A change in practices is necessary. But the question of zoning must be placed in its historical and political-economic context and be approached with care. (Pexels Photo)
By Raphaël Fischler, Université de Montréal, The Conversation
There are many good reasons to bring about reforms in zoning, but reducing the cost of housing is certainly not the best one. There are other far more effective strategies to make housing more affordable.
In the current housing crisis, zoning is often singled out as a major obstacle to building affordable housing. Restrictive urban planning regulations are said to limit the supply of new housing and drive up prices and rents in the process. There is some truth to this criticism. A change in practices is necessary. But the question of zoning must be placed in its historical and political-economic context and be approached with care.
The potential and problems of zoning
Research into the history and evolution of zoning – to which I have contributed since my doctoral studies and as a full professor at the Université de Montréal’s School of Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture – clearly shows that in North America, zoning was used from the outset to protect middle- and upper-class neighbourhoods, and keep poor and racial and ethnic minority households out of them. Zoning regulations were adopted with the active support of real estate developers, or even at their request, because they protected property values. Yet zoning actually serves a variety of functions.
Adopted under the police power, which allows the state to impose constraints without compensation if they promote the health, safety and well-being of the population, zoning can be used to achieve a variety of goals. In addition to protecting the financial and social capital of property owners, it can keep sources of nuisance and danger away from residential neighbourhoods, help in planning public infrastructure according to the needs of the various zones to be urbanized, shape living environments where every dwelling has good access to light and air, and create greater visual harmony in the city.
Starting in the 1960s, other issues were then added to these: protection of cultural and natural heritage, protection of agricultural land and, in a historical reversal against exclusionary zoning, the inclusion of affordable housing and public facilities in private development projects.
This article is part of our series, ‘Our cities from the past to the future.’ Urban life is going through many transformations, each with cultural, economic, social and political implications. To shed light on these diverse issues, La Conversation Canada and The Conversation Canada are inviting researchers to discuss the current state of our cities.
The rigidity of North America
Zoning presents a double problem. As Sonia Hirt, professor of landscape architecture and urban planning at the University of Georgia, has shown in her book “Zoned in the USA,” unlike European countries, the United States and Canada have used zoning in a very rigid way, strongly separating the various uses and forms of dwellings. This practice has had a particularly profound effect on the construction of North American suburbs and their monofunctional landscapes.
In addition, our zoning attributes significant power to individuals and associations who want to defend the local status quo. So it is prized not only by property owners, whose investments it protects, but also by defenders of local democracy, whose input can become a de facto veto. Although zoning is meant to serve the public interest, it makes rational planning of urban and regional development more difficult by giving a central place to local conflicts over individual projects.
A reform that does little to reduce costs
Faced with this double problem, many, including the Canadian government, are calling for zoning reform, both in content and in process.
I have no doubt that some changes are necessary. At the very least, zoning reform should be carried out to serve the following purposes:
- simplify regulations and speed up permit issuance;
- allow the construction of secondary units or duplexes in zones currently reserved for single-family homes;
- require higher densities in any corridor served by public transit;
- reduce parking space requirements;
- promote mixed-use development;
- promote the creation of quality public space;
- prevent small groups of citizens from blocking projects that serve the public interest.
Changes in this direction are already underway in many municipalities. They need to be multiplied and generalized.
Zoning reform: not a cure all
However, I do not think zoning reform is the best way to bring down the cost of housing, for four reasons.
Firstly, in large cities, there is generally great development potential that is poorly utilized in residential, commercial and industrial areas where zoning changes won’t create much controversy. These areas, which are already served by public infrastructure, as well as federal, provincial or municipal public lands, should be given priority for redevelopment.
Secondly, the main change hoped for – the increase in project density – does not necessarily bring prices down. Aiming for affordability generally means building at good densities, but with average building heights.
Thirdly, the rise in housing prices is due to many reasons other than inadequate zoning regulations. These include the financialization of the housing sector by major economic players, as well as rapidly rising construction costs and the lack of productivity gains in a construction sector that is still dominated by traditional, on-site production. These trends need to be countered by supporting the community sector and its not-for-profit players, and by supporting technological innovation in building materials, techniques and processes.
Finally, zoning reform will do nothing to change the fact that today’s standard housing is simply too expensive for part of the population, and that the poorest households cannot find decent housing without state assistance, as I explained in a previous article.
A multifactoral crisis
There are many legitimate reasons to criticize our regulatory practices in urban development. This criticism is already dated; it goes back to the 60s (e.g. under the impetus of Jane Jacobs).
However, it is wrong to think that zoning reform is the main solution to the current housing crisis. This crisis has multiple causes and will only be resolved by using a variety of strategies. Simplifying and streamlining regulations is one of these, but much better financing of the community sector is another.
Raphaël Fischler, Professeur titulaire à l’École d’urbanisme et d’architecture de paysage, Université de Montréal
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
