The conclusion of Sonia Hirt’s book Zoned in the USA sums up the advantages and disadvantages of a zoning system that privileges the single-family home:
Arguably, zoning – the kind of zoning that makes explicitly private space the formative compositional element of America’s settlements – does deliver the gift of privacy to American families. But put all the other arguments mentioned in the previous paragraphs together, and one begins to wonder whether the original promises of zoning were either highly suspect from the beginning or have since been turned on their heads. Paradoxically (from the viewpoint of zoning’s founders), we may not have more pollution and worse public health with our current zoning that we would have if we had modified our land-use laws more substantially over the last hundred years.
As Hirt discusses, residents can have their own private homes – the largest new single-family homes in the world – but that comes at a cost of traffic and commuting, worse pollution and using more land, and worse health as well as some unrealized dreams of zoning including reduced crime. Some would argue that the privacy is overrated as well: compared to many other countries, Americans have given up on public life.
While it is easier to imagine mixed uses in dense urban neighborhoods – imagine Jane Jacobs’ vision of a bustling mixed use New York neighborhood – it is harder to imagine mixed use or zoning throughout the vast expanses of American suburbs. Even New Urbanists have tended to design neighborhoods or shopping centers dropped into suburban settings rather than the whole fabric of suburban communities. From the beginning of American suburbs, there was the idea that the urban dweller was escaping to a cottage in nature. The home out there offered refuge from people, dirt, and bustle. Today, this legacy lives on when suburban residents oppose certain land uses near their homes for fear of a lower quality of life and subsequently reduced property values.
Ultimately, would the American suburbs even exist without the fundamental desire for privacy?
Pingback: Claim: “Local politics is always…about housing” | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Claim: “Local politics is always…about housing” | Legally Sociable
Pingback: How postwar DuPage County used zoning to limit poorer and non-white residents | Legally Sociable
Pingback: The spread of upzoning and metropolitan regions | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Large actors in the US housing market and building more homes | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Would city residents rather live next to a 6,000 sq foot teardown McMansion or a fourplex? | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Historic preservation, the ways cities and suburbs resist development projects, and property values | Legally Sociable
Pingback: How many suburbs will be willing to replace suburban office parks with denser housing? | Legally Sociable