I started off this article rolling my eyes at the neighbors who of course hate anyone building any addition on their lot. And then I thought, well, 5,400 added square feet is rather a lot. And then I saw the picture and thought "oh no, I would be bothered by that, too!"
I definitely lean libertarian, and for the most part think that people should be allowed to build what they want on the property they own. But I also think, it's not surprising that visually jarring projects generate backlash, and the political consequences of backlash are kind of a big deal.
Your closing thought hits the nail perfectly: we need a system that doesn't require permanent aesthetic stasis. I think the really hard part -- but also the exciting work of our time! -- is to figure out how to get to such a system *from where we are today.*
I do think the most important outcome is that we get to a new pattern of dynamism and normalize the idea that buildings will change over time. That might mean some unsatisfying political compromises, like allowing change broadly but only in smaller increments, or even tolerating small pockets of a city to opting-out in order to move the rest of the city forward (as in Houston). But if we succeed in changing from "default static" to "default dynamic," then in time we'll achieve an abundance of neighborhoods that support human flourishing.
Ha! I thought this was a good example for that very reason—it’s the type of case that really challenges one’s premises. I’ve made no bones about my views on zoning, but it’s helpful to have some research that explains its durability even in the face of failure. But, as we’ve seen in those cities that have passed reform, the default stasis perpetuated by the system can be overcome if people come to see the stasis as worse than an uncertain future. I’m not sure what it takes to bring any individual city to that tipping point, but there’s hope!
Oh man.
I started off this article rolling my eyes at the neighbors who of course hate anyone building any addition on their lot. And then I thought, well, 5,400 added square feet is rather a lot. And then I saw the picture and thought "oh no, I would be bothered by that, too!"
I definitely lean libertarian, and for the most part think that people should be allowed to build what they want on the property they own. But I also think, it's not surprising that visually jarring projects generate backlash, and the political consequences of backlash are kind of a big deal.
Your closing thought hits the nail perfectly: we need a system that doesn't require permanent aesthetic stasis. I think the really hard part -- but also the exciting work of our time! -- is to figure out how to get to such a system *from where we are today.*
I do think the most important outcome is that we get to a new pattern of dynamism and normalize the idea that buildings will change over time. That might mean some unsatisfying political compromises, like allowing change broadly but only in smaller increments, or even tolerating small pockets of a city to opting-out in order to move the rest of the city forward (as in Houston). But if we succeed in changing from "default static" to "default dynamic," then in time we'll achieve an abundance of neighborhoods that support human flourishing.
Great article, Ryan!
Ha! I thought this was a good example for that very reason—it’s the type of case that really challenges one’s premises. I’ve made no bones about my views on zoning, but it’s helpful to have some research that explains its durability even in the face of failure. But, as we’ve seen in those cities that have passed reform, the default stasis perpetuated by the system can be overcome if people come to see the stasis as worse than an uncertain future. I’m not sure what it takes to bring any individual city to that tipping point, but there’s hope!
Thanks, Andrew!