Quote:
Originally Posted by Austinlee
I love this angle. If zoning changes could be framed in a positive light it seems like it would have more widespread support.
|
Neighborhood-based zoning (or rezoning) in general I think is a failure because it pits neighborhood against neighborhood. That's why a city-wide rezoning opens up tons of opportunity - because no one neighborhood/city block is being singled out. You can't have East Liberty complaining "why not Shadyside?" and so on.
If I were head of zoning in Pittsburgh, I'd basically reduce city zoning down to the following:
Residential: Basically restricted to four different built forms: Detached, Attached, medium-density apartment, high-density apartment. However, these would govern things like setback, lot size, and height, not number of units. As long as you made a fourplex with the massing of a detached single family home, you could put it into a detached-zoned area. No parking minimums except maybe in the detached zones.
Mixed-Use: Covering all of the areas covered by existing commercial/office zoning, some existing multifamily areas, and some of light industrial areas as well. Essentially everything which is feasibly compatible with residential uses. Have it at two density levels - one covers local business districts (and allows for everything up to mid-density apartment buildings) and a higher density version for Oakland, East Liberty, the Baum-Centre corridor, etc. No parking minimums.
Non-compatible: Basically the residual industrial zones of the city which are still used for industry (i.e., not the Strip District) and the little bits of Highway Commercial and the like in the South Hills.
I suppose we could keep things like explicit zoning for parks, hillsides, EMI, etc. But I think seven primary zones is more than enough.