Jump to content

Minneapolis votes to end single family zoning citywide


Recommended Posts

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/us/minneapolis-single-family-zoning.html

 

Quote

In a bold move to address its affordable-housing crisis and confront a history of racist housing practices, Minneapolis has decided to eliminate single-family zoning, a classification that has long perpetuated segregation.

The Minneapolis City Council voted last Friday to get rid of the category and instead allow residential structures with up to three dwelling units — like duplexes and triplexes — in every neighborhood. Minneapolis is believed to be the first major city in the United States to approve such a change citywide.

Peggy Reinhardt, 75, an advocate who supported the decision, hopes the change will mean more housing options around her Uptown Minneapolis neighborhood. She sees young couples in apartments who cannot afford to scale up to $400,000 houses, while elderly residents nearby are “house rich and cash poor” and have few options to downsize in their neighborhood.

“It’s that missing middle,” she said.

As cities across the country contend with an affordable-housing crisis that has led to gentrification and homelessness, few have been willing to take on single-family zoning, a way of living that is fiercely protected by neighborhood groups. Portland, Ore., is working on a plan to allow fourplexes in nearly all single-family neighborhoods, and Seattle is considering rezoning 6 percent of its single-family neighborhoods to include more housing.

More in the article. This is a very good thing for a multitude of reasons

 

@Jason

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

This is one reason I live outside the city limits. I think zoning is good and necessary in areas with limited real estate, but I want my single family home on acreage and there is not shortage of land where I live.

 

Car-dependent sprawl is a huge contributor to climate change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say get rid of zoning as we know it, and replace it with property tax based zoning:  Yes, you build a factory wherever you want, but if you want to build it in a "residential" area, your tax rate will be X times higher than what you would pay if you built your factory in an "industrial" area.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

I say get rid of zoning as we know it, and replace it with property tax based zoning:  Yes, you build a factory wherever you want, but if you want to build it in a "residential" area, your tax rate will be X times higher than what you would pay if you built your factory in an "industrial" area.  

Land tax tho

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, mclumber1 said:

I say get rid of zoning as we know it, and replace it with property tax based zoning:  Yes, you build a factory wherever you want, but if you want to build it in a "residential" area, your tax rate will be X times higher than what you would pay if you built your factory in an "industrial" area.  

No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

Because corporations can afford the tax rate hike more than residents can afford to move if a noisy, polluting, factory moves into town? NIMBYism and dumb zoning laws are bad, eliminating zoning laws entirely is also dumb.

He was close though. In you want to put a factory near a residential area (reality check though: big, loud, dirty manufacturing don't want to. Land costs too much. They want to be out in b.f.e. Breweries, restaurants, distilleries, maker shops, and light manufacturing, think a custom cabnetry company, and similar businesses may want to set up in a neighborhood though) then the company should have to compensate the nearby homeowners and tenants directly, rather than go through the rezoning process, asking for a variance, etc. Cleaner, more efficient, and does more to protect residents than zoning would. This is also more like what you see in older neighborhoods on the east coast. There are tons of older homes here in Richmond that had in the past been converted into bsuinesses of some sort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Bloodporne said:

What exactly is "minimum parking". I skimmed over the article but somehow still didn't get it and have never heard the term. Curious to see what this means in practice. 

It means that new development requires a certain amount of parking as mandated by the government. Think 1.5 parking spots per dwelling unit, rounded up, or 1 spot per 300 sq ft office space. Developers can add parking as they see fit, and parking can be managed by the market, or alternatives such as walking, biking, transit, or cabs/car shares by residents. When in downtown areas relatively well served by transit, parking minimums make development more expensive and contribute to urban sprawl, as they decrease density., And contribute to building towards the top of the economic ladder, as the added costs can really only be recouped by wealthier residents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

He was close though. In you want to put a factory near a residential area (reality check though: big, loud, dirty manufacturing don't want to. Land costs too much. They want to be out in b.f.e. Breweries, restaurants, distilleries, maker shops, and light manufacturing, think a custom cabnetry company, and similar businesses may want to set up in a neighborhood though) then the company should have to compensate the nearby homeowners and tenants directly, rather than go through the rezoning process, asking for a variance, etc. Cleaner, more efficient, and does more to protect residents than zoning would. This is also more like what you see in older neighborhoods on the east coast. There are tons of older homes here in Richmond that had in the past been converted into bsuinesses of some sort.

Perhaps this is an east coast bias coming through, but I don’t necessarily agree with the notion that companies don’t want to be outside of urban or residential areas. In and around Boston for example, those spots WERE in urban and resedential areas and closed up shop not because they wanted to leave the city, but because cheap labor moved that stuff to other countries, or because zoning laws DID make them move. Those laws didn’t come from nowhere, though. There’s certainly a difference between what constitutes a “factory” in the early 20th century compared to the early 21st, and I don’t doubt that zoning laws need to change to accommodate that reality based on what you’re saying.

 

But no zoning laws in favor of just taxing businesses more is dumb when companies like Amazon, Google, etc., can afford any tax you can apply to them and do not give a shit about human beings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

It means that new development requires a certain amount of parking as mandated by the government. Think 1.5 parking spots per dwelling unit, rounded up, or 1 spot per 300 sq ft office space. Developers can add parking as they see fit, and parking can be managed by the market, or alternatives such as walking, biking, transit, or cabs/car shares by residents. When in downtown areas relatively well served by transit, parking minimums make development more expensive and contribute to urban sprawl, as they decrease density., And contribute to building towards the top of the economic ladder, as the added costs can really only be recouped by wealthier residents.

Yes, yes. I have no idea why I didn't put that term together with the obvious...I'm in construction.  :ana:

 

I've never been to Minneapolis but I hope their public transportation is a truly viable and widespread option in turn. I'm into this in theory as well but so many US cities offer absolute garbage public transportation. I live in Queens and still need a car because the MTA is so awful that both subway lines near me barely function, especially not for work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

Perhaps this is an east coast bias coming through, but I don’t necessarily agree with the notion that companies don’t want to be outside of urban or residential areas. In and around Boston for example, those spots WERE in urban and resedential areas and closed up shop not because they wanted to leave the city, but because cheap labor moved that stuff to other countries, or because zoning laws DID make them move. Those laws didn’t come from nowhere, though. There’s certainly a difference between what constitutes a “factory” in the early 20th century compared to the early 21st, and I don’t doubt that zoning laws need to change to accommodate that reality based on what you’re saying.

 

But no zoning laws in favor of just taxing businesses more is dumb when companies like Amazon, Google, etc., can afford any tax you can apply to them and do not give a shit about human beings.

When those now urban factories were built new, they were on the outskirts of town. The cities continued to grow around these factories. The building I live in now used to be a factory until the 80's, and when it was built in the 1890's it was on the outskirts of town in unincorporated county.

 

I do agree with you about the Apple, Google, Facebook's of the world though.

 

15 minutes ago, Bloodporne said:

Yes, yes. I have no idea why I didn't put that term together with the obvious...I'm in construction.  :ana:

 

I've never been to Minneapolis but I hope their public transportation is a truly viable and widespread option in turn. I'm into this in theory as well but so many US cities offer absolute garbage public transportation. I live in Queens and still need a car because the MTA is so awful that both subway lines near me barely function, especially not for work. 

We have such an over abundance of parking in the US, if growth is concentrated in transit friendly areas (particularly low parking development) then it is easy enough to make due for the time being, then increase transit service as demand increases.

 

As for MSP, their transit is alright for the US, but they are one of the best cities for biking, and have some of the highest % to do it year round

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

We have such an over abundance of parking in the US, if growth is concentrated in transit friendly areas (particularly low parking development) then it is easy enough to make due for the time being, then increase transit service as demand increases.

 

As for MSP, their transit is alright for the US, but they are one of the best cities for biking, and have some of the highest % to do it year round

Jesus, doesn't it get cold as fuck there?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...