Conventional Planning May Be Contributing to Cleveland's Decline

Samuel Staley

Tue, 03/16/2010 - 14:41

 

Reason.tv has launched a multipart series of videos on how the city of Cleveland can turn itself around using free-market approaches and limited government reforms. Unfortunately, the video format didn’t provide enough time to explore the ways economic decline fundamentally challenges the concept and practice of urban planning in older cities. In a companion analysis, I discuss whether cities facing more complex and dynamic development environments need less conventional planning and more flexible, market-oriented land-use regulation such as the framework in play in Houston, Texas.

 

http://www.planetizen.com/node/43388

 

Discuss

This is the first time I've heard of Houston as a paragon of quality urban development.  That doesn't mean it can't be... just a little surprising.  It's an interesting idea I'd like to think about more, though I'm initially inclined to disagree.  Market-based approaches rarely address the context of each individual parcel or the needs of the community as a whole. 

 

This approach favors what's best for the developer, who of course personally interprets the supply and demand oracle for each parcel they own.  Thus we get 1-story industrial parks on Euclid and we have to fight just to get the parking lot put in the rear.  If anything, I think zoning needs to be more strict and taken more seriously.  What's best for one developer may be harmful to the prospects of every parcel around them.  I don't think it's wrong to force developers to address the consequences of their actions before they screw things up for everyone else, including adjacent developers. 

I think this emphasis on no-zoning is absurd.  There are so many factors that go into the differences between Cleveland and Houston that it seems incredibly narrow to concentrate on (lack of) zoning as the reason for Houston's better economy....

 

Houston is known for its terrible planning and hodge podge development.  Most planners have always held it up as how not to do things in regard to city planning since there really isn't a plan (and it shows).  The resulting mess is an extremely auto dependent city.  I don't disagree that the processes in Cleveland have been known to be painstaking and I hope that is being addressed somewhat by the Mayor appointing a person to help streamline that process, but I think holding Houston up as an example due to its lack of zoning is ridiculous.  (What does that do for quality of life issues....  Although I guess different people difine that differently as well)

 

I understand this is your and part of one viewpoint, and I want to spend more time on the ReasonTV series to see if there is anything useful. 

   

On the other hand, some of the most beautiful and urban and well-planned and functional parts of our cities predate zoning. The free market used to work.

On the other hand, some of the most beautiful and urban and well-planned and functional parts of our cities predate zoning. The free market used to work.

 

This may be too simplistic, but wasn't that before the era of cars?

I agree that a city which lacks planning (zoning would be the better term, Houston actually has a planning department) shouldn't be held as a model for one which has one of the oldest planning commissions in the country.  However, what we (Cleveland) end up with in regards to neighborhood development many times is different from what the neighborhood/ business district plan actually is.  Zoning is used in many cases to protect neighborhoods from development which just doesn't (or shouldn't) fit the neighborhood.  An example would be the zoning of the trailer park bordering Euclid Beach, which is now zoned single family household to prevent this type of private use on valuable lakefront land again.  What we end up with are the zoning variances which are granted just to have development happen in a town starved for development.  So, in essence, though we have zoning and a planning department, we end up with suburban style developments which developers propose though actual zoning says otherwise.  Not so different from... Houston?

I think that the Reason article, and the thread title therefore, conflates two terms that aren't completely identical: "planning" and "zoning."  "Planning" is a huge umbrella, and zoning is only one part of it.

 

I'm not sure Houston should be held up as a model of good planning per se, but it definitely is a large and growing city despite a climate that, in the warmer months of the year, is every bit as inhospitable as Cleveland's is during the colder months of the year.  Whether its success comes because of or in spite of its light regulatory touch with respect to zoning is open for debate, of course, but at the very least, it demands to be taken seriously.

 

I think Houston's no-zoning system actually has a lot to be said for it, because while it can encourage sprawl in response to market factors, it can also quickly shift to discouraging sprawl as those market factors change.  The same lenient approval process that allows for autocentric development around the edges will also mean that no developer has to burn months (which can mean an incredible amount of money) waiting to get variances and other permits to build a mixed-use development.

 

Just as a thought exercise: How could things possibly get even worse in Cleveland if it were to repeal all of its zoning laws?  Would people really be bulldozing skyscrapers to make parking lots?  Would it have even more single-level development outside the core than it does now?  As to the notion that Houston is so autocentric and Cleveland isn't: Houston's lack of zoning hasn't stopped its density from increasing, and Cleveland's zoning laws haven't stopped its density from decreasing.

 

To those who say that even more planning is what's needed: What kind of evidence would it take to convince you otherwise?  Is it the kind of evidence that is objectively impossible to obtain, and therefore can never be used to dissuade you from your pro-planning biases, or is it something that a good faith researcher could actually produce using available information and methodology?

To those who say that even more planning is what's needed: What kind of evidence would it take to convince you otherwise?  Is it the kind of evidence that is objectively impossible to obtain, and therefore can never be used to dissuade you from your pro-planning biases, or is it something that a good faith researcher could actually produce using available information and methodology?

 

The zoning laws have failed here because a) to the extent they're sensible and progressive, they're not enforced, and b) many are still based on 50s-60s sprawltastic planning ideals.  Given that sprawl in the city is exactly what Cleveland has been going for these past few decades, I'd say the codes have been successful.  Not in a good way... but this amply demonstrates the power of zoning codes for good or for ill. 

 

Progressive codes like the "Midtown Overlay" have since begun to replace Cleveland's outdated approach, but they're merely window dressing.  City hall still can't say no to 50s/60s-minded developers, no matter what the code says (an abdication of duty) and no matter what long term damage may be done.  But there are plenty of places where progressive density-centric and historically-minded zoning codes have done great work.  Most US cities that people enjoy visiting are good examples.  Houston is not one of these examples.

 

What would change my mind?  Completely different observable results.  A completely different America, one where Houston and Phoenix are pretty but San Francisco and Boston aren't.  That's a heavy burden to carry... because planning works, in virtually every human endeavor.  Chaos is generally bad. 

 

For an example of chaos being bad, I offer Cleveland prior to the development of zoning codes.  We put our heaviest industry upriver from downtown (not even Detroit was stupid enough to do that) and we threw up unholy mixtures of homes and factories everywhere.  The introduction of a small amount of industry to Euclid Ave essentially tore down 100 mansions overnight and spurred the development of Shaker Heights, a noted precursor to modern sprawl.  Look at the original promotional materials for Shaker Heights.  They promised order in the face of chaos-- they promised strict zoning-- and they were wildly successful.

You think Boston is beautiful?  I think we may have very, very different aesthetics, which may in fact explain a great deal of our political differences.

Some good points.  I agree that there isnt much of a point to zoning if a variance can be obtained so easily.  We have seen the discouraging results on Euclid and will likely so more in the near future, but I see that more of an issue with the city being too (as you said) desperate.  But many of the disappointing developments could have been different and many wouldnt have had issue with the zoning (as Ive seen the same examples in other places of how it should/could have been done), but the city seems too "afraid" to demand something better (or at the very least work with the developer on the issue, which they usually just need some understanding of).

 

You could say that evidence is Houston itself (for me), and likely for many pe ople that like an urban city environment.  I dont personally like the feel of Houston or places like it..    I know peole that have moved there for jobs etc., coming from a better planned city that hated it....  But its all about whats important to you.  The old joke was that you could buy a house there, and out of nowhere you could have a muffler shop go up next to you.....

 

Im trying to keep an open mind though.       

Gramarye if you think Houston is beautiful, moreso than Boston, then yes I believe you may have stumbled upon our essential conundrum.

Conventional Planning May Be Contributing to Cleveland's Decline

Samuel Staley

Tue, 03/16/2010 - 14:41

 

Reason.tv has launched a multipart series of videos on how the city of Cleveland can turn itself around using free-market approaches and limited government reforms. Unfortunately, the video format didn’t provide enough time to explore the ways economic decline fundamentally challenges the concept and practice of urban planning in older cities. In a companion analysis, I discuss whether cities facing more complex and dynamic development environments need less conventional planning and more flexible, market-oriented land-use regulation such as the framework in play in Houston, Texas.

 

http://www.planetizen.com/node/43388

 

Discuss

Some good points. I agree that there isnt much of a point to zoning if a variance can be obtained so easily. We have seen the discouraging results on Euclid and will likely so more in the near future, but I see that more of an issue with the city being too (as you said) desperate. But many of the disappointing developments could have been different and many wouldnt have had issue with the zoning (as Ive seen the same examples in other places of how it should/could have been done), but the city seems too "afraid" to demand something better (or at the very least work with the developer on the issue, which they usually just need some understanding of).

 

You could say that evidence is Houston itself (for me), and likely for many pe ople that like an urban city environment. I dont personally like the feel of Houston or places like it..   I know peole that have moved there for jobs etc., coming from a better planned city that hated it.... But its all about whats important to you. The old joke was that you could buy a house there, and out of nowhere you could have a muffler shop go up next to you.....

 

Im trying to keep an open mind though.  

 

I really like what you have to say. I am not going to say that I know anything about zoning laws, planning, etc. But living downtown is something I do know a bit about. I've been staying downtown for the past four years and being a college student, it has had its ups and downs. I only watched two of the Reason videos and actually found myself enjoying what was being said and gathering viewpoints from others, which I would not normally hear from. Maybe this is a step in the right direction? Make a couple of videos to show the rest of the United States to not give up hope on a "once-great city?"

 

But if the city does start to "demand" something better, how many people are actually going to approve of the demands? How many people are actually going to say, "raise my taxes so that we can make Cleveland better?" From my point of view, not many, but it could be possible if they start demanding a change now on things that REALLY matter, not just a casino and medical mart for the time being.

 

I know that I go back and forth weekly with planning on staying in Cleveland or not because of the direction the city is heading. When I first came to Cleveland, I was attracted to all the different place to go: restaurants, clubs, museums, etc. But as I have gotten older, places have closed, become unattractive, and some have lost their spice. I still enjoy the urban environment Cleveland has provided me but I am not exactly positive that bringing a medical mart or changing zoning laws are going to "bring Cleveland up." I work downtown in Tower City and can see the potential but if we continue to shun those away from public buildings, shopping areas, and great Cleveland stops, how can we build the city back?

 

I am try to keep hope alive in myself about Cleveland but as of right now I can only keep an open mind and see what direction Cleveland heads in the upcoming years.

Gramarye if you think Houston is beautiful, moreso than Boston, then yes I believe you may have stumbled upon our essential conundrum.

 

Hah!  I didn't say Houston was "beautiful."  I just said that it's growing, and that it's economically healthier than Cleveland (which doesn't take much) and more aesthetically appealing than Boston (which also doesn't take much).

Here's how I would compare the two:  Houston is growing because it is the main port of the US oil industry.  Ironically enough, that's what put Cleveland on the map too.  But the torch has passed to Houston, and rightly so, as it sits near so much of the oil supply.  And it's in the sunbelt, which made it a natural destination for aging populations of the north, and it's also right by America's largest source of immigration. 

 

I don't think Houston's lack of zoning is what caused its growth, I attribute the growth to these other factors... and if Houston had had some zoning, it might not get so many of the "Really?  That's our 4th largest city?  Are you joking?" reactions it currently gets.  When asked to list off America's main cities, people tend to forget that Houston exists... let alone that it's #4 and climbing.  How many nondescript and unremarkable main cities does America need?

 

I also think Cleveland's poor planning, that of the sprawl era especially, has driven people and investment away.  America's northern cities can't offer the weather of the south, but they can offer what all successful northern cities of the world offer: a first class built environment that says "screw you, cold... we've not only beaten you, we've done it with style." 

 

If Cleveland is allowed to sprawl out randomly like Houston, but without Houston's situational advantages, the result will not be favorable.  As illustrated.  Cleveland's only shot is to BE a major city... in a way that's instantly and universally recognizable... which requires a world-class built environment.  Cold northern cities are successful all over the world, but never by following a sunbelt approach to development.  One size does not fit all.

^I can agree with that.  Cities develop in different ways based on different environmental, social, political, you-name-it circumstances.  And we can definitely look at many cities both pre and post automobile and see the impact which occurred.  I believe there is a pre-automobile dominated picture of Detroit on this forum- which looked as if it was as dense of a city population wise as you could get- both beautiful and booming.  But Detroit, as Cleveland and other cities, has had to adapt to the change in transportation usage.  The change in transportation usage led to changes in development.  The changes in development, overnight, led to changes in lifestyles.

 

Comparing Houston to Cleveland really is comparing apples to oranges.  Two different cities, in two different climates, which had major development during two different time periods in American history, with different racial policies, values, politics, development and redevelopment strategies, and economies (the most important factor) among other factors.  One plans for the future growth, while one hopes for future growth while dealing with a seemingly never-ending exodus.  One sprawls from population growth, while the other sprawls due to a fleeing middle-class.  One in a growing region while the other is in one which is stagnate, at best.  Either way, the development outcome in both cities- at this point in time- ends up being the same.  Autocentric. 

I don't think Houston's lack of zoning is what caused its growth, I attribute the growth to these other factors... and if Houston had had some zoning, it might not get so many of the "Really?  That's our 4th largest city?  Are you joking?" reactions it currently gets.  When asked to list off America's main cities, people tend to forget that Houston exists... let alone that it's #4 and climbing.  How many nondescript and unremarkable main cities does America need?

 

Why do cities need to be "descript and remarkable?"  And for that matter, what is it that makes a city "descript and remarkable?"  Who establishes the standards for that?  Why is it anything more than your personal opinion that Houston is nondescript and unremarkable?  As far as I could tell, it was no more or less remarkable than Cleveland.  Granted, I've only been there once.

 

Who are these people that "forget Houston exists" when listing America's largest cities?  Why does it matter if people forget Houston exists when listing America's largest cities?  Why is it lack of zoning rather than lack of, say, celebrities (see, e.g., sprawling-but-glitzy Los Angeles) and media presence that causes that reaction, to the extent it indeed exists?

 

I also think Cleveland's poor planning, that of the sprawl era especially, has driven people and investment away ...

 

If Cleveland is allowed to sprawl out randomly like Houston, but without Houston's situational advantages, the result will not be favorable.  As illustrated.  Cleveland's only shot is to BE a major city... in a way that's instantly and universally recognizable... which requires a world-class built environment.  Cold northern cities are successful all over the world, but never by following a sunbelt approach to development.  One size does not fit all.

 

In other words, zoning has caused the problems, but the solution is not less zoning, it's zoning with you in charge of it?

 

You claim to be a supporter of mixed-used developments, and yet a mixed-use developer in Houston will have a much easier time getting started with his actual work than he would in Cleveland.  Houston is not just adding sprawl, it's adding skyscrapers ... of the kind that Cleveland would probably hold up for years with various "planning" issues.

 

There are only so many vetoes that developers should be subject to when they're trying to actually improve the built environment.

 

ETA: I reiterate my point about zoning vs. planning here, though.  Zoning is a smaller topic, and one that gets an eerily warm reception here given what I know about the biases of this group.  It's been a major factor encouraging suburbanization, and yet people here think of it as a solution rather than a problem.

Why do cities need to be "descript and remarkable?"  And for that matter, what is it that makes a city "descript and remarkable?"   

 

You tell me.

 

In other words, zoning has caused the problems, but the solution is not less zoning, it's zoning with you in charge of it?

 

You claim to be a supporter of mixed-used developments, and yet a mixed-use developer in Houston will have a much easier time getting started with his actual work than he would in Cleveland.  Houston is not just adding sprawl, it's adding skyscrapers ... of the kind that Cleveland would probably hold up for years with various "planning" issues.

 

Lack of zoning caused the initial problems in Cleveland, which led to the development of both Shaker Heights and of zoning.  I'm not sure where, in that explanation, you find material to suggest that I said zoning caused the problem.

 

Subsequent to that era came the sprawl era.  Many of our pre-zoning mistakes, as well as some new mistakes based on the emerging suburban mindset, were then immortalized (temporarily of course) in the zoning code.  Wreckage ensued, as did dozens of Walgreens.  That cause-effect relationship doesn't invalidate the concept of zoning codes... it suggests that the content of zoning codes is important, and that your city will reflect the values reflected in its zoning codes.

 

It's quite a leap from there to say that zoning must go, planning must go, and each urban parcel should be developed according its owners' whimsy.  That's like saying the only answer to Hitler or Stalin is anarchy.  Yeah that's one answer... but it involves throwing out the baby with the bathwater, cutting off the nose to spite the face, and puking on one's own foot.

 

If the zoning code calls for mixed use, and the developer wants to build mixed use... what's the problem?  If there's a holdup in that case it ain't caused by the zoning code, it's caused by something else.  A development plan can't be non-compliant with a code it complies with.  That makes no sense.  Address the root of the problem, which is probably some identifiable jerkass administrator... don't just throw us headfirst into anarchy!  I won't deny that Cleveland needs to clean things up administratively.  On that we're in full agreement.

Why do cities need to be "descript and remarkable?" And for that matter, what is it that makes a city "descript and remarkable?"

 

You tell me.

 

You're the one who brought up those aggrandizing concepts.  I'm more interested in cities where people want to live, not where they want to visit.

 

If the zoning code calls for mixed use, and the developer wants to build mixed use... what's the problem?

 

First, the developer is likely to have to jump through time-consuming and expensive hoops to prove that he does in fact want to build a mixed-use development.  Second, the developer should no more be forced to build high-density mixed-use developments than 2500-sf houses on 0.33-acre lots.  Third, developers are more likely to go to places that have a reputation for respecting what developers want to do, rather than asserting all kinds of "public interest" reasons to play backseat driver, meaning that the more you burden developers, the more likely it is that you'll get no development at all.

FYI:  A couple of months ago, Cleve Ricksecker, Head of the downtown Columbus SID (Capitol Crossroads) did a presentation at the city Club w/ Joe Marinucci (Head of DCA) and Ned Hill (Head of Levin College at CSU).

 

Cleve said that downtown Columbus eradicated all zoning laws and replaced them with a Design Review Committee to influence the design form of the resultant building as a means of welcoming businesses and increasing the quality of urban design.

 

 

Cleveland also has a design review committee located here- http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/cpc.shtml

 

I'm more interested in cities where people want to live, not where they want to visit.

 

Do you find Shaker Heights or Avon more aesthetically pleasing?

Isn't Houston also a bastion of Federal jobs?  I bet if we got some of that action up here things would improve a bit.

I'm more interested in cities where people want to live, not where they want to visit.

 

Do you find Shaker Heights or Avon more aesthetically pleasing?

 

Meh.  Not particularly.  Fair point.  Perhaps I should have said "where people want to both live and work."

I'm more interested in cities where people want to live, not where they want to visit.

 

Do you find Shaker Heights or Avon more aesthetically pleasing?

 

Meh.  Not particularly.  Fair point.  Perhaps I should have said "where people want to both live and work."

 

Out of pure curiosity, what cities do you find to be "beautiful" and why?  Boston has many shortcomings, but one doesn't often hear a lack of beauty as one of them.

 

Before we carried too carried away with this conversation, Houston doesn't have strict Euclidean zoning, but the city most certainly has significant governmental land use regulations, such as minimum lot sizes (http://library.municode.com/HTML/10123/level4/CODE_C42_AIII_D4.html) and minimum parking requirements (http://library.municode.com/HTML/10123/level4/CODE_C26_AVIII_D2.html).  Further, in the absence of Euclidean zoning, it's developed a long tradition of elaborate covenants placed on subdivided land that limit uses, the enforcement of which involves the government.  Zoning or no zoning, this is where large scale residential development in the sun bet has been heading for years.  So to say developers or land owners in Houston have freer reign over property is a simplification at best, and is downright inaccurate in many cases.

 

One bright side of the emptying of large parts of Cleveland is that there is room to experiment.  We could designate, for example, a chunk of the forgotten triangle to be unzoned to see what happens.

I'm more interested in cities where people want to live, not where they want to visit.

 

Do you find Shaker Heights or Avon more aesthetically pleasing?

 

Meh. Not particularly. Fair point. Perhaps I should have said "where people want to both live and work."

 

Out of pure curiosity, what cities do you find to be "beautiful" and why? Boston has many shortcomings, but one doesn't often here a lack of beauty as one of them.

 

Heh.  I may not have a city I've found to be really beautiful yet.  I have a definite soft spot in my heart for Columbus, and Charlottesville, Virginia, where I spent three years in law school, was also a good one.  Gambier, Ohio also impressed me--or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Kenyon College did, but it is a very attractive community.  (Obviously, though, not only do I have no idea what their zoning code is like, but I would concede that no matter what it is, it's irrelevant to larger urban centers.)

 

One bright side of the emptying of large parts of Cleveland is that there is room to experiment. We could designate, for example, a chunk of the forgotten triangle to be unzoned to see what happens.

 

I don't know my Cleveland localisms enough to know precisely what "the forgotten triangle is," but I think an experiment in which one part of a city was given largely to market forces (at least to the extent Houston is, if not moreso) and one was given entirely to 327, OldManLadyLuck, Boreal, kingfish, etc. to run as they saw fit would be a very interesting experiment indeed.

 

  Speaking of experiments, consider large institutional land users such as hospitals, universities, airports, shopping malls, etc.  While they are still bound by the underlying zoning, they are less restricted than other users.

 

  A typical residential subdivision is controlled by zoning principally in this way: minimum street widths, minimum street curve radius, minimum frontage, minimum lot size, maximum building height, sometimes minimum building size, and prohibition of any other use other than single family residential. It's no wonder that all subdivisions look the same because they are all designed with the same geometry.

 

    Universities might be the least regulated, and just look at the results: A mix of building types including skyscrapers, pedestrian-only streets, lots of public green space and park-like areas, both narrow paths and wide avenues, mixed uses including retail and residential, parking garages, and usually good pedestrian access throughout.

 

 

"I think an experiment in which one part of a city was given largely to market forces..."

 

Consider Whitewater Township near Cincinnati. It is the only part of Hamilton County without zoning.

 

Whitewater township has a lot of gravel pits, auto parts salvage yards, landfills, trailer parks, lumber yards, and a lot of medium to heavy industry. Officials have tried to establish zoning many times but it has always been rejected by business interests who are wary of excess regulation.

 

One could perhaps say that Whitewater township IS zoned - it is zoned to allow all of the uses that are prohibited in the rest of Hamilton County. Thus, an experiment in which one part of the city isn't zoned might not really be a good experiment. A fair experiment would have anentire city unzoned.

I spend a few months working in Houston, and while it was not my favorite city, I can respect what they've accomplished. They are amazingly pro-growth there. And by the way, they were not always the center of the US energy industry. You may remember that the 1980's drama about oil in Texas was called "Dallas", for example.

 

Houston does not have zoning in the city.  However, it looks little different from most southern sprawlvilles.  Suburbs often do have zoning, and within the city, HOA restrictions are as tough as those anywhere. The city also has a building code the mimics zoning in some respects. This is not as wild-west as some might claim.

 

There's a lot of discussion here of whether planning is good or zoning is good. But the real question is whether we have good planning and good zoning.

 

We shouldn't get rid of zoning -- we should do good zoning. And good zoning is something that enforces good planning.

 

There was a reference to Cleve Ricksecker's talk about the new design-based zoning in downtown Columbus. That is an example of good zoning that replaced what had to have been the worst zoning in the country -- in the world. Until the new code was adopted in 1997, it would have been legal to build a one-story convenience store at Broad & High, with a parking lot out front. But the mixed-use office building that sits there had to get a variance because it didn't have a parking lot. That's because, decades earlier, Columbus adopted a wholesale  car-oriented zoning code that made it illegal to build the kinds of buildings that already were there. Instead, any new office buildings had to have certain numbers of parking spaces, which means developers had to buy other buildings and tear them down to make parking lots.

 

That is insane, but it doesn't mean zoning is bad. It just means Columbus had bad zoning -- as do most cities in America.

 

The city's Downtown Commission now has zoning that largely allows anything almost anywhere, but that encourages mixed uses and discourages demolition unless there are specific plans to replace razed buildings with something better. The review process is based largely on aesthetics. It's a design-review process that frequently allows developers to begin site work even before their projects have final approval. It's a good-faith move that encourages developers to work with the commission on better design. It makes it easier for developers to get their projects approved, yet holds them to a higher standard.

Gramarye if you think Houston is beautiful, moreso than Boston, then yes I believe you may have stumbled upon our essential conundrum.

 

Hah!  I didn't say Houston was "beautiful."  I just said that it's growing, and that it's economically healthier than Cleveland (which doesn't take much) and more aesthetically appealing than Boston (which also doesn't take much).

 

What?! I've never been to either but from what I have seen on TV and in pictures, Boston blows Houston out of the water. Perhaps Houston's skyline is sleeker and more impressive but Boston's historic, genuine character is in a totally different league.

 

The existence, the definition, and the aesthetic appeal of "historic, genuine character" are all open to question.  There is a difference between "old" and "historic," and I have yet to encounter an argument as to why "historic" is somehow a good thing.  The usual arguments I hear are about "quality building," which seems a false correlation (some older buildings were built to last and to be impressive, and some weren't; some newer buildings aren't built to last, and some are), or about completely subjective and nebulous concepts like "character" and "soul" that you simply either accept or you don't.

 

Personally, I admit to being strongly biased against "historic" buildings and in favor of modern ones.  I obtained this bias by growing up in a "historic" farmhouse that would have been better described as merely "ancient and drafty."

^ I'm not sure what applies to a drafty farmhouse applies to all historic structures.  Aesthetics are what they are, and people like what they like.  Fair enough.  But we're specifically talking about new structures here.  The issue is whether unplanned unzoned development is economically advantageous.  I say it's not.  I don't think Houston proves that it is, because I attribute Houston's growth to other factors, and I think these same factors allow Houston to get away with haphazard development.  Cleveland's climate doesn't appeal to retirees and Cleveland was never part of Mexico.  The oil industry is based in Houston for reasons other than the ease of building Walgreens there. 

 

The reasons that people "want to live" in Houston cannot be duplicated in Cleveland.  Also note that moving somewhere for a job differs from wanting to live there, and moving away due to lack of jobs differs from wanting to leave.  Cleveland and its rust belt siblings need to offer something more than colder versions of Houston.  Traditional urban design has been highly effective for many thousands of years in many different climates.  It was develped through the combined experience of millions of people worldwide throughout history. 

 

Northern cities that draw investment do so by impressing people with their urbanity.  Allowing individual developers to destroy that urbanity is not even helpful to those developers in the long term.  By making their surroundings less attractive and less functional on the whole, they depress their own property values.  To believe that you have to believe urban property values are interdependent...  which I don't think is much of a stretch.  That's how appraisal is done.  The quality of your property is determined primarily by the quality of your neighborhood and your street.  History has shown that certain combinations of land uses work better than others.         

The problem with your analysis is that Houston is not the only city with a light-touch approach to regulation that is growing, and Cleveland is not the only one that is shrinking.  This problem is extends beyond the mere Houston-Cleveland dyad; those cities are simply useful as a representative pairing.

  ^---"I have yet to encounter an argument as to why "historic" is somehow a good thing".

 

  "Historic" is not necessarily good just because it is old. However, consider that when automobiles began to dominate the built environment, the ability to walk around in neighborhoods was lost. A few "historic" neighborhoods remain, and a few reproductions have been built. These neighborhoods are often more comfortable for pedestrians than new ones.

 

    Take the proposed Northside Walgreens for example. Walgreens proposed to build a new store complete with parking lot on a vacant lot on Hamilton Avenue. Residents opposed it. What they objected to was not the store itself, but the curb cuts. Residents did not want cars crossing the sidewalk.

 

    Northside is a "historic" neighborhood. The benefit isn't that the buildings are old; the benefit is that the neighborhood is walkable. Most of the buildings in Northside would be illegal today in most places in Ohio because of minimum setbacks, minimum parking requirements, etc., all developments that came with zoning and design of the built environment around cars.

Hmmm.  I respect that goal, but the means by which you arrive there seems to be making an argument by proxy that would be much more effective made directly: The argument is that you want curbside storefronts, uncut sidewalks, and other pedestrian-friendly infrastructure, not that you want "historic" buildings or "historic" neighborhoods.  After all, from the sound of things (I'm not familiar with this debate), CVS is proposing to build a new building, not renovate a "historic" one.

 

Proxies make sense when they allow one to substitute something specific and concrete for something that is intrinsically difficult to quantify or define.  Your argument seems to go in the opposite direction, though: substituting the amorphous "historic" for specific pedestrian-friendly characteristics that are not perfectly correlated with being "historic."  I'm absolutely on board with doing away with setback requirements.  (I'm also not a huge fan of "set-forward" requirements, but at least those comport with my own aesthetic preferences a little more.)  I just don't see the nexus with historic preservation here.  In fact, given the status quo, I would think that bringing such amenities to the modern urban landscape would be more modernization than preservation.

 

    People do want curbside storefronts and the like. The problem is that given the current legal requirements of zoning, it is easier to preserve an old one under the "historic" designation than it is to construct a new one. 

 

   

I agree that the issue is functionality rather than historic-ness per se.  The ony nexus with historic preservation is the fact that historic structures are usually more appropriate for urban use than what tends to replace them.  But that problem can be addressed by updating the zoning codes.  Most of them nowadays were written in the anti-urban pro-sprawl era.  So in that sense, yes our current zoning codes are themselves destructive... but only because of their setback-happy content, not by merit of being zoning codes.  And you're right, so much damage has been done to the urban fabric in places like Cleveland... and sprawl is becoming so passe... that "modernization" could very well describe the process of re-urbanizing.