Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Michael Winslow Czeiszperger <michael AT czeiszperger.org>]

On Wednesday, January 8, 2003, at 01:29 PM, Ben Brunk wrote:

>   Hasn't anyone noticed that sprawl was a direct result of the zoning 
> ordinances and top-down control?  I hear people blaming the developers 
> and calling them money-grabbers.  While that may be somewhat true, 
> don't forget it was the local politicians who restricted the kinds of 
> development that could take place to begin with.  That's why most 
> people can't walk to work--the control freaks said it wasn't right to 
> put houses so close to the factory!

You've got a point about the affect of zoning on walkable communities. 
My understanding is at the time the "buffer zone" rules came about 
there weren't effective pollution laws, and there was still quite a bit 
of dirty manufacturing about. In order to protect communities buffers 
were mandated between businesses and residential areas, which 
unfortunately went too far and made no distinctions between a factory 
which was a health hazard and a corner grocery store, which was not.

However, I find little evidence that the solution is less zoning and 
city planning. If you look around the world with a huge range of 
approaches to building communities, the ones that are universally 
admired are the ones with the best city planning. Is there even one 
example where a livable city was built without zoning laws or building 
codes? Certainly over the past 200 someone must have built a great city 
without the benefit of zoning laws or building codes that would serve 
as a shining example of the benefits of less government.


> If there is any hope for us as America gets more and more crowded, it 
> will be in deregulation, allowing entrepreneurs to solve these 
> problems and many of the others that we face nowadays.  It seems to me 
> that the "New" Urbanism is just a flawed rendition of what was done in 
> major cities during the mid-20th century, which is provide affordable 
> places to live for average people.  Now, however, there are so many 
> laws, as well as people who need to get a cut, it has taken on an 
> authoritarian and "instant, just add water" taint.  Some progress.  
> Thanks, but no thanks.

I heartily agree with the goal of providing affordable places to live, 
and its actually in the list of principles I posted earlier. What I'm 
hoping will happen is zoning and building laws will be changed to make 
it easier for developers to put up new development using the New 
Urbanism principles, which currently require a variance which drives up 
the cost.  As more and more consumers express an interest in this type 
of development, more developers will pop up to meet the demand, and 
thus the cost will be lowered.

and finally, in the one cheap shot deserves another category:

> I've looked around Southern Village several times.  Whenever I have 
> visitors, we often take a drive through there in our car.  Frankly, it 
> looks more like a movie set than an actual place where people live.  I 
> have visions of Stepford wives and evil humanoid robots.  People glare 
> at you if they don't recognize you, they don't take kindly to 
> strangers poking 'round.

Yeah, there's been some good 'ol boys driving 'round in pickup trucks 
hoot'n and a holler'n with their bare asses sticking out the window. :-)

___________________________________________________________________
Ending a sentence with a preposition is nothing to be ashamed of.
        -- michael at czeiszperger dot org, Chapel Hill, NC