The Zoned Life--exacerbating our dependence on petroleum?

Great Debates
1

I’ve heard often that one of the major reasons American cities and suburbs are the way they are is zoning laws, which result in mile after square mile of single family houses, whose occupants have to commute tens of miles daily to get to the commercial zones where their jobs are.

Now that I come to think of it, it is arguable that the zoning concept is central to our daily lives, and the way we we live. It’s also central to many of the stages that we go through, from school to college, to single adulthood, to marriage, and to starting a family. In my opinion these amount to deeply entrenched values which, in the end, compel a great deal of the involuntary driving that we have to do on a regular basis.

For example, we have homes. This is the “home zone”. The vast majority of us must daily transport ourselves, all 150 or 200 or 250 pounds of ourselves miles away to our jobs–which are in the “work zone”, even though a great many of us could do our jobs at home. Employer resistance is a big reason why we have to do so, but it could be that their resistance is really more symptomatic of the cultural attitude of zoning, then of their desire to have all their underlings under one roof so they can, as it were, strut around and glory in being the boss.

Zoning also affects the different stages of our lives. One very deeply entrenched idea in America is that cities are not for children. Occasionally I watch Househunters with my wfe, on HGTV, and many times the installment has centered around a young couple who have a very cool city loft or condo, but now must move to the suburbs because their first baby is on the way. So they move from the Childless Adult Zone to the Zone For Families And Children. There are, of course, good reasons why people want to raise children in the burbs, and why they want houses rather than apartments or condos. But I think a lot of this comes down to urban flight, fueled by overall negligence which, in effect, lets our cities rot from the inside out.

When I think of the petroleum that must go to support this way of life, it’s mind boggling. I’ve said many times on this board that the vast majority of our petroleum consumption is non-discretionary, but it was only today that I thought of the concept of the Zoned Life which is at the root of it. How much oil could we save just by adjusting our attitudes and expectations? Would people rather fight gas prices by carpooling or using mass transit, or by owning a condo in the city and having less space, but not having to drive as much? Will employers ever consider their customer base’s increased spending power if, as employees, they don’t have to spend as much on the expenses of going to a job site every day?

As a disclaimer, I should say that I am married but childless, although I do have an adult stepdaughter.

2

You are correct. The lack of a town center is a big part of what defines American cities, with Los Angeles being the prototype. It is a city that was built around cars and the idea of cars. After Los Angeles you get cities like Phoenix which are utterly repellant zones of suburbs where no one goes outside because it is too hot and therefore often do not know their nearest neighbors. At the other end of the spectrum are older cities like New York or Boston that do have town centers and thus have a more vibrant walking culture. More mixed commercial/residential areas. Generally it is the older cities also that have superior mass transit as a result.

I have my first daughter, and we are preparing to buy our house out in the country, but we still live in NYC and have no intention of moving out. There are immense programs to the benefit of children, the kind you would never find outside of New York. The house we are looking at is in rural West Texas, so would not make a good commute to NYC, but it is a town that has a vibrant town center. I could never live in a city without one.

3

You might want to check out a book titled The Geography of Nowhere, a biting criticism of many features of American land use. Suffice to say, once upon a time cheap oil made it possible (and in a narrow sense “rational”) to build the way we did; and now expensive oil will undo that.

4

I agree with your observations, Spectre. I too, am bothered by the vast amounts of petroleum our lifestyle requires. And also by the fact that we built our transportation infastructure on such a finite resource, with no “plan B”. Now many will point out that there will be alternatives in the future, and that the market will sort it all out. But in the meantime, the ability to plan, and to budget, is non exisitant. We’re forced to give billions of dollars to sociaties that hate us and conspire to destroy us. And to sacrifice our young to the “cause”, questionable as it may be.

5

Zoning itself is not evil. Most American zoning encourages a sort of monoculture. That is bad. One area is crammed during work hours, another is deserted. All require expensive services.

But Houston (IIRC), America’s largest city without zoning is no paradise either.

All of this takes me back to an old Art Buchwald column from the 1970’s oil crisis. Look at the bright side he said. Poor people will be forced into huge suburban houses, rich people will move back downtown and rebuild the place.

6

I wonder how many American suburbs would become virtual “ghost towns” in an economic crisis where fuel becomes prohibitively expensive, with only a fraction of their former populations and acres and acres of empty houses.

7

Also by the same author: Home from Nowhere, about various efforts to build something more walkable and mixed-use. Both books dwell on how existing zoning laws make such New Urbanist projects illegal in most places in the U.S. The stated strategy of Andres Duany (a refugee from Castro’s Cuba, BTW) is, “Take over the transmitters!” I.e., the indispensable first step is to try to change the zoning laws.

8

One speculation I’ve read is that the social classes would change (geographical) places: The middle and upper classes would take over the cities and leave the suburbs to the poor – who then would have a lot more living space than they’ve been used to, but also would have new expensive transportation needs on top of all their other problems.

9

Some suburban locales were (before the housing drop) looking into mixed use housing areas and “building up.” In Irvine, CA (uber planned suburbia) - A lot of the new building is mixed use, and the Irvine Company is looking at building on top of existing strip malls with light office and apartments going on top of existing shops.

The stereotype of no jobs in suburbia is also incorrect in many areas. A lot of firms re-located out to the edges of the 'burbs, because their execs no longer wanted to commute into the city. I think before the middle class and above move into the city you might see MORE commercial construction going into the suburbs so that the senior execs can live in their house with a yard.

10

Indeed. The problem is that those jobs remain in zones separate from housing. You’ve got your PUD pod, your strip mall, your office park, and your public school, and no way to get from one to another but by car.

11

You’re right. You could live in the Dallas/Ft. Worth Metroplex for years without having to go into either Dallas or Ft. Worth. There are plenty of good places to work and live in Richardson, Plano, Carollton, Frisco, etc.

This isn’t exactly a recent concept here in the United States as it has its origins in the 19th century. With the industrialization of the economy the era of the craftsman working in his own little shop attached to his home was coming to an end. Now the workers went to a central location, the factory, in order to produce things.

Before industrialization it was mainly the middle class and above who lived close to the city centers. You can see this in Little Rock where the neighborhoods dating from the 19th and early 20th centuries tend to have those nice large Victorian style homes everyone seems to love these days. As transportation became more reliable and less expensive you saw the wealthy move farther from the center of the city.

Zoning laws may have exacerbated the situation but this was a trend that started in the 19th century. Can’t lay the entire blame on zoning laws.

Marc

12

No, but zoning laws often lock the sprawl in place and make it impossible to build anything that makes more sense.

13

Zoning is not the cause of suburban sprawl. Sprawl is caused because people want to live in big, single-family houses with lawns.

The latest change that I have heard about is mixed-use developments. Developments that include residential, retail, and business elements all within one big place–almost an arcology. There are a couple going up near the (suburb) where I live.

14

This is probably a seperate thread, but I"m not convinced people want to live in big, single-family homes with lawns.

People move out to the suburbs for schools. The only housing choice in most burbs is the typical suburban house.

15

“Arcology”? Once upon a time, that used to be a fair definition of a town!

16

Here in southern Ontario, the overwhelming housing choice for people with means is a big house with a lawn.

But there’s not the same sort of difference in school quality from place to place here, because the province enforces greater equality in funding than you sometimes see in the USA. You’ll get more or less the same quality of schooling anywhere you go, and what differences do exist don’t necessarily follow a geographical logic.

So it would appear people DO want to live in big houses with lawns. To be honest, most people I’ve ever met want to. I could understand wanting to live in an urban apartment when I was a single guy, but as a family, a big house with a big yard is certainly my preferred lifestyle.

17

In Seaside, you can live in a big house with hardly any lawn. Many choose to do so (at least when Wintering in Florida).

18

As others have mentioned, theres been a growing movement over the last 20 or so years to get us back to more traditional planning methods called New Urbanism (which is ironic because its really the old urbanism, but I digress). I’m a pretty big proponent of the movement myself. For those interested in learning more, Suburban Nation gives a pretty comprehensive overview.

One of the best sections of the book, IMHO, addresses the idea put forth up-thread that people like living in big house in the middle of nowhere. It basically argues that driving and having a big private home is the preferred life style choice for the majority of us; just as if given the choice most of us would eat steak and lobster all the time. But where we don’t eat those foods all the time because of the economic consequences, we’ve largely set up a system that hides the cost of driving and sprawl by having the government subsidize it. I assure you, the gasoline tax doesn’t begin to cover the cost of roads when you consider the environmental impact of our constant road building, never mind the foreign policy dedicated to ensuring the continuation of cheap oil. Thats why I always find it funny when people bitch about trains not being able to turn a profit. These same people seem to think that roads are free or something.

19

See also Asphalt Nation, by Jane Holtz Kay.

20

As much as the fuel consumption, it’s the aggravation being stuck in traffic as we travel between the Home Zone and the Work Zone. I live in West L.A. near Barrington and Santa Monica, and about a mile west of the 405. Each weekday evening, the traffic approaching the 405 from there becomes so heavy that, in many cases, walking is faster. I have an evening course at UCLA one night a week, and I try to arrive there at 4:30 when my night parking permit becomes valid. It can take a good half-hour to reach UCLA, which is only about 2 miles away. I would actually just as soon walk, except the walk back home would be a problem–not because of crime, as it is a relatively safe area, but just because it’s already late when the class ends, and I prefer not to spend an extra 45 minutes walking home.