> Changing zoning is pretty short sited if you have the goal of having an area that people love to love in.
NIMBYism.
Name calling as an argument technique.
You can design beautiful neighbourhoods that are much much denser than they are now.
In theory. Sometimes it actually happens in reality, too.
Most of the time though, when developers and their paid servants (aka your elected representatives) get together, something rather different from this glossy vision you seem to have ends up happening. In most cases the end reuslt is not at all beautiful, and (when you actually crunch the numbers) not all that affordable, either.
Not too infrequently it devolves into outright shenanigans, with profound betrayals of trust, and huge swaths of development opportunity more or less handed out to connected donors and/or other political kingpins (in exchange for who knows what votes or other favors they have to offer).
That's how it goes, and like the Leonard Cohen song -- everybody knows.
I agree that zoning has its pros and cons. And just because we did things a certain way 50 year ago, doesn't mean we have to keep doing it that way.
But the attitude you're presented sounds (to these jaded ears) well - saccharine. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be fundamentally circumspect about the promised benefits of many (if not most) proposed zoning changes. There's no need to assume that anyone who doesn't share your own enthusiasm for such changes is (as you imply) just fundamentally self-centered - or filthy rich.
NIMBYism.
Name calling as an argument technique.
You can design beautiful neighbourhoods that are much much denser than they are now.
In theory. Sometimes it actually happens in reality, too.
Most of the time though, when developers and their paid servants (aka your elected representatives) get together, something rather different from this glossy vision you seem to have ends up happening. In most cases the end reuslt is not at all beautiful, and (when you actually crunch the numbers) not all that affordable, either.
Not too infrequently it devolves into outright shenanigans, with profound betrayals of trust, and huge swaths of development opportunity more or less handed out to connected donors and/or other political kingpins (in exchange for who knows what votes or other favors they have to offer).
That's how it goes, and like the Leonard Cohen song -- everybody knows.
I agree that zoning has its pros and cons. And just because we did things a certain way 50 year ago, doesn't mean we have to keep doing it that way.
But the attitude you're presented sounds (to these jaded ears) well - saccharine. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be fundamentally circumspect about the promised benefits of many (if not most) proposed zoning changes. There's no need to assume that anyone who doesn't share your own enthusiasm for such changes is (as you imply) just fundamentally self-centered - or filthy rich.