Opinion: Ending Single-Family Detached Zoning Benefits Everyone

[M II A II R II K]

Opinion: Ending Single-Family Detached Zoning Benefits Everyone


May 26, 2021

Read More: https://www.marylandmatters.org/2021...fits-everyone/

Policymakers across the country are considering large- and small-scale revisions to single-family detached zoning regulations that would allow diversification of housing types in these areas. Most prominent among these is an effort to expand the availability of accessory dwelling units, or ADUs, and multi-unit dwellings, or MUDs, in single-family zones that will create units at a lower price point/market rent within these otherwise cost-prohibitive neighborhoods.

- These initiatives are being undertaken in response to the fact that most single-family detached communities are located in and around “high-opportunity areas” that have well-funded schools, low crime and highly rated quality of life. Federal policymakers have identified the need to expand access to these areas and attached incentive funding for states that do so. — Despite all of the passion that may be put into zoning reform, the success or failure of these efforts will depend on the owners of single-family detached homes and whether they are convinced these changes benefit them. These residents may acknowledge the problematic history of single-family detached zoning, but are concerned that changes to zoning ordinances may result in a devaluation of their most valuable asset their home.

- The significant expense of redevelopment prevented most existing communities from being disturbed. Despite its radical nomenclature, “abolishing” single-family detached zoning is more of a legal construct than a physical one. The benefits of housing reform are more concrete. Removing legal barriers to housing will allow greater innovation in reducing the most significant driver of cost of living – home prices and rent. Police, firefighters and teachers will be able to find more affordable options closer to where they work, which is critical for these essential but high-turnover professions. Homeowners will also not face the daunting prospect of being priced out of their own home in retirement when property tax valuations outpace their fixed income.

- The more spread out we are, the more expensive our public services become. Instead of large schools, libraries and fire stations situated among dense population centers, we build a multitude of smaller public facilities distributed across larger spaces. We pay more for roads, public safety response times and empty classrooms in far off reaches of suburbia than we would if we lived closer together. Zoning law is still a somewhat recent legal construct. It arose around the turn of the century to separate commercial from residential zones but was then co-opted in the 1920s for the purposes of racial segregation. The question we must ask ourselves is why do our zoning codes continue to segregate communities based on housing type? Does it serve a public purpose or a private one? And if it’s the latter, are we still willing to pay the cost?

.....

[Pedestrian]

^^An opinion piece by a land use attorney representing developers.

Just put it to a vote among current residents of single family neighborhoods everywhere and let them decide if they see it as in their interest to change the zoning in those neighborhoods.

[Crawford]

Yeah, I think SFH owners would beg to differ, everywhere, basically.

[mhays]

Several cities have enacted broad code updates that make accessory units or even townhouses allowable in single-family areas -- Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, LA, and so on. The public can support this stuff.

Of course citywide legislation is tied to what the whole electorate wants, not just SFR residents. As it should be. But in my city's case there wasn't much outcry to sweeping legislation in 2019.

[Steely Dan]

^ Chicago hasn't gone full city-wide on it yet, but the city very recently approved a new ADU pilot program with 5 test zones on the various sides of the city where ADU's (coach houses, basement "garden" apartments, and attic apartments) will now be allowed.

chicago banned all new ADUs everywhere back in 1957, so existing ones were grandfathered in, but no new (legal) ADUs have been built in this town for over 6 decades now.

Like with the piece-meal minimum parking elimination several years ago, Chicago doesn't seem to dive into the deep end of the pool head-first on these kinds of urbanism issues, but rather it takes a more measured and incremental approach to see how things go.



the 5 test zones:


source: https://www.loopnorth.com/news/acces...ilot%20program.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yeah, I think SFH owners would beg to differ, everywhere, basically.

I live in a SFH area and would welcome a change in the local deed restrictions.

[Doady]

A neighbourhood with detached houses could mean The Annex, or it could mean Sandy Springs. I don't think detached houses necessarily means lower density and affordability. If diversity of housing types is the goal, then that should include zoning for detached houses as well.

[mhays]

When a city mass-rezones its SFR areas, SFRs are still allowed, including new ones.

[bossabreezes]

Not sure why it has to go as radical as banning single family zoning, but like everything in our time its either 0 or 100.

I think creating dense infill projects spurred by Urban Development Boundaries/Greenbelts is the way to go. This will allow for existing single family and the odd single family developments to exist, while really bulking up other options like condos, townhomes and duplexes/triplexes in brownfield redevelopment sites.

[iheartthed]

If single family housing is so great, why do they need so many damn laws to protect that type of housing?

[The North One]

There's nothing wrong with detached single family zoning. If communities want that then let them have it. The problem comes when 90% of a city or a region is forced to build nothing but single family homes. Or there is no mixed use zoning.

I'm also not sure I totally agree with eliminating it even in inner cities. It might be better to strategically encourage density in core areas and corridors rather than have random density patches in outer neighborhoods.

[iheartthed]

Ending zoning does not equal banning.

Zoning: you can only do A in area B.

Ending zoning: you can still do A in area B, but you can also do something else if you want to.

[bossabreezes]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Ending zoning does not equal banning.

Zoning: you can only do A in area B.

Ending zoning: you can still do A in area B, but you can also do something else if you want to.

And then you end up with something like Houston, which seems to be widely hated on here because of its odd mash up of housing densities.

It will lead to completely in cohesive neighborhoods, but alas, if that's what the people want then give it to them. I actually like the weird mash up you see in Houston and think it could benefit some of the very low density sunbelt cities like Dallas and other California cities like San José and the like. LA has a similar typology, but not as wide spread and seems to be more SF oriented in larger swaths of the metro.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by bossabreezes

And then you end up with something like Houston, which seems to be widely hated on here because of its odd mash up of housing densities.

It will lead to completely in cohesive neighborhoods, but alas, if that's what the people want then give it to them. I actually like the weird mash up you see in Houston and think it could benefit some of the very low density sunbelt cities like Dallas and other California cities like San José and the like. LA has a similar typology, but not as wide spread and seems to be more SF oriented in larger swaths of the metro.

No... it won't. Ending single family zoning does not mean that other zoning laws don't apply.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by bossabreezes

Not sure why it has to go as radical as banning single family zoning, but like everything in our time its either 0 or 100.

i can't speak to what other cities are doing, but with chicago's brand new ADU pilot program, single family zoning hasn't been banned, the city has just said that you can now once again add an ADU to your home if you like, a practice that actually WAS banned in chicago for the past 6 decades. it can be a coach house or a basement/attic apartment. this can be done to generate additional income for the home owner, or even more likely, to accommodate a relative who might need housing.

in practice, there are thousands of "illegal" basement and attic apartments throughout chicago. this change to the zoning code will hopefully expand beyond the pilot program test zones to the whole city so that all of those illegal units can eventually be brought onto the correct side of the law as well.

[bossabreezes]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

No... it won't. Ending single family zoning does not mean that other zoning laws don't apply.

Well go ahead and tell us what it does then, since you're so enlightened.

I didn't say anything about commercial and residential zoning mixing, maybe that's what you thought you read. But if you end single family zoning, technically, you end up with a mixture of densities. Isn't that the point?

[DCReid]

Is this similar? I saw all these signs in front of houses walking around and just googled it:
https://www.newpelican.com/articles/...tys-east-side/

[mhays]

Generally it doesn't mean much change. It's still SFR, and it's not that dense. Since it's also a big investment, even if the process is relatively easy, there won't be a mad rush to build them.

In Seattle's version, depending on lot size, you might be able to build two ADUs in addition to the main house. The ADUs need to be small, as the point is affordability and inclusion. IIRC, the expectation suggests something like a 3-4% increase in SFR densities in the first decade. The legislation passed in mid-2019. As of late April, there's been a few hundred extra completed ADUs, plus about 700 with active building permits. I'll guess that we might get 500 per year.

Seattle will get more than some other places because we have high growth pressures and we've also avoided some key hurdles other cities have left. One huge key is we don't require off-street parking.

[cabasse]

Originally Posted by Doady

A neighbourhood with detached houses could mean The Annex, or it could mean Sandy Springs. I don't think detached houses necessarily means lower density and affordability. If diversity of housing types is the goal, then that should include zoning for detached houses as well.

^^^. i live in a townhouse right now but plan to move into a SFH in the future, even if one with only a couple of feet between me and my neighbor. that or something with a concrete/cinderblock firewall.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Ending zoning does not equal banning.

Zoning: you can only do A in area B.

Ending zoning: you can still do A in area B, but you can also do something else if you want to.

Bingo. It's not about banning anything, it's about allowing more options. The free market and all - it's what America is supposed to be about!


Good video about this topic:

• Video Link