People from US: Car is very useful because it gives a lot of freedom and trip to grocery takes only 25 minutes Me an European: 10 minute walk to store is too much
@@dziooooo I walk like 7 minutes to store because store that is like 4 minutes away is more expensive, and I can always bring out bike and drive to even bigger store
On my way from and to work (1.2 miles/ 2 km, usually by bike), I pass 3 supermarkets, dozens of smaller shops, restaurants, bars, walk-by food shops, doctors offices, clubs/discos, post office, bank offices and so on and on. But guess what: this is no exclusive economic zone, but the most densily inhabited quarter of my city. All those commercial activities are mostly concentrated in the first line or just even the first floor of the first line of the street I take. In most cases you'll have appartements in the second and third floor of the buildings, but some more commercial and public activities (lawyers, coiffeur, schools, IT offices) sprinkled in as well. This way, despite a rather high population density (8.3k pop/sqkm, a tad higher than San Francisco), you can reach almost everything you might need within a 5-20 min walk or 3-10 min bike ride.
@@LOLWAAHH Air quality at this moment: NYC: 62 US-AQI, 17.4µg PM2.5 Kassel: 54 US-AQI, 13.6 µg PM2.5 All that despite you being what, 20 miles (if even that) away from the atlantic ocean? I'm right in the middle of the european union, 200+ miles form the baltic and north sea, almost 500 miles from the adria/mediterranean and 600+ miles from the biskaya/atlantic ocean. Not much fresh sea breeze to be expected. And still... is it realy dustier her in good ol Europe? Computer says no. You should start dusting of your dusty old NYC.
American zoning is even weirder than what I thought, discovering that the zoning from Sim City was not a weird oversimplification for the sake of gameplay but actually based on the USA was a shock.
yes ! I always found it so annoying to have to micro-zone my cities (like adding a commercial plot every 4 residential plots) because it didn' make sense to me to have everything segregated
Literally half of Europe lives in apartments, while only 8% of Americans do. Americans don't like the idea of not owning the place your living, and especially don't like the idea of not owning the land you reside on. Europeans seem to love it, its weird for both sides tbh. It comes down to land size, Europeans founded these cities in eras where you had to live a walkable distance from work. Americans cities were mainly built in mass during the 20th century and were built to utilize and maximize space. I have no idea why no one mentions that in relation to zoning. Europeans live that sort of way because they have to given the amount of land they have, hence the reason half the people only live in apartments. Meanwhile in the USA our cities were built on the premise of utilizing as much land as possible during Manifest Destiny. Its crazy how Europeans assume we should live like them enough though we arent restricted to live in small urban areas, because we have habitable land.
Gas stations can be anywhere here as far as I can tell, so if I need milk or eggs or something I can always walk to something close, though not high quality. I’ve never lived anywhere outside biking distance from a grocery store in the US, but people are too lazy to bike. And there’s no planning for bikers so it’s more dangerous to bike anywhere outside residential areas
@@soltersortna now I know why there are sky-high obesity, diabetes, and heart ailment rates in the US. 🙃 the infrastructure is deliberately designed for people NOT to exercise.
It always perplexed me how Americans seem to pride themselves on their sense of individualism and disdain for central planning but also choose to live in suburbs with buildings more indistinguishable than even the worst commie blocks where you're not even allowed to open a small pub or supermarket.
A lot of the time, it's not a "choice". Places in cities are more expensive for a smaller area, and if you have kids, it's harder to just pick up and move, and even then not worth the long commutes, or it's impossible to get a different job. So then living in suburbs or small towns is all we can do, so we keep doing it. A lot of Americans are trapped.
@@answerman9933 That's not what OP said EDIT: since people still @me about this 8 months later - OP says the suburban houses are indistinguishable from each other - NOT from commie blocks. You may disagree with that but, by gods, do it with some reading comprehension.
I think that the US system has helped larger companies like Walmart to grow while hurting smaller family owned businesses. It's making it more expensive to become an entrepreneur.
Weed out the small business man seems to be a plan. Many years ago in DC we had tons of small business owners. Now Walmart, Costco, CVS, and Safeway have driven those away. These places are complete eye sores as you walk through the city.
That is not quite what happened. Most family-owned businesses are not run by people with business degrees. My observations have been that they cannot respond to rapid shifts in the economy. They are not trained for it, nor have the temperament. They understandably freeze up when things change. The other point is that they cannot raise the capital needed to afford a high turnover inventory with very low markups. One final point: A lot of them cannot keep accounts. They do not have an intuitive grasp of retail economics.
@@franzzrilich9041 I don't think it's because people are too dumb to understand how we run a business. It's mostly because they can't compete with large corporations that have more buying power, logistics and marketability. Also, Walmart even has neighborhood market stores try compete with regionally and locally owned grocery stores. They're trying to take three entire retail market for themselves. No amount of education can displace them and it would cost billions to do what they do. Next they'll be after Dollar General, another company that has replaced locally owned general merchandise stores.
@@incubus_the_man Let me explain, further. My father was a pharmacist and drugstore manager for several chains from the fifties and into the early eighties. His initial goal was to become a major player in developing anti-biotics for mass-production in the international market. He subscribed to a lot of trade publications normally aimed at pharmaceutical executives. I went to several universities and studied business practices in a variety of industries while working my way through college. I worked in: medical research, healthcare delivery, food services, aerospace, defense, computer, software, security systems, motion picture finance, high-tech industrial production, and several others from 1969 to 1992. I had to retire at age 41 due to an aging-onset genetic disorder that had killed Dad. I largely was a technical writer. Near the end I was becoming a strategic technical writer, which meant I was working with chief executive officers and board chairmen on various projects. You are correct in noticing that larger businesses excel in purchasing power, logistics, and marketing, and that Walmart is competing with regional and totally local retailers. I also agree that Walmart might go against Dollar General and similar stores. I suspect that they likely will do so, though most of their growth is overseas. But I do pay attention to one-person small stores, and find most are operated as though they are paying hobbies. The owners drifted into their businesses, and most have no training in, nor experience in, retail management. The problem with retail in the United States is that since the early nineteen thirties Congress has been mindlessly passing laws that encouraged the over-expansion of retail businesses. I live in Ohio's wealthiest county, between two metropolitan counties. We actually have several corporate headquarters here for smaller chains, and some heavy-duty manufacturers. Anyways, we are growing in population, and yet most of our shopping centers have a lot of long-term empty stores as well as a non-retail, but highly decorative central business district that functions mostly as a set for television commercials and magazine advertisements. We also have unused corner grocery stores of the bodega variety. My observation is that Walmart is tightly watching each of its locations, as does Target, Kohl's, Meier's (?sp), Giant Eagle, and they do not hesitate to close a store if its rate of return declines. They are not in a position to analyze their impacts upon the ideologies of various small-group concepts of proper corporate behavior. Thus, they concentrate on low-price, high turnover, consumer predictability, co-location with other large stores, and an emphasis upon being located in that part of town near the interstate, and in those parts oif town posessing heavy-duty highways friendly to large delivery trucks. It thus is pointless to push alternate urban layouts that do not take these trends into consideration. Walmart was one of several dozen would-be chains, but Walmart did everything correctly. The rest failed: They included Woolco, K-Mart, Gold Circle, Sears, Montgomery Wards, W. T. Grant, Kresge's, Murphy's, Fisher's Big Wheel, Cleveland Marshal's, Standard Drugs, Rexall, Revco, Regal's, and so forth. Most of these chains failed to follow shifting demographics, did not fully incorporate computers, and did not have staff charged with looking forward to points of opportunity, as well as oncoming problems. The Walmarts are delivering services the public wants, and the under-used small stores in residential areas and a lot of older central business districts ought to be converted to other uses.
I can't imagine not having a store, bakery, coffee shop in walking distance from anywhere I live or staying as a tourist, that's horrible. I am Croatian, now living in Ireland, traveled all over the Europe. I just can't imagine it at all.
This video was really interesting and I am now even more weirded out by the USA. But I finally understand why literally every person in that country needs a car. I live in Germany. I currently live in the city I grew up in and here we have trams and subways that can take us pretty much anywhere. But when you live in very rural areas, where the bus only comes by once in an hour, then you also need a car. But apparently the US requires everyone to have a car to get anywhere. It is so weird to see these giant neighborhoods with nothing but houses for miles on end. How is Ireland? I am personally thinking about moving near the sea when I get older. But I also want to check out the Netherlands if possible. Or maybe even Austria. But I'll probabyl just stay in Germany. I can't live without my bread.
I'm from Croatia too, living in Germany. I totally understand you, where I’m from I’m walking 3min to the next bakery and the cafe is next door. When I lived in Canada for a while, everything was further away from the house, but still walking distance although it’s a rather small town. Maybe it’s different in the US, I don’t know
I'm from England, my Dad was able to convert half our garage into an office when he first started his own business. I was only a kid but we were pretty broke and he wouldn't have had a chance if he was paying rent on even the smallest of office spaces. That business is still going over a decade later with employees in a proper office. To me that shows that the flexibility to run a business like this helps businesses to thrive, particularly small ones. It sounds like this would have been basically impossible in the US, despite there literally not being even a sign for the business outside.
In many cases in the United States, residential zones are permitted to contain small businesses, but there are significant restrictions on what can exist there. For example, in my home town, small businesses are allowed in residential zones, but they must be operated entirely within the home (no new structures built for the business), they must not employ more than 1 non-resident at a time (there could be two employees on shifts), they must have on-site (not street) parking for customers, they must not receive truck deliveries, and in some cases they cannot sell merchandise. Also, certain types of businesses, like car mechanics, beauty salons, barber shops, and bed-and-breakfasts are not permitted. I think your dad's office would have been permitted in my town and in many towns around the United States. But it is pretty restrictive. I understand some of the reasons, but it could absolutely be improved a ton.
@@joshconeby I mean you are dramatically reducing the potential for people with all of those exceptions. If its easier to list the things you CAN do instead of the things you CANT do, you are probably not in a supportive structure.
Plenty of self employed people run their business out of a home office in the US, that’s fine. You just can’t have something with a storefront, or lots of traffic or something like that. It’s not illegal to work from home.
Yeah I never udnerstood why it was like that, until I learned that it's based on US zoning, which is actually that bad. Ofcourse being 30 years older and wiser now, it's one of the aspects that really turns me away from games like Sim City and City Skylines. Why isn't there mixed used zoning, why can't I put in bicycle infrastructure.... A lot of it has been fixed in mods in City Skylines, but it's just daft that the game itself doesn't have it despite the US zoning system being one of the few systems that don't allow mixed use.
@@douchebagvampire1283 It's incredibly hard to build a halfway decent bicycle infrastructure in City simulators, but it's generally very hard to create a game that allows you to go in that much detail, that you can create genuinely good cities
same here too, i always felt it was super weird to have separate residential and commercial zones. in just end up painting a bunch of commercial zones at crossroads every now and then, but really i just want 4-6 floor buildings in which the ground floor are commercial.
This is a great summary. I'll definitely be linking people to this video when discussing alternatives to Euclidean zoning. Another fascinating zoning method is Japanese zoning, which is a variation on the pyramid method mentioned in this video. The channel "Life Where I'm From" did a great video about Japanese zoning that I recommend watching, if you're interested in good zoning methods.
I'm from Poland, the way US zoning works is utterly alien to me. It seems totally against basic human needs. Why not allow corner shops? Until I've learned about US zoning such a concept didn't even cross my mind. Corner shops are vitally important, you can just walk to a corner shop, get your groceries and you're done. There are corner shops everywhere in Poland. One does not need to drive to a mall to get basic groceries - even in smaller towns. Moreover, you're free to start up a "small industry" kind of business right in your home/garage - no permits required. Even during the soviet era things were better than in the US right now. Way back then, the policy was that everyone shall have housing, so big apartment blocks/towers were built all over the country (take WW2 into consideration - wide-spread destruction etc - people needed somewhere to live). However, in-between those towers there was always some, let's say 'service center', which might include: groceries, shops, bank, post office, kindergarten, etc. - because these are the things that people need. There was a usually a tramline too (or a bus service to the nearest tram). I cannot understand why the US got is all so wrong :(
Motor industry lobbying, and the postwar boom in population and housing. Plus of course, the Interstate system, which was built through the middle of many neighbourhoods and split them in twain. Then there was also “white flight”, where middle class white families almost all moved out from cities into suburbs on those postwar government subsidised mortgages. (Poorer and black families had to stay in the cities, whose tax revenue thus fell dramatically, creating criminogenic conditions, which led to the 60s and 70s’ urban strife.) Of course, it’s not solely down to motor industry lobbying. In the 50s especially, when all of it was new and roads were mostly free-flowing, having to drive was treated less like a burden and more like an exciting new opportunity. Roadside attractions and motels and road trips quickly became part of the cultural zeitgeist, where people went on holidays without planning them because the infrastructure was all there to accommodate them no matter where they found themselves. Big box stores also didn’t quite exist, the closest was a big department store and that’s a very different experience. So most people just drove to “main street” very nearby their suburb, and with no traffic congestion, it didn’t seem like an imposition. After that new model of lifestyle began to settle-in, the first supermarkets began to pop-up. But they were still small compared to today - more like a modern Aldi or Lidl. And they were always just on the outskirts of the suburban area, so the drive compared to “main street” was still similar. But then megamarts/hypermarkets and the modern mall began to appear, built further-out from living centres to get the economies of scale on their land purchases. For a time they were just an “option”, a further-afield drive for rarer or larger or specialty items. But their economies of scale started bringing the margins for the smaller supermarkets down, and they started going out of business. Some of them were replaced with smaller strip malls but not all of them. In a way, it’s a lot like the Malthusian Trap of agriculture, where every step along the path creates further lock-in with a ratcheting effect. And of course nowadays even the hypermarkets are struggling to compete with even larger, even more centralised, “fulfilment centre” warehouses. The companies needed delivery networks to get them to the final store anyway, so delivering them to the home isn’t that much additional overhead. Cut out the actual stores, and the total overhead can even be lower than a hypermarket. And every time enough of the stores go out of business and remain vacant, sooner or later it’s re-zoned as more residential, further increasing sprawl, which further increases car dependence, which further increase’s people’s need to buy more of their daily needs at once to make up for the gas costs, which drives further business monopolisation.
America has too many regulations. It isn't really "free" at all. You have to apply for all sorts of permits to sell or do anything. In some cities, it's illegal to grow your own food! I'm serious. In some parts of the US, the rules are that you're either not allowed to grow fruits or vegetables (edible crops) on your own land or at least not in the front yard! They want you dependent on the corporations.
@@therock8224 also, in many states it’s illegal to collect rainwater. Because the water company bought exclusive rights to all the water from the sky over a century ago
For those of you who are wondering, yes, I can confirm for an absolute fact that the separation between housing and workplaces was intended to force Americans to drive more and thus spend more money buying gas. I know this because my own grandfather was one of the legislators responsible for this in his home state, and he directly told me this before he died.
Sim City taught me how stupid US zoning laws were. Even in that game it was obvious to me that sprinkling the zone squares to create mixed use zones led to better outcomes. Forcing everyone to commute to and from the same zones is mind blowingly stupid and allowing more mixed use is one thing that north america can do now on a local level to reduce pollution and climate change.
“Let’s create maximum bottlenecks in our road system and have everyone commute at the same time! Oh no, now we have all this traffic! And to deal with it we need infrastructure which sits massive and unused 90% of the day!”
I own a small grocery store in Orlando, FL. As a Venezuelan, a country that inherited the European Zoning Model from Spain, the mixed use are a very common thing for me. My purpose was to open a mini grocery store in a Residential medium density area, I wanted to create what is called in Spanish a “Bodega”, that has been very difficult, I had to rent a space in a strip mall and the retail surfaces are usually bigger and more expensive. The other challenge is that even though some customers live close to my store in 4-store buildings, they always take the car, so they prefer to go to a big box store like Walmart than stop by my store to buy milk and bread. Americans are so used to drive that for them walking around the corner to buy basic stuff is unthinkable. Now I am trying to go through online services, that’s the only way to get more customers because my neighbors are not willing to cross the street and go to my small bodega. So my point is, even though zoning can be kind of mixed in some US cities, the American way of life it’s always by the use of a car, no matter how close you are from your customers, they “need” to drive. Anyways, it’s a cultural aspect that I need to get used to if I want my business to succeed.
Also contributes to the reason so many Americans are fat and overweight. They drive everywhere and buy food at cheap costs because they see the neon sign.
The cars are a symptom of that city planning. One store with bread and milk sadly wont change the habits, because as you said if youre going to the walmart anyways, it's more effort. Only if everything, from work, leisure, shops and stores is within reach people will take advantage by shorter trips. That's why general city planning (or allowance after all) is the only way out of this situation, you can't change a developed ecosystem by adressing one thing at a time. Wish you all the best, some day people will figure it out because after all it's the most natural and sustainable solution to conglomerate your daily needs.
It is quite startling to a non-American. On my first visit to LA, I went looking for a sports store; found the location, but it was just a big wall. Phoned the store, they explained that their only entrance was from the carpark building, because who on earth would want to walk in off the street!? That said , I was on my way to the UK, and found it so claustrophobic (tiny houses and streets) after the USA that I decided I'd rather live in the USA than there.
There's a reason why NYC, Boston, Philadelphia & DC, are economically positive and will always attract ppl because of how their built on walkablity, good public transit and mixed use compared to other US cities, especially down south. I don't see how ppl can put up with sitting in traffic just to go to a grocery store.
If the MBTA had more funding Boston would honestly be playing in the same field as European cities, as of right now Boston is like a “pseudo European” city since it suffers from typical North American car centrism in certain areas that are beyond the reach of the T
East Coast cities also probably benefit from their age as well. The core of the cities were all built before cars, whereas many of the West Coast cities (which is where my experience is) were built around the same time as the car and they threw out rail and pedestrian centric designs just as the urban core was getting established. And since there was comparatively more space in younger cities, they got into the habit of car-centric suburban sprawl which is still ongoing. East Coast cities got bigger earlier, so there was more incentive to build vertically rather than outward when the car came out. And the pedestrian structures were already in place with extra work going to vehicle accomodation. Not to say that all US cities don't have a car-centric problem. But the older cities have more established groundwork for other options.
@@BonaparteBardithion LA actually had a massive tram system even before cars existed. "They're built after cars" argument is stupid because it was the auto industry lobbyists who manipulated every city in NA that they need cars on theirs when their city was doing fine without it
@@yeet6074 Throwing out the tram system was definitely a dumb move and you can see a history of that in nearly every major city on the west coast. But even now older cities like LA have stronger pedestrian infrastructure than their satellite cities. Pretty much the entire Greater Seattle Area is car-centric *because* of all the lobbying that went on around the time cities were getting established. There wasn't as much of a downtown core to tear out and replace, so it was a lot easier to do it in the name of modernization and every city did. They are trying to get rail back into these cities and there's hardly any support because the cities were built around the standards set at the time by car lobbyists. This is what I mean by older cities having an advantage.
In Germany lots of the planning and zoning is focused around public transport too, most of their towns and cities seem to have a large train station around which the city and transport within the city is built
Mixed zoning is great, at least residential and commercial combined. Having (heavy) industry mixed in is a rarer sight in Germany in my experience. There still is industrial zoning only, on the outskirts or in dedicated areas, e.g. around train stations or highways. Offices should be integrated in combined zones. Edit: After watching the video, I recommend just watching the video. It's much more detailed than my comment. ;)
In Germany also a big part of the zoning is done by regulating admissible emissions. Emissions including dirty air, noise and also traffic. You are basicly allowed to open a small shop or office everywhere. But a big factory would likely not be according to these emissions and therefore needs to be somewhere in a dedicated zone.
Maybe not everyone like the idea of stupid people from all around the world wandering in their neighborhoods. American culture is not the same as Europe.
In EU, when you're looking for a new place to live, one of the big factors for choosing a place is "how far till the next shopping place". When you split residential and commercial, the answer to that is always bad. All my life I've lived (Germany, Netherlands) less than 10 minutes of walk to the next shopping place. Most of my life it was less than 5 minutes to 3! different discounters. I don't have a car, because I never needed one, but still have a license in case I do. Imagine having to pay for a car and fuel for my most basic needs. I'd have quite a bit less money, and maybe even have debt, compared to what I have now. Looking at you, Americans.
Literally half of Europe lives in apartments, while only 8% of Americans do. Americans don't like the idea of not owning the place your living, and especially don't like the idea of not owning the land you reside on. Europeans seem to love it, its weird for both sides tbh. It comes down to land size, Europeans founded these cities in eras where you had to live a walkable distance from work. Americans cities were mainly built in mass during the 20th century and were built to utilize and maximize space. I have no idea why no one mentions that in relation to zoning. Europeans live that sort of way because they have to given the amount of land they have, hence the reason half the people only live in apartments. Meanwhile in the USA our cities were built on the premise of utilizing as much land as possible during Manifest Destiny. Its crazy how Europeans assume we should live like them enough though we arent restricted to live in small urban areas, because we have habitable land.
@@magicmagus1459 the demographics you spam here wouldn't change at all with legalising corner shops and small businesses in suburbia. It would just mean less car traffic on the roads
@@magicmagus1459 you never really own in America with the property taxes you pay each year... I live in America in a suburb and honestly I chose it this way because I dont like being close to people. I have a pretty decent backyard (In which I installed a little above ground pool, planted many trees and plants and got rid of my lawn). I planted a perimeter of hollys to block all of my neighbors and I dont care to see them or even hear them. It's wonderful and that is why I moved to the suburbs. Still close to the city where I can go to work but far from the apartments and overcrowded streets.
@@magicmagus1459 I much rather prefer houses, but apartments (or condos as you call them in America, to me it's the same thing) can be purchased and owned too. In New York, Chicago, San Francisco and Miami, a substantial proportion of the population lives in an apartment. As you say it may only be 8% nationwide, but this percentage is rising fast, as cities, particularly in democrat states, push through more apartment/condo developments.
Here in Portugal (Europe), I can go by foot to the market, convenience store, bakery, butcher, hair dresser, many restaurants, and even to the bus and train station. This is quality of living! I own two cars, which I mainly use to go to big box stores on the edges of the city (the small car), or when I go on long trips to visit my family or on holidays (a regular station wagon). The key word here is: efficiency. You should be efficient with your time, and use less resources in your daily life - in order to reduce your impact in the planet Earth.
@@ivanrodriguez268 I would not say "no one", but I would accept "the majority of the people" - regardless of the country. The North American people (USA and Canada) have a bigger impact on the planet, though, due to: - Cheap gas, which allows people to have a 5.5L V8 under the hood, or run their gas-powered lawn mower, instead of switching to electric appliances and smaller cars; - Eat a lot, and waste a lot of food, which puts pressure on both the food producing industry (which increases emissions, specially to produce beef), and on the waste management industry (which creates massive land fields, and pollutes river and the sea). I still see - even in Europe - many people who do not recycle, who do not have the mentality of wasting less (in food and other). This has to stop! We really need to take this seriously. Otherwise, the heat waves, the tornados, the rising sea level, etc... Will only get worse!
One important factor in some French cities is color. Here in Toulouse we earn our Pink city title and cities like Tours have a very distinct white color with blue slate (called Ardoise) roofs
@@olajong2315 even though it's dysfunctional due to protests often causing grid-locks (f.ex. strikes) - I do respect the french for that, it means their politicians are kept on their toes about the will of the people. In my country, Sweden, politicians became too sure of themselves as our relationship with power is perceived as more trusting and collaborative - in recent years there's been a large pushback against ideas established since the 1980s and even farther back - it took 30 years to get past this consensus in order to start reforming our society. Many blindfolds have come off, people do still trust politicians and the government (which I think is positive), but not without seeing results. Compared to Sweden, France is alot more dynamic - probably the most politically dynamic country in the EU if I may guess, and has been so for the majority of its recent history.
Having lived in the US and Finland, the difference mixed-use zoning makes is night and day, and quite literally makes or breaks the livability of a city. Quick suggestion! Try to cut away from your closeups before your body settles at the end of a sentence. I noticed the cut at about 10:44 felt smooth because that movement was minimized.
Unfortunately the same zoning nonsense that happens in the US also happens in Canada, with the exception of, you guessed it, Quebec. R1 zoning is a plague on the continent.
Hah x) It's funny cause I've been trying to move to Canada for a few months now, and after some research I ended up favoring Quebec for my search, in no small part because of that :p
English planner here, a development is approved if it follows the guidelines of the NPPF National Planning Policy Framework, so what you build follows that, the local framework is more of a vision for what is wanted, plus extra local details on top. So no zones in any way at all, the main minimum sizes are designed to make sure near by buildings do not get less sunlight or are overlooked and rooms are not to small to be habitable. It is very free flowing and works really well (as long as it's funded properly) as it allows much more local involvement and can make sure that buildings fit local context, even down to a street. It also makes sure that older buildings are not being ruined or effecting neighbours with extension, one near me was only allowed planning permission if it kept some of the beautiful original features. It's very complex and intricate I am more than sure I've missed something off so do add if I have or any questions you have.
You also have minor and major developments, major being 10 dwellings and more or over 1,000 square metres. A major development having extra steps to forfill such as SUDS (Sustainable Drainage systems). And you may wonder if there is a huge backlog due to having to review everyone and the answer is that you should have a decision whether to grant it or not in 8 weeks for a small one to 13 weeks for large developments and there are currently 1.9 million homes with planning permission that have not been built. So it isn't the culprit that is exacerbating the housing crisis, as much as our government tries to claim.
A big downside is that it does give huge opportunity for Nimbies to object to each and every development. That’s not a big issue in some settings, but in other areas, it means it’s very hard to ever build badly needed housing (or increase the density of housing), which is contributing to pricing younger people completely out of many markets.
@@Zveebo well as I said before things go through on the NPPF a nimby can only stop a development if they have a legitimate grievance that would contradict local and national policy. I.e. Historical site or mines etc that were not discovered by the planners originally. If not it doesn't matter if they complain it needs to be legitimate. Actually the issue nimbies find in the UK is they aren't listened to, even though the system provides avenues for them that are not taken into account. And let's say Nimbies got their way because it was close to a tight election so the councilors went with them, the developer can appeal and it goes to a higher court and the nimbies with non legitimate cases can't effect that at all, the council then gets fined. The project is set back about 13 weeks, which is not good however, suppliers and builders can add double that much time onto a project with ease but that's par for the course.
Im a 6th year M.Arch student in the U.S. and found this video fascinating. My thesis includes mixed-use design in Miami as it lacks public transportation and is uncomfortably hot to walk in. Also, the income to cost of living ratio is incredibly low so many cant afford cars. I loved the commercial-residential mix in Europe so we definitively need more of that
Greetings from Munich, Germany. Here landlords actually advertise apartments to be in mixed zones, as it is seen as a locational advantage. People just expect "Geschäfte des täglichen Bedarfs" (everyday necessities) like supermarkets, hairdressers, pharmacies, doctors and so on to be right around the corner, but also not-so-everyday-things like small hardware stores, bicycle workshops, or galleries, in addition to public infrastructure like schools and libraries, as well as recreational facilities like parks, bars, and restaurants. Basically everything that isn't very loud and doesn't stink. Literally everyone who can afford it wants to live in the inner city were almost everything one would need - including office workplaces - can be easily reached by foot or at least in a few minutes bicycle ride. Overall only poorer people and families with need for more space and private gardens can be found in purely residential areas that are considered boring and just not very attractive to many. This also allows, as already mentioned in the video, a constant and dynamic transformation of the city to become even more livable. As the city extended over time, it encircled a lot of industrial areas formerly formerly lying in the outskirts. As land value rises, industry gradually moves out and and is replaced by residential, commercial and cultural usage.
Literally half of Europe lives in apartments, while only 8% of Americans do. Americans don't like the idea of not owning the place your living, and especially don't like the idea of not owning the land you reside on. Europeans seem to love it, its weird for both sides tbh. It comes down to land size, Europeans founded these cities in eras where you had to live a walkable distance from work. Americans cities were mainly built in mass during the 20th century and were built to utilize and maximize space. I have no idea why no one mentions that in relation to zoning. Europeans live that sort of way because they have to given the amount of land they have, hence the reason half the people only live in apartments. Meanwhile in the USA our cities were built on the premise of utilizing as much land as possible during Manifest Destiny. Its crazy how Europeans assume we should live like them enough though we arent restricted to live in small urban areas, because we have habitable land.
@@magicmagus1459 "Meanwhile in the USA our cities were built on the premise of utilizing as much land as possible during Manifest Destiny" ...which was code-word for colonization and land theft from the Indigenous, not something I would tout IMO.
In rural Germany there is also "village" zoning, which covers almost the entire village in one zone (except one pure residential area build in the 60s) that allows housing up to 3 storeys, light industry, commercial (except gambling and gas stations), small businesses *and agriculture*. I live on a main street with residental buildings on either side, but behind our house is a farm.
Mad how the US prides itself on its "entrepreneurial" mindset yet is stupidly strict when it comes to starting your own business compared to countries in Europe
@@STEP107 yes, US is great for the super rich, but 99% of the population get assfucked with the red, white and blue dildo... In Denmark, McDonald's workers receive $22 per hour and 6 weeks of vacation. - now go back to sleep and enjoy yur American Dream.
@@STEP107 Selling a homeless "service startup " to the bloated US venture casino while having red numbers, is not like running a local, family operated sustainable business. German small-mid Companies delivering the machines for the whole globe. Your "Startup" Orthodoxy reminds me of the People who believe Milk comes from the Supermarket and not from the Farm.
It is the governments who are in bed with large corporations, who make laws and regulations preventing small business entrepreneurs from building a business. The culture here WAS entrepreneurial, but as the big corporations took over they got in bed with government and became an obstacle to capitalism. You are making the mistake of lumping everyone in the US into one group. How very ignorant of you.
I am so glad that my suburb of chicago (Mount Prospect) started to realize this. A couple of years ago they completed a new comprehensive plan, changing what they would allow in each zoning district. They have replaced the typical light industrial district with a mixed use light industrial district allowing Entertainment and recreational uses, health services, training facilities, civic uses, food and beverage establishments and community amenities, such as plazas, squares, and recreational trails. The park district bought some of the buildings for workout classes as well as upgrades the parks and widened the bike paths creating a way for more residents to enjoy the businesses park. There is also a new restaurant in the business park. It’s really nice seeing this business park change for the better. Mount prospect is still working on improving the bicycle connections to it partially on rand road and downsizing the 4 lane stroad in the business park to incorporate better bicycle facilities. The current transit is okay. It is about a mile from downtown Train station and there is a bus coming every 30 minutes during rush hour but their are plans to put a non car separated brt network on rand in the future. I am so glad it’s getting better though.
Nice to see at least one town around here doing the right thing. My town (Lake Zurich) is nowhere near changing anything for the better. In fact my neighborhood still doesn’t even have sidewalks, much less bike infrastructure or mixed-use zoning. Even into Barrington by the train station, I’ve seen zero improvement in transit, pedestrian infrastructure, or mixed zoning. Then again, Barrington may be the nimby capital of the whole nw suburbs. I’ve paid very close attention to the proposals surrounding the Bears’ new project down in AH (I went to high school there, so I’ve spent a LOT of time in that town), and it looks like they’re going to be making it about as auto-dependent as ever. So much money will be going into this project, but it seems like they think the pre-existing metra station is the only transit infrastructure they need (other than proposals to expand highway ramps of course). They’re just gonna build another auto-dependent shopping center (with no mixed use), but this one will happen to have an nfl stadium attached. It made me really happy to hear the Mount Prospect is actually doing things to improve the urban planning there. So many of our rail-line suburbs in Chicagoland have such great potential to become really wonderful, liveable towns, but so few of our public officials are interested in pursuing the right projects. I’m excited to see how Mount Prospect grows and hope many of our suburbs can follow its example.
@@pjkerrigan20 Honestly I think you whold be surprised in the current investments in infrastructure to get people to Arlington Park. There is a plan from the northwest municipal conference (NWMC) and City of Chicago to provide a 34 mile bike path along Northwest Highway from Jefferson Park to Crystal Lake. I was pretty surprized when I first saw the regional bikeway plan with this on it. They had this plan for 10 years but the villages/cities along NW HW did not have a complete streets laws until recently. The complete streets policies insures that this plan with be implemented when there are improvements to the roadway. Also with the new 2020 NWMC plan people can see the progress and aligments off the regional bike. With these changes, it is becoming more and more likely it will happen. You could view the map at nwmc-cog.org Also Pace is expanding its facities and its bus rapid transit lines that provide service every 10-15 minutes. They are starting with the inner suburbs first. A project that will be done by the end of the year the Pulse Dempster Line will connect the des plaines metra station (Goes to Arlington Park) with ohare, 3 other metra lines and 2 cta lines. I am hoping this really helps with the EXTREAME congestion that will happen on game days. So glad Mount Prospect is changing for the better. Mount Prospect is doing a lot more with its zoning. I wrote this for the not just bikes video but thought it fits here too. I suggest looking over the MP comprehensive plan too. If you care.
In Europe, when you buy a house, one of your top concerns is how far away you have to go for your daily needs (schools, shops, doctor, pharmacy, public transportation, etc.). In Europe, nobody would buy a house where you need to drive 40 minutes to get to a shop. My 9yo son walks to school, music lessons, ahtletism classes, etc. by himself. If those places where 20 minutes away from home it would take so many time to go there that would result impossible to do it all.
Okay this video blew my mind. I knew many other countries had more mixed residential and business buildings, but my brain never connected the dots and thought the zoning system would be different. Now I realize I have completely (and incorrectly) taken it for granted that zones are always exclusive.
I experinced the flip side. It took me a while to realize that on the US residential means only houses and not houses plus various small businesses to cover the needs of the residents.
American suburban zoning is like the nightmare for most Europeans. You will more than likely never find a single European expat in one of those huge suburban areas. Living 30+ minutes by car away from any store, you might as well live out in the woods somewhere.
My friend and I were opening a recreational cannabis business in Oregon, we were told that we would be able to do so on his property based on a grandfather clause, despite the zoning, since we'd been providing medical cannabis from that property for a long enough period of time prior to the legalization of recreational cannabis. We got everything up to code as far as security cameras, water storage, etc. We built a huge add on to the building we were planning on using and added a new mini house for him to live in since he would no longer legally be able to occupy the same building as the business. After all of the time, money and energy we invested they revoked our license based on some higher up reinterpreting the grandfather clause and/or speculating about a future law change. I never really got a full explanation but we had already had an onsite inspection and had been approved for our license. And the most ridiculous part was all the surrounding properties were zoned where it wouldn't have even been an issue, his property had a different zoning. Made absolutely zero sense.
I appreciate the suggestions but like I said, it was when recreational cannabis was legalized in Oregon, which was like 6 years ago. My buddy still has the property but that ship has sailed. I was lucky enough to have a clause in the contract to be repaid if we never actually got going with the license, so I got repaid for my monetary investment. Took a few years but I got all my money back. So personally I'm just out time and energy and I suppose gas money from driving back and forth from home to the property and getting supplies and what not. I just shared the story because of the relevance to the video but I appreciate y'all trying to help. Cheers
I'm used to the UK system. I had no idea how different the US one was. It seems kind of inconvenient (IMO). I mean, I've got schools, parks, shops, restaurants, industrial buildings, post offices , gymns, , a train station, a library, , doctor's surgeries, dentists, opticians, all within walking distance from where I live. It does explain a few things to me about the US, though.
I really do prefer the system of planning permission we have here. Sure, you might only be able to do 80-90% of what you wanted, but compromise with your neighbours instead of a top-down edict from some distant elected officials feels much fairer to me. I’ve also noticed some Americans seem to assume a single disagreement just cancels the whole plan with our system, which of course isn’t true at all, I’ve seen (and I’m sure you have, too) many things get built with a small number of the locals objecting. Because their objections are not deemed rigorous enough, or any downsides they attest are viewed as being outweighed by the upsides.
@@TheCelticsAREboss I live in Birmingham, UK. There's stuff here I didn't even realise was here until I started paying attention. Did I mention the gymns and swimming pool?
@@Han-rw9ev You basically named a bunch of facilities and said they were all in walking distance, which I doubt is true. Not sure what you Europoors consider "walking distance." Plus, this video is about suburbs and you're comparing it to a city
@@TheCelticsAREboss you need to get out of your country, those things are most definitely walking distance for most people in europe. within 10 minutes walking i can access 30+ different cafes and restaurants, 2 cinemas, 2 gyms, a swimming pool, maybe 20 different grocery stores, 3 parks etc etc. i own a car but use it at most once every 2 weeks, either to get out of london or for transporting something large.
For me, as a German, it is very hard to imagine not having a grocery store or even a bakery in my neighborhood. Why did the US mess that up so much? Isn't it like super annoying to drive through the whole city only to get a yogurt from the store? At least I can now somehow understand why people in the US use their car for pretty much everything.
It also explains the lack of bread culture here. It's typical to do a once a week grocery run in your car, so the bread has to last at least a week and preferably two. The only way that happens is to pump them with preservatives. After a couple trips to Europe I started making my own bread/baguettes whenever possible, because I found it depressing to go back to the plastic wrapped stuff.
I'm a City Engineer in Kansas, and I can guess why my city would not want to loosen up on their zoning requirements, though I don't personally mess with the zoning requirements here. Our planners are really hesitant to give up any tool they have to steer development however they want, and one of their favorite tools to use is zoning requirements, eg "Sorry, outdoor storage is only allowed in the I-4 district, this parcel is zoned I-2. And I don't think we can be supportive of a rezoning application unless you agree to build to the strictest requirements of the I-2 zone." Not that it's a GOOD reason, mind you. But I guarantee a lot of American planners would be non-supportive for the same reason.
lol, "we support capitalism, individualism, and the free market as long as it isn't on this street." Yeah, that leveraging effect is used in other places: "oh, you want a variance for you large sign do you... well, it's going to cost you the 3rd level of your parking garage." Government sure does using every tool it gets its grubby little hands on.
2 роки тому+4
They are really hesitant to give up any little tiny sliver of power is what I'm getting here.
US: Has car dependency problem Also US: Makes zoning so strict that you absolutely need a car to go anywhere because the local neighborhood doesn't allow for mixed use
Zoning laws were created so you didn't have to live near a coal plant or an asbestos mill, NOT so you can live 1 hour away from anything to actually do or use to sustain yourself.
That's only one cause, the biggest by far are the financial incentive structures set up to reward real-estate as a speculative asset & using it as a financial base to underpin huge other developments. This is what drives it far beyond the price range of most people who need houses for their utility and not as a financial asset.
@@InnuendoXP Yeah, imagine if an expensive city with $800,000 homes approved enough mixed-use medium density projects to actually get housing back down to affordable levels of $350,000 or so. The people planning to use their $800,000 asset to finance retirement would be unbelievably pissed. Obviously they will elect city officials who prevent this. A mayor or city council member who runs on a platform of reducing home values will never win.
@@briankirkpatrick8888 and that goes doubly-so for state & federal level governments in many countries. Whether directly through "passive income" or indirectly through investment portfolios with real-estate holdings, the boomers & wealthy gen-Xers of today are having the working age Gen X/Y/Z of today subsidize their retirements & unsustainable housing models, pay their highly leveraged mortgages with rent & paying off yet more equity to trade on whole politicians either in with or beholden to these interests work to keep debt as cheap & low-risk as possible with low interest rates & negative gearing... for those who already have assets that-is. Not to mention the status quo of property developers endlessly making bank off all of this.
@@briankirkpatrick8888 The people planning to use their $800,000 asset for retirement should learn something about not putting all their eggs in one basket. Younger generations shouldn't pay for their poor retirement planning.
@@InnuendoXP That's not even remotely true and has no basis in any economic evidence Real+estate as a "speculative" asset is a primary driver or housing supply, and if anything, helps reduce overall housing costs.
Here in Germany most (single doctor) clinics, tax accountants and lawyers have their office in what was once a normal appartment. My company has it's local office in the middle storey of an old 3 storey villa. First and third are normal renters living there (Since we don't have customers coming that isn't a problem with noise etc.)
Same here in Czechia, my dentist has clinic in 3th floor in normal apartment in building where people normaly live, but there is mostly more clinics in such buildings.
@@garazsgeza5728 well the US people are the ones shooting up a school each month. I have lived in those mixed-use buildings and it wasn't an issue. Many German houses are built from sturdier material than the US wooden ones and you would only hear people in the hall if you'd stand right beside the wall, or if they are actually being very loud. I have lived over a pharmacy, dentist, insurance company and gynecologist and was never bothered. If we seem more aggressive, I don't think it is because of our mixed use inner city houses.
I had been aware that zoning was a thing in America, but hadn't realised how strict it could be. Here in England my residential street has a few small rows of shops along it, as well as schools, churches, a pub and a mosque in what used to be a pub. The idea of a large residential area with no shops at all seems utterly bizarre, although some developments here can seem like that.
Yep, it’s best to look at the UK as not having any zoning at all. There are local plans of various different types (depending on which of the countries and regions of the UK you are in), but really what matters is individual planning permission for buildings. That can be somewhat cumbersome sometimes, because there is no automatic right to build a particular type of building, but it does mean that if eg. you can make a good case for an office in a primarily residential area (or vice versa) there is no fundamental reason it can’t go ahead. In cities, it pretty common for larger developments to be *required* by planners to incorporate mixed uses on the basis that it contributes to a vibrant cityscape. So for instance a major new retail and food/drink development in my home city of Edinburgh in Scotland also includes a large hotel, short term serviced apartments, offices and major residential elements, all within a single building in the centre of the city - that’s seen as highly desirable.
When I lived in The UK, there was a big supermarket in my town that was surrounded by housing. So, if you wanted to get some groceries there was no need to drive. In fact, considering amount of one-way streets in that area, it was often faster to walk rather than drive :)
@@jur4x Yep, that’s not too uncommon - combined with the prominence of smaller supermarkets in city centres and suburban shopping streets, it means many people rarely need to drive to get groceries, especially in larger cities.
A current trend in the UK at the moment which is annoying me is the taking away of green belt designation in many towns & cities. A regulation that was originally meant to stop the sort of urban sprawl you get in America. What's the point of making a rule if you can just take it away at a whim?
That point about Edinburgh is great to hear, but I'd also like to point out there has been some variation with this. I live in a somewhat rural area in the south of England, and the vast majority of developments seem to be pure housing, without any other services associated. Smaller towns are slowly becoming less and less walkable as new areas of housing are simply slapped on to the outside with no consideration of access to shops, public transport, restaurants etc. I'm guessing this is largely just a southern problem, but it suggests that this American-style planning is creeping in to the mindsets of people in many places.
@@andrewjackson8845 I saw it twenty years ago in Redhill, Surrey. The entire concept was founded on car privilage... which just doesn't work when you do the maths for much road space all these cars would actually use up.
For how much Americans spent thinking about economics, they didn't even give a second thought at the fundamental foundation for cities. Negative environmental externalities should be priced and factored into the costs of factory, meaning that industries will naturally locate in cheap land with low alternative uses. Pricing mechanism is ALWAYS more efficient in deciding land use. Like LA, where factories are long gone but they are still zoned as industrial smack dab right in the middle of the city (East LA), even though their uses could be much better allocated for something else.
I'm in the UK. I have lived in the same house for fifty years. In that time, and within just a few hundred yards of my home, there are: houses that have been turned into small shops, some that have been shops and reverted back to houses, a hotel that became a pub and is now a small supermarket, a petrol station / garage that is now a grocery store, a grocery store that has become a funeral parlour, a chapel that has become a house, a house that became a post office (now back to a house) and a former primary school that is now housing. That's a lot of flexibility.
Perfect example for the mixed use: the village of 10,000 inhabitants where I live at in southern Germany. From my home to work I have a 10 minute long walk from one side of the village to the other side of the village. There are both single family homes and apartment houses on my way; There are also 3 bakeries, a bank, 2 hotels, 1 clothing store, several restaurants, doctors offices, and other small shops. And in between all those there are also a few farms. Big industries are located at the very edge of the village, in fact half of the village area is mixed commercial and industrial area with no people being right next to it, so no-one is disturbed by the noise of the industries themselves nor all the traffic heading there. Seperated by a highway but connected via a bridge it's easy to get there within a couple of minutes of walking. It's a nice mix, bringing life into the village and not keeping residents seperated from each other that much. Walking distances within the village means that people will also choose to walk and won't use their car for everything
similar here in the Netherlands. however for most that 10 minute walk will be swapped for a 5 minute bike ride. in general people here don't walk much beyond a minute or 3.
I think this applies everywhere but the US and Canada. From Buenos aires here and on a 5 block radius I have supermarkets, grocery stores, convenience stores, a couple plazas, a church, a school, a pharmacy, restaurants, laundromats, hardware stores, hair salons, all around both apartment buildings mostly but also single family houses and mixed use buildings. Not to mention you also have bus stops, shared bikes and a metro station nearby, so most people just walk and use public transport. It's crazy to me they choose not to live like this in the US
We have similar urban layouts on main streets and downtowns in many similar-sized towns, but the availability of apartments or nearby houses is very scarce and expensive. For reference, my 20,000 person college town has ~300 residents (like me) living on main street with only ~2,000 more residents within a ten-minute walk. I can walk/bike everywhere and avoid owning a car, so the cost is similar to a suburban car driver.
@@sirBrouwer I used to ride my bike alot; Back in school and university I didn't even have a car and rode my bike everywhere, and whatever was out of reach I took public transit via train / subway / tram / bus. But then my normal bike was stolen - twice. And then my racing bike was stolen as well. They were locked up with expensive locks, in locked bike rooms or locked inner yards of a building. Still both got stolen. At some point I wasn't very interested in investing both money and time for new bikes (and equip them the way I want to have them, as I used to ride my bike also in snow and ice or went on long bike trips) and also the insurance didn't want to pay for the bike stolen again. So that's why I keep walking to work, barely take public transit (there's both bus and commuter rail connecting my village, but walking to the train station takes like 20 minutes) and then will simply drive my car to other places around the area. I'd be more concerning of a new bike being stolen out of the locked shed at the apartment building I'm living it than I'm concerned at work. There I'd just put the bike into the vehicle hall (working in EMS).
Haha, I studied law in Germany and had to learn all these things about german zoning. So I was curious how you would talk about the “BauNVO“ zones and I must say, you did a great job! However I want to add that there are also regulations on how buildings are to look and how much of the groud they can use, similar to what you said about french zoning laws. You might have a harder time finding these regulations though, because they are on state level, so every “Bundesland“ has its own laws on that. Also, things differ a lot between municipalities, because, somewhat like in the UK, cities and municipalities have the right to development and lay down their own plans in accordance with regional and supraregional land use planning. They can‘t go completely off script though, it is more like a modular system where they can decide what type of zones and what regulations for building design out of the state/federal laws they want to chose for specific areas. Inside that frame you then have the “build by right“ rule. I really enjoyed this video and really like how you explain city planning in general, something I had never given much thought before but find really interesting now, especially in comparison.
And some of those restrictions are totally bonkers. Like "no solar on the roof, since the house is "denkmalgeschützt" (protected building) and must retain it's look, even though the street is so small you can't even see the roof from down there.
Some cities like actually developed a Masterplan of their zoning, with very explicit volumetries that should be met by the developer. There are a lot of rules regarding respect of landmark buildings, accessibility, energy management, fire safety, even the number of parking lots on the property, that shape the final form of the building. Like in France, you have to submit your proposal to a local government (Bauamt), which check if you respected all the regulations. But like England, you can ask to be freed of the planing regulations, in which case it becomes a case by case development. And like in France, you can absolutely not begin to build before the approval of the local authorities. If any of you come by in Berlin, go visit the model of the city centre, it is just amazing!
@@steemlenn8797 I know someone who lives in switzerland, the village is located on a slope, they build terraces in their yard bc you couldnt use it much otherwise. Some guy flew over with a drone saw the terraces and reported them to the city. They had to tear down the terrraces to preserve the natural look of the mountain even though the only place you can see the yard from is from air.
I live in Zagreb, Croatia, which is a fairly tiny city when compared to many other European capitals but it still follows "European zoning". I live in a neighborhood on the eastern edge of the city and rarely venture into the downtown area since everything I need is here, 10-20 minute walk from my flat. Doctor's offices, bank's, shopping centre, larger supermarkets, tailors, hairdressers, car repair shops, basically almost everything business you might need. It makes perfect sense to find all that within walking distance, and still have parks and schools and kindergartens and libraries and even a community sports centre. :) It's just a more organic way of living, that's all.
I went to Zagreb last year and it quickly became one of my favorite cities! That is a city built for people at a human scale. So many pedestrian zones and outdoor dining spaces.
In the UK we do have something called ‘Permitted Development’ which allows you to build certain structures without permission like Garden Offices, sheds etc. It can be more flexible on places like farms too
In my country, we divide the types of activities allowed on the land use zones into three categories: Predominant Use, Discretionary and Prohibited. A large matrix table is even created to visualise these categories in relation to the zoning and activities. Hence, the matrix table has become our primary reference when reviewing proposed development. This is followed by further technical details such as building setback, parking requirement etc. One recurring challenge to us is dealing with activity that is categorised as Discretionary in that particular zone. Often, it is ambiguous and local councils' perception is that if the proposed activity is Discretionary, the likelihood of it is approved is higher...although we advise them that is not always the case.
In Hong Kong we adpot the zoning regulations similar to the UK. The property owner could turn the building into whatever he/she likes. Therefore city planning (especially in the urban core) is somehow weird. It's possible to have an auto shop right below your home, or a super modern high rise apartment next to a 50-year-old 7-storey building. Despite the possible weird outcome, it's convenient to the residents. At least I don't have to drive like 15 mins for grocery like what I may have to do in the US if I'm not living in cities like NY or DC. I think the planning code in the US is convenient to city planners because they don't have to consider what kinds of land use will be mixed together and whether the combination satisfies everyone. But to those who don't own a car it decreases their accessibility to things like entertainment and social services.
But, wouldn't you be bothered by all the noise from the surrounding businesses? Isn't it better to only have homes around you for the sake of your peace?
I cannot imagine living in a single use zone, though we do have some nearby. Where I live, in England, there are local shops opposite, and the majority of customers are pedestrians. Behind the shops is a primary school, with the secondary school a short walk away. Also a short walk away is the main shopping area, supermarkets and so on, where pedestrians still make up a large percentage of the customers. Until recently, there were also factories within walking distance. Consequently, although most households have a car, they do not need to use them for every activity. Leisure, retail, work, education and medical facilities are all accessible without cars or public transport. It makes life so easy.
I live in Scotland, and whenever there are to be any changes with local buildings, all the neighbours get a letter in the post about it, with the exact detail of what is to be done, when the work would be scheduled for, and how to oppose it if there were any objections. My neighbour was going to get some work done to her downstairs flat, to get the large windows converted into patio doors, and every single person on the street got informed about it well in advance. I think the only reason I know about various small side streets near my flat is because of these letters, because they usually include a map of where the planned work is for.
in NZ we mix residential as well, schools, dairies, grocers are close or within residential areas - saves longer commutes for simple errands - my city has a central area with commercial of course but we have 3 mini commercial like area that are within the suburbs and parking is much easier than going all the way into the city
When I moved to the UK I found Permitted Development rights to be very interesting. There are certain types of development and changes of use that are permitted without the need for a formal planning application (as long as it meets the applicable criteria). For instance, if you want to extend your dwelling you can do so, as long as it is not too big or your PD rights have not been removed.
Having lived in both Europe and US, one major issue I noticed is that nations with higher number of mixed use developments have stricter noise reduction policies. For example, heavy duty vehicles such as buses and garbage trucks work much more quietly in Europe, because people demand that. Oversize trucks aren’t even allowed in many European cities. There’s a general consensus that if right decisions are made, big cities can well be pleasant and harmonious places.
It sounds great to have corner stores sprinkled throughout residential neighbourhoods, but in my city (in Canada) there used to be tons of them and they've nearly all died off due to lack of demand. They mostly had common groceries like milk, eggs, veggies, some meats, etc in addition to the convenience store staples of chips, candy, cigarettes and the like. But turns out that, despite what this channel says, people don't actually want that. They want to go to a single store once a week and get everything there (e.g. Walmart). I think this mainly comes down to the car-centric nature of our cities which promotes infrequent larger trips rather than stopping by on the way home from work to grab what you need for dinner. Personally, even when I didn't own a car I'd still go to the big-box stores because it is just so much cheaper.
Not only does the UK system not have provision for single size residential developments, it positively encourages the opposite. It's standard for developers to have to agree to a mix of sizes and include affordable homes in with more lucrative higher priced properties. In larger developments planning conditions can include building schools, GP practices (doctors' offices), etc..
Cool to see my small home town in one of your videos (6:05 Groß-Gerau). Great channel and good videos 👍🏻 Walkabilty is the word. No matter if you are in a village or a city. With the mixed zones in germany you coult mostly walk or ride by bike to the groccery or town center.
What an excellent video!!! Please make more videos on European urban planning. I think Europe is the Mecca for Urban Planners and Urban Planning enthusiasts.
Every city planner I know from youtube is an advocate for things like corner stores, more multifamily homes, etc. So why is this not more common? Are most planners supportive of the current system, is it NIMBYs, or is this stuff changing but existing infrastructure and zoning laws are slowing down development? Or maybe I just only watch the more progressive planners...
You have to remember that it is the planners of a few decades back who advocated for and implemented the fairly disastrous policies that now dominate America. Changing the views of that really takes a big generational switch, so is never going to happen overnight, especially giving how deeply embedded views of zoning have become.
There is also the simple fact that in the US, the town planning meetings tend to only be attended by the retired. It's rare to see anyone younger than 50 there.
Because city planners and other educated people on this subject only make a tiny fraction of the voting population. The general population are under the impression that if you got rid of or relaxed zoning restrictions, that means that suddenly there is going to be a 50 story ghetto tower next to their quaint little 2 story house, or that suddenly there is going to be a poison manufacturer next door, race is also a fear, many Caucasian believe that if you allow multifamily homes in their single family neighborhood that means that black and brown people will now be able to afford living there (which yeah, probably true) and they would rather keep their neighborhood white.
In my experience as a citizen activist in New Jersey, the public is poorly educated about planning and upper middle class nimbys don't want shops on their streets. The state of NJ has built R-1 (?) zoning into the law. The politicians and their developer friends make the decisions. The local planning boards must paint by the numbers or they get sued and the neutered professional planners simply formalize the decisions. It's a head banging situation.
@@Redrally And the system benefits home owners and current residents, that are whiter and wealthier. Potential future residents benefited by a new mixed use building won't show up. Same for working class people, often Black and Latino that don't have the time to attend. Finally, people that don't care much about the topic or that have a positive opinion on new developments have less incentive to attend than NIMBYs and haters of all kind.
The first time I visited the U.S I stayed with some American friends of mine in the suburbs. It still astounds me that we had to drive to get anywhere and that the idea of walking to a corner shop for milk was not an option. My living situation here in the UK could be considered a little extreme though! My house is semi detached and used to be a newsagents until we got the planning permission to convert it into a home. The house next door did the same. Next to us is another semi detached building which are a corner shop and beauticians. On the vacant lot next to me there used to be a pub, around the corner is a youth club and at the bottom of my street is a main road filled with shops! However, no matter where I’ve lived, I have always been in walking distance to local amenities, shops, pubs, doctors and even local post offices/banks.
The planning system in England is discretionary, so you are right to say it can't properly be described as zoning. The act you cited essentially gave the government all rights to development - which means you have to ask for permission from the government (normally local governments) to develop land/ buildings. Those applications for permission must be decided in accordance with a Development Plan for the local area, as you said. But those plans are flexible because the policies within them are not prescriptive - policies set out what ought to happen, but not what must happen. This means planners and elected local councillors must make a judgement taking account of all material considerations, including those which someone making the plan did not think about and those which are specific to the site, in order to reach a decision. Applicants have the right to appeal decisions. Interestingly though, the English planning system does have some elements similar to zoning. The central government has essentially granted the entire country permission to develop land/ buildings in certain ways (although these are generally quite limited - like small extensions to houses) and this means permission is not required for this type of development - these are known as permitted development rights.
Permitted development rights are not applicable in some areas, e.g. Conservation Areas where there is architectural heritage worth protecting. These are kind of zones, but not really comparable to anything in the US. It’s more about protecting architecture then caring what happens inside the building. I suppose the closest thing we have to a zone is the green belt.
Interesting subject. I think the quality and aesthetics of building façades is a very important factor for "beautiful" places aswell. Mixed use zones have the advantage of shorter distances - a supermarket around the corner is more convenient than a market 3 miles away. Also its easier to create central places (i would describe as local mini downtowns) when mixed zoning is allowed.
Good overview. Although, it makes me wish for: - highlighting the opportunity in the US to embrace the Form-Based Code movement which would trend toward the benefits of the French model - the IMPORTANT issue of how zoning has completely lost its purpose; regulations are now a jumbled mess of copy/paste of how the other municipality competing for growth structures their zoning regulations. The work it requires to really revamp a zoning code to contend with REAL GOALS is likely a pipe dream that may never happen if left to each municipality to tackle individually. More on REAL GOALS: Climate adaptation, local food production, water conservation, air quality, public health, safe systems transportation adaptation, localizing economic development systems, affordability, fiscal responsibility, wild life preservation
For Germany even the so called exclusively residential zone (WR) allows for shops on a case-by-case base, however usually these are just kept very very small. Also there is not really a commercial zone. GI is clearly industrial and GE is a combination of light industry and large scale commercial, you don't want in a dense city center like car dealers or superstores.
These comparisons are great. It makes me sad every time people sincerely discuss these kinds of problems but neglect to draw comparisons to identify the actual problem and possible solutions.
Commuting is a symptom of a disease. Many mega corporations started in residential garages (Dell, HP, Apple, Microsoft...). Of course you get much more production done when your workplace is near or at home. Living upstairs from your business was normal in the wild west towns, as well as the down towns of east coast cities.
I would've loved to see Australia as another comparison point. I do know a little about how our zoning works, though - it seems to be a mix of everyone, with lots pre-zoned but all but the simplest of developments needing approval from local councils. And lots can be re-zoned. I think we also lean American, too, with large areas of industrial and residential.
Wade, it would really depend where in Australia. Very few, if any, general residential zones would prevent retailing or mixed residential densities. Like US and Germany we have 'as of right' development
Yes, Australia is a good comparison point. I think Australia leans towards the American model, with some elements on Europe here and there, but it's 80-90% like America, except in suburban areas close to the city centre (downtown).
Not everything is perfect in Europe. In France, the dream of the single family house is really strong and is creating what we call "lotissements" which are pretty similar to US single family zones. They usually develop in villages near enough to a big city/employment center and give us the same issues as in the US. We usually call those villages "dormitories" since people are just sleeping there. It is also leading to the death of the city centers since those people do all their shopping in more accessible commercial centers.
Merci d'apporter cette précision, les auteurs de cette vidéo ignorent manifestement les particularités des documents d'urbanisme type PLU, avec leurs zones UA, UB, etc. Les activités commerciales et artisanales, sans parler des industries, sont bien cantonnées dans des zones spécifiques dans les règles d'urbanisme en vigueur sur la majeure partie du territoire français. C'est un point de vue typiquement Nord Américain, qui a tendance à imaginer que toutes les agglomérations ressemble à la Butte Montmartre...
Rented in a neighborhood that was supposed to get a convenience store on the corner. Instead owners in the area voted against it because it would "bring in the wrong element" to the neighborhood. It was like 10+ minutes to the nearest grocery store. NIMBYs ruined yet another improvement. Glad I moved.
yeah i dont know. i think they're thinking it'll cause more traffic to go thru the neighborhood... or some crime??? don't know how but they seem to think one of those 2. in any case, it's dumb, and honestly, i don't get it.
It's mind boggling to think that if you live in the suburban US and you forgot to get milk, you need to drive, and drive a bit to get to the store. In Mexico pretty much every neighborhood has either a convenience store nearby or a general store. I get separating industrial areas from the rest of them, but no matter where you live, you're gonna need some business someday and it'll always be better to have that near you.
As someone mentioned in the comments below, the UK has allowed office blocks to be converted to flats/apartments (with permission) fairly easily, and has come in handy over the last couple of years. Landlords with offices going spare as their need is reduced due to WFH have been able to convert them into homes.
I like that the cut-aways from you to stock footage is not so quick, like many other videos on UA-cam. It makes your video way more comfortable to watch and not such a hassle.
Nice video. Hopefully we can get back on the right track of creating vibrant and usable cities. My city (Geelong, Australia) is currently trying to get a few urban redesign projects off the ground to densify and allow more types of uses in neighborhoods close to the city and public transit connections. I've written in to voice my approval, of course. A lot of the opposition I can see to these redesigns can be debated pretty easily, but one really common theme I'm seeing is from people concerned with overlooking; new taller residences being able to see into their backyards, etc. I personally believe that the opportunity to create more housing where it matters should take priority over a matter of a small loss of privacy, but for the life of me I can't think of any other counter argument that might help these people to not worry so much about this, and to try seeing the bigger picture. Have you ever considered a video on overlooking and how cities can overcome the NIMBYism that stems from the issue?
I'm from Geelong as well and honestly I think the main concern from people opposing new development is purely selfishness. Geelong has a massive property boom caused by an enormous shortage due to massive population growth combined with land use restrictions and that's delighted the NIMBY home owners who'd love to see more homeless people, more young people being unable to move out, more people being crammed into sharehouses if it means they can refinance and get another Audi and another trip to Barli. That's why they get angry at literally any and all new housing construction, doesn't matter if it's an apartment in the CBD or new houses in Armstrong Creek. They become livid with rage, demanding that no new houses get constructed in Geelong ever again.
@@Jamcad01 You may well be right, but people in that mindset would never admit to being plainly greedy. They'll always resort to other arguments to advance their own goals ("traffic will get worse!", "I won't have any privacy in my backyard!", etc). The more logical arguments we have at our disposal to rebut NIMBYs, the weaker their rationalization becomes, and at that point they may expose their true intentions. I suspect far fewer people would sympathize with NIMBYs if they were debated into admitting they have nothing but selfishness motivating them.
Great video as always! if you don't mind suggestions, I'd love to see a video talking about not only modern/contemporary practices, but also comparisons of what kind of practices have been historically traditional in different cultures, coupled with maybe a discussion on the kinds of forces which drive these things to develop.
Scottish planner and Spanish architect here. As far as I can tell you got everything right; the largest difference in planning systems is discretional vs non-discretional (zoning) i.e. UK & Ireland & a few commonwealth countries vs most of the world. Both have pros and cons, i find the British systems to be much more focused on community participation, and the continental ones to be much more consistent and design-oriented. On the other hand, the first can be very cumbersome and get bogged down in trivialities, while the latter make more difficult to amend plans on the fly (i.e. a reduction in F.A.R in the new or amended Plan requires the local authority to compensate the land owners economically). The different systems are rooted in different structures of land ownership, so it's hard to transpose concepts from one another anyway. In my personal view, the British ones have proven great at preserving built and natural heritage, but I find the continental ones produce better new-built neighbourhoods - but it doesn't have to be that way, and it might be a cultural thing rather than a feature of each system. Thanks for the video, really insightful!
UK (academic) planner here, so I thought I'd leave a comment very late about the English system. The best way to describe our system as regulatory and discretionary rather than zonal, in that applications are assessed against policies in a prepared plan for their suitability and the planning office or elected members will make a discretionary decision weighing up the points the application has in favour and against with other material considerations (for instance comments of consultees/locals). Included within this are government set use classes which you mention in your video, which you can apply to change based on the policies of your local area and assessed local need for that use class. An important thing to mention is that all of this regulation and discretion rests upon the fact that we nationalised development rights in 1947 in order to create this system. What this creates can be thought of as a de facto zonal system, that isn't codified into any kind of map but one that exists on a conceptual level and can be interpreted through the policies and use classes. I would compare this (very clumsily) to the UK constitution vs the USA, French or German constitution - where the latter have a codified constitution that laws and government processes can be assessed against, England doesn't, our constitution is realised through a combination of hansard, case law and even unwritten arrangements and both these systems have their own benefits and drawbacks relative to one another in similar ways that zonal vs regulatory planning systems have. I think perhaps a more important distinction can be drawn between the importance given to the state and the private sector in driving development rather than zonal vs regulatory. In the USA (and England although in a different system), I perceive that part of the reason for such tight zonal controls on development is that it is led by the private sector and the state wants to maintain control over land use without having to spend money on leading development (and obviously this level of control is bound up with American histories of racial discrimination and other nasty things). In continental Europe the state takes a much more active role in developing, planning/design and land preparation, often tendering out land like a developer might do to a builder in the UK or USA, and as such the regulation of land use can be more permissive as the state has control over development in a different way. Happy to answer any questions if you're curious about the English planning system!
My small parish in Louisiana has 20 zones. Including two named "Single Family Residential" with no discernible difference. And one for "Open Land", which is distinct from "Wetland", though I have no idea how.
The US's absurd zoning restrictions are probably the biggest reason why a lot of US cities are facing long term decline despite the US being an extremely wealthy country with record economic growth compared to European countries. "Rust belt" British cities like Manchester and Leeds have revived themselves and become quite economically prosperous compared to US rust belt cities like Detroit and Cincinnati because they are open to increased urbanisation and didn't put massive motorways through their city centres like the US did. They also concentrate residential, commercial, and industrial land uses fairly close together and have decent public transport.
While yes a lot of our cities have transformed themselves towards modern industries, a lot still haven't. So it's not equal all over the UK. But I'd probably still rather be in one these cities in the UK than US
@@Wozza365 I guess the British rust belt cities being a lot safer than American rust belt cities also has to do with how appealing they are for people to move back to and reinvest. Sure British rust belt cities may be lacking in jobs and run down, but at least it’s walkable and there aren’t frequent shootouts on the streets like US rust belt
The main feature of our British planning system is that it is very discretionary - local councils have a lot of scope to approve or reject planning applications. We do, as you say, use maps with allocated sites. These allocated sites are almost certain to get pemission to build. And if a council has an adopted site plan, it makes it easier for councils to reject proposals on parcels of land not on the map. Again, the system offers a lot of flexibility and you could theoretically still get approval to build on a piece of land not in the plan. All local authorities have to produce a Development Plan, which is their 10 yr plan for their area. The DP contains all of that areas planning policies. Ultimately all planning policies flow from the National Planning Policy Framework and the various Planning Acts. For the individual house-owner, we have "permitted development rights", which is what you can build without needing planning permission, house extensions, for example. The negatives of the British system are that it can be slow and litigious.
In the UK, it can take months or sometimes years after a new use has been agreed for the land registry to be updated, but the new use is allowed immediately after agreement. So if a building changes from commercial to residential, the building can be converted and people moved in before the address is legally considered a residential adress. You need a residential address to vote. There are plenty of homeless charities who will let you use a residential address under their control to register to vote, but the process takes weeks, and it's not that uncommon for someone to move to a newly converted building, assume they've got a residential address, and not find out they can't use their home address to vote until its too close to election day to register with a charity. These converted buildings are often in the middle of industrial estates, with next to no public transport, so I would assume theres people who couldn't register with a charity because they couldn't physically get there, or it would be extremely difficult to do so. Theres also currently some sort of provision in place due to the housing crisis that you cn convert commercial units to temporary residential units without planning permission, and those flats tend to be terrible. Think tiny, no windows, no kitchen, in the middle of an industrial complex, with all the noise and air pollution that brings, and again, no public transport links. It might have been a good idea, but its been very poorly executed, and its been around long enough that you'd expect something to have been put in place to at least stop new units being as bad, but it's very profitable, so nothing has.
I recommend Order Without Design by Alaine Bertaud, who is surprisingly the most capable urban planner because he actually understands real estate economics rather than just normative values like "sustainability" and "livability".
Thank you for this insight. I think that, in Germany at least, the situation from city to city is vastly different. Sometimes, there will be well balanced areas, where there is enough space for people, sufficient stores and medium residentials. You also have cities, that focused way too much on "car friendlyness", where the situation can be simmilar to US style design. Sometimes, they even build large residential areas with no parks, stores or anything nearby, which is also not the best design in my opinion.
Yeah, everything from the 60s on is probably not so great because of cars. But we still have a lot of old places left, and that is how we know which one is better.
@@steemlenn8797 well here in East-Germany not so much, because cars where not so focused on. Alot of the new build districts had a Tram or S-Bahn line connecting it with the city centre and Buslines to link them up with other parts of the city or factorys.
In Buenos Aires you are allowed to open a store/shop pretty much anywhere in the city. The zoning just tells you what types of commercial/industrial activities you are allowed to carry out, and the height/number of stories you are allowed to build. I’d say about half (or at least a good amount) of residential buildings have shops on the street level. And there are plenty of old houses that were turned into restaurants, office space, schools, etc (they are usually too expensive to live in them, only businesses and rich people can afford them lol)
I think the kind of zoning that make sense is the idea of cities as adjacent villages meaning you should have access to most services within 20 minute walk.
Much appreciated. I’d be interested in learning more about European and other countries city management. Also, in the US I’m fascinated with the question of how do we get to something more livable given that neighborhoods are already built as widely spaced single family housing.
I'm from Germany and we have no _"zoning"_ at all. Okay, there are s.c. _"Industriegebiete/industry parks"_ but that's it. This _"zoning"_ seems like a completely foreign concept to me....
@@yannick245 As a matter of fact we *do* have zoning (Bebauungsplanung) here in Germany... It just happens to be largely sane and any local control freak politicians and NIMBYs are kept in check by law (BauGB).
@@jandl1jph766 Yeah, I kinda know about the Bebauungsplan put it doesn't get that freakish, controlling every aspect way. It just written out things that make sense anyway. Germans are very ungerman, when it comes to something like the Bebauungsplan. Just look at our towns and cities. To me it looks like there's little behind it... I might be completely wrong. But building and the structure of sports in the US look son_"unamerican"_ to me...
@@yannick245 There's a lot going into making these plans and their impact on the way our towns and cities look and function can hardly be overstated. However, as you observed, they usually make a lot of sense to the point where anyone not being a planner, architect, politician or lobbyist will usually not have to concern themselves too much with them. The reason is that once everything is said and done, the whole thing "just works" for the most part. If it doesn't, it can be a major problem for many years to come. Being in the "lobbyist" camp myself, that's why we often fight so hard to prevent people forgetting cyclists and pedestrians or simply giving in all the way to the insanely loud (in several ways) car lobby.
No commercial places near residentials... Wow, I have a super market literally around the corner, down the road for three houses, then to the left and I'm there. Never lived more than a few hundred meters away from a super market.
My closest supermarket is a 7 min drive except during the weekday rush hour, and I mostly go to it once a week on Sunday. When I lived in Europe I had to do grocery shopping every other day and it was a bigger hit on my time, not to mention that European biodegradable bags are a joke if you need to carry heavy or wet items.
@@rcl5555 a lot of perishable things that don’t have their shelf life extended with toxic preservative only last for a couple of days anyway, our food is lasting way longer than it should right now, and it’s having negative health impacts.
@@zumazuma568 well, now I have the bags in my car. But when I was grocery shopping by foot (which also happened on my way from work) I would need to carry it somewhere on myself throughout the day... Doable, but it burdens you.
The UK has a lot of areas designated green belt land that it's very difficult to get planning permission to build on. It's usually not the best green land, just land arbitrarily defined as green belt because it's near a major city. It has the positive of limiting urban sprawl but the negative of meaning large numbers of houses end up getting built 10-15 miles away from the big city, just outside the green belt boundary which means longer commutes by car (nothing like the USA though). A lot of local planning is bargaining based, they're building student accommodation down the road from me on an old social club and it will have space for 400 students. The original request was for 500 students but they made them reduce the numbers so it would only be 6 storeys high instead of 8. That's the sort of thing that gets discussed locally.
I live in New Orleans in the State of Louisiana; everything here is close together and easily accessible by walking; we are also a romantic, beautiful city even better than many in Europe.
People from US: Car is very useful because it gives a lot of freedom and trip to grocery takes only 25 minutes
Me an European: 10 minute walk to store is too much
if i had more then 20 minuts on foot to my store. i would move as fast as humanly possble
@@dziooooo I walk like 7 minutes to store because store that is like 4 minutes away is more expensive, and I can always bring out bike and drive to even bigger store
On my way from and to work (1.2 miles/ 2 km, usually by bike), I pass 3 supermarkets, dozens of smaller shops, restaurants, bars, walk-by food shops, doctors offices, clubs/discos, post office, bank offices and so on and on.
But guess what: this is no exclusive economic zone, but the most densily inhabited quarter of my city. All those commercial activities are mostly concentrated in the first line or just even the first floor of the first line of the street I take. In most cases you'll have appartements in the second and third floor of the buildings, but some more commercial and public activities (lawyers, coiffeur, schools, IT offices) sprinkled in as well.
This way, despite a rather high population density (8.3k pop/sqkm, a tad higher than San Francisco), you can reach almost everything you might need within a 5-20 min walk or 3-10 min bike ride.
I live in a city in NYC, so I also live within 5 minutes from anything I need, along with not living in dusty old Europe
@@LOLWAAHH Air quality at this moment:
NYC: 62 US-AQI, 17.4µg PM2.5
Kassel: 54 US-AQI, 13.6 µg PM2.5
All that despite you being what, 20 miles (if even that) away from the atlantic ocean? I'm right in the middle of the european union, 200+ miles form the baltic and north sea, almost 500 miles from the adria/mediterranean and 600+ miles from the biskaya/atlantic ocean. Not much fresh sea breeze to be expected. And still... is it realy dustier her in good ol Europe? Computer says no.
You should start dusting of your dusty old NYC.
American zoning is even weirder than what I thought, discovering that the zoning from Sim City was not a weird oversimplification for the sake of gameplay but actually based on the USA was a shock.
yes ! I always found it so annoying to have to micro-zone my cities (like adding a commercial plot every 4 residential plots) because it didn' make sense to me to have everything segregated
o.o
I live in same building where is closest store. I would go crazy without it 😂 this spoiled me 😂
I loved that game.
Literally half of Europe lives in apartments, while only 8% of Americans do. Americans don't like the idea of not owning the place your living, and especially don't like the idea of not owning the land you reside on. Europeans seem to love it, its weird for both sides tbh. It comes down to land size, Europeans founded these cities in eras where you had to live a walkable distance from work. Americans cities were mainly built in mass during the 20th century and were built to utilize and maximize space. I have no idea why no one mentions that in relation to zoning. Europeans live that sort of way because they have to given the amount of land they have, hence the reason half the people only live in apartments. Meanwhile in the USA our cities were built on the premise of utilizing as much land as possible during Manifest Destiny. Its crazy how Europeans assume we should live like them enough though we arent restricted to live in small urban areas, because we have habitable land.
Us city planning will always blow my mind , it's just crazy how you can have a very large residential area without a single store in it .
Seriously lol a child could realize it’s a stupid idea I don’t know what they were thinking
Gas stations can be anywhere here as far as I can tell, so if I need milk or eggs or something I can always walk to something close, though not high quality. I’ve never lived anywhere outside biking distance from a grocery store in the US, but people are too lazy to bike. And there’s no planning for bikers so it’s more dangerous to bike anywhere outside residential areas
Not all of us like to live in that kind of crowded mixed neighborhoods.
Many of us like our Suburbia.
@@soltersortna now I know why there are sky-high obesity, diabetes, and heart ailment rates in the US. 🙃 the infrastructure is deliberately designed for people NOT to exercise.
@@kamenriderblade2099 how do you define "crowded"?
It always perplexed me how Americans seem to pride themselves on their sense of individualism and disdain for central planning but also choose to live in suburbs with buildings more indistinguishable than even the worst commie blocks where you're not even allowed to open a small pub or supermarket.
Maybe most Americans just don’t know that it’s even a problem
A lot of the time, it's not a "choice". Places in cities are more expensive for a smaller area, and if you have kids, it's harder to just pick up and move, and even then not worth the long commutes, or it's impossible to get a different job. So then living in suburbs or small towns is all we can do, so we keep doing it. A lot of Americans are trapped.
Do you stand by your statement that suburban building are indistinguishable from the worst commie blocks?
@@answerman9933 That's not what OP said
EDIT: since people still @me about this 8 months later - OP says the suburban houses are indistinguishable from each other - NOT from commie blocks. You may disagree with that but, by gods, do it with some reading comprehension.
@@Mr-DNA_ you sure about that? Forcefully making a whole town or area car depended seems kinda dumb and inconvenient for almost everyone.
I think that the US system has helped larger companies like Walmart to grow while hurting smaller family owned businesses. It's making it more expensive to become an entrepreneur.
bingo
Weed out the small business man seems to be a plan. Many years ago in DC we had tons of small business owners. Now Walmart, Costco, CVS, and Safeway have driven those away. These places are complete eye sores as you walk through the city.
That is not quite what happened. Most family-owned businesses are not run by people with business degrees. My observations have been that they cannot respond to rapid shifts in the economy. They are not trained for it, nor have the temperament. They understandably freeze up when things change. The other point is that they cannot raise the capital needed to afford a high turnover inventory with very low markups. One final point: A lot of them cannot keep accounts. They do not have an intuitive grasp of retail economics.
@@franzzrilich9041 I don't think it's because people are too dumb to understand how we run a business. It's mostly because they can't compete with large corporations that have more buying power, logistics and marketability. Also, Walmart even has neighborhood market stores try compete with regionally and locally owned grocery stores. They're trying to take three entire retail market for themselves. No amount of education can displace them and it would cost billions to do what they do. Next they'll be after Dollar General, another company that has replaced locally owned general merchandise stores.
@@incubus_the_man Let me explain, further. My father was a pharmacist and drugstore manager for several chains from the fifties and into the early eighties. His initial goal was to become a major player in developing anti-biotics for mass-production in the international market. He subscribed to a lot of trade publications normally aimed at pharmaceutical executives.
I went to several universities and studied business practices in a variety of industries while working my way through college. I worked in: medical research, healthcare delivery, food services, aerospace, defense, computer, software, security systems, motion picture finance, high-tech industrial production, and several others from 1969 to 1992. I had to retire at age 41 due to an aging-onset genetic disorder that had killed Dad.
I largely was a technical writer. Near the end I was becoming a strategic technical writer, which meant I was working with chief executive officers and board chairmen on various projects.
You are correct in noticing that larger businesses excel in purchasing power, logistics, and marketing, and that Walmart is competing with regional and totally local retailers. I also agree that Walmart might go against Dollar General and similar stores. I suspect that they likely will do so, though most of their growth is overseas.
But I do pay attention to one-person small stores, and find most are operated as though they are paying hobbies. The owners drifted into their businesses, and most have no training in, nor experience in, retail management.
The problem with retail in the United States is that since the early nineteen thirties Congress has been mindlessly passing laws that encouraged the over-expansion of retail businesses. I live in Ohio's wealthiest county, between two metropolitan counties.
We actually have several corporate headquarters here for smaller chains, and some heavy-duty manufacturers.
Anyways, we are growing in population, and yet most of our shopping centers have a lot of long-term empty stores as well as a non-retail, but highly decorative central business district that functions mostly as a set for television commercials and magazine advertisements. We also have unused corner grocery stores of the bodega variety.
My observation is that Walmart is tightly watching each of its locations, as does Target, Kohl's, Meier's (?sp), Giant Eagle, and they do not hesitate to close a store if its rate of return declines. They are not in a position to analyze their impacts upon the ideologies of various small-group concepts of proper corporate behavior.
Thus, they concentrate on low-price, high turnover, consumer predictability, co-location with other large stores, and an emphasis upon being located in that part of town near the interstate, and in those parts oif town posessing heavy-duty highways friendly to large delivery trucks.
It thus is pointless to push alternate urban layouts that do not take these trends into consideration. Walmart was one of several dozen would-be chains, but Walmart did everything correctly. The rest failed: They included Woolco, K-Mart, Gold Circle, Sears, Montgomery Wards, W. T. Grant, Kresge's, Murphy's, Fisher's Big Wheel, Cleveland Marshal's, Standard Drugs, Rexall, Revco, Regal's, and so forth. Most of these chains failed to follow shifting demographics, did not fully incorporate computers, and did not have staff charged with looking forward to points of opportunity, as well as oncoming problems.
The Walmarts are delivering services the public wants, and the under-used small stores in residential areas and a lot of older central business districts ought to be converted to other uses.
I can't imagine not having a store, bakery, coffee shop in walking distance from anywhere I live or staying as a tourist, that's horrible. I am Croatian, now living in Ireland, traveled all over the Europe. I just can't imagine it at all.
Croatia has better bakeries than Ireland though, so difficult to get decent bread here and when you do, you will pay for it!
Right? It's so obvious and convenient that I wonder how one could come up with an opposite idea.
This video was really interesting and I am now even more weirded out by the USA. But I finally understand why literally every person in that country needs a car. I live in Germany. I currently live in the city I grew up in and here we have trams and subways that can take us pretty much anywhere. But when you live in very rural areas, where the bus only comes by once in an hour, then you also need a car. But apparently the US requires everyone to have a car to get anywhere. It is so weird to see these giant neighborhoods with nothing but houses for miles on end. How is Ireland? I am personally thinking about moving near the sea when I get older. But I also want to check out the Netherlands if possible. Or maybe even Austria. But I'll probabyl just stay in Germany. I can't live without my bread.
@@Nikita_Akashya Not much sea in Austria though. 😉
I'm from Croatia too, living in Germany. I totally understand you, where I’m from I’m walking 3min to the next bakery and the cafe is next door. When I lived in Canada for a while, everything was further away from the house, but still walking distance although it’s a rather small town. Maybe it’s different in the US, I don’t know
I'm from England, my Dad was able to convert half our garage into an office when he first started his own business. I was only a kid but we were pretty broke and he wouldn't have had a chance if he was paying rent on even the smallest of office spaces. That business is still going over a decade later with employees in a proper office. To me that shows that the flexibility to run a business like this helps businesses to thrive, particularly small ones. It sounds like this would have been basically impossible in the US, despite there literally not being even a sign for the business outside.
It was very common in the US and Australia to do something like this but often it wasn't legal.
In many cases in the United States, residential zones are permitted to contain small businesses, but there are significant restrictions on what can exist there.
For example, in my home town, small businesses are allowed in residential zones, but they must be operated entirely within the home (no new structures built for the business), they must not employ more than 1 non-resident at a time (there could be two employees on shifts), they must have on-site (not street) parking for customers, they must not receive truck deliveries, and in some cases they cannot sell merchandise. Also, certain types of businesses, like car mechanics, beauty salons, barber shops, and bed-and-breakfasts are not permitted.
I think your dad's office would have been permitted in my town and in many towns around the United States. But it is pretty restrictive. I understand some of the reasons, but it could absolutely be improved a ton.
@@joshconeby I mean you are dramatically reducing the potential for people with all of those exceptions. If its easier to list the things you CAN do instead of the things you CANT do, you are probably not in a supportive structure.
@@SuWoopSparrow Not arguing that, just clarifying the real situation.
Plenty of self employed people run their business out of a home office in the US, that’s fine. You just can’t have something with a storefront, or lots of traffic or something like that. It’s not illegal to work from home.
As a UK person, now Sim City makes sense. I always thought that having different zones was just a stylised thing invented for the game.
I live in the netherlands and same
Yeah I never udnerstood why it was like that, until I learned that it's based on US zoning, which is actually that bad. Ofcourse being 30 years older and wiser now, it's one of the aspects that really turns me away from games like Sim City and City Skylines. Why isn't there mixed used zoning, why can't I put in bicycle infrastructure....
A lot of it has been fixed in mods in City Skylines, but it's just daft that the game itself doesn't have it despite the US zoning system being one of the few systems that don't allow mixed use.
@@fermitupoupon1754 you *can* create bicycle infrastructure in cities skylines.
@@douchebagvampire1283 It's incredibly hard to build a halfway decent bicycle infrastructure in City simulators, but it's generally very hard to create a game that allows you to go in that much detail, that you can create genuinely good cities
same here too, i always felt it was super weird to have separate residential and commercial zones. in just end up painting a bunch of commercial zones at crossroads every now and then, but really i just want 4-6 floor buildings in which the ground floor are commercial.
This is a great summary. I'll definitely be linking people to this video when discussing alternatives to Euclidean zoning.
Another fascinating zoning method is Japanese zoning, which is a variation on the pyramid method mentioned in this video. The channel "Life Where I'm From" did a great video about Japanese zoning that I recommend watching, if you're interested in good zoning methods.
Always good to see you in other comment sections :)
Oh hey fancy seeing you here. What is this, a crossover episode? ☺
oh shit, mr. based himself
Japan zoning is weird. My neighbors are an iron foundry, a container port, a hotel, and a hospital.
If you two did a video together it'd be the biggest Yimby crossover event of the century
I'm from Poland, the way US zoning works is utterly alien to me. It seems totally against basic human needs.
Why not allow corner shops? Until I've learned about US zoning such a concept didn't even cross my mind. Corner shops are vitally important, you can just walk to a corner shop, get your groceries and you're done. There are corner shops everywhere in Poland. One does not need to drive to a mall to get basic groceries - even in smaller towns. Moreover, you're free to start up a "small industry" kind of business right in your home/garage - no permits required.
Even during the soviet era things were better than in the US right now.
Way back then, the policy was that everyone shall have housing, so big apartment blocks/towers were built all over the country (take WW2 into consideration - wide-spread destruction etc - people needed somewhere to live).
However, in-between those towers there was always some, let's say 'service center', which might include: groceries, shops, bank, post office, kindergarten, etc. - because these are the things that people need. There was a usually a tramline too (or a bus service to the nearest tram).
I cannot understand why the US got is all so wrong :(
If you say so, then you deserve another communist dictatorship
Motor industry lobbying, and the postwar boom in population and housing. Plus of course, the Interstate system, which was built through the middle of many neighbourhoods and split them in twain.
Then there was also “white flight”, where middle class white families almost all moved out from cities into suburbs on those postwar government subsidised mortgages. (Poorer and black families had to stay in the cities, whose tax revenue thus fell dramatically, creating criminogenic conditions, which led to the 60s and 70s’ urban strife.)
Of course, it’s not solely down to motor industry lobbying. In the 50s especially, when all of it was new and roads were mostly free-flowing, having to drive was treated less like a burden and more like an exciting new opportunity. Roadside attractions and motels and road trips quickly became part of the cultural zeitgeist, where people went on holidays without planning them because the infrastructure was all there to accommodate them no matter where they found themselves.
Big box stores also didn’t quite exist, the closest was a big department store and that’s a very different experience. So most people just drove to “main street” very nearby their suburb, and with no traffic congestion, it didn’t seem like an imposition.
After that new model of lifestyle began to settle-in, the first supermarkets began to pop-up. But they were still small compared to today - more like a modern Aldi or Lidl. And they were always just on the outskirts of the suburban area, so the drive compared to “main street” was still similar.
But then megamarts/hypermarkets and the modern mall began to appear, built further-out from living centres to get the economies of scale on their land purchases. For a time they were just an “option”, a further-afield drive for rarer or larger or specialty items. But their economies of scale started bringing the margins for the smaller supermarkets down, and they started going out of business. Some of them were replaced with smaller strip malls but not all of them.
In a way, it’s a lot like the Malthusian Trap of agriculture, where every step along the path creates further lock-in with a ratcheting effect.
And of course nowadays even the hypermarkets are struggling to compete with even larger, even more centralised, “fulfilment centre” warehouses. The companies needed delivery networks to get them to the final store anyway, so delivering them to the home isn’t that much additional overhead. Cut out the actual stores, and the total overhead can even be lower than a hypermarket.
And every time enough of the stores go out of business and remain vacant, sooner or later it’s re-zoned as more residential, further increasing sprawl, which further increases car dependence, which further increase’s people’s need to buy more of their daily needs at once to make up for the gas costs, which drives further business monopolisation.
car centric perspective
America has too many regulations. It isn't really "free" at all. You have to apply for all sorts of permits to sell or do anything. In some cities, it's illegal to grow your own food! I'm serious. In some parts of the US, the rules are that you're either not allowed to grow fruits or vegetables (edible crops) on your own land or at least not in the front yard! They want you dependent on the corporations.
@@therock8224 also, in many states it’s illegal to collect rainwater. Because the water company bought exclusive rights to all the water from the sky over a century ago
For those of you who are wondering, yes, I can confirm for an absolute fact that the separation between housing and workplaces was intended to force Americans to drive more and thus spend more money buying gas. I know this because my own grandfather was one of the legislators responsible for this in his home state, and he directly told me this before he died.
Wow that's quite an admission.
@@dmike3507 You may have heard that Tucson, Arizona is a "car-friendly" city. Well, you can thank my Grandpa for that.
Was he bribed by oil companies?
Ouch, doesn't mean we can't change the future amirite? Change zoning laws, and build it around light rail
@@pudanielson1 well best of luck trying to argue with corrupt officials who have been enjoying donations from large cooperation's
Sim City taught me how stupid US zoning laws were. Even in that game it was obvious to me that sprinkling the zone squares to create mixed use zones led to better outcomes. Forcing everyone to commute to and from the same zones is mind blowingly stupid and allowing more mixed use is one thing that north america can do now on a local level to reduce pollution and climate change.
“Let’s create maximum bottlenecks in our road system and have everyone commute at the same time! Oh no, now we have all this traffic! And to deal with it we need infrastructure which sits massive and unused 90% of the day!”
This is very telling
Germany: reason
France: beauty
USA: segregation
UK: weird ancient case-to-case bureaucratic rules noone quite understands
Australia: balance
Ireland: City Centre. (there's no fucking bus routes that don't go through it)
@@CrazySpruiker2001 hell no, australia is basically the unites states' zoning laws. Big ugly suburban sprawl for 90% of the country
I own a small grocery store in Orlando, FL. As a Venezuelan, a country that inherited the European Zoning Model from Spain, the mixed use are a very common thing for me. My purpose was to open a mini grocery store in a Residential medium density area, I wanted to create what is called in Spanish a “Bodega”, that has been very difficult, I had to rent a space in a strip mall and the retail surfaces are usually bigger and more expensive. The other challenge is that even though some customers live close to my store in 4-store buildings, they always take the car, so they prefer to go to a big box store like Walmart than stop by my store to buy milk and bread. Americans are so used to drive that for them walking around the corner to buy basic stuff is unthinkable. Now I am trying to go through online services, that’s the only way to get more customers because my neighbors are not willing to cross the street and go to my small bodega. So my point is, even though zoning can be kind of mixed in some US cities, the American way of life it’s always by the use of a car, no matter how close you are from your customers, they “need” to drive. Anyways, it’s a cultural aspect that I need to get used to if I want my business to succeed.
Also contributes to the reason so many Americans are fat and overweight. They drive everywhere and buy food at cheap costs because they see the neon sign.
Hope your business succeeds and that one day your customers will walk and bike to you
The cars are a symptom of that city planning. One store with bread and milk sadly wont change the habits, because as you said if youre going to the walmart anyways, it's more effort. Only if everything, from work, leisure, shops and stores is within reach people will take advantage by shorter trips. That's why general city planning (or allowance after all) is the only way out of this situation, you can't change a developed ecosystem by adressing one thing at a time.
Wish you all the best, some day people will figure it out because after all it's the most natural and sustainable solution to conglomerate your daily needs.
Reminds me of my neighbor, she said she would even drive to the toilet, if she could XD
It is quite startling to a non-American. On my first visit to LA, I went looking for a sports store; found the location, but it was just a big wall. Phoned the store, they explained that their only entrance was from the carpark building, because who on earth would want to walk in off the street!?
That said , I was on my way to the UK, and found it so claustrophobic (tiny houses and streets) after the USA that I decided I'd rather live in the USA than there.
There's a reason why NYC, Boston, Philadelphia & DC, are economically positive and will always attract ppl because of how their built on walkablity, good public transit and mixed use compared to other US cities, especially down south. I don't see how ppl can put up with sitting in traffic just to go to a grocery store.
LOL
If the MBTA had more funding Boston would honestly be playing in the same field as European cities, as of right now Boston is like a “pseudo European” city since it suffers from typical North American car centrism in certain areas that are beyond the reach of the T
East Coast cities also probably benefit from their age as well. The core of the cities were all built before cars, whereas many of the West Coast cities (which is where my experience is) were built around the same time as the car and they threw out rail and pedestrian centric designs just as the urban core was getting established. And since there was comparatively more space in younger cities, they got into the habit of car-centric suburban sprawl which is still ongoing.
East Coast cities got bigger earlier, so there was more incentive to build vertically rather than outward when the car came out. And the pedestrian structures were already in place with extra work going to vehicle accomodation.
Not to say that all US cities don't have a car-centric problem. But the older cities have more established groundwork for other options.
@@BonaparteBardithion LA actually had a massive tram system even before cars existed. "They're built after cars" argument is stupid because it was the auto industry lobbyists who manipulated every city in NA that they need cars on theirs when their city was doing fine without it
@@yeet6074
Throwing out the tram system was definitely a dumb move and you can see a history of that in nearly every major city on the west coast. But even now older cities like LA have stronger pedestrian infrastructure than their satellite cities.
Pretty much the entire Greater Seattle Area is car-centric *because* of all the lobbying that went on around the time cities were getting established.
There wasn't as much of a downtown core to tear out and replace, so it was a lot easier to do it in the name of modernization and every city did.
They are trying to get rail back into these cities and there's hardly any support because the cities were built around the standards set at the time by car lobbyists.
This is what I mean by older cities having an advantage.
In Germany lots of the planning and zoning is focused around public transport too, most of their towns and cities seem to have a large train station around which the city and transport within the city is built
The large cities have very good public transport. Many smaller ones are still centred around cars.
Which Germany are we talking about? 🤣
Sometimes they are at an odd location and not in the city center and some small towns have 3 stations.
@@magicmagus1459 Yep, we founded and build our cities in the 1500's and never, ever changed them since then. 🙄
@@Burimenzi The Germany which is the greatest country in the world
Mixed zoning is great, at least residential and commercial combined. Having (heavy) industry mixed in is a rarer sight in Germany in my experience. There still is industrial zoning only, on the outskirts or in dedicated areas, e.g. around train stations or highways. Offices should be integrated in combined zones.
Edit: After watching the video, I recommend just watching the video. It's much more detailed than my comment. ;)
Why did you comment before watching the video???
At least allow small office spaces or places for small shops like a hair dresser
@@gordon1545 let's be honest, majority of us will commented a video before even finishing a quarter of it
In Germany also a big part of the zoning is done by regulating admissible emissions. Emissions including dirty air, noise and also traffic. You are basicly allowed to open a small shop or office everywhere. But a big factory would likely not be according to these emissions and therefore needs to be somewhere in a dedicated zone.
Maybe not everyone like the idea of stupid people from all around the world wandering in their neighborhoods. American culture is not the same as Europe.
In EU, when you're looking for a new place to live, one of the big factors for choosing a place is "how far till the next shopping place".
When you split residential and commercial, the answer to that is always bad.
All my life I've lived (Germany, Netherlands) less than 10 minutes of walk to the next shopping place. Most of my life it was less than 5 minutes to 3! different discounters.
I don't have a car, because I never needed one, but still have a license in case I do.
Imagine having to pay for a car and fuel for my most basic needs. I'd have quite a bit less money, and maybe even have debt, compared to what I have now. Looking at you, Americans.
Literally half of Europe lives in apartments, while only 8% of Americans do. Americans don't like the idea of not owning the place your living, and especially don't like the idea of not owning the land you reside on. Europeans seem to love it, its weird for both sides tbh. It comes down to land size, Europeans founded these cities in eras where you had to live a walkable distance from work. Americans cities were mainly built in mass during the 20th century and were built to utilize and maximize space. I have no idea why no one mentions that in relation to zoning. Europeans live that sort of way because they have to given the amount of land they have, hence the reason half the people only live in apartments. Meanwhile in the USA our cities were built on the premise of utilizing as much land as possible during Manifest Destiny. Its crazy how Europeans assume we should live like them enough though we arent restricted to live in small urban areas, because we have habitable land.
@@magicmagus1459 the demographics you spam here wouldn't change at all with legalising corner shops and small businesses in suburbia. It would just mean less car traffic on the roads
and in big cities, is extreamly important to have a metropolitan line near
@@magicmagus1459 you never really own in America with the property taxes you pay each year... I live in America in a suburb and honestly I chose it this way because I dont like being close to people. I have a pretty decent backyard (In which I installed a little above ground pool, planted many trees and plants and got rid of my lawn). I planted a perimeter of hollys to block all of my neighbors and I dont care to see them or even hear them. It's wonderful and that is why I moved to the suburbs. Still close to the city where I can go to work but far from the apartments and overcrowded streets.
@@magicmagus1459 I much rather prefer houses, but apartments (or condos as you call them in America, to me it's the same thing) can be purchased and owned too. In New York, Chicago, San Francisco and Miami, a substantial proportion of the population lives in an apartment. As you say it may only be 8% nationwide, but this percentage is rising fast, as cities, particularly in democrat states, push through more apartment/condo developments.
Imagine a whole district without a single pub in it
Here in Portugal (Europe), I can go by foot to the market, convenience store, bakery, butcher, hair dresser, many restaurants, and even to the bus and train station.
This is quality of living!
I own two cars, which I mainly use to go to big box stores on the edges of the city (the small car), or when I go on long trips to visit my family or on holidays (a regular station wagon).
The key word here is: efficiency.
You should be efficient with your time, and use less resources in your daily life - in order to reduce your impact in the planet Earth.
no one cares about the earth in the US. People are too worried updating their huge pick up trucks. Specially in Texas.
I respect your lifestyle
@@ivanrodriguez268 I would not say "no one", but I would accept "the majority of the people" - regardless of the country.
The North American people (USA and Canada) have a bigger impact on the planet, though, due to:
- Cheap gas, which allows people to have a 5.5L V8 under the hood, or run their gas-powered lawn mower, instead of switching to electric appliances and smaller cars;
- Eat a lot, and waste a lot of food, which puts pressure on both the food producing industry (which increases emissions, specially to produce beef), and on the waste management industry (which creates massive land fields, and pollutes river and the sea).
I still see - even in Europe - many people who do not recycle, who do not have the mentality of wasting less (in food and other).
This has to stop!
We really need to take this seriously.
Otherwise, the heat waves, the tornados, the rising sea level, etc... Will only get worse!
Good work
I love how you specify that Portugal is in Europe, no doubt for the Americans among us xD
One important factor in some French cities is color. Here in Toulouse we earn our Pink city title and cities like Tours have a very distinct white color with blue slate (called Ardoise) roofs
And Chez Tonton. Heaven on earth.
I like this approach to detail but i also know it can be annoying
the pink is amazing - it is quite striking
Y’all still protest like the gods of protesting.
@@olajong2315 even though it's dysfunctional due to protests often causing grid-locks (f.ex. strikes) - I do respect the french for that, it means their politicians are kept on their toes about the will of the people. In my country, Sweden, politicians became too sure of themselves as our relationship with power is perceived as more trusting and collaborative - in recent years there's been a large pushback against ideas established since the 1980s and even farther back - it took 30 years to get past this consensus in order to start reforming our society. Many blindfolds have come off, people do still trust politicians and the government (which I think is positive), but not without seeing results.
Compared to Sweden, France is alot more dynamic - probably the most politically dynamic country in the EU if I may guess, and has been so for the majority of its recent history.
Having lived in the US and Finland, the difference mixed-use zoning makes is night and day, and quite literally makes or breaks the livability of a city. Quick suggestion! Try to cut away from your closeups before your body settles at the end of a sentence. I noticed the cut at about 10:44 felt smooth because that movement was minimized.
Unfortunately the same zoning nonsense that happens in the US also happens in Canada, with the exception of, you guessed it, Quebec.
R1 zoning is a plague on the continent.
Quebec once again taking the W
Quebec has shockingly nice towns for a province of Canada for sure
Hah x) It's funny cause I've been trying to move to Canada for a few months now, and after some research I ended up favoring Quebec for my search, in no small part because of that :p
Quebec also has their rail systems patterned after the French, which explains why Montreal has a better metro than, say, Toronto and Vancouver.
The First rule of Canada is : Quebec is ALWAYS an Exception.
English planner here, a development is approved if it follows the guidelines of the NPPF National Planning Policy Framework, so what you build follows that, the local framework is more of a vision for what is wanted, plus extra local details on top. So no zones in any way at all, the main minimum sizes are designed to make sure near by buildings do not get less sunlight or are overlooked and rooms are not to small to be habitable. It is very free flowing and works really well (as long as it's funded properly) as it allows much more local involvement and can make sure that buildings fit local context, even down to a street. It also makes sure that older buildings are not being ruined or effecting neighbours with extension, one near me was only allowed planning permission if it kept some of the beautiful original features. It's very complex and intricate I am more than sure I've missed something off so do add if I have or any questions you have.
You also have minor and major developments, major being 10 dwellings and more or over 1,000 square metres. A major development having extra steps to forfill such as SUDS (Sustainable Drainage systems). And you may wonder if there is a huge backlog due to having to review everyone and the answer is that you should have a decision whether to grant it or not in 8 weeks for a small one to 13 weeks for large developments and there are currently 1.9 million homes with planning permission that have not been built. So it isn't the culprit that is exacerbating the housing crisis, as much as our government tries to claim.
As someone living in England I just want to say thank you for your contribution to society mate! Thank god we aren't like the Americans 😁
A big downside is that it does give huge opportunity for Nimbies to object to each and every development. That’s not a big issue in some settings, but in other areas, it means it’s very hard to ever build badly needed housing (or increase the density of housing), which is contributing to pricing younger people completely out of many markets.
@@Zveebo well as I said before things go through on the NPPF a nimby can only stop a development if they have a legitimate grievance that would contradict local and national policy. I.e. Historical site or mines etc that were not discovered by the planners originally. If not it doesn't matter if they complain it needs to be legitimate. Actually the issue nimbies find in the UK is they aren't listened to, even though the system provides avenues for them that are not taken into account. And let's say Nimbies got their way because it was close to a tight election so the councilors went with them, the developer can appeal and it goes to a higher court and the nimbies with non legitimate cases can't effect that at all, the council then gets fined. The project is set back about 13 weeks, which is not good however, suppliers and builders can add double that much time onto a project with ease but that's par for the course.
We saw Rocknrolla we all know how planning works in the UK!
Im a 6th year M.Arch student in the U.S. and found this video fascinating. My thesis includes mixed-use design in Miami as it lacks public transportation and is uncomfortably hot to walk in. Also, the income to cost of living ratio is incredibly low so many cant afford cars. I loved the commercial-residential mix in Europe so we definitively need more of that
Greetings from Munich, Germany. Here landlords actually advertise apartments to be in mixed zones, as it is seen as a locational advantage. People just expect "Geschäfte des täglichen Bedarfs" (everyday necessities) like supermarkets, hairdressers, pharmacies, doctors and so on to be right around the corner, but also not-so-everyday-things like small hardware stores, bicycle workshops, or galleries, in addition to public infrastructure like schools and libraries, as well as recreational facilities like parks, bars, and restaurants. Basically everything that isn't very loud and doesn't stink. Literally everyone who can afford it wants to live in the inner city were almost everything one would need - including office workplaces - can be easily reached by foot or at least in a few minutes bicycle ride. Overall only poorer people and families with need for more space and private gardens can be found in purely residential areas that are considered boring and just not very attractive to many.
This also allows, as already mentioned in the video, a constant and dynamic transformation of the city to become even more livable. As the city extended over time, it encircled a lot of industrial areas formerly formerly lying in the outskirts. As land value rises, industry gradually moves out and and is replaced by residential, commercial and cultural usage.
Literally half of Europe lives in apartments, while only 8% of Americans do. Americans don't like the idea of not owning the place your living, and especially don't like the idea of not owning the land you reside on. Europeans seem to love it, its weird for both sides tbh. It comes down to land size, Europeans founded these cities in eras where you had to live a walkable distance from work. Americans cities were mainly built in mass during the 20th century and were built to utilize and maximize space. I have no idea why no one mentions that in relation to zoning. Europeans live that sort of way because they have to given the amount of land they have, hence the reason half the people only live in apartments. Meanwhile in the USA our cities were built on the premise of utilizing as much land as possible during Manifest Destiny. Its crazy how Europeans assume we should live like them enough though we arent restricted to live in small urban areas, because we have habitable land.
@@magicmagus1459 "Meanwhile in the USA our cities were built on the premise of utilizing as much land as possible during Manifest Destiny" ...which was code-word for colonization and land theft from the Indigenous, not something I would tout IMO.
In rural Germany there is also "village" zoning, which covers almost the entire village in one zone (except one pure residential area build in the 60s) that allows housing up to 3 storeys, light industry, commercial (except gambling and gas stations), small businesses *and agriculture*. I live on a main street with residental buildings on either side, but behind our house is a farm.
But actually the "village zone" is just a certain type of "mixed use".
so, mixed use.
@@igeljaeger mixed use doesnt ususally include agriculture
Mad how the US prides itself on its "entrepreneurial" mindset yet is stupidly strict when it comes to starting your own business compared to countries in Europe
Off zone businesses can cause civil liability in the USA if something goes wrong.
@@STEP107 Is terrible for the big bussines. Guess not for little.
@@STEP107 yes, US is great for the super rich, but 99% of the population get assfucked with the red, white and blue dildo... In Denmark, McDonald's workers receive $22 per hour and 6 weeks of vacation. - now go back to sleep and enjoy yur American Dream.
@@STEP107 Selling a homeless "service startup " to the bloated US venture casino while having red numbers, is not like running a local, family operated sustainable business. German small-mid Companies delivering the machines for the whole globe. Your "Startup" Orthodoxy reminds me of the People who believe Milk comes from the Supermarket and not from the Farm.
It is the governments who are in bed with large corporations, who make laws and regulations preventing small business entrepreneurs from building a business.
The culture here WAS entrepreneurial, but as the big corporations took over they got in bed with government and became an obstacle to capitalism.
You are making the mistake of lumping everyone in the US into one group. How very ignorant of you.
Woo! New NJB and City Beautiful on same day!!
Both videos are great!
I am so glad that my suburb of chicago (Mount Prospect) started to realize this. A couple of years ago they completed a new comprehensive plan, changing what they would allow in each zoning district. They have replaced the typical light industrial district with a mixed use light industrial district allowing Entertainment and recreational uses, health services, training facilities,
civic uses, food and beverage establishments and community amenities, such as plazas, squares, and recreational trails. The park district bought some of the buildings for workout classes as well as upgrades the parks and widened the bike paths creating a way for more residents to enjoy the businesses park. There is also a new restaurant in the business park. It’s really nice seeing this business park change for the better. Mount prospect is still working on improving the bicycle connections to it partially on rand road and downsizing the 4 lane stroad in the business park to incorporate better bicycle facilities. The current transit is okay. It is about a mile from downtown Train station and there is a bus coming every 30 minutes during rush hour but their are plans to put a non car separated brt network on rand in the future. I am so glad it’s getting better though.
Nice to see at least one town around here doing the right thing. My town (Lake Zurich) is nowhere near changing anything for the better. In fact my neighborhood still doesn’t even have sidewalks, much less bike infrastructure or mixed-use zoning. Even into Barrington by the train station, I’ve seen zero improvement in transit, pedestrian infrastructure, or mixed zoning. Then again, Barrington may be the nimby capital of the whole nw suburbs.
I’ve paid very close attention to the proposals surrounding the Bears’ new project down in AH (I went to high school there, so I’ve spent a LOT of time in that town), and it looks like they’re going to be making it about as auto-dependent as ever. So much money will be going into this project, but it seems like they think the pre-existing metra station is the only transit infrastructure they need (other than proposals to expand highway ramps of course). They’re just gonna build another auto-dependent shopping center (with no mixed use), but this one will happen to have an nfl stadium attached. It made me really happy to hear the Mount Prospect is actually doing things to improve the urban planning there. So many of our rail-line suburbs in Chicagoland have such great potential to become really wonderful, liveable towns, but so few of our public officials are interested in pursuing the right projects. I’m excited to see how Mount Prospect grows and hope many of our suburbs can follow its example.
@@pjkerrigan20 Honestly I think you whold be surprised in the current investments in infrastructure to get people to Arlington Park. There is a plan from the northwest municipal conference (NWMC) and City of Chicago to provide a 34 mile bike path along Northwest Highway from Jefferson Park to Crystal Lake. I was pretty surprized when I first saw the regional bikeway plan with this on it. They had this plan for 10 years but the villages/cities along NW HW did not have a complete streets laws until recently. The complete streets policies insures that this plan with be implemented when there are improvements to the roadway. Also with the new 2020 NWMC plan people can see the progress and aligments off the regional bike. With these changes, it is becoming more and more likely it will happen. You could view the map at nwmc-cog.org
Also Pace is expanding its facities and its bus rapid transit lines that provide service every 10-15 minutes. They are starting with the inner suburbs first. A project that will be done by the end of the year the Pulse Dempster Line will connect the des plaines metra station (Goes to Arlington Park) with ohare, 3 other metra lines and 2 cta lines. I am hoping this really helps with the EXTREAME congestion that will happen on game days.
So glad Mount Prospect is changing for the better. Mount Prospect is doing a lot more with its zoning. I wrote this for the not just bikes video but thought it fits here too. I suggest looking over the MP comprehensive plan too. If you care.
In Europe, when you buy a house, one of your top concerns is how far away you have to go for your daily needs (schools, shops, doctor, pharmacy, public transportation, etc.). In Europe, nobody would buy a house where you need to drive 40 minutes to get to a shop. My 9yo son walks to school, music lessons, ahtletism classes, etc. by himself. If those places where 20 minutes away from home it would take so many time to go there that would result impossible to do it all.
I love this!! I am studying for my Architecture exams, so it's nice to hear explanations of FAR and zoning to further reinforce my studying.
Okay this video blew my mind. I knew many other countries had more mixed residential and business buildings, but my brain never connected the dots and thought the zoning system would be different. Now I realize I have completely (and incorrectly) taken it for granted that zones are always exclusive.
Getting urban-pilled.
I experinced the flip side. It took me a while to realize that on the US residential means only houses and not houses plus various small businesses to cover the needs of the residents.
American suburban zoning is like the nightmare for most Europeans. You will more than likely never find a single European expat in one of those huge suburban areas. Living 30+ minutes by car away from any store, you might as well live out in the woods somewhere.
@@YekouriGaming except you’d have more privacy!
@@kaitlyn__L What do you mean. You just have a hedge?
My friend and I were opening a recreational cannabis business in Oregon, we were told that we would be able to do so on his property based on a grandfather clause, despite the zoning, since we'd been providing medical cannabis from that property for a long enough period of time prior to the legalization of recreational cannabis. We got everything up to code as far as security cameras, water storage, etc. We built a huge add on to the building we were planning on using and added a new mini house for him to live in since he would no longer legally be able to occupy the same building as the business. After all of the time, money and energy we invested they revoked our license based on some higher up reinterpreting the grandfather clause and/or speculating about a future law change. I never really got a full explanation but we had already had an onsite inspection and had been approved for our license. And the most ridiculous part was all the surrounding properties were zoned where it wouldn't have even been an issue, his property had a different zoning. Made absolutely zero sense.
It looks like you need a good land use attorney
Isnt america land of the lawsuit? Sue those assholes.
Some people get drunk with power when their job is to enforce rules...
You should really look into trying to changing the zoning of the land, there not always set in stone
I appreciate the suggestions but like I said, it was when recreational cannabis was legalized in Oregon, which was like 6 years ago. My buddy still has the property but that ship has sailed.
I was lucky enough to have a clause in the contract to be repaid if we never actually got going with the license, so I got repaid for my monetary investment. Took a few years but I got all my money back. So personally I'm just out time and energy and I suppose gas money from driving back and forth from home to the property and getting supplies and what not.
I just shared the story because of the relevance to the video but I appreciate y'all trying to help. Cheers
I'm used to the UK system. I had no idea how different the US one was.
It seems kind of inconvenient (IMO). I mean, I've got schools, parks, shops, restaurants, industrial buildings, post offices , gymns, , a train station, a library, , doctor's surgeries, dentists, opticians, all within walking distance from where I live.
It does explain a few things to me about the US, though.
I really do prefer the system of planning permission we have here. Sure, you might only be able to do 80-90% of what you wanted, but compromise with your neighbours instead of a top-down edict from some distant elected officials feels much fairer to me.
I’ve also noticed some Americans seem to assume a single disagreement just cancels the whole plan with our system, which of course isn’t true at all, I’ve seen (and I’m sure you have, too) many things get built with a small number of the locals objecting. Because their objections are not deemed rigorous enough, or any downsides they attest are viewed as being outweighed by the upsides.
I doubt you have all those things within walking distance from where you live. Stop lying 🤥
@@TheCelticsAREboss I live in Birmingham, UK. There's stuff here I didn't even realise was here until I started paying attention. Did I mention the gymns and swimming pool?
@@Han-rw9ev You basically named a bunch of facilities and said they were all in walking distance, which I doubt is true. Not sure what you Europoors consider "walking distance." Plus, this video is about suburbs and you're comparing it to a city
@@TheCelticsAREboss you need to get out of your country, those things are most definitely walking distance for most people in europe. within 10 minutes walking i can access 30+ different cafes and restaurants, 2 cinemas, 2 gyms, a swimming pool, maybe 20 different grocery stores, 3 parks etc etc. i own a car but use it at most once every 2 weeks, either to get out of london or for transporting something large.
For me, as a German, it is very hard to imagine not having a grocery store or even a bakery in my neighborhood. Why did the US mess that up so much? Isn't it like super annoying to drive through the whole city only to get a yogurt from the store? At least I can now somehow understand why people in the US use their car for pretty much everything.
It also explains the lack of bread culture here. It's typical to do a once a week grocery run in your car, so the bread has to last at least a week and preferably two. The only way that happens is to pump them with preservatives.
After a couple trips to Europe I started making my own bread/baguettes whenever possible, because I found it depressing to go back to the plastic wrapped stuff.
I'm a City Engineer in Kansas, and I can guess why my city would not want to loosen up on their zoning requirements, though I don't personally mess with the zoning requirements here. Our planners are really hesitant to give up any tool they have to steer development however they want, and one of their favorite tools to use is zoning requirements, eg "Sorry, outdoor storage is only allowed in the I-4 district, this parcel is zoned I-2. And I don't think we can be supportive of a rezoning application unless you agree to build to the strictest requirements of the I-2 zone."
Not that it's a GOOD reason, mind you. But I guarantee a lot of American planners would be non-supportive for the same reason.
lol, "we support capitalism, individualism, and the free market as long as it isn't on this street." Yeah, that leveraging effect is used in other places: "oh, you want a variance for you large sign do you... well, it's going to cost you the 3rd level of your parking garage." Government sure does using every tool it gets its grubby little hands on.
They are really hesitant to give up any little tiny sliver of power is what I'm getting here.
They would rather die than give up that power.
What part of Kansas, I live in Lawrence.
US: Has car dependency problem
Also US: Makes zoning so strict that you absolutely need a car to go anywhere because the local neighborhood doesn't allow for mixed use
Zoning laws were created so you didn't have to live near a coal plant or an asbestos mill, NOT so you can live 1 hour away from anything to actually do or use to sustain yourself.
Medium density by right with moderate regulation needs to become the norm everywhere.
Housing costs are getting out of control everywhere
That's only one cause, the biggest by far are the financial incentive structures set up to reward real-estate as a speculative asset & using it as a financial base to underpin huge other developments.
This is what drives it far beyond the price range of most people who need houses for their utility and not as a financial asset.
@@InnuendoXP Yeah, imagine if an expensive city with $800,000 homes approved enough mixed-use medium density projects to actually get housing back down to affordable levels of $350,000 or so. The people planning to use their $800,000 asset to finance retirement would be unbelievably pissed. Obviously they will elect city officials who prevent this. A mayor or city council member who runs on a platform of reducing home values will never win.
@@briankirkpatrick8888 and that goes doubly-so for state & federal level governments in many countries. Whether directly through "passive income" or indirectly through investment portfolios with real-estate holdings, the boomers & wealthy gen-Xers of today are having the working age Gen X/Y/Z of today subsidize their retirements & unsustainable housing models, pay their highly leveraged mortgages with rent & paying off yet more equity to trade on whole politicians either in with or beholden to these interests work to keep debt as cheap & low-risk as possible with low interest rates & negative gearing... for those who already have assets that-is.
Not to mention the status quo of property developers endlessly making bank off all of this.
@@briankirkpatrick8888 The people planning to use their $800,000 asset for retirement should learn something about not putting all their eggs in one basket. Younger generations shouldn't pay for their poor retirement planning.
@@InnuendoXP That's not even remotely true and has no basis in any economic evidence
Real+estate as a "speculative" asset is a primary driver or housing supply, and if anything, helps reduce overall housing costs.
Here in Germany most (single doctor) clinics, tax accountants and lawyers have their office in what was once a normal appartment. My company has it's local office in the middle storey of an old 3 storey villa. First and third are normal renters living there (Since we don't have customers coming that isn't a problem with noise etc.)
Same here in Czechia, my dentist has clinic in 3th floor in normal apartment in building where people normaly live, but there is mostly more clinics in such buildings.
@@garazsgeza5728 well the US people are the ones shooting up a school each month.
I have lived in those mixed-use buildings and it wasn't an issue. Many German houses are built from sturdier material than the US wooden ones and you would only hear people in the hall if you'd stand right beside the wall, or if they are actually being very loud. I have lived over a pharmacy, dentist, insurance company and gynecologist and was never bothered.
If we seem more aggressive, I don't think it is because of our mixed use inner city houses.
@@garazsgeza5728 Recent news: dead in New York state after friend pulled into wrong driveway
I had been aware that zoning was a thing in America, but hadn't realised how strict it could be. Here in England my residential street has a few small rows of shops along it, as well as schools, churches, a pub and a mosque in what used to be a pub. The idea of a large residential area with no shops at all seems utterly bizarre, although some developments here can seem like that.
I've noticed 'new build' estates seem to be built on the American suburb model, with only houses in an inward facing labyrinthine street plan.
Yep, it’s best to look at the UK as not having any zoning at all. There are local plans of various different types (depending on which of the countries and regions of the UK you are in), but really what matters is individual planning permission for buildings.
That can be somewhat cumbersome sometimes, because there is no automatic right to build a particular type of building, but it does mean that if eg. you can make a good case for an office in a primarily residential area (or vice versa) there is no fundamental reason it can’t go ahead.
In cities, it pretty common for larger developments to be *required* by planners to incorporate mixed uses on the basis that it contributes to a vibrant cityscape. So for instance a major new retail and food/drink development in my home city of Edinburgh in Scotland also includes a large hotel, short term serviced apartments, offices and major residential elements, all within a single building in the centre of the city - that’s seen as highly desirable.
When I lived in The UK, there was a big supermarket in my town that was surrounded by housing. So, if you wanted to get some groceries there was no need to drive. In fact, considering amount of one-way streets in that area, it was often faster to walk rather than drive :)
@@jur4x Yep, that’s not too uncommon - combined with the prominence of smaller supermarkets in city centres and suburban shopping streets, it means many people rarely need to drive to get groceries, especially in larger cities.
A current trend in the UK at the moment which is annoying me is the taking away of green belt designation in many towns & cities. A regulation that was originally meant to stop the sort of urban sprawl you get in America. What's the point of making a rule if you can just take it away at a whim?
That point about Edinburgh is great to hear, but I'd also like to point out there has been some variation with this. I live in a somewhat rural area in the south of England, and the vast majority of developments seem to be pure housing, without any other services associated. Smaller towns are slowly becoming less and less walkable as new areas of housing are simply slapped on to the outside with no consideration of access to shops, public transport, restaurants etc.
I'm guessing this is largely just a southern problem, but it suggests that this American-style planning is creeping in to the mindsets of people in many places.
@@andrewjackson8845 I saw it twenty years ago in Redhill, Surrey. The entire concept was founded on car privilage... which just doesn't work when you do the maths for much road space all these cars would actually use up.
For how much Americans spent thinking about economics, they didn't even give a second thought at the fundamental foundation for cities. Negative environmental externalities should be priced and factored into the costs of factory, meaning that industries will naturally locate in cheap land with low alternative uses. Pricing mechanism is ALWAYS more efficient in deciding land use. Like LA, where factories are long gone but they are still zoned as industrial smack dab right in the middle of the city (East LA), even though their uses could be much better allocated for something else.
I'm in the UK. I have lived in the same house for fifty years. In that time, and within just a few hundred yards of my home, there are: houses that have been turned into small shops, some that have been shops and reverted back to houses, a hotel that became a pub and is now a small supermarket, a petrol station / garage that is now a grocery store, a grocery store that has become a funeral parlour, a chapel that has become a house, a house that became a post office (now back to a house) and a former primary school that is now housing. That's a lot of flexibility.
Can you build your own home in Europe, like you can in the USA?
@@chaosXP3RT Yes, you can in the UK.
Perfect example for the mixed use: the village of 10,000 inhabitants where I live at in southern Germany. From my home to work I have a 10 minute long walk from one side of the village to the other side of the village. There are both single family homes and apartment houses on my way; There are also 3 bakeries, a bank, 2 hotels, 1 clothing store, several restaurants, doctors offices, and other small shops. And in between all those there are also a few farms. Big industries are located at the very edge of the village, in fact half of the village area is mixed commercial and industrial area with no people being right next to it, so no-one is disturbed by the noise of the industries themselves nor all the traffic heading there. Seperated by a highway but connected via a bridge it's easy to get there within a couple of minutes of walking.
It's a nice mix, bringing life into the village and not keeping residents seperated from each other that much. Walking distances within the village means that people will also choose to walk and won't use their car for everything
(this in Malory Archer's voice:)
"Do you want to get Mittelstand? This is exactly how you get Mittelstand!"
similar here in the Netherlands. however for most that 10 minute walk will be swapped for a 5 minute bike ride.
in general people here don't walk much beyond a minute or 3.
I think this applies everywhere but the US and Canada. From Buenos aires here and on a 5 block radius I have supermarkets, grocery stores, convenience stores, a couple plazas, a church, a school, a pharmacy, restaurants, laundromats, hardware stores, hair salons, all around both apartment buildings mostly but also single family houses and mixed use buildings.
Not to mention you also have bus stops, shared bikes and a metro station nearby, so most people just walk and use public transport. It's crazy to me they choose not to live like this in the US
We have similar urban layouts on main streets and downtowns in many similar-sized towns, but the availability of apartments or nearby houses is very scarce and expensive. For reference, my 20,000 person college town has ~300 residents (like me) living on main street with only ~2,000 more residents within a ten-minute walk.
I can walk/bike everywhere and avoid owning a car, so the cost is similar to a suburban car driver.
@@sirBrouwer I used to ride my bike alot; Back in school and university I didn't even have a car and rode my bike everywhere, and whatever was out of reach I took public transit via train / subway / tram / bus. But then my normal bike was stolen - twice. And then my racing bike was stolen as well. They were locked up with expensive locks, in locked bike rooms or locked inner yards of a building. Still both got stolen. At some point I wasn't very interested in investing both money and time for new bikes (and equip them the way I want to have them, as I used to ride my bike also in snow and ice or went on long bike trips) and also the insurance didn't want to pay for the bike stolen again. So that's why I keep walking to work, barely take public transit (there's both bus and commuter rail connecting my village, but walking to the train station takes like 20 minutes) and then will simply drive my car to other places around the area. I'd be more concerning of a new bike being stolen out of the locked shed at the apartment building I'm living it than I'm concerned at work. There I'd just put the bike into the vehicle hall (working in EMS).
Haha, I studied law in Germany and had to learn all these things about german zoning. So I was curious how you would talk about the “BauNVO“ zones and I must say, you did a great job!
However I want to add that there are also regulations on how buildings are to look and how much of the groud they can use, similar to what you said about french zoning laws. You might have a harder time finding these regulations though, because they are on state level, so every “Bundesland“ has its own laws on that.
Also, things differ a lot between municipalities, because, somewhat like in the UK, cities and municipalities have the right to development and lay down their own plans in accordance with regional and supraregional land use planning. They can‘t go completely off script though, it is more like a modular system where they can decide what type of zones and what regulations for building design out of the state/federal laws they want to chose for specific areas. Inside that frame you then have the “build by right“ rule.
I really enjoyed this video and really like how you explain city planning in general, something I had never given much thought before but find really interesting now, especially in comparison.
And some of those restrictions are totally bonkers. Like "no solar on the roof, since the house is "denkmalgeschützt" (protected building) and must retain it's look, even though the street is so small you can't even see the roof from down there.
Some cities like actually developed a Masterplan of their zoning, with very explicit volumetries that should be met by the developer. There are a lot of rules regarding respect of landmark buildings, accessibility, energy management, fire safety, even the number of parking lots on the property, that shape the final form of the building.
Like in France, you have to submit your proposal to a local government (Bauamt), which check if you respected all the regulations. But like England, you can ask to be freed of the planing regulations, in which case it becomes a case by case development. And like in France, you can absolutely not begin to build before the approval of the local authorities.
If any of you come by in Berlin, go visit the model of the city centre, it is just amazing!
@@steemlenn8797 I know someone who lives in switzerland, the village is located on a slope, they build terraces in their yard bc you couldnt use it much otherwise. Some guy flew over with a drone saw the terraces and reported them to the city. They had to tear down the terrraces to preserve the natural look of the mountain even though the only place you can see the yard from is from air.
I live in Zagreb, Croatia, which is a fairly tiny city when compared to many other European capitals but it still follows "European zoning". I live in a neighborhood on the eastern edge of the city and rarely venture into the downtown area since everything I need is here, 10-20 minute walk from my flat. Doctor's offices, bank's, shopping centre, larger supermarkets, tailors, hairdressers, car repair shops, basically almost everything business you might need. It makes perfect sense to find all that within walking distance, and still have parks and schools and kindergartens and libraries and even a community sports centre. :) It's just a more organic way of living, that's all.
I went to Zagreb last year and it quickly became one of my favorite cities! That is a city built for people at a human scale. So many pedestrian zones and outdoor dining spaces.
In the UK we do have something called ‘Permitted Development’ which allows you to build certain structures without permission like Garden Offices, sheds etc. It can be more flexible on places like farms too
In my country, we divide the types of activities allowed on the land use zones into three categories: Predominant Use, Discretionary and Prohibited. A large matrix table is even created to visualise these categories in relation to the zoning and activities. Hence, the matrix table has become our primary reference when reviewing proposed development. This is followed by further technical details such as building setback, parking requirement etc. One recurring challenge to us is dealing with activity that is categorised as Discretionary in that particular zone. Often, it is ambiguous and local councils' perception is that if the proposed activity is Discretionary, the likelihood of it is approved is higher...although we advise them that is not always the case.
In Hong Kong we adpot the zoning regulations similar to the UK. The property owner could turn the building into whatever he/she likes. Therefore city planning (especially in the urban core) is somehow weird. It's possible to have an auto shop right below your home, or a super modern high rise apartment next to a 50-year-old 7-storey building. Despite the possible weird outcome, it's convenient to the residents. At least I don't have to drive like 15 mins for grocery like what I may have to do in the US if I'm not living in cities like NY or DC. I think the planning code in the US is convenient to city planners because they don't have to consider what kinds of land use will be mixed together and whether the combination satisfies everyone. But to those who don't own a car it decreases their accessibility to things like entertainment and social services.
But, wouldn't you be bothered by all the noise from the surrounding businesses? Isn't it better to only have homes around you for the sake of your peace?
Cars are what makes a business noisy.
I cannot imagine living in a single use zone, though we do have some nearby. Where I live, in England, there are local shops opposite, and the majority of customers are pedestrians. Behind the shops is a primary school, with the secondary school a short walk away. Also a short walk away is the main shopping area, supermarkets and so on, where pedestrians still make up a large percentage of the customers. Until recently, there were also factories within walking distance. Consequently, although most households have a car, they do not need to use them for every activity. Leisure, retail, work, education and medical facilities are all accessible without cars or public transport. It makes life so easy.
I live in Scotland, and whenever there are to be any changes with local buildings, all the neighbours get a letter in the post about it, with the exact detail of what is to be done, when the work would be scheduled for, and how to oppose it if there were any objections. My neighbour was going to get some work done to her downstairs flat, to get the large windows converted into patio doors, and every single person on the street got informed about it well in advance. I think the only reason I know about various small side streets near my flat is because of these letters, because they usually include a map of where the planned work is for.
Noob
in NZ we mix residential as well, schools, dairies, grocers are close or within residential areas - saves longer commutes for simple errands - my city has a central area with commercial of course but we have 3 mini commercial like area that are within the suburbs and parking is much easier than going all the way into the city
When I moved to the UK I found Permitted Development rights to be very interesting. There are certain types of development and changes of use that are permitted without the need for a formal planning application (as long as it meets the applicable criteria). For instance, if you want to extend your dwelling you can do so, as long as it is not too big or your PD rights have not been removed.
Having lived in both Europe and US, one major issue I noticed is that nations with higher number of mixed use developments have stricter noise reduction policies. For example, heavy duty vehicles such as buses and garbage trucks work much more quietly in Europe, because people demand that. Oversize trucks aren’t even allowed in many European cities. There’s a general consensus that if right decisions are made, big cities can well be pleasant and harmonious places.
Also, in most of Europe, you have silent hours between 10PM and 6AM.
It sounds great to have corner stores sprinkled throughout residential neighbourhoods, but in my city (in Canada) there used to be tons of them and they've nearly all died off due to lack of demand. They mostly had common groceries like milk, eggs, veggies, some meats, etc in addition to the convenience store staples of chips, candy, cigarettes and the like. But turns out that, despite what this channel says, people don't actually want that. They want to go to a single store once a week and get everything there (e.g. Walmart).
I think this mainly comes down to the car-centric nature of our cities which promotes infrequent larger trips rather than stopping by on the way home from work to grab what you need for dinner. Personally, even when I didn't own a car I'd still go to the big-box stores because it is just so much cheaper.
Berkeley is my hometown. That separate zoning works for Berkeley because it is small in land area and quite dense. It creates sprawl elsewhere.
Not only does the UK system not have provision for single size residential developments, it positively encourages the opposite. It's standard for developers to have to agree to a mix of sizes and include affordable homes in with more lucrative higher priced properties. In larger developments planning conditions can include building schools, GP practices (doctors' offices), etc..
Cool to see my small home town in one of your videos (6:05 Groß-Gerau). Great channel and good videos 👍🏻 Walkabilty is the word. No matter if you are in a village or a city. With the mixed zones in germany you coult mostly walk or ride by bike to the groccery or town center.
What an excellent video!!! Please make more videos on European urban planning. I think Europe is the Mecca for Urban Planners and Urban Planning enthusiasts.
Every city planner I know from youtube is an advocate for things like corner stores, more multifamily homes, etc. So why is this not more common? Are most planners supportive of the current system, is it NIMBYs, or is this stuff changing but existing infrastructure and zoning laws are slowing down development? Or maybe I just only watch the more progressive planners...
You have to remember that it is the planners of a few decades back who advocated for and implemented the fairly disastrous policies that now dominate America. Changing the views of that really takes a big generational switch, so is never going to happen overnight, especially giving how deeply embedded views of zoning have become.
There is also the simple fact that in the US, the town planning meetings tend to only be attended by the retired. It's rare to see anyone younger than 50 there.
Because city planners and other educated people on this subject only make a tiny fraction of the voting population. The general population are under the impression that if you got rid of or relaxed zoning restrictions, that means that suddenly there is going to be a 50 story ghetto tower next to their quaint little 2 story house, or that suddenly there is going to be a poison manufacturer next door, race is also a fear, many Caucasian believe that if you allow multifamily homes in their single family neighborhood that means that black and brown people will now be able to afford living there (which yeah, probably true) and they would rather keep their neighborhood white.
In my experience as a citizen activist in New Jersey, the public is poorly educated about planning and upper middle class nimbys don't want shops on their streets. The state of NJ has built R-1 (?) zoning into the law. The politicians and their developer friends make the decisions. The local planning boards must paint by the numbers or they get sued and the neutered professional planners simply formalize the decisions. It's a head banging situation.
@@Redrally And the system benefits home owners and current residents, that are whiter and wealthier. Potential future residents benefited by a new mixed use building won't show up. Same for working class people, often Black and Latino that don't have the time to attend. Finally, people that don't care much about the topic or that have a positive opinion on new developments have less incentive to attend than NIMBYs and haters of all kind.
The first time I visited the U.S I stayed with some American friends of mine in the suburbs. It still astounds me that we had to drive to get anywhere and that the idea of walking to a corner shop for milk was not an option. My living situation here in the UK could be considered a little extreme though! My house is semi detached and used to be a newsagents until we got the planning permission to convert it into a home. The house next door did the same. Next to us is another semi detached building which are a corner shop and beauticians. On the vacant lot next to me there used to be a pub, around the corner is a youth club and at the bottom of my street is a main road filled with shops! However, no matter where I’ve lived, I have always been in walking distance to local amenities, shops, pubs, doctors and even local post offices/banks.
These videos really make me appriaciate that there are 2 supermarkets within a 5 minute walk from my home, and 3 more within a 5 minute bicycle ride.
I did NOT see that ad coming. Good job CB!
The planning system in England is discretionary, so you are right to say it can't properly be described as zoning. The act you cited essentially gave the government all rights to development - which means you have to ask for permission from the government (normally local governments) to develop land/ buildings. Those applications for permission must be decided in accordance with a Development Plan for the local area, as you said. But those plans are flexible because the policies within them are not prescriptive - policies set out what ought to happen, but not what must happen. This means planners and elected local councillors must make a judgement taking account of all material considerations, including those which someone making the plan did not think about and those which are specific to the site, in order to reach a decision. Applicants have the right to appeal decisions. Interestingly though, the English planning system does have some elements similar to zoning. The central government has essentially granted the entire country permission to develop land/ buildings in certain ways (although these are generally quite limited - like small extensions to houses) and this means permission is not required for this type of development - these are known as permitted development rights.
Permitted development rights are not applicable in some areas, e.g. Conservation Areas where there is architectural heritage worth protecting. These are kind of zones, but not really comparable to anything in the US. It’s more about protecting architecture then caring what happens inside the building. I suppose the closest thing we have to a zone is the green belt.
Interesting subject. I think the quality and aesthetics of building façades is a very important factor for "beautiful" places aswell. Mixed use zones have the advantage of shorter distances - a supermarket around the corner is more convenient than a market 3 miles away. Also its easier to create central places (i would describe as local mini downtowns) when mixed zoning is allowed.
Good overview. Although, it makes me wish for:
- highlighting the opportunity in the US to embrace the Form-Based Code movement which would trend toward the benefits of the French model
- the IMPORTANT issue of how zoning has completely lost its purpose; regulations are now a jumbled mess of copy/paste of how the other municipality competing for growth structures their zoning regulations. The work it requires to really revamp a zoning code to contend with REAL GOALS is likely a pipe dream that may never happen if left to each municipality to tackle individually.
More on REAL GOALS: Climate adaptation, local food production, water conservation, air quality, public health, safe systems transportation adaptation, localizing economic development systems, affordability, fiscal responsibility, wild life preservation
I miss the days of having a corner store in the area. We had those when I was a kid in the late 80's early 90's in Saint Louis.
For Germany even the so called exclusively residential zone (WR) allows for shops on a case-by-case base, however usually these are just kept very very small.
Also there is not really a commercial zone. GI is clearly industrial and GE is a combination of light industry and large scale commercial, you don't want in a dense city center like car dealers or superstores.
These comparisons are great. It makes me sad every time people sincerely discuss these kinds of problems but neglect to draw comparisons to identify the actual problem and possible solutions.
The freedom of being forced to have a car to get to the nearest store.
Commuting is a symptom of a disease. Many mega corporations started in residential garages (Dell, HP, Apple, Microsoft...). Of course you get much more production done when your workplace is near or at home.
Living upstairs from your business was normal in the wild west towns, as well as the down towns of east coast cities.
Good information and great ad at the end. A few years ago, moved to single blade razor blades and have not looked back.
I would've loved to see Australia as another comparison point. I do know a little about how our zoning works, though - it seems to be a mix of everyone, with lots pre-zoned but all but the simplest of developments needing approval from local councils. And lots can be re-zoned. I think we also lean American, too, with large areas of industrial and residential.
Wade, it would really depend where in Australia. Very few, if any, general residential zones would prevent retailing or mixed residential densities. Like US and Germany we have 'as of right' development
Yes, Australia is a good comparison point. I think Australia leans towards the American model, with some elements on Europe here and there, but it's 80-90% like America, except in suburban areas close to the city centre (downtown).
Not everything is perfect in Europe. In France, the dream of the single family house is really strong and is creating what we call "lotissements" which are pretty similar to US single family zones. They usually develop in villages near enough to a big city/employment center and give us the same issues as in the US. We usually call those villages "dormitories" since people are just sleeping there. It is also leading to the death of the city centers since those people do all their shopping in more accessible commercial centers.
Merci d'apporter cette précision, les auteurs de cette vidéo ignorent manifestement les particularités des documents d'urbanisme type PLU, avec leurs zones UA, UB, etc. Les activités commerciales et artisanales, sans parler des industries, sont bien cantonnées dans des zones spécifiques dans les règles d'urbanisme en vigueur sur la majeure partie du territoire français. C'est un point de vue typiquement Nord Américain, qui a tendance à imaginer que toutes les agglomérations ressemble à la Butte Montmartre...
Rented in a neighborhood that was supposed to get a convenience store on the corner. Instead owners in the area voted against it because it would "bring in the wrong element" to the neighborhood. It was like 10+ minutes to the nearest grocery store. NIMBYs ruined yet another improvement. Glad I moved.
The wrong element? Like people buying apples? How shocking!
yeah i dont know. i think they're thinking it'll cause more traffic to go thru the neighborhood... or some crime??? don't know how but they seem to think one of those 2. in any case, it's dumb, and honestly, i don't get it.
It's mind boggling to think that if you live in the suburban US and you forgot to get milk, you need to drive, and drive a bit to get to the store. In Mexico pretty much every neighborhood has either a convenience store nearby or a general store.
I get separating industrial areas from the rest of them, but no matter where you live, you're gonna need some business someday and it'll always be better to have that near you.
As someone mentioned in the comments below, the UK has allowed office blocks to be converted to flats/apartments (with permission) fairly easily, and has come in handy over the last couple of years. Landlords with offices going spare as their need is reduced due to WFH have been able to convert them into homes.
I like that the cut-aways from you to stock footage is not so quick, like many other videos on UA-cam. It makes your video way more comfortable to watch and not such a hassle.
Nice video. Hopefully we can get back on the right track of creating vibrant and usable cities.
My city (Geelong, Australia) is currently trying to get a few urban redesign projects off the ground to densify and allow more types of uses in neighborhoods close to the city and public transit connections. I've written in to voice my approval, of course.
A lot of the opposition I can see to these redesigns can be debated pretty easily, but one really common theme I'm seeing is from people concerned with overlooking; new taller residences being able to see into their backyards, etc. I personally believe that the opportunity to create more housing where it matters should take priority over a matter of a small loss of privacy, but for the life of me I can't think of any other counter argument that might help these people to not worry so much about this, and to try seeing the bigger picture.
Have you ever considered a video on overlooking and how cities can overcome the NIMBYism that stems from the issue?
I'm from Geelong as well and honestly I think the main concern from people opposing new development is purely selfishness. Geelong has a massive property boom caused by an enormous shortage due to massive population growth combined with land use restrictions and that's delighted the NIMBY home owners who'd love to see more homeless people, more young people being unable to move out, more people being crammed into sharehouses if it means they can refinance and get another Audi and another trip to Barli. That's why they get angry at literally any and all new housing construction, doesn't matter if it's an apartment in the CBD or new houses in Armstrong Creek. They become livid with rage, demanding that no new houses get constructed in Geelong ever again.
@@Jamcad01 You may well be right, but people in that mindset would never admit to being plainly greedy. They'll always resort to other arguments to advance their own goals ("traffic will get worse!", "I won't have any privacy in my backyard!", etc). The more logical arguments we have at our disposal to rebut NIMBYs, the weaker their rationalization becomes, and at that point they may expose their true intentions.
I suspect far fewer people would sympathize with NIMBYs if they were debated into admitting they have nothing but selfishness motivating them.
In France, in Toulouse they cancelled an urban planification plan because it wasn't dense enough because it uses too much agriculture land.
Great video as always! if you don't mind suggestions, I'd love to see a video talking about not only modern/contemporary practices, but also comparisons of what kind of practices have been historically traditional in different cultures, coupled with maybe a discussion on the kinds of forces which drive these things to develop.
Scottish planner and Spanish architect here. As far as I can tell you got everything right; the largest difference in planning systems is discretional vs non-discretional (zoning) i.e. UK & Ireland & a few commonwealth countries vs most of the world. Both have pros and cons, i find the British systems to be much more focused on community participation, and the continental ones to be much more consistent and design-oriented. On the other hand, the first can be very cumbersome and get bogged down in trivialities, while the latter make more difficult to amend plans on the fly (i.e. a reduction in F.A.R in the new or amended Plan requires the local authority to compensate the land owners economically). The different systems are rooted in different structures of land ownership, so it's hard to transpose concepts from one another anyway. In my personal view, the British ones have proven great at preserving built and natural heritage, but I find the continental ones produce better new-built neighbourhoods - but it doesn't have to be that way, and it might be a cultural thing rather than a feature of each system. Thanks for the video, really insightful!
UK (academic) planner here, so I thought I'd leave a comment very late about the English system. The best way to describe our system as regulatory and discretionary rather than zonal, in that applications are assessed against policies in a prepared plan for their suitability and the planning office or elected members will make a discretionary decision weighing up the points the application has in favour and against with other material considerations (for instance comments of consultees/locals). Included within this are government set use classes which you mention in your video, which you can apply to change based on the policies of your local area and assessed local need for that use class. An important thing to mention is that all of this regulation and discretion rests upon the fact that we nationalised development rights in 1947 in order to create this system. What this creates can be thought of as a de facto zonal system, that isn't codified into any kind of map but one that exists on a conceptual level and can be interpreted through the policies and use classes. I would compare this (very clumsily) to the UK constitution vs the USA, French or German constitution - where the latter have a codified constitution that laws and government processes can be assessed against, England doesn't, our constitution is realised through a combination of hansard, case law and even unwritten arrangements and both these systems have their own benefits and drawbacks relative to one another in similar ways that zonal vs regulatory planning systems have.
I think perhaps a more important distinction can be drawn between the importance given to the state and the private sector in driving development rather than zonal vs regulatory. In the USA (and England although in a different system), I perceive that part of the reason for such tight zonal controls on development is that it is led by the private sector and the state wants to maintain control over land use without having to spend money on leading development (and obviously this level of control is bound up with American histories of racial discrimination and other nasty things). In continental Europe the state takes a much more active role in developing, planning/design and land preparation, often tendering out land like a developer might do to a builder in the UK or USA, and as such the regulation of land use can be more permissive as the state has control over development in a different way.
Happy to answer any questions if you're curious about the English planning system!
Not Just Bikes and City Beautiful uploading on the same day?!
Yep, just watched it from Not Just Bikes, great video just like this one.
My small parish in Louisiana has 20 zones. Including two named "Single Family Residential" with no discernible difference. And one for "Open Land", which is distinct from "Wetland", though I have no idea how.
The US's absurd zoning restrictions are probably the biggest reason why a lot of US cities are facing long term decline despite the US being an extremely wealthy country with record economic growth compared to European countries. "Rust belt" British cities like Manchester and Leeds have revived themselves and become quite economically prosperous compared to US rust belt cities like Detroit and Cincinnati because they are open to increased urbanisation and didn't put massive motorways through their city centres like the US did. They also concentrate residential, commercial, and industrial land uses fairly close together and have decent public transport.
While yes a lot of our cities have transformed themselves towards modern industries, a lot still haven't. So it's not equal all over the UK. But I'd probably still rather be in one these cities in the UK than US
Detroit and Cincinatti aren’t dead because of zoning, they are dead because of blacks.
huh, what a username
@@Wozza365 I guess the British rust belt cities being a lot safer than American rust belt cities also has to do with how appealing they are for people to move back to and reinvest. Sure British rust belt cities may be lacking in jobs and run down, but at least it’s walkable and there aren’t frequent shootouts on the streets like US rust belt
@@thomasgrabkowski8283
There aren't frequent shootouts in US rust belt cities either.
The main feature of our British planning system is that it is very discretionary - local councils have a lot of scope to approve or reject planning applications. We do, as you say, use maps with allocated sites. These allocated sites are almost certain to get pemission to build. And if a council has an adopted site plan, it makes it easier for councils to reject proposals on parcels of land not on the map. Again, the system offers a lot of flexibility and you could theoretically still get approval to build on a piece of land not in the plan. All local authorities have to produce a Development Plan, which is their 10 yr plan for their area. The DP contains all of that areas planning policies. Ultimately all planning policies flow from the National Planning Policy Framework and the various Planning Acts. For the individual house-owner, we have "permitted development rights", which is what you can build without needing planning permission, house extensions, for example. The negatives of the British system are that it can be slow and litigious.
In the UK, it can take months or sometimes years after a new use has been agreed for the land registry to be updated, but the new use is allowed immediately after agreement. So if a building changes from commercial to residential, the building can be converted and people moved in before the address is legally considered a residential adress. You need a residential address to vote. There are plenty of homeless charities who will let you use a residential address under their control to register to vote, but the process takes weeks, and it's not that uncommon for someone to move to a newly converted building, assume they've got a residential address, and not find out they can't use their home address to vote until its too close to election day to register with a charity. These converted buildings are often in the middle of industrial estates, with next to no public transport, so I would assume theres people who couldn't register with a charity because they couldn't physically get there, or it would be extremely difficult to do so.
Theres also currently some sort of provision in place due to the housing crisis that you cn convert commercial units to temporary residential units without planning permission, and those flats tend to be terrible. Think tiny, no windows, no kitchen, in the middle of an industrial complex, with all the noise and air pollution that brings, and again, no public transport links. It might have been a good idea, but its been very poorly executed, and its been around long enough that you'd expect something to have been put in place to at least stop new units being as bad, but it's very profitable, so nothing has.
I recommend Order Without Design by Alaine Bertaud, who is surprisingly the most capable urban planner because he actually understands real estate economics rather than just normative values like "sustainability" and "livability".
Thank you for this insight.
I think that, in Germany at least, the situation from city to city is vastly different.
Sometimes, there will be well balanced areas, where there is enough space for people, sufficient stores and medium residentials. You also have cities, that focused way too much on "car friendlyness", where the situation can be simmilar to US style design.
Sometimes, they even build large residential areas with no parks, stores or anything nearby, which is also not the best design in my opinion.
Yeah, everything from the 60s on is probably not so great because of cars. But we still have a lot of old places left, and that is how we know which one is better.
@@steemlenn8797 well here in East-Germany not so much, because cars where not so focused on. Alot of the new build districts had a Tram or S-Bahn line connecting it with the city centre and Buslines to link them up with other parts of the city or factorys.
10:57 🤣 for the sponsor transition
In Buenos Aires you are allowed to open a store/shop pretty much anywhere in the city. The zoning just tells you what types of commercial/industrial activities you are allowed to carry out, and the height/number of stories you are allowed to build.
I’d say about half (or at least a good amount) of residential buildings have shops on the street level. And there are plenty of old houses that were turned into restaurants, office space, schools, etc (they are usually too expensive to live in them, only businesses and rich people can afford them lol)
I've wondered about this forever! Thanks for explaining it in a way that is accurate but also really easy to digest. You're the best!
I think the kind of zoning that make sense is the idea of cities as adjacent villages meaning you should have access to most services within 20 minute walk.
Much appreciated. I’d be interested in learning more about European and other countries city management. Also, in the US I’m fascinated with the question of how do we get to something more livable given that neighborhoods are already built as widely spaced single family housing.
I'm from Germany and we have no _"zoning"_ at all. Okay, there are s.c. _"Industriegebiete/industry parks"_ but that's it.
This _"zoning"_ seems like a completely foreign concept to me....
@@yannick245 As a matter of fact we *do* have zoning (Bebauungsplanung) here in Germany... It just happens to be largely sane and any local control freak politicians and NIMBYs are kept in check by law (BauGB).
@@jandl1jph766 Yeah, I kinda know about the Bebauungsplan put it doesn't get that freakish, controlling every aspect way. It just written out things that make sense anyway. Germans are very ungerman, when it comes to something like the Bebauungsplan. Just look at our towns and cities. To me it looks like there's little behind it...
I might be completely wrong. But building and the structure of sports in the US look son_"unamerican"_ to me...
@@yannick245 There's a lot going into making these plans and their impact on the way our towns and cities look and function can hardly be overstated. However, as you observed, they usually make a lot of sense to the point where anyone not being a planner, architect, politician or lobbyist will usually not have to concern themselves too much with them. The reason is that once everything is said and done, the whole thing "just works" for the most part. If it doesn't, it can be a major problem for many years to come. Being in the "lobbyist" camp myself, that's why we often fight so hard to prevent people forgetting cyclists and pedestrians or simply giving in all the way to the insanely loud (in several ways) car lobby.
Literally just allowing some of those houses to be turned into businesses would be a start.
No commercial places near residentials... Wow, I have a super market literally around the corner, down the road for three houses, then to the left and I'm there. Never lived more than a few hundred meters away from a super market.
Must be nice, my closest supermarket is at least 20 min drive
My closest supermarket is a 7 min drive except during the weekday rush hour, and I mostly go to it once a week on Sunday. When I lived in Europe I had to do grocery shopping every other day and it was a bigger hit on my time, not to mention that European biodegradable bags are a joke if you need to carry heavy or wet items.
@@rcl5555 a lot of perishable things that don’t have their shelf life extended with toxic preservative only last for a couple of days anyway, our food is lasting way longer than it should right now, and it’s having negative health impacts.
@@rcl5555just... bring your own bag, man. The soution is so painfully obvious and takes about 1 minute and half a euro.
@@zumazuma568 well, now I have the bags in my car. But when I was grocery shopping by foot (which also happened on my way from work) I would need to carry it somewhere on myself throughout the day... Doable, but it burdens you.
The UK has a lot of areas designated green belt land that it's very difficult to get planning permission to build on. It's usually not the best green land, just land arbitrarily defined as green belt because it's near a major city. It has the positive of limiting urban sprawl but the negative of meaning large numbers of houses end up getting built 10-15 miles away from the big city, just outside the green belt boundary which means longer commutes by car (nothing like the USA though). A lot of local planning is bargaining based, they're building student accommodation down the road from me on an old social club and it will have space for 400 students. The original request was for 500 students but they made them reduce the numbers so it would only be 6 storeys high instead of 8. That's the sort of thing that gets discussed locally.
I live in New Orleans in the State of Louisiana; everything here is close together and easily accessible by walking; we are also a romantic, beautiful city even better than many in Europe.