Criticisms of Classical Zoning; “Urban Sprawl” vs. Suburban Development
Zoning has come under attack from some urban planners and a number of scholars, for social, environmental, and aesthetic reasons. A single-family house and car in a quiet neighborhood represents the ideal home for many Americans, and zoned residential neighborhoods outside of a city center offer just these attractions. Zoning, its critics contend, may allow a family their dream, but it comes at the expense of the greater societal good.
On the most basic level, zoning has been blamed for the drastic rise in housing prices in urban areas. Its opponents claim that, in some instances, zoning regulations may account for as much as 50% of the price of urban housing. Certain kinds of zoning regulations may also lead to a homogeneity of building style within a given area, consequently hampering even the most basic architectural creativity.
But more importantly, some accuse zoning codes of creating or reinforcing racial and socio-economic segregation; the earliest zoning codes sometimes contained overt racism. But today, segregation of single-family versus multi-family homes in zoning codes and minimum lot-size requirements perpetuate the rift between classes.
And critics furthermore contend that even those living the “American Dream” in the suburbs are doing so at the expense of their own community. Separate zones for residential and commercial buildings have brought about a “car culture,” in which families must use their car to get to everything from school to work to the nearest grocery store. The heart of a community dissipates, lives become disconnected.
Opponents also cite zoning as a cause of “urban sprawl“—a depreciatory term for the rapid outward expansion of a metropolitan area. “Urban sprawl” and “car culture” go hand in hand, as the suburban areas most commonly referred to as part of a city’s “sprawl” are often those dependent upon cars for commuting. Single-use zoning laws make these residential neighborhoods necessarily distant from those for commerce.
Additionally, the suburban areas associated with urban sprawl are low-density developments, containing single-family homes. Homes are generally larger, as are retail spaces, accompanied by wider roads and vast parking lots. Houses generally have more space between them, and each lot houses fewer people than comparable ones in an urban environment, meaning that the suburban sprawl takes up more land than traditional developments.
Zoning also creates sprawl as developers look for undeveloped land outside that does not yet have a strict zoning code, which is significantly less expensive. Retail or residential developers will continue to reach farther and farther away from the city in an effort to obtain relatively cheap land. Undeveloped tracts can lie between new building areas, especially when zoning laws require developers to leave a percentage of land free for public use.
Of course, the expansion into the suburbs is seen by many as a positive growth, enabling a desirable lifestyle. Real estate development is often viewed as progress—it is, after all, growth. New homes, new businesses, and new jobs are created; consequently, more people have access to a quieter, more private lifestyle. Shouldn’t those who want to live apart from the bustle of the city be allowed to do so?
But some say the situation caused by urban sprawl goes far beyond the issue of personal preference. Car-dependent living and the minimization of walking and physical activity has contributed to the pervasive ill health and heaviness in modern day America. And while the choice to live in a distant suburb may appear to rely solely on a single family’s economic means, “car culture” ratchets the price of public transportation and necessitates more highways and parking lots, a greater expense to the average taxpayer. Highways also decrease land value, compounded by the added expense of running utilities over low-density zones.
Some also say that it has a negative impact on culture, especially pointing to tract housing, in which a many identical or near-identical homes organized around cul-de-sacs to create a community that, in fact, has no community center. Even if the houses are not similar, many opponents of urban sprawl say that these housing developments are homogenous in terms of race and economic class. This has an impact on district taxpayer revenues, with observable ramifications in institutions such as public schools.
The environmental effects of urban sprawl are manifold. On the most immediate level, wildlife habitat is continually diminished, as an approximate 1875 square miles of forestland in the United States is destroyed every year. Remaining forestland situated near new development suffers from increased pollution from gasoline and pesticide run-off. And though some supporters of urban sprawl point out that lower traffic intensities create smoother rides and less air pollution per square mile, the amount of gas emissions overall is astronomically higher. Opponents point to “car culture” as one of the chief causes of the greenhouse effect, global warming, and the dangerous climate shifts directly caused by many aspects of our modern way of life.