A minimum level of land use regulation by local governments is necessary for cities to function properly, especially big cities. Imagine the worst-case scenarios of a city with zero land use regulation: a landfill next door to a pre-school, or a row of houses within an animal slaughtering complex. However, big cities often go overboard with their regulatory powers. Watch the TED Talk below for a great example of ridiculous local government regulations in Los Angeles.
Now, a city that has a reputation for over-regulating is Portland, Oregon. In some circles (urban planning schools) Portland is hailed as a utopia, while in other circles (libertarian think tanks and political groups) Portland is despised. The truth is a bit more complicated. While Portland is very active in big-picture land use regulation (its regional Urban Growth Boundary is a good example of this), it does not engage in the type of micro-managing of land uses that Los Angeles is guilty of as noted in the TED Talk above. The results are quite interesting. Throughout Portland, you will find numerous examples of adaptive reuse of buildings including: old fire stations converted into condos, dozens of former industrial buildings that now contain retail space and apartments, and even an old elementary school that was converted into a hotel/microbrewery. Check out the video below for a close-up look at the McMenamin’s Kennedy School, Portland’s elementary school turned hotel/brewery.
What are your thoughts about land use regulation in cities?
John Karras believes that all communities have the potential to become more vibrant. John’s professional passions are aligned at the three-way intersection of urban planning, economic development and transportation policy. John founded urbanSCALE.com to empower urban planning and economic development professionals with the knowledge and tools needed to make their communities more vibrant. John is also the creator of the urbanSCALE Rating System, the first comprehensive measure of how urban a city is on a scale of 1 to 10.
Hi John,
Interesting debate! LOVE the TED talk on South Central LA. “Drive-thrus are killing more than Drive-bys.” “LA leads the country in vacant lots–20 Central Parks. That’s 720 million tomato plants.” “Growing your own food is like printing your own money.” “Gardening is the most defiant act you can do in a city.” “If kids grow kale, kids eat kale.” “Be gangsta with your shovel.” Astounding quotes and stats.
It makes me think of this NPR segment on the Brian Lehrer show with Professor Daniel Campo about very structured public spaces versus unstructured public spaces, and how it’s good to have unstructured public spaces so that citizens/residents themselves can build things (gardens, light campfires, etc.) versus just having the city doing it for you. Campo compares the new Brooklyn Bridge Park in Brooklyn Heights (my ‘hood!) to the old one along the border of Williamsburg and E. River. The new one is gorgeous but is very restricted when it comes to what visitors can do (no landscaping, gardening, no campfires, etc.) versus the old one which was unstructured so residents would come down and do their own thing–play chess, roast marshmallows with little campfires, etc. He also discusses how Bloomberg re-zoned 40% of the city and moved underutilized land from commercial to residential, but that Bloomberg’s new park land purchases (Bushwick Inlet Park) should have been better negotiated and that it doesn’t have enough public open space. He thinks some parks are overdesigned and should be more open and unstructured. Here’s the link:
http://www.wnyc.org/radio/#/ondemand/336733
Tula-
Thanks for the comments on parks. I agree that there are not enough unstructured public spaces and there are not enough parks in general.
I would add another twist to the debate. I think many parks are too big. Parks in and of themselves are rarely destinations in cities. There should only be a handful of major destination parks in large cities, and probably only one major park in smaller cities. Think of NYC in your case. You have Central Park, the obvious destination and perhaps Prospect Park in Brooklyn and the Hudson River Waterfront also as destinations. But beyond that, all of the parks function well (or not) because of their surroundings, not because of the park itself. Take Washington Square Park in Greenwich Village for instance. No argument Washington Square is a vibrant public space. But why? Is because of the central fountain? Is it because of the dog run? Is it because of the big old trees and the green grass? Is it because of the numerous park benches? Of course, all of these are nice features that help the park function well….but they do not make Washington Square what it is. Imagine the same exact park with all of these features in the middle of the Hunts Point industrial area, or in the middle of a public housing complex, or in a quiet residential area in Queens or Staten Island. It’s not the same thing anymore. Washington Square Park is vibrant because of its immediate surroundings: NYU, the dense and diverse residential neighborhood surrounding it, the dozens of shops and restaurants within a 5-minute walk, the numerous subway stations within close proximity, etc.
Great debate!