Many movies and books feature archetypal heroes who stand alone against large-scale projects that destroy the environment, destroy communities, or both. (In a slightly different version, large-scale projects have already begun to destroy the environment and neighborhoods.) If the protagonists are not already lawyers or journalists, they often do so before exposing the truth. I will cooperate. slow. What I'm trying to say here is that the protagonist is stopping something from happening, but the US legal and regulatory system is decentralized, with multiple regulatory bodies, multiple levels of courts, media That means you're creating multiple potential stopping points, including multiple options for communication.
But what if the storyline requires a hero who can build something? For example, a dramatic increase in solar and wind power, power lines, denser and more affordable housing, or a mass transit system? Who can build an expansion? The US-based hero of this story will be pinned down and tormented by multiple blocking points.
The trade-off here is clear. Distributed systems make projects difficult to build, whether they are desirable or not. A centralized system makes it easier to build projects, whether you want them or not. cityscapea symposium on “100 Years of Federal Model Zoning” published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development is being held (2024, 25:3).
An introductory essay by Pamela M. Blumenthal discusses what happened 100 years ago when the federal government recognized the power to impose zoning rules on local communities (“It’s not just Hoover’s fault: A look back and occasion on the 100th anniversary of the State Zoning Enabling Act.”):
In 1921, the U.S. Department of Commerce, under then-Secretary Herbert Hoover, supported the creation of an advisory commission on zoning. The advisory committee's duties included assisting communities interested in „promoting the public welfare and protecting property values“…The commission published two documents in 1922. . Zoning primer (primer) and Standard state zoning enabling laws that allow local governments to adopt zoning regulations (Enforcement Act, U.S. Department of Commerce, Advisory Committee on Zoning, 1922). … Fishel said: By 1930, it had spread to all regions of the country” (2015: 170). By the end of 1916, urban planning ordinances had been adopted in eight cities, by 1926 an additional 68 cities, and by 1936 an additional 1,246 municipalities, representing 70 percent of the U.S. population (Fischel, 2015 :171).
The phrase that the Hoover Commission wanted to act to help „promote the public welfare and protect property values“ is, of course, thought-provoking. Because it doesn't seem to acknowledge that these goals can be contradictory. Most of the symposium will include U.S.-focused papers on housing regulation. But I found myself particularly interested in the last essay. Paul Cheshire, “An International Perspective on the U.S. Zoning System.” The overall perspective is:
Zoning (or planning) has an important function. Although markets play a fundamental role in efficiently allocating urban land (Bertaud, 2018), they have a unique problem of market failure. Conflicts of interest also exist when it comes to land use, between owners of undeveloped and developed land, and between local interests and wider society. “Rules-based” planning also reduces uncertainty and development risk. In planning systems, the level to which decisions are rules-based, discretionary, or reflect local or broader societal interests varies worldwide. Internationally, the US system is one of the most locally managed, but it is also fairly rules-based due to the use of zoning. In contrast, in the UK and various other countries, development decisions are primarily made by local politicians on a case-by-case basis. More local control and discretionary decisions increase interest in „not in my backyard“ (NIMBY), as development costs are highly localized but benefits are widespread, even across the country. This process generally tends to end in restricted development, resulting in higher housing and land costs. This problem is becoming increasingly prominent on both coasts of the United States. Local control also allows the zoning system to protect insider interests and exclude people below the poverty line, for example by enforcing exorbitant minimum lot sizes and zoning.
Single-family house. More recently, there have been attempts to use planning to reduce carbon emissions and force mixed communities. The evidence suggests that zoning is not suitable for achieving either objective. …The Master Planning System, a common planning system in continental Europe, is more explicitly rules-based, prescriptive, and detailed than the U.S. zoning system. All plot uses are planned and, subject to planning and other relevant regulations, development permits are virtually automatic. In countries such as Germany, France, and the Netherlands, there is a national, or at least regional, emphasis on planning and decision-making control. The US and UK systems are at the local government end of the spectrum. The US system is based on design and legal basis, while the UK system is because the main decisions are made by the Local Government Planning Commission (LAPC), an elected committee at the lowest level of government. ~Building your body. Although national policy frameworks and often local plans exist, enforcement is weak or non-existent in practice, so local decisions that do not grossly contravene national policy are likely to remain in place.
These differences in zoning regulations, whether rule-based or discretionary, local or national, will be reflected in the cities that emerge. Cheshire provided an interesting comparison of skyscraper heights.
Lake Michigan may be holding back Chicago on one level, but strict growth boundaries and height limits have held back all of London since at least 1955. But Chicago had nearly seven times as many skyscrapers (buildings over 100 meters tall) per capita. than London. Even Paris has far more skyscrapers per capita than London. The only skyscraper topping London's skyscraper league is a skyscraper designed by architects Trophy Architects (TA), winner of one of architecture's internationally recognized lifetime achievement awards. It's a percentage. Twenty-five percent of London's skyscrapers were designed by his TA, compared to 3 percent in Chicago, and zero in the flexible, regulated, rules-based Brussels.
Careful analysis shows that Chicago may be the birthplace of great modern architecture, but any competent architect could build a skyscraper there, provided the zoning regulations and building codes were met. It has been shown that permission can be obtained to do so (Cheshire and Dericks, 2020). With London's discretionary planning, hiring a TA appears to help developers generate a strong signal of design quality, providing political approval and a passport to larger buildings. In London, TA-designed buildings are 17 storeys taller and have a 144 percent increase in typical site value than non-TA-designed buildings. Additionally, buildings designed by an architect after receiving a Lifetime Achievement Award will have an increase of 13 to 17 floors (depending on model specifications) compared to buildings designed by the same architect before receiving the award. Did. In Chicago, TA-certified architects had no influence on building heights.
Although this analysis may seem insignificant, it represents a significant, albeit difficult to observe, economic cost. The flagship site in the City of London is estimated at £59 million ($75 million). This is an additional cost that is a sign of an unpredictable disaster. Opportunities to game the system (rent-seeking) and planning systems that inject additional risk into the development process.
Of course, what we all want is a perfect process where every building project can be clearly divided into desirable and undesirable, and where zoning regulations can accurately classify them. But here on Earth, practical issues often involve a generalized willingness to resist or tolerate change, when consensus on desirability is unlikely. . In the US context, the question is whether we are ready to abandon the narrative in which project blockers are necessarily also heroes, at least in some cases.