City Council voted to end single-family zoning citywide. The Democratic presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker and Julián Castro have taken up the cause, too. — A reckoning with single-family zoning is necessary, they say, amid mounting crises over housing affordability, racial inequality and climate change. But take these laws away, many homeowners fear, and their property values and quality of life will suffer. The changes, opponents in Minneapolis have warned, amount to nothing less than an effort to “bulldoze” their neighborhoods.

- Today the effect of single-family zoning is far-reaching: It is illegal on 75 percent of the residential land in many American cities to build anything other than a detached single-family home. That figure is even higher in many suburbs and newer Sun Belt cities, according to an analysis The Upshot conducted with UrbanFootprint, software that maps and measures the impact of development and policy change on cities. If this moment feels like a radical shift, said Sonia Hirt, a professor at the University of Georgia’s college of environment and design, it was also a radical shift a century ago when Americans began to imagine single-family zoning as possible, normal and desirable. — Minneapolis’s new policy will end single-family zoning on 70 percent of the city’s residential land, or 53 percent of all land.

- Single-family zoning “means that everything else is banned,” said Scott Wiener, a California state senator, speaking this spring at the Brookings Institution in Washington. “Apartment buildings banned. Senior housing banned. Low-income housing, which is only multi-unit banned. Student housing banned.” — Cities regularly “upzone” individual neighborhoods or properties to allow more housing options. Minneapolis’s remarkable approach was to upzone every single-family neighborhood at once. That was the fairest solution, officials argued. “If we were going to pick and choose, the fight I think would have been even bloodier,” said Heather Worthington, director of long-range planning for the city. Even so, some residents vocally opposed the change, and the city collected 20,000 public comments on the broader plan that included the zoning proposal.

- The lesson of Minneapolis, said Salim Furth, an economist at the conservative Mercatus Center, is that a single, sweeping edit to these maps may be politically easier than block-by-block tweaking. Over time, if just 5 percent of the largest single-family lots in Minneapolis — lots of at least 5,000 square feet converted to triplexes, that would create about 6,200 new units of housing, according to UrbanFootprint. If 10 percent of similar-sized lots in San Jose, Calif., added a second unit, the city would gain 15,000 new homes. — “If you want to have the suburban American lifestyle, that will still be on offer,” Mr. Furth said. “What we’re really trying to change is that that has become so universal that there’s not much space left for anything else.” While zoning remains invisible to many people, the problems it's connected to increasingly are not.

- “Every community has to have a moment of crisis that eventually makes you pay attention to certain things,” said Taiwo Jaiyeoba, the planning director for Charlotte. “You knew they were there, but there was no impetus or motivation to address it.” The crisis struck in Charlotte in 2014, he said, when a national study ranked the region as having among the worst prospects in the country for poor children. — Public meetings and task force reports followed, focused on Charlotte’s racial and economic segregation. Zoning laws helped cement those patterns in cities across the country by separating housing types so that renters would be less likely to live among homeowners, or working-class families among affluent ones, or minority children near high-quality schools.

- On the West Coast, a severe housing shortage and environmental concerns loom larger. Single-family zoning leaves much land off-limits to new housing, forcing new supply into poorer, minority communities or onto undeveloped land outside of cities. In California, a bill by Mr. Wiener affecting zoning statewide has been stalled by homeowners and local officials who object to state interference in their communities. The bill would allow more density around transit and jobs centers. It would also permit single-family homes to be subdivided into as many as four units, and multi-unit buildings to go up on vacant lots in single-family neighborhoods. — Oregon’s bill would allow options as dense as fourplexes across cities larger than 25,000 people and within metropolitan Portland, and it would permit duplexes in towns of at least 10,000.

- Cities have typically prioritized single-family homeowners above other groups, with the old belief that dense housing hurts their property values, said Andrew Whittemore, a professor of city and regional planning at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. Evidence supporting that belief is mixed, but Mr. Whittemore suggests it’s the wrong thing to focus on. “Why is it the job of a government to see that a housing unit accumulates as much value as possible?” he said. “I think the purpose of zoning is to prevent harm. Planners shouldn’t be wealth managers. But they effectively are in every municipality in the country.” — That is particularly true in more suburban communities where a higher share of land is devoted to housing, and a higher share of that housing is required to be single-family.

.....

[Pedestrian]

“If you want to have the suburban American lifestyle, that will still be on offer,” Mr. Furth said. “What we’re really trying to change is that that has become so universal that there’s not much space left for anything else.” While zoning remains invisible to many people, the problems it's connected to increasingly are not."

This is the crux of the matter. There's nothing wrong with single family house zoning and people have a right to resist significant changes in the character of the neighborhoods in which they sink a substantial portion of their net worth, but it probably has been over-applied. Main and arterial streets should usually not carry that designation and should be zoned for multi-family housing over commercial in many cases with pure commercial zoning is certain places. The single family designation should be for side and non-arterial streets.

But really there are very few places in America where "there's not much space left for anything else." I live in the second densest US city and I can think of plenty of places to add density without disrupting existing single family neighborhoods. I constantly spot sites being underbuilt because of height limits and other poor zoning decisions. And there are many streets of old one and two story commercial buildings that could easily be rebuilt as 9-12 story buildings.

Scott Wiener's bill mentioned in the piece is really about the suburbs and satellite towns more than central cities--places where they have blocked even medium rise multifamily housing right next to transit (BART) stations.

[Steely Dan]

^ even on side streets, a mix of SFH and low-rise multi-family housing can work just fine, without harming property values.

my residential neighborhood, like most of urban chicago, is a mix of courtyard/corner apartment buildings, 6/3/2-flats, and SFH's. a little something for everyone. and nothing is more than 4 stories tall.

on my residential side street, you can rent a one-bedroom garden apt for $1,100/month next door to a new-build SFH that sold for 7 figures. now that's how you get economic diversity at the micro-scale.

[the urban politician]

The 3 most hare-brained city policies ever, all dumb ass products of 20th century whiny thinking (in no particular order):

1. SFH Zoning
2. Rent control laws
3. Parking minimums

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

The 3 most hare-brained city policies ever, all dumb ass products of 20th century whiny thinking (in no particular order):

3. Parking minimums

You have no idea how insane the parking requirements are in the Phoenix zoning code and the city council.

Every meeting about every project in urban areas with public parking options nearby some sagging old councilman "what about parking" "what about Traffic" 600 new apartments??? Where will they park????"

OMG its ridiculous

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Obadno

You have no idea how insane the parking requirements are in the Phoenix zoning code and the city council.

Every meeting about every project in urban areas with public parking options nearby some sagging old councilman "what about parking" "what about Traffic" 600 new apartments??? Where will they park????"

OMG its ridiculous

Exact same scenario here in Houston.

[jtown,man]

We recently had a business close up, so another business was wanting to lease the building. Its a tiny building that was a small restaurant, well the prospective new tenants were also wanting to put in a small restaurant. The building is in one of the densest areas of Norfolk, about three blocks from a train station and the neighbors STILL protested it on the basis of the lack of parking, even though the previous business had no parking. Its really crazy.

Another example, albeit way different. A small suburb of Jonesboro Arkansas, Brookland(pop around 7k) had a proposal to add like 300 apartments in a standard suburban-style complex. Well, it was shot down because residents said that the town couldn't handle the traffic(it was to front a 4 lane highway) and that the utilities in the city couldn't handle it(probably a lie, but if true, why not expand utilities?). In any case, the town basically said: We don't want any growth, we'll stay where we are.

Of course what they *really* mean't was "we don't want no apartments and the scum they bring."

[llamaorama]

Single family zoning should go away. It's possible to mix in duplexes and townhomes into SFH neighborhoods without disrupting their character too much and this would yield much needed supply of new units.

The thing about parking minimums is that in most cities you can't live without parking. Getting rid of them wouldn't stop developers from building parking, only it would cost more to use. It won't discourage upper class gentrifiers from driving or push them onto transit, because they'll have ample garage parking. But a working class person renting a small older apartment who needs to drive to work at a warehouse in the suburbs is displaced when they lose access to parking. A small business that needs more customers than a 150-unit luxury mid rise can provide goes under.

Assuming even a rapid rate of infill, there is a inevitably a decades-long transition period between when a neighborhood loses its easy parking and when it becomes sufficiently urban enough to not need it. And that assumes a transition will even occur at all, and the neighborhood doesn't get stuck in its limbo state.

Eliminating parking minimums makes more sense in downtowns and similar areas first. Most American downtowns don't have many residents. They also should be attracting the kinds of development that would benefit the most from abolishing the rule.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ even on side streets, a mix of SFH and low-rise multi-family housing can work just fine, without harming property values.

my residential neighborhood, like most of urban chicago, is a mix of courtyard/corner apartment buildings, 6/3/2-flats, and SFH's. a little something for everyone. and nothing is more than 4 stories tall.

on my residential side street, you can rent a one-bedroom garden apt for $1,100/month next door to a new-build SFH that sold for 7 figures. now that's how you get economic diversity at the micro-scale.

Regardless of your neighborhood, I guarantee you that the residents of neighborhoods currently with nothing but single family homes don't want that to change and why should they have to? Just because their moral betters such as you think they should? Put it to a vote. Like Brexit, the liberal elite would lose.

We now ban discrimination on multiple bases but wealth isn't one of them. There is no moral imperative to force poor people into every neighborhood because, well, it's good for them and the elite wants it.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Single family zoning should go away. It's possible to mix in duplexes and townhomes into SFH neighborhoods without disrupting their character too much and this would yield much needed supply of new units.

Why should it go away if, as is the case, it's easily demonstrable that there are plenty of places to put all the needed new housing without doing away with it?

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Regardless of your neighborhood, I guarantee you that the residents of neighborhoods currently with nothing but single family homes don't want that to change and why should they have to? Just because their moral betters such as you think they should? Put it to a vote. Like Brexit, the liberal elite would lose.

We now ban discrimination on multiple bases but wealth isn't one of them. There is no moral imperative to force poor people into every neighborhood because, well, it's good for them and the elite wants it.

Yeah, I think we should define the type of neighborhoods we would allow to densify more-intensely. There is a big difference from a neighborhood built in or near a city center in 1950 and a neighborhood built in the burbs in 2005. The later would not look right with 4-plexes, wouldn't look right at all, and probably would bring down values.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Yeah, I think we should define the type of neighborhoods we would allow to densify more-intensely. There is a big difference from a neighborhood built in or near a city center in 1950 and a neighborhood built in the burbs in 2005. The later would not look right with 4-plexes wouldn't look right at all.

If you really were in a Minneapolis-type situation - where you could convert houses anywhere into a fourplex - you'd never see many of those conversions in the out-of-the way new-build areas. After all, market-rate rentals would be far more desirable - and far more profitable - in areas closer to the urban core which had access to commercial amenities and transit routes.

As an example of this, look at how airbnb units - which in most cities are still unregulated by zoning - tend to be concentrated. Even if you just consider whole-house rentals, you find a lot more of them in the urban core than scattered around the suburbs. That's because those are the areas where there's a strong market for tourists (work travelers commuting to office parks don't airbnb much I think).

[llamaorama]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Why should it go away if, as is the case, it's easily demonstrable that there are plenty of places to put all the needed new housing without doing away with it?

Let's look at it from the other direction. Why should it even exist?

What justifies putting government restrictions on the use of private property for the sake of excluding people based on socioeconomic background? Since when did that become a right?

Zoning's constitutionality, its fundamental reasons for even being allowed in the legal traditions of the USA, originates in Supreme Court decisions from the early 20th century that mostly had to due with industrial nuisances. Euclid, OH wanted to keep heavy industry out of residential areas because at that time industry was polluting and negatively impacted the health of human beings. Santa Monica wanted to keep a brickworks out of town for the same reason. Nothing about a semi-detached home with the wrong shade of brick and a nonconforming mailbox design not approved by the council of little old ladies of the Village of West Bergenhurst Township Special Charter District seems to relate to that.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by eschaton

If you really were in a Minneapolis-type situation - where you could convert houses anywhere into a fourplex - you'd never see many of those conversions in the out-of-the way new-build areas. After all, market-rate rentals would be far more desirable - and far more profitable - in areas closer to the urban core which had access to commercial amenities and transit routes.

As an example of this, look at how airbnb units - which in most cities are still unregulated by zoning - tend to be concentrated. Even if you just consider whole-house rentals, you find a lot more of them in the urban core than scattered around the suburbs. That's because those are the areas where there's a strong market for tourists (work travelers commuting to office parks don't airbnb much I think).

Oh yeah, I agree. All I am saying is that I can see how a suburban person would(rationally or not) be against ending SFH zoning with the fear of multi-units being built in a weird environment. Of course, most densification would happen in the city, but it could happen anywhere.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Regardless of your neighborhood, I guarantee you that the residents of neighborhoodst currently with nothing but single family homes don't want that to change and why should they have to? Just because their moral betters such as you think they should? Put it to a vote. Like Brexit, the liberal elite would lose.

We now ban discrimination on multiple bases but wealth isn't one of them. There is no moral imperative to force poor people into every neighborhood because, well, it's good for them and the elite wants it.

I was just responding to your assertion that side streets should be the domain of SFH zoning.

Whether it's row houses in philly, triple-deckers in boston, or 6 flats in chicago, America's most urban cities are loaded with side streets that are so much more than just the exclusive domain of detached SFH's, and they are much better cities for it.

My neighborhood, where 95% of buildings are 3 stories or less, gets to 25,000 ppsm because of all of the lowrise multi-family on our side streets. if you were to replace all of that multi-family with SFH only, we'd be lucky to get to 7,500 ppsm, and much of the walkable urban retail in our neighborhood that survives solely because of that population density would wither away.

What Minneapolis is doing by doing away with SFH zoning, wholesale, is fantastic!. In 50 years, people in Minneapolis are going to look back on this decision as one of the absolute best things the city has ever done to improve itself. I guarantee it.

[mhays]

The basic premise is obviously correct and a huge priority on several fronts.

But let's talk about those map percentages. They seem to be omitting mixed-use commercial areas, which are sucking up a large percentage of new housing in the typical city. I'd suggest a third color (and numbers) for commercial/multifamily zones to differentiate those from all-commercial zones. Just trying to keep things in context.

[Chisouthside]

When I lived in the Bay(SF AND SJ) I remember thinking alot of the SFHs were on pretty tight lots and oftentimes whatever front or backyard space that they had was often converted to car parking/driveways. It made me think about how even in Chicago midring neighborhoods how alot of 2 and 3 flat buildings still had more backyard space. There can be a middle ground.

[Pedestrian]

Amid contentiousness at City Hall, SF considers major rezoning for affordable teacher housing
By Adam Brinklow Jun 19, 2019, 11:25am PDT

On Tuesday, San Francisco lawmakers approved a plan for the November ballot that would rezone parts of the city and slash red tape on development of affordable housing and housing for teachers.

However, most of the Board of Supervisors remain at odds with Mayor London Breed about her competing plan for educator housing . . . .

Potential changes include: Rezoning all lots over 10,000 square feet to allow 100 percent affordable and educator housing; rezoning public land to allow for 100 percent affordable and educator housing; waiving density restrictions while allowing planning code modifications for 100 percent affordable and educator housing; and streamlining educator housing projects with the same provisions currently in place for 100 percent affordable housing projects.

The rezoning would affect roughly 3,000 lots citywide—including many on the west side of San Francisco.

Conversely, Mayor London Breed has proposed an amendment to the San Francisco City Charter that would similarly speed up teacher-housing development, but hasn’t managed to find the necessary six supervisors to back it. single-family-home zoned neighborhoods

For starters, Breed’s proposal would exempt neighborhoods zoned for single-family homes from affordable multi-units developments for teachers, but the supervisor’s plan would not.

Further, the supervisors’ measure differs from the mayor’s in its definition of educator housing. According to Fewer. “The plan approved Tuesday requires that one employee of SFUSD or CCSF live in each unit” for a development to qualify, whereas Breed’s plan would apply to buildings where two-thirds of all units house school staff.

Breed’s proposal also differs by the fact that it affects the City Charter, which is such a drastic step that it makes some potential supporters queasy . . . .

https://sf.curbed.com/2019/6/19/1869...s-measure-vote

My guess is the Supervisors' effort to rezone single family neighborhoods will fail just because it does that but it will be interesting to see.

[sopas ej]

I'm surprised at Chicago's 79% zoning for SFH. That's slightly more than Los Angeles'!

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I'm surprised at Chicago's 79% zoning for SFH. That's slightly more than Los Angeles'!

that's because so much of the city has been (foolishly) retro-actively down-zoned.

but the good news is that chicago still has a shit-load of legacy pre-war low-rise multi-family (flats, corner apartments, courtyards buildings, etc.) in a lot of those pink areas.

i live in a 3-flat in one of those solid pink (SFH) blocks on the north side, but my neighborhood is predominately low-rise multi-family. in fact, only 13% of housing units in my area are SFH's.

the area has since been down-zoned, so if you want to tear-down/rebuild on my street, the city will only let you do SFH, but all of the existing multi-family (the VAST majority of my neighborhood) has obviously been grandfathered in.

to give you an idea of what some of those pink areas look like, here's a fairly typical side street in my hood: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9631...7i16384!8i8192

and remember, city-wide, chicago's housing units are only 24% detached SFH, so while that map makes the city look like it's overwhelmingly SFH, that's not really the case on the ground.

also, as in many other cities these days, there is LOTS of talk about housing affordability in chicago, and some of the powers that be are slowly beginning to see the light on the pit-falls of these SFH-only down-zonings, so we may be going back on them at some point in the future. already there has been serious talk of allowing ADU's city wide, so that would be a good start.