[autoexec]

Zoning is useful for keeping people from building apartments right next to paper mills, pig farms, and superfund sites because those places tend to become slums. Building height restrictions and density limits provide people with the ability to see the sky and get sunlight. They improve air quality. They're pretty useful around places like airports. They can help improve safety and limit the damage resulting from disasters like fires and earthquakes. It's important to strike a balance between over-restrictive zoning and dystopian people-warehouses in perpetual shadow.

[Schiendelman]

I strongly disagree - as do many scholars of land use law at this point.

Zoning has nothing to do with separating uses. It never has. In Seattle, for instance, you absolutely can put an apartment building next to a pig farm. Nobody bothers because the market isn't interested in doing that. That also isn't atypical, zoning has never been used to pad uses away from each other like you see in Simcity.

Seeing the sky and getting sunlight are also very suspect reasoning. It is darn near impossible to find real problems there that zoning prevents.

Zoning also doesn't limit damage or impact earthquake survivability at all. Except - where zoning prevents you from building new buildings, it preserves old unsafe buildings. Without zoning, more of those buildings would be replaced with new structures that are safe.

There's no dystopia zoning is preventing. Most of the comments I see like this have very little understanding of what it does.

[pchristensen]

> It never has.

Your point is much more valid in a car-centric (or car-enabled) world. Back when most industrial inputs and outputs moved by rail, and labor moved on foot, there were noxious and dangerous industries very close to housing. Just read up on Seattle's Skid Road. Pig farming wasn't in cities, but things like tanneries, slaughterhouses, sawmills, etc, were. Not to mention that at the time, almost everything was powered by coal.

Now, with electrical transmission and flexible truck-based movement of goods, it's a much safer world to let the market decide. But cities during the industrial area were really, really rough.

[Schiendelman]

And zoning didn't exist then. Zoning was created purely to keep black people out of neighborhoods. The first zoning attempts were entirely race based - SCOTUS overturned them in 1918. The same group came back and recreated zoning to keep apartment buildings out of white neighborhoods. The funny part? "Single family" zoning explicitly targeted black families, who didn't have the wealth for a house, and would buy larger houses as a two or three family collective.

Industrial zoning came much later, as a post hoc justification, long after that was an issue.

Zoning truly never has.

[goobatrooba]

Just to stress that the world is larger than the US. Zoning exists pretty much everywhere and the reasons for its introduction were diverse and mostly about quality yof life, citizen health, or city esthetics (keeping polluting businesses out).I have no view on whether what you're saying is true for the US, it is however definitely false for most other places.

[Schiendelman]

In the vast majority of the world, you can trace it to class and race. Feel free to give me an example location and I'll find you its history!

[autoexec]

> Zoning has nothing to do with separating uses. It never has. In Seattle, for instance, you absolutely can put an apartment building next to a pig farm. Nobody bothers because the market isn't interested in doing that. That also isn't atypical, zoning has never been used to pad uses away from each other like you see in Simcity.

You should have said something sooner. You could have prevented this whole mess where the government in Seattle mistakenly thought that zoning rules prevented shops from being opened in the middle of places zoned as residential. https://www.axios.com/local/seattle/2025/02/10/neighborhood-...

Maybe you've got a different definition of zoning laws, but I'm talking about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoning_laws the history of which is entirely based on "separating uses" and "padding uses away from each other"

From the wiki: "The origins of zoning districts can be traced back to antiquity.[7] The ancient walled city was the predecessor for classifying and regulating land, based on use. Outside the city walls were the undesirable functions, which were usually based on noise and smell. The space between the walls is where unsanitary and dangerous activities occurred such as butchering, waste disposal, and brick-firing. Within the walls were civic and religious places, and where the majority of people lived."

> Zoning also doesn't limit damage or impact earthquake survivability at all.

It isn't just me who thinks it does. For example, the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 provided states with grants and assistance to "update building and zoning codes and ordinances to enhance seismic safety" (https://www.nehrp.gov/about/PL108-360.htm)

As they say, "earthquakes don't kill people, buildings do." The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act came after the 1971 San Fernando earthquake and prevented the building of new structures on fault lines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alquist_Priolo_Special_Studies...) but earthquakes also cause problems beyond shaking buildings apart and making them fall onto each other and zoning can help with those other hazards too "Large water waves, such as produced by tsunamis, seiches, and dam failure or overtopping, can be anticipated in many places. Their effects can be lessened by land-use regulations similar to flood-plain zoning, restrictions on location of critical structures, and appropriate warning systems." (Seismic hazards and land-use planning - https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/cir690)

> Seeing the sky and getting sunlight are also very suspect reasoning. It is darn near impossible to find real problems there that zoning prevents.

It's harder to find examples in the US where this has gone horribly wrong because people tend to be very opposed to these situations whenever they arise. Many places have already placed restrictions to prevent worst cases.

"A number of states have enacted zoning statutes which allow municipalities to consider solar access a legitimate public purpose.56 The statutes tend to employ conventional zoning techniques, such as building height limitations, lot size restrictions and set-back requirements." (https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/cjel/article...)

Cities tend to talk about the problem in terms of skyline preservation and residents tend to talk more about access to the sky as "their view" being obstructed but folks really do care about it when a tall building takes their sun away. Recently the problem of dense urban housing and tall structures impacting access to sun and sky have gotten a boost as interest in solar power has risen.

Here's some additional info on the problem if you're interested:

https://www.groundreport.in/environment/cloud-cover-and-urba...

https://skyscrapersworld.com/skyscraper-shadows

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/architects-claim-no-shad...

https://www.architectmagazine.com/technology/this-week-in-te...

[Schiendelman]

Are you interested in learning something? I know about everything you've sent here, but my points are still true. I'm happy to talk about it.

[autoexec]

I'm not sure how your points square with the evidence, but I'm always up for new fun facts.

[Schiendelman]

I'd recommend looking up the existence of a book called Arbitrary Lines, and another called The Color of Law. If you read just the synopsis of each of those, I think you'll see that there are sources out there you're not aware of right now that offer perspectives that are well researched and scholarly and may have strong answers to what you believe.