Last week at my local pub I walked into a discussion between two friends of mine- Dave, a New Urbanist
Architect, and Lex, a Libertarian, were talking about real estate and development regulations. The
architect was passionately trying to convince the libertarian of the virtues of design guidelines and the
importance of zoning to create “livable” places. His perspective suggested that great places must be
designed, and must require developers to provide walkable, “sustainable” places that would not be created
in the marketplace without regulation.
The libertarian was unmoved. He argued that zoning and design guidelines are an impediment to the real
estate market, and that without them people would decide for themselves what to build and the types of
places they prefer to live. The basis of this argument is that markets are self-correcting. If people do not
like what is built, they will go elsewhere.
Both perspectives have their strengths and misperceptions. The strengths of both seem to be in the
implicit values: Dave values the quality of life and community provided by walkable environments
while Lex values the freedom of individuals to choose their own way of life. But are these values
contradictory?
It is true that zoning is a market barrier. But, as we are reminded of by Montgomery County, MD (where
a moratorium on construction is in effect), zoning establishes certainty in the development process by
clearly establishing the rights to build on a parcel of land. Zoning was created for this very purpose, to
settle disputes between incompatible uses. However, there is some question as to whether our current
built environment of sprawl is not in some way linked to zoning regulations that dictate the type of land
development. In fact, zoning may have caused monocultural, auto-dependant environments that Dave
vehemently argues against. For the last 50 years, the market did not provide much of a choice of housing
for middle-income families (the wealthy can basically afford to buy or design what they choose). Is this
really because all new American families wanted to live in the suburbs?
So the conversation briefly turned to Houston, a city without zoning, built on “market demand.” We
quickly agreed that Houston is a horrible, auto-dependant place. But why? Is that just what Texans
prefer? Is that what necessarily happens without the virtues of regulation? Or are there other factors that
interfere with the market?
It seems to this commentator, (as well as Michael Lewyn, sited above) that the most obvious interference
in real estate markets is by way of engineering. The responsibility of the government to provide a street
network (a legitimate purview of government I think Lex will accept) sets the agenda for land values,
types and location of development. By determining the location and specifications (with, block length,
etc.) of roads (and conspicuous lack of planning for pedestrians, bicycle lanes and rail lines), Departments
of Transportation have largely set the agenda for which areas will be pedestrian oriented town centers
(almost none), and which will be isolated suburban housing with strip centers (almost all).
The argument is not really about the values that are advocated, but the means of implementing the vision.
Dave is right that the existing system has created some very horrible places (in our urban opinion) and
that it will take a vision of (and designs for) something better to improve the quality of life for Americans.
However, as Lex rightly insists, the market is a lot “smarter” than a couple of planners- people will
choose places with the lifestyle that suits them.
In reconciliation of the two American values, I would like to posit the following: to the purpose of
creating great places (which, as we have seen, can be done) the planning process ought to be community
based (to articulate the preferences of the local constituency), and implementation must focus on creating
the market preconditions (rather than zoning restrictions) to enable the aspirations of the community.
-G. Kellogg