As the city of Oakland prepares for the change in mayor, ushering in Ron Dellums while former mayor Jerry Brown takes his place as California’s new Attorney General, the various developments under Brown’s reign and the current condition of the city are being reviewed. For the past couple of years, battles have been waged over individual developments, with members of affected communities raising complaints; however, as even those who are pro-development are beginning to question the city’s structure, a broader problem in Oakland’s city planning is becoming evident.

In order to examine this very problem, the San Francisco Business Times ran a 20-page supplement on Oakland’s development under Mayor Brown. Ryan Tate, in a larger article about Oakland developer Hal Ellis, summed up with this revelation:

“Though downtown has added 4,000 housing units in the last eight years, filled up its office towers, including seven at City Center … retail has lagged. Instead of a regional mall, City Center has 60,000 square feet of mostly fast-service restaurants and small shops … A more recent mixed-use development from Forest City … also drastically scaled back its retail ambitions. In 2000, at the height of the dot-com boom, the project was to include 100,000 square feet of retail. Plans now under way call for 9,000 square feet of retail … That sort of organic retail growth can add character and bring excitement to a neighborhood. But it does not bring the kind of sales tax revenue that big-box retail … can bring the city. Nor does it meet many of the retail needs of new and soon-to-come residents. The resulting retail vacuum is the greatest failing of the development boom under Brown, [Hal] Ellis said, a boom he otherwise praises in no uncertain terms.”

The current situation roots in the longer and even more complicated history of Brown’s redevelopment plan. When originally running for Mayor in 1998, Brown proposed a plan to revitalize Oakland by bringing residential development to the city’s downtown. The theory was that once the downtown area held a critical mass of residents, retail would be drawn in, creating a natural, rather than forced, mixed-use neighborhood. Brown was seeking to end the pleading and subsidizing that had formerly marked efforts to bring retail establishments into the city center.

So, in an effort to rejuvenate the city and “put Oakland on the map,” the Brown Administration fixed upon an objective of bringing 10,000 residents into the city center, which became regionally famous as “the 10K plan.” But eventually, the endeavor attracting residents took over the Administration’s attention, and original aim of bringing in retail dissapeared. It seemed that Brown had completely forgotten about the rationale behind the plan.

Abandoning the effort to obtain the retail half of the mixed-use downtown neighborhoods has left Oakland in economic and developmental disarray. First of all, California’s economy and taxation plans are such that cities tend to lose money on residential neighborhoods, becuase city services cost more than the tax revenue received. This money is generally made back via commercial districts and their additional sales tax revenues. But without the added retail to balance the residential boom, Oakland is actually taking a financial blow.

And even in those areas that have been revitalized with a mixture of residential and commercial buildings are facing serious problems through poor mixed-use planning. A foresighted plan would have set aside a certain area for entertainment, bars, nightclubs, and other commercial establishments that might create noise problems for nearby residents. But under the come-one-come-all attitude adopted by the Brown Administration, with few provisions for these kinds of problems, developments have sprung up haphazardly, and the clashes between residents and entertainment establishments can only ensure that both will suffer, and one or the other may eventually leave.

This would have been a relatively easy situation to solve with some forethought, as Oakland does, in fact, have a General Plan. But the Brown Administration failed to take the necessary steps to ensure that the city’s plan could be followed by new development—in short, the overarching plan for the city was not met with the appropriate updates. The General Plan was updated at the beginning of Brown’s years in office, highlighting the basic types of development for areas of the city, but the zoning map was never updated to coincide with the General Plan. Consequently, the mandates of the General Plan and the zoning map are often at odds. Legally, the General Plan supersedes the zoning laws, but it leaves developers very unsure of what is allowed in a certain neighborhood. This creates poor development in some areas, and grinds development to a halt in other neighborhoods.

Though many of Oakland’s residents may find themselves going into a stupor contemplating the causes of the current city planning quagmire, the results are clear. J. Douglas Allen-Taylo, the author the piece for the Berkeley Daily Planet, writes that residents see the impact “when you try to go down to the neighborhood shopping center, and you can’t find any parking. Or you can’t get down to the shopping center when you need to—just after five—because the streets and freeways are hopelessly clogged, and public transit is either inconvenient or nonexistent along the line you need to travel. Or, worse yet, there is no shopping center in your neighborhood at all.”

The conundrum is an interesting one, insofar as it highlights the difficulties proponents of smart growth and new urbanism must be aware of as they try to bring mixed-use neighborhoods to cities. Mixed-use neighborhoods, themselves, are not the cause of Oakland’s current mess; a poorly-planned and poorly-implemented plan to create mixed-use neighborhoods is the cause. Euclidean zoning laws are simple, and ensure the preservation of residents’ peace, developers’ comprehension of their duties and regulations, and the city’s economic budget. Much more effort is required to maintain the balance while creating the high-density communities that are best for the environment and social health.

The Los Angeles CityWatch’s recent article, Planning Ahead: Do Developers Wear Black Hats? seeks to uncover the reasons for developers’ frequently negative reputations. Residents’ views of developers often involve tiny horns and pitchforks because the former are concerned with the preservation of the existing community, and they don’t like to see change coming in the form of new development, regardless of whether or not the development is actually part of larger city planning.

But, as author Jon Perica points out, developers are often merely serving the request of another body, be it a mandate from city council to affect a change upon an evolving city, or an outdated zoning code. A developer may be required to create projects that are “consistent” with the existing zoning code, meaning, for example, that more single-family homes are built in low-density zones because those are the only allowable buildings.

However, the real problems stem from the fact that communities do not remain “consistent” but must constantly be adapted to fit with their changing economic and social needs. Developers most often get their black reputations from doing projects that are not consistent with the Community Plan, but Community Plans, in many cases, are significantly outdated. An outdated Community Plan can no longer be depended upon to match the market demands, so developments with variations on the Plan are often submitted and approved. But once some exceptions are, of neccessity, made, the door is open for developments that may be inappropriate for the changing face of the neighborhood.

The article also deliniates the qualities that characterize a sensitive developer. Good developers will:

• meet with the Neighborhood or Community Council far in advance to recieve comments, feedback, and community-oriented suggestions;
• view themselves as a member of the community, with responsibilities for creating new projects that harmonize with the existing framework;
• meet as many of the city planning regulations as possible, and present the fewest Zoning Code violations;
• consider the importance of aesthetics and “quality” features, such as design blend, landscaping, and security measures;
• share information about the planning process with the community, including ways in which residents can involve themselves or contact the developer;
• faithfully implement all the City regulations and conditions on an approved project, and oversee its early use to make certain that it functions as an asset and retains cleanliness.

Perhaps above all, Perica emphasizes the fact that developers will gain a repuation, for good or ill, that will eventually become common knowledge. Consequently, each project must be approached with the same sensitivity and consideration. “A good developer commits her or his reputation on every project they do,” Perica explains, “and the more they follow these guidelines for appropriate quality development, the better their development projects are and the better they will be perceived in the community.”

Though the popular myth of Las Vegas may suggest that the diamond in the desert can continue glittering ever outward and outward, the current reality is quite different. Miles of suburban subdivisions, with the single-family homes that have, until now, served the thousands who move to Las Vegas each year, are hitting barriers on all sides. Mountains, national parks, military bases, a Native American community, and preservation lands for the endangered desert tortoise ring the present borders of the city, checking further outward expansion.

The moment of crisis has not yet come, but it is visible on the horizon. If current growth trends continue, Las Vegas’ 1.8 million residents will be swelled by an additional 1 million within the next decade, for a projected population of 3 million by 2020. Compound this with the building projections, which estimate that available acreage will disappear within the next ten years, and the land catastrophe is complete. Developer Kenneth Smith summed it up: “You hear anywhere from a seven to 10 years supply at our growth rates and the valley’s full.”

Anxiety about the impending land crisis has rocketed prices. Land that would have gone for $40,000 per acre 15 years ago is now selling for over $300,000. Last year, a developer paid $639 million for 2,655 acres at a public land auction. And with the land crunch only looking more serious, developers do not expect the competition for land to ease or for prices to fall. The suburban subdivisions that have been as quintessentially ‘Las Vegas’ as casinos, are now featuring houses built so close together that neighbors could almost exchange a handshake or a plate of cookies through their side windows.

Once Las Vegas hits its capacity, there are a couple of options. The first is to build outside the valley, on the other side of the current confines. Builders plan to extend north and south along Interstate 15; a 42,000-acre Coyote Springs project 50 miles north of the city is now on the drawing board. Still, home buyers looking to barter convenience for an affordable mortgage may have to wait. According to Steve Bottfeld, a senior analyst for Marketing Solutions, the prices for providing utilities and building roads and sewers for the new community “are incredible. Don’t look for it to happen in 10 years.”

But as Las Vegas may run out of land in as little as seven years, city planners must come up with alternative solutions. The result is an influx of smart growth and new urbanism principles appearing in new development plans. Neighborhood designs that promote walking, narrower streets, smaller yards, and mixed-use blends of housing and retail are all cropping up. Plans for housing in high-rises “mid-rises” and townhouses are on the increase, and building plans with a more “urban” feel, such as the placement of the garage in back rather than in front.

These changes result for the ubiquitous sense of urgency for more efficient urban planning, but also through specific zoning changes to promote higher-density neighborhoods in Clark County. “This is the time to be visionary,” said Rory Reid, a Clark County Commissioner. Councilman Michael Mack is separately quoted as asserting that ”There’s no stopping growth. We just need to be smart about it.”

“This isn’t something that’s trickling down, it’s flowing down, top to bottom, fast,” said Bottfeld of Marketing Solutions. “It’s the Manhattanization of Las Vegas.” Developer Smith elaborated on the same topic, noting that residents don’t mind the changes in city structure because most have moved to Las Vegas from elsewhere. “They’ve seen it, they know it, they’re comfortable with it,” he says. “We hear people say, ‘I never thought it would happen here. I’ve been waiting for it.’ ”

Thanks to Steve Harless, who pointed our attention to the USA Today article on his Las Vegas real estate blog.

Read contrasting opinions from Las Vegas natives; Geoff Shumacher supports the use of smart growth principles in Las Vegas, while D. Dowd Muska opposes it.

Can Urban Planning Cure Obesity?

With 43 percent of school children in New York City classified as overweight or obese, the City’s Health Department is desperately seeking solutions for a health issue that is no less than an epidemic.

The solution to any problem develops through an understanding of the cause, and common knowledge dictates that the primary causes of weight problems are a poor diet and lack of exercise. In response to the dietary problems pervasive in modern American culture, the Health Department has begun regulating the use of trans fats in restaurant and fast food menus, and targeting neighborhoods with especially high obesity rates for the promotion of healthy food vendors.

But a plan for providing the average city dweller more exercise is more difficult to implement. The Health Department has begun examining the option of promoting greater mobility through urban planning and building codes. After all, zoning and building codes were orginally created in part to control the contagious diseases that festered and spread quickly in a city’s crowded tenements. But is a non-contagious epidemic like obesity, or like asthma, another common ailment among urban youth, controllable through urban planning?

Eva Hanhardt, coordinator the Pratt Institute’s Environmental Planning Masters Program, explains that zoning and land use are responsible for a community’s “general health, safety and welfare.” Her current study on reinstituting helath concerns into urban planning was born when she began wondering why “health doesn’t the same attention as safety and welfare.” She notes that “By neglecting to incorporate public health in the design of land use and zoning policies, these policies have been part of the problem, not part of the solution.”

But what can zoning policies do? To address the ‘poor diet’ half of the problem, they could restrict the amount of unhealthy or fast food outlets within certain neighborhoods, such as those near schools. These restrictions would have precedent in the Zoning Resolution that prohibits sex shops in specific areas.

But in order to promote greater physical activity in children (and also in adults), urban planners need to focus on providing open park space for recreation. New York City claims on of the lowest amounts of park acreage per capita in the United States. The concerns and resources of Parks Department are continually subjugated by other civic needs, and the few parks and playgrounds often disappear to make way for parking or building development. An increase on the minimum requirements for open space would furnish a stage for physical recreation, while more restrictions on environmental risks within neighborhoods would render the outdoor room a more pleasant option.

But perhaps most importantly, increasing attention to the tenets of smart growth and new urbanism can revitalize a community’s health by promoting physical activity in a number of ways. A study at Saint Louis University, almost halfway across the country from New York, was asking the same questions as the Health Department of the nation’s largest city. They found that activity-oriented neighborhoods are the key to improving public health. Dr. Laura Brennan Ramirez of Saint Louis University’s School of Public Health explained that there are a “range of different influences that [get] people engaging in physical activity not just for recreation but as part of their everyday life.”

The Saint Louis University study sifted the attributes and habits of activity-friendly communities into a list of the top factors that promote mobility. Many of the suggestions are aimed towards lessening the dependence on automobiles. “The number of hours we spend in our car everyday detracts from our physical, social and mental health,” explained Dr. Brennan Ramirez. “People are increasingly becoming aware of it. Our dependence on the car is overwhelming.”

The first reccomendation deals with Land Use. Mixed-use neighborhoods with commercial and residential buildings alongside one another encourage walking. The study also showed that crosswalks, sidewalks and hiking and biking trails do promote walking and bike activity. A usable mass transit system provides a Transporation alternative that includes more physical activity.

After all, people are more likely to use the same transportation that they witness their neighbors using, a factor that the SLU study dubs ‘Travel Patterns.’ Advertising and media Promotions can also draw the public eye towards the importance of physical activity, and recreation and mass transit possibilities in their own neighborhood.

Aesthetics also play a much larger role than is generally acknowledged. Residents will be overwhelmingly more likely to walk in neighborhoods with pleasant architecture, trees, parks, or other monuments and historic attractions. It is neccessary for a city to recognize the need for attractive avenues, park and recreation facilities, and bike and pedestrian lanes, by Public Policies that redistribute funds from items that perpetuate unhealthy lifestyles, such as highways. Incentives for Institutional and Organizational Policies promote the creation of physical activity centers and gyms in schools and in the workplace.

An additional study by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health confirms the theory that neighborhood renovation and reorganization may curb our nation’s problems with weight. Dr. Thomas Glass and his colleagues found that those living in disadvantaged urban neighborhoods are far more likely to be overweight. The nationwide obesity rate is at an unsettling 38 percent, with variations apparently responding to the danger of the neighborhood: the least hazardous neighborhoods showed a 27% obesity rate, while the most hazardous neighborhoods have a population that is 53% obese.

Dr. Glass explained that “the risk is not something that can be explained away by personal variables such as dietary intake, tobacco use and household wealth.” The most ‘hazardous’ neighborhoods are not necessarily the most impoverished ones, and little connection was found between income level and obesity rate, once individual risk factors of diet and exercise were eliminated from consideration. Instead, high obesity rates correspond to neighborhoods with high incidences of crime, neglected buildings, businesses and streets, and community disorder.

What this suggests is that a healthy community creates healthy individuals, whether obesity in these situations is caused simply by stress, or a hampered mobility due to fear. The implication is also that the problem is more than simply a personal, case-by-case problem of diet and exercise. “It may be that there are major things going on in our communities that play a bigger role in the obesity problem than simply the fact that people are not eating right and exercising,” declared Glass. “This is an environmental epidemic and it’s going to require environmental solutions.”

Read some thoughts on the connection between urban planning and public health at Rebuilding Place in the Urban Space, an excellent blog by Richard Layman, a self-described “historic preservation and urban revitalization advocate and consultant.”

Whatever the urban planning method implemented, it is generally related to the type of land for the prospective development. Urban renewal is the redevelopment or renovation of run-down areas in the center of an urban environment. The methods and results vary widely, occasionally revitalizing a neighborhood, or occasionally destroying the unique character of a place, consequently leading to a mixed assessment of its utility. All, however, include the restructuring of a pre-existing urban environment into an altered urban environment.

Suburban infill, meanwhile, is the process of developing land between existing suburban areas and the urban center left open during initial development. Smart growth and new urbanist principles are often applied in these cases, because infill increases the density of the larger metropolitan area.

However, when an entire city or town is planned prior to the existence of a substantial settlement, it is called a new town, planned community, or planned city. The city is then built and developed with basic adherence to the plans. Many cities built for the purposes of being capitals, such as Washington, D.C., Canberra in Australia, Brasilia in Brazil and Islamabad in Pakistan, fall under this category.

The United States sports a much larger percentage of planned cities than the European countries their planners’ ancestors inhabited. A number of cities were carved out of the wilds to serve as state seats, such as Columbus, Ohio, Indianapolis, Indiana, Madison, Wisconsin, Salt Lake City, Utah, Austin, Texas, Tallahassee, Florida, and Raleigh, North Carolina. Many historic American cities are also planned cities, such as Philadelphia, Williamsburg, and Annapolis. New Haven, Connecticut, is frequently acknowledged as the first planned city.

For those who oppose Euclidean zoning laws and their relationship to “urban sprawl,” a number of new urban planning systems have been created. Smart growth seeks to eliminate the environmental, social and economic issues perceived as part of suburban growth by creating land-use plans focusing on non-car transportation and an integrated city center. Elements of smart growth are not universally settled, so prospective development plans can be categorized as more or less “smart growth,” rather than simply belonging to the category or not.

Smart growth expounds the benefits of higher-density developments, whose compact nature enables residents to walk, bike, or take public transportation. Smart growth proponents call this transit-oriented development (TOD), and smart growth planning attempts to maximize access to public transportation. Supporters believe this kind of community is significantly more healthy, both socially and physically.

Smart growth also advocates mixed-use development that unites differently priced housing in the same area, and a regulated blend of certain types of commercial or public institutions, aimed at providing nearby amenities to residential neighborhoods. In order to redevelop an urban environment, a city’s zoning policies regarding height limitations, lot size, and parking requirements must be altered; sometimes, additional restrictions are placed on types of low-density development such as detached homes, strip malls, and parking lots.

Historic preservation often figures within smart growth, as another one of its chief goals is the establishment of a unique community, whose strong sense of place will attract businesses and residents. The construction or revitalization of a community center that brings together cultural resources while preserving outside natural resources via efficient use of space are also central tenets. A reexamination of the development process would include a simpler, more dependable and more equitable distribution of both costs and payback.

Smart growth emphasizes long-term, wide-spread effects over short-term, personal benefits. For example, it may be pleasant to live in a suburban neighborhood and commute via car to work, but the current usage of automobiles is disrupting the climate all over the world. A community that requires less automobile transportation will become more pleasant as traffic decreases, the tax dollar is saved, and air quality is improved.

Economically mixed communities also provide a better quality of life for everyone. The city centers become more vibrant ant offer better opportunities as the resources of the community are reinvested in it. And rather than building via a system of development that emphasizes short term-profits, the long-term economic implications are weighed. A retail center developed ten miles from the city center may sit on less expensive land, but the communal cost of road construction, maintenance and gasoline, not to mention the commute time and air pollution, will be far greater.

Smart growth still relies on zoning laws, offering incentives for public transportation awareness, high-density design, or for the redevelopment of abandoned industrial or commercial facilities, otherwise known as brownfield or greyfield land. And like any zoning system, it has its detractions; opponents are generally offended by the implication that other zoning types are “un-smart.” Those who strongly favor detached homes argue that smart growth increases land value to the point where the average person can no longer afford a single-family house. Naturally, most supporters of smart growth contend that the cost of the suburban lifestyle on the greater community should be reflected within its cost.

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.

Urban planning, also called city or town planning, is the method by which municipalities are organized. This type of public policy seeks to regulate use of land in a way beneficial to its inhabitants, and also efficient for commercial and governmental agencies. Economic, environmental, social and aesthetic issues come into play as states and regions plan the development of their communities.

In North America, coordination of land-use regulation is often based on ‘zoning‘ codes. The name arises from the common practice of structuring communities on the basis of zones, mapped areas in with different land-use allowances and purposes. Zoning serves to protect the interests of residents or businesses by preventing new developments that would be harmful to the existing configuration.

Zoning has classifications for all attributes of a given lot, and its regulations require adherence to those classifications. For example, zoning identifies a lot as residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, or as an open space, indicating how the land may be used. It also specifies how many people may occupy the land, a concept known as density—single-family homes are considered low-density, while a high-rise apartment building constitutes a high-density usage. New buildings must adhere to neighborhood precedents of height, square footage, location on the lot (also known as setback), proportions of landscaping to building, parking, and other aesthetic guidelines.

Zoning rules are designed to create a consistency within neighborhoods, but as their purpose is to serve the neighborhood, zoning commissions may permit exceptions to their rules, sometimes for the nature of the lot, and sometimes as a reward for other community-oriented benefits of the proposed structure. Some types of zoning employ more variances than others, subsequently creating more and more different zoning methods. Most zoning systems, however, can be broken down into one of four basic types:

Euclidean zoning

This type of zoning derives its name from the small town of Euclid, Ohio, which battled a land owner all the way to the Supreme Court over the issue of whether or not regulations on his property constituted a violation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. When the Supreme Court ruled on behalf of the town, a precedent was set admitting all future municipalities the right to enforce their land-use regulations.

Euclidean zoning is also called “Building Block zoning” because it partitions land usage into set geographical districts within the community. For example, a certain section of a town could be reserved for single-family residential, versus a separate multi-family residential area; both would be strictly segregated from commercial and industrial developments. A few exceptions may be made to accommodate the primary uses of a zone—say, a small grocery store in a residential zone, or company housing near its affiliated business. Regardless, most buildings within a zone must conform to the dimensional regulations regarding height, setback, lot coverage, and so on.

Euclidean zoning codes are implemented by the substantial majority of towns and cities in the United States. Its popularity is due to its relative efficacy in preserving the harmony of its residents and businesses, and chiefly to its ease of use. The rules, once set, are simple to understand and follow, and have the benefit of legal precedent. However, many criticize it for its rigidity, maintaining that its precepts have been outdated with the advent of other urban planning concerns.

Performance zoning

This system of zoning emphasizes the importance of a structure’s ultimate performance, often by implementing a points system in which certain elements and compliance options are tallied up in order to meet zoning goals. Points can be awarded for plans to mitigate the environmental impact of the building, include public amenities or build affordable housing units. Additional dimensional or functional standards may also be set.

Performance zoning offers a more flexible system, but at the expense of simplicity. It necessitates a large amount of discretionary activity in the review process, and is often complicated to implement. Consequently, performance zoning is relatively rare, and is only found as an additional set of guidelines within a broader set of regulations.

Incentive zoning

Incentive zoning attempts to reach urban planning goals by instituting a system that rewards developers for aligning their new structures with the city’s aims. A basic set of zoning regulations is accompanied by an extensive list of options, to be adhered to at the discretion of the developer. Inclusion of any of these additional options, however, will be rewarded with ‘incentives’: for example, inclusion of affordable housing results in floor-area-ratio bonuses, and public amenities lead to height-limit bonuses.

The complexity of incentive zoning is more or less balanced with its flexibility, leading to its increasing appearance within the last couple of decades. It does require more activity on the part of the supervising commission, as buildings with incentives take more effort to review, and also because the rewards system must be constantly reevaluated to be certain that the incentives remain in proportion with the benefit given to developers.

Design-based zoning

Design-based zoning emphasizes the aesthetics of prospective buildings over their use, creating zones within a city subdivided by requirements for height, setback, and stylistic features. Though more complex than the Euclidean method, supporters of design-based or form-based codes contend that its use-based adversary is outdated and economically inefficient; they maintain that the character of a neighborhood can be maintained via physical characteristics, allowing more economic and social efficiency through a blend of building usages.