Interesting thread.  IMO one of Cleveland's biggest issues is lack of code enforcement.  Is it we have too few inspectors?  Or are they like many other city departments: show up at 8 am, are allowed 3 hours of breaks and getting into the field, then lunch, then 2 hours or getting back to the office, resulting in 15 minutes of actual code enforcement per day?  :-o

^I think you're referring to housing code enforcement (property condition; safety), which is a totally different animal from zoning. Zoning cares not about plumbing, peeling paint, and overgrown grass.

^I think you're referring to housing code enforcement (property condition; safety), which is a totally different animal from zoning. Zoning cares not about plumbing, peeling paint, and overgrown grass.

 

Yes understood--sorry was thrown off by the snow/sidewalk talk upthread. 

Never in my life would I expect the uber-progressive set at CityLab to link economic/social problems to zoning, which has remained the darling of progressives.  I guess you'll see just about everything at one point.  This exact argument has been made by libertarians and classical liberals for decades to very little fanfare on the left.

 

How Zoning Laws Exacerbate Inequality

Such laws aren’t just a headache for developers, economists believe. They’re bad for (nearly) everyone.

http://www.citylab.com/politics/2015/11/how-zoning-laws-exacerbate-inequality/417573/?utm_source=SFTwitter

Never in my life would I expect the uber-progressive set at CityLab to link economic/social problems to zoning, which has remained the darling of progressives.  I guess you'll see just about everything at one point.  This exact argument has been made by libertarians and classical liberals for decades to very little fanfare on the left.

 

How Zoning Laws Exacerbate Inequality

Such laws aren’t just a headache for developers, economists believe. They’re bad for (nearly) everyone.

http://www.citylab.com/politics/2015/11/how-zoning-laws-exacerbate-inequality/417573/?utm_source=SFTwitter

 

This is the same tune that urbanists have been singing for quite some time. It's nothing new.

Depends on how you define "urbanist."  I've spent years around urban planners (students and professionals) and when I call for the elimination or even substantial limiting of zoning, they look at me like I have 3 heads.  It's a rare opinion among them. 

The issue is what kind of zoning should apply where, rather than "this one specific policy vs. no policy at all."  That's a false choice.  Regardless of how it's framed, this article is pretty specific in arguing against the use of zoning laws to prevent urban density.  Most modern zoning laws are set up that way because anti-density has been the development paradigm for decades now.  There are myriad possibilities for reform other than eliminating zoning altogether. 

The issue is what kind of zoning should apply where, rather than "this one specific policy vs. no policy at all."  That's a false choice.  Regardless of how it's framed, this article is pretty specific in arguing against the use of zoning laws to prevent urban density.  Most modern zoning laws are set up that way because anti-density has been the development paradigm for decades now.  There are myriad possibilities for reform other than eliminating zoning altogether.

 

See:

 

the elimination or even substantial limiting of zoning

Depends on how you define "urbanist."  I've spent years around urban planners (students and professionals) and when I call for the elimination or even substantial limiting of zoning, they look at me like I have 3 heads.  It's a rare opinion among them. 

 

No, you don't find many people advocating the abolition of zoning, but most people I know would support a significant restructuring of zoning codes to make them less restrictive.

A big reason why urbanists are increasingly hostile to zoning is because it forces developers to offer anti-urban, anti-pedestrian designs and property owners to provide deeper setbacks and much more parking than is necessary or desired. So instead of putting buildings on the sidewalk or seeking out creative shared parking arrangements that reduce the costs to developers/property owners, zoning codes administered by inflexible planning boards/building departments force land use patterns that create more impervious surfaces (most cities have 40 percent of their land use devoted to cars!) put more burden and stress on stormwater systems, their excessive construction and thus taxpayers. So there's reasons for conservatives AND progressives to love this.

The issue is what kind of zoning should apply where, rather than "this one specific policy vs. no policy at all."  That's a false choice.  Regardless of how it's framed, this article is pretty specific in arguing against the use of zoning laws to prevent urban density.  Most modern zoning laws are set up that way because anti-density has been the development paradigm for decades now.  There are myriad possibilities for reform other than eliminating zoning altogether.

 

See:

 

the elimination or even substantial limiting of zoning

 

Same issue just on a spectrum.  Still assumes there are no alternative zoning codes that might be beneficial rather than harmful.

 

A big reason why urbanists are increasingly hostile to zoning is because it forces developers to offer anti-urban, anti-pedestrian designs and property owners to provide deeper setbacks and much more parking than is necessary or desired. So instead of putting buildings on the sidewalk or seeking out creative shared parking arrangements that reduce the costs to developers/property owners, zoning codes administered by inflexible planning boards/building departments force land use patterns that create more impervious surfaces (most cities have 40 percent of their land use devoted to cars!) put more burden and stress on stormwater systems, their excessive construction and thus taxpayers. So there's reasons for conservatives AND progressives to love this.

 

You mention several problems caused by bad zoning, but you also mention several desirable ends that reformed zoning might encourage.  I just don't see elimination, or partial elimination, as the only choices here.

^ Thus the increased discussion about form based zoning codes

^ Thus the increased discussion about form based zoning codes

 

Yet right-wingers start screaming "communism/socialism" when hearing it.

Depends on how you define "urbanist."  I've spent years around urban planners (students and professionals) and when I call for the elimination or even substantial limiting of zoning, they look at me like I have 3 heads.  It's a rare opinion among them. 

 

Substantial zoning reform (i.e., much more permissive density controls) has been pretty standard stuff for fair housing advocates for decades. If you search for "exclusionary zoning," you'll find hits in Google scholar from the 1960s, mostly from lefty legal scholars. Noticing that zoning is a supply constraint is all of a sudden voguish (maybe Ryan Avent and Ed Glaeser'ss books?), which is very good, IMHO, but it's not exactly new.

 

I do certainly agree that many "progressive" factions are annoyingly resistant to this idea, but it still has far more purchase on the left than it does on the right, overall, given the political irrelevance of libertarians (unfortunately).

 

EDIT: it occurs to me that some of the political perception may be generational. I'm just old enough that I still think of the current anti-gentrification SJW types as a recent phenomenon. Though they are vocal and hold some political sway in some big cities, they don't really define the partisan landscape for me. And the friction between that faction and wider progressive political community is on full display right now in NYC as it debates some of the de Blasio rezonings, which would greatly increase the permitted density in the target neighborhoods.

^ Thus the increased discussion about form based zoning codes

 

Yet right-wingers start screaming "communism/socialism" when hearing it.

 

Agenda 21! New World Order!

Substantial zoning reform (i.e., much more permissive density controls) has been pretty standard stuff for fair housing advocates for decades. If you search for "exclusionary zoning," you'll find hits in Google scholar from the 1960s, mostly from lefty legal scholars. Noticing that zoning is a supply constraint is all of a sudden voguish (maybe Ryan Avent and Ed Glaeser'ss books?), which is very good, IMHO, but it's not exactly new.

 

I do certainly agree that many "progressive" factions are annoyingly resistant to this idea, but it still has far more purchase on the left than it does on the right, overall, given the political irrelevance of libertarians (unfortunately).

 

EDIT: it occurs to me that some of the political perception may be generational. I'm just old enough that I still think of the current anti-gentrification SJW types as a recent phenomenon. Though they are vocal and hold some political sway in some big cities, they don't really define the partisan landscape for me. And the friction between that faction and wider progressive political community is on full display right now in NYC as it debates some of the de Blasio rezonings, which would greatly increase the permitted density in the target neighborhoods.

 

I hear ya on that and I mostly agree.  But why have the most restrictive zoning codes persisted in the most progressive cities for so long?  The northeast and northern midwest have been dominated by leftist administrations since the 60s and they are among those cities with the most restrictive codes.  Relaxed zoning is either a very low priority for most administrations or they are outright opposed (probably due to the loss of control).

 

I've seen that some lefties have recognized that the housing crunches on the coasts are mostly a supply and demand issue but I'm less convinced that has caught on to the mainstream left.  The SJW are certainly opposed to less government control over housing, even far enough to oppose increased density or any new construction in certain areas.  Although they may not speak for the broader progressive community, they certainly seem to be more and more vocal and powerful.  I get the impression that they call plenty of shots in the Bay Area, it will be interesting to see how things play out in NY.

^ I think that's why it's hard to neatly categorize urbanism issues into "right" vs "left."

^ I think that's why it's hard to neatly categorize urbanism issues into "right" vs "left."

 

Sure, but I'm not talking about the universe of "urbanism issues."  I'm talking specifically about attitudes towards zoning.  The modern zoning code was the child of the progressive era created by and advocated for by progressives.  To this day, the most restrictive codes exist in the most progressive cities.  That's why I was so surprised to see that article in CityLab, which champions itself as a progressive publication.  Not everyone on the left is a hardline progressive, but it seems that government restrictions on housing (yes, even with regards to density) still remains a pretty solidly supported proposition to much of that side of the ideological spectrum (with some dissent - bravo).  It also enjoys plenty of support on the broad right as well, but certainly not among libertarians.

^ Right, but the modern zoning code was created in cities that look far different than they do today. There were valid concerns about making sure that toxic factories were not operating next to residential areas. I doubt that the progressives who championed zoning laws at the time would have been in favor of the low-density, sprawled type development that it has evolved to support.

^ Right, but the modern zoning code was created in cities that look far different than they do today. There were valid concerns about making sure that toxic factories were not operating next to residential areas. I doubt that the progressives who championed zoning laws at the time would have been in favor of the low-density, sprawled type development that it has evolved to support.

 

Oh my dear friend, how I wish you were correct.

 

From Euclid v. Ambler (The case the ruled on the constitutionality of our modern zoning schemes)

 

Justice Sutherland:

With particular reference to apartment houses, it is pointed out that the development of detached house sections is greatly retarded by the coming of apartment houses, which has sometimes resulted in destroying the entire section for private house purposes; that, in such sections, very often the apartment house is a mere parasite, constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district. Moreover, the coming of one apartment house is followed by others, interfering by their height and bulk with the free circulation of air and monopolizing the rays of the sun which otherwise would fall upon the smaller homes, and bringing, as their necessary accompaniments, the disturbing noises incident to increased traffic and business, and the occupation, by means of moving and parked automobiles, of larger portions of the streets, thus detracting from their safety and depriving children of the privilege of quiet and open spaces for play, enjoyed by those in more favored localities -- until, finally, the residential character of the neighborhood and its desirability as a place of detached residences are utterly destroyed. Under these circumstances, apartment houses, which in a different environment would be not only entirely unobjectionable but highly desirable, come very near to being nuisances.

 

 

From conception, it was created to support single family homes at the expense of apartments.  Here's a little secret - progressives ain't so progressive.

 

EDIT: "Monopolizing the rays of the sun" is one of my favorite phrases of all time.

Probably because many of these cities view the zoning code as a way of protecting the powerless from the powerful -- ie: preventing a big company from locating a polluting, unhealthy industrial facility next to a residential area of poor minorities. Of course that's an extreme example and has nothing to do with setbacks and parking requirements. But some who actually know what's in the zoning the code either don't like to weaken any part of the zoning for fear of having it go too far, or they don't wish to alter a citywide zoning code to please the occasional instance of business or property owners complaining. The canned response was always "if you have a complaint, that's what the Board of Zoning Appeals and variances are for." There's rarely been a systematic way of reforming the zoning code because there's never been a pro-urban constituency requesting from mayors and councils it as a mean of holistically improving urban land use policy for the betterment of cities, not just "a narrow, selfish corporate interest," in the words of progressive civic leaders. That changed significantly when form-based zoning gained champions.

I hear ya on that and I mostly agree.  But why have the most restrictive zoning codes persisted in the most progressive cities for so long?  The northeast and northern midwest have been dominated by leftist administrations since the 60s and they are among those cities with the most restrictive codes.  Relaxed zoning is either a very low priority for most administrations or they are outright opposed (probably due to the loss of control).

 

I've seen that some lefties have recognized that the housing crunches on the coasts are mostly a supply and demand issue but I'm less convinced that has caught on to the mainstream left.  The SJW are certainly opposed to less government control over housing, even far enough to oppose increased density or any new construction in certain areas.  Although they may not speak for the broader progressive community, they certainly seem to be more and more vocal and powerful.  I get the impression that they call plenty of shots in the Bay Area, it will be interesting to see how things play out in NY.

 

There's just so much to this issue. There's some evidence that even in big cities, "homevoters" (the influential homeowner class explored by Bill Fischel primarily in the suburbs) are extremely powerful. In many areas, homeowners may be "progressive" with respect to some issues, but not when it comes to threats to their home values. Even if they aren't consciously acting as monopolists, they are hyper risk-averse to amenity congestion and aesthetic degradation, because their wealth portfolio is so concentrated in their home equity. Hypocritical in light of their political values, perhaps, but no more so than the "freedom-loving" exurbanites who love their large lot zoning. To this extent, these cities aren't so much "shooting themselves in the foot" as they are responding to rational demands of their electorate.  And on top of that, of course, the anti gentrification agitators join with the homevoters to form an unfortunate and unacknowledged anti-development alliance. Plus preservationists and other literal conservatives (who hate change). Plus residents with long memories of government mistreatment in the urban renewal era.

 

Another aspect is the tension between specific identifiable "victims" of of localized neighborhood change versus the abstract, non-specific victims of overall supply constraints. This seems to be human nature, across the political spectrum (e.g., mercury and other toxic emissions unambiguously cause tons of harm, but conservative political clout lines up behind specific people employed by the coal industry).

 

Another issue is that zoning wasn't all that binding in many urban areas until fairly recently. In my lifetime, NYC was engaged in planned shrinkage of certain neighborhoods, similar to what Youngstown has experimented with recently. The extreme supply constraints we currently have in places like NYC, DC, SF, and Boston were unimaginable even 20 years ago. The cost of imposing deeper zoning controls and preserving certain neighborhoods were simply lower before now, because demand for zoning capacity was so much less than today. So yeah, they've persisted a long time, but it really didn't matter all that much till recently.

 

And even now, there are no widespread supply constraints in most of the midwest. In cities like Cleveland, zoning is a very mild tax, forcing developers to pay a few thousand bucks to consultants and the city to apply for variances or whatever. Until very recently, and only in a tiny fraction of the city, my sense is that the real underlying density constraints (what the city was willing to give variances for) weren't really binding at all. I would enthusiastically support zoning reform (enough to start this thread!) but I am extremely skeptical zoning has been holding back much development in Cleveland.

 

I should also say that I don't quite buy the idea "the most restrictive zoning codes" are in the "most progressive cities."  It's true in some sense, if you measure "restrictive" purely as the gap between market demand and permitted density, but that's because these progressive cities are by far the most desirable in the U.S. In an absolute sense, though, cities like Dallas and Phoenix are far more restrictive, with much lower permitted densities in already-developed areas. Not to mention suburban jurisdictions, which limit density far more than big "progressive" cities. [There's also an unfortunate bias in the overlap between urban areas and political orientations; "conservative" states tend to be flat, inland, and newer, so their urban areas don't have the same geographic and historical constraints that cause such steep land value gradients in places like NYC, Boston, and SF, which leads to some pretty spurious superficial correlations, IMHO.]

 

Anyway, sorry for this explosion of words. I am very much a supply sider. So even though I am not a libertarian, I often agree with much of your critique in these areas. I can say with some certainty that this view is fairly widespread among much of the "liberal" urban technocracy (the research world; HUD leadership; big east coast city halls), so I am not at all surprised to see it in CityLab, but I for sure agree with you that there is still a lot of resistance.

Let's learn the good/bad from others. Here's an old US city that paved over much of its historic core, now looking at new directions....

 

Hartford Adopts Biggest Change In Zoning Rules In Nearly 50 Years

By Vanessa de la Torre

Jan. 13, 2016

 

HARTFORD — The first major overhaul of Hartford's zoning laws in nearly half a century was adopted Tuesday amid praise and some concern from residents worried how the changes could affect who gets to live in single-family homes.

 

At midnight, after more than an hourlong discussion, the planning and zoning commission unanimously approved the new regulations.

 

The city has dubbed the overhaul ZoneHartford, a project more than two years in the making to streamline zoning regulations and "comprehensively update them to reflect the city's current vision and today's best practices," according to one city pamphlet.

 

City zoning officials said the goals were to make the city more walkable and bike-friendly, while protecting the character of neighborhoods and encouraging economic development and green projects.

 

MORE:

http://www.courant.com/community/hartford/hc-hartford-zoning-change-0113-20160112-story.html

Probably because many of these cities view the zoning code as a way of protecting the powerless from the powerful -- ie: preventing a big company from locating a polluting, unhealthy industrial facility next to a residential area of poor minorities. Of course that's an extreme example and has nothing to do with setbacks and parking requirements. But some who actually know what's in the zoning the code either don't like to weaken any part of the zoning for fear of having it go too far, or they don't wish to alter a citywide zoning code to please the occasional instance of business or property owners complaining. The canned response was always "if you have a complaint, that's what the Board of Zoning Appeals and variances are for." There's rarely been a systematic way of reforming the zoning code because there's never been a pro-urban constituency requesting from mayors and councils it as a mean of holistically improving urban land use policy for the betterment of cities, not just "a narrow, selfish corporate interest," in the words of progressive civic leaders. That changed significantly when form-based zoning gained champions.

 

An industrial facility can't be too "polluting and unhealthy" anywhere these days, but especially in a denser area so that's not that major of an issue any more.  The location issue vis a vis low income neighborhoods came to a head early in the Clinton Administration when some of his people started talking about "environmental racism" in those terms, causing big city mayors to give birth to porcupines.  Breech presentation. 

 

Then and now that large industrial employer, particularly with ISO 14000 certification, would be welcomed ecstatically by the city and not only encouraged but incentivized to locate near potential workers.

 

That said, zoning has become primarily a way to enforce the visions of the planners, for better or worse.  It's integral to the central planning process and has to be evaluated simultaneously with such.

 

Unfortunately, in a political milieu with a historically high level of corruption, it must be watched carefully because it is a very common method for lining the pockets of regulators.

I'm not convinced a design review veto would survive court challenge.

 

I'm pretty sure it would.  This is an everyday practice in most US communities.  Regulations are broadly legal unless they violate civil rights.  And cities aren't prone to holding regular open meetings of illegal commissions. 

 

I'm pretty sure that Design review, as something separate from zoning, is not part of the process in "most US communities."  Much more typical, even in jurisdictions that intentionally under-zone to maintain control, is a planning process based on ostensibly objective factors. Citizens may lobby against projects based on purely aesthetic grounds, but public officials are usually careful to couch their objections somewhat differently.

 

And pure aesthetics directly implicate first amendment rights, almost by definition.

 

Practically speaking, litigation is extremely unlikely in Cleveland and elsewhere. Even if city hall doesn't pressure commissioners, repeat players have a pretty strong incentive to play nice.

 

EDIT: for anyone who feels like totally nerding out, here's a 1986 Akron Law Review article about aesthetic zoning in Ohio: https://www.uakron.edu/dotAsset/82eaa020-cb92-454d-a98e-2c01f6e132e3.pdf

Having dealt with this professionally, from coast to coast, I can tell you design review is very common and very legal.  On solely aesthetic grounds.  It is the norm in metropolitan areas great and small.  You don't usually encounter design review in backwoods Missouri type places, but then again sometimes you do.  And your only choice is to comply.

 

edited to add:

 

Also, the first amendment has nothing to do with aesthetics.  It only covers political discourse and even then its protections are limited.  I encounter a lot of "government can't do that" positions on this forum, and for the most part, these positions are categorically incorrect.  Yes government can.  There is very little the feds are barred from doing, and there is even less that state and local governments are barred from doing. 

And your only choice is to comply.

 

Great!!!  What could go wrong?!

Yes government can.  There is very little the feds are barred from doing, and there is even less that state and local governments are barred from doing.

 

This has worked very well throughout history.

Yes government can.  There is very little the feds are barred from doing, and there is even less that state and local governments are barred from doing.

 

This has worked very well throughout history.

 

We all disagree with the government about something, maybe several things.  I still prefer not to live in an anarchy.  Your mileage may vary.

Yes government can.  There is very little the feds are barred from doing, and there is even less that state and local governments are barred from doing.

 

This has worked very well throughout history.

 

We all disagree with the government about something, maybe several things.  I still prefer not to live in an anarchy.  Your mileage may vary.

 

If you equate the freedom of landowners to make discretionary architectural decisions with anarchy......

I confess my expertise in this area is fairly focused on NYC, so I shouldn't make too many claims about other jurisdictions.  That said, some additional observations:

 

Reading Cleveland's design review ordinance (http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/ordinance.shtml), it's clear that even in Cleveland, the design review committee is advisory only, so has no teeth. Only the planning commission has authority (or the landmarks commission in historic districts), and it's free to ignore the design review committee's vote.

 

Even so, the applicability of design review approval from CPC in Cleveland does seem more widespread than the design review requirements in the few other large jurisdictions I've checked just now. Design review approval in Cleveland is required for all projects in review districts, new construction and alteration alike. And even outside review districts, design review is required for all residential new construction and certain types of other new construction.

 

This is likely true in historic districts in many other jurisdictions, but I don't think blanket requirements are common elsewhere, except as part of general discretionary approvals (zoning changes) when required. Definitely not in NYC for as of right projects. Looks like the same for Philly, where design review is tied to rezonings. In Boston, discretionary approvals are only required for as-of-right projects over 50K sf. In DC, looks like only Chinatown has a general design review requirement for as-of-right construction.

 

I'm probably moving the goalposts a bit though, because a project as large as NuCLEus is likely to require a rezoning is just about every jurisdiction, so whether or not the city has a formal "design review" process, the city holds the cards and can ask for all sorts of things. Where Cleveland really seems different is with all the little projects, requiring design review for all those four unit townhouse projects.

 

None of this answers the question of the legal permissibility of purely aesthetic review, but there probably isn't a clear answer there. I might dig up some of the old Ohio court opinions to see if there's anything interesting. In any case, the way the city's ordinance is written might give the city cover behind pseudo-objective standards, regardless of the content of the actual discussions in the hearing. Would definitely be a tough case to argue.

 

[EDIT: As 327 points out below, the legal permissibility of aesthetic controls is pretty well established at this point]

None of this answers the question of the legal permissibility of purely aesthetic review, but there probably isn't a clear answer there. I might dig up some of the old Ohio court opinions to see if there's anything interesting. In any case, the way the city's ordinance is written might given the city cover behind pseudo-objective standards, regardless of the content of the actual discussions in the hearing. Would definitely be a tough case to argue.

 

There is no question, at all, that purely aesthetic review is permitted.  It simply is.  The law review article you posted is very clear about this, on page 2:

 

"In recent years public officials have enacted and courts generally have upheld a variety of forms of aesthetic regulation... At the federal level, the Supreme Court has expressly ruled that aesthetic values constitute a legitimate public purpose for police power regulation.  Similarly, Ohio and other state courts have ruled that purely aesthetic values may be furthered in regulation of land use and development."

^That's totally fair. It does seem to be far more settled than I had assumed. Facial challenges would almost certainly fail. I should probably read the materials I link to!

I try my best not to be pushy, but it's really important to me that people understand the basic laws governing what we talk about here.  And now, thanks to your research, we have specific info about the process in Cleveland.

I was clearly wrong for suggesting the potential legal vulnerability of an adverse design review decision. I still stand by my view that Cleveland's discretionary review system is among the most extreme among large US jurisdictions. At least among the ones whose systems I've reviewed over the years.

 

Also, the first amendment has nothing to do with aesthetics.  It only covers political discourse and even then its protections are limited.

 

Not super relevant to zoning at this point, but this is clearly untrue, as I know you know. There are different standards of legal scrutiny for restrictions on different types of speech, but non-political speech is most certainly covered by the First Amendment. Even commercial speech is protected.

That's a really complex discussion, and I don't see how we could keep it zoning-flavored.

Yes government can.  There is very little the feds are barred from doing, and there is even less that state and local governments are barred from doing.

 

This has worked very well throughout history.

 

I actually think zoning, or at least the day to day enforcement of it, is one thing government does good.  The planning commission has regular meetings, keeps things public, and does their job from what I can tell.

 

It is a completely different story in Cleveland for changing zoning laws to adapt to the times, or the day-to-day mundane functions of government like waste collection or snow removal.  :whip:

I actually think zoning, or at least the day to day enforcement of it, is one thing government does good.  The planning commission has regular meetings, keeps things public, and does their job from what I can tell.

 

It is a completely different story in Cleveland for changing zoning laws to adapt to the times, or the day-to-day mundane functions of government like waste collection or snow removal.  :whip:

 

Procedurally, sure, it may run smoothly.  I have a problem with the conceptual foundation behind the entire enterprise and its current limits (or lack thereof).  I'm fine to debate that but I feel that is a horse well beaten at this point.

Planning commission nears approval of innovative zoning aimed at transforming downtown

By Steven Litt, The Plain Dealer

on February 11, 2016 at 8:05 AM, updated February 11, 2016 at 8:46 AM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio – No more parking garages or buildings with blank, windowless facades that turn sidewalks into scary dead zones.

 

No more buildings with hallways, mechanical spaces, trash rooms or utility vaults fronting major streets.

 

Those are some goals of the innovative new "Urban Core Overlay" zoning the administration of Mayor Frank Jackson wants the city's planning commission to approve as part of its new thrust to update how it regulates development.

 

MORE:

http://www.cleveland.com/architecture/index.ssf/2016/02/planning_commission_puts_brief.html

Progress!

Does anyone have an opinion on the variance discussion that was mentioned in the article?

 

I know they state the goal was to greatly reduce variances...but I think I agree with the commission that sending requests to Common Pleas is a bad idea. That would take forever to get resolved. But then again maybe that's the idea in the first place.

Does anyone have an opinion on the variance discussion that was mentioned in the article?

 

I know they state the goal was to greatly reduce variances...but I think I agree with the commission that sending requests to Common Pleas is a bad idea. That would take forever to get resolved. But then again maybe that's the idea in the first place.

 

That has to be.  Especially when one considers that Cleveland already has a separate Housing Court.

Does anyone have an opinion on the variance discussion that was mentioned in the article?

 

I know they state the goal was to greatly reduce variances...but I think I agree with the commission that sending requests to Common Pleas is a bad idea. That would take forever to get resolved. But then again maybe that's the idea in the first place.

 

Just conceptually, I see that the proposal is an overlay on existing zoning rather than a replacement or even a partial replacement of it.  I'm curious what the argument is that that will "facilitate" (the article's language) anything.  More restrictions don't count as facilitation.  The appeal of form-based zoning is supposed to be a replacement of existing use-based zoning, and so is the more flexibility on variances.  The best way to be more flexible on variances is to change the rules so that certain forms of building that are almost always approved when variances are requested are simply legal without a lengthy, expensive, and still-somewhat-uncertain legal process first.

Just conceptually, I see that the proposal is an overlay on existing zoning rather than a replacement or even a partial replacement of it.  I'm curious what the argument is that that will "facilitate" (the article's language) anything.  More restrictions don't count as facilitation.  The appeal of form-based zoning is supposed to be a replacement of existing use-based zoning, and so is the more flexibility on variances.  The best way to be more flexible on variances is to change the rules so that certain forms of building that are almost always approved when variances are requested are simply legal without a lengthy, expensive, and still-somewhat-uncertain legal process first.

 

You nailed it.  For some reason the word "innovative" is used to describe larding on more restrictions to our hopelessly dysfunctional code from the 1920s in addition to making the variance process even more opaque.  How innovative.  Progress!

^Although it is not the ideal way to start implementing a form based code, it is a way to start creating areas that can be used as case studies for an eventual overhaul of the zoning code. I don't believe that the planning commission can just unilaterally change the code themselves, I think that requires getting city council on board. With that said, the overlay will trump existing zoning codes...the existing code will only apply to things not covered by the overlay (at least that is my understanding). I think the planning commission is taking a more piecemeal approach to avoid the headaches that occurred in Cincinnati (build more political support) and because, unlike other states that have changed to a form based code, Ohio does not have enabling legislation that would support such a change.

It's hard to tell what this is without actually reading it. As the Midtown rezoning shows, the city uses "overlay" pretty loosely. It might be an actual replacement.

  The best way to be more flexible on variances is to change the rules so that certain forms of building that are almost always approved when variances are requested are simply legal without a lengthy, expensive, and still-somewhat-uncertain legal process first.

 

But that has the potential to reduce the total number of billable hours and we can't have that.....

Downtown Toronto went all in with a pair of Kings: successful example of mixed-use zoning https://t.co/vikRS0fLnH https://t.co/gVsFA8jBuZ

^Ugh... that article makes me sick.  The amount of success that Toronto has is unbelievable.

 

Development: City planning reports 45,913 residential units have been built or are in some stage of the pipeline as of December of 2015.  That's while we tout the 400 units brought online last year in downtown Cleveland.  Along with the amount of jobs that have been created there... unbelievable.

^Ugh... that article makes me sick.  The amount of success that Toronto has is unbelievable.

 

Development: City planning reports 45,913 residential units have been built or are in some stage of the pipeline as of December of 2015.  That's while we tout the 400 units brought online last year in downtown Cleveland.  Along with the amount of jobs that have been created there... unbelievable.

 

I think it's unfair to compare the two cities directly.  Toronto is their "Big Apple".    A more reasonable comparison would be between Cleveland and another mid to small sized city.  If you want to keep it in the Great Lakes, perhaps Hamilton ON?  Of course their population is more than Cleveland, but it wasn't too far in the past that they were the same size....