Should California Get Rid of Single-Family Zoning?

Unfortunately we have to look at other high density housing projects in the east to see the results. High rise housing with government subsidies such as Pruitt Igoe and others was a disaster. Almost all of them have been torn down. We could, from a land use perspective, build high rise housing in LA for the undocumented and African American communities. Unless financial incentives are massive the white population will not move in and white flight will ensue. Suburban homes will always be worth more than apartments.

While SB50 was directionally correct, it painted too broad a stroke. It would have allowed any R1 lot to be devided into an R4 lot anywhere in the state. I am a proponent of drastic upzoning near high capacity rail transit. And I believe that land near bus transit should be moderately upzoned. Then communities can choose between low density vs higher density that can be supported by mass transit. And developers should be assessed a fee to be used for transit projects when a lot is upzoned.

High time. I’ve been muttering about this since visiting Finland in 1981. Problem: the single family house is America’s retirement savings plan. Also: remember when in 2002 Bush 2’s solution to economic slowdown was to boost home ownership and home construction? So misguided, but so advantageous to so many eco interests.

Ca getting rid of single family zoning will turn a bad traffic and overcrowding population situation to much more of the same. On the coast in so cal the quagmire of overcrowding chased this 47 year resident out of state. Add the tax situation to the mix makes Ca unattractive for many long term residents.

Creating more housing does not remediate homelessness or poverty, as proven in other cities. Discriminatory on its face, SB50 proposed adding additional capacity for housing in mostly already overtaxed areas. While passing SB50 might have allowed taxpayers to subsidize developer growth and drive lost volume and revenue for donor Real Estate professionals, it did nothing to guarantee new housing would actually be consumed by those who need it most. How will school's, water, waste, sewer and emergency management adjust? That too will fall on the poor and overtaxed. The real racism is buried in the logic that this new housing should be added to areas in close proximity to transit. How convenient, for the rich. Wouldn't it be prudent to add transit depots and develop protected areas like Beverly Hills where overcrowding and infrastructure isn't challenged? In these kinds California neighborhoods, there's plenty of sprawl, in close proximity to jobs. Use it. After the LA riots, while the rich were ensconced in their luxury Bel-Air estates, the working poor and middle class rebuilt the very neighborhoods rich developers now claim "opportunity zones". It's not enough they gentrified once proud black neighborhoods, to the exclusion of the indigenous families who invested and built those communities. To protect their conveniently non-transit neighborhoods, they mask SB50 as altruistic but its another Constructive Taking, permissible eminent domain, a pig dressed as a unicorn.

If people could add on for parents or grown children it would be of tremendous social benefit. We could return to days when more adults in a compound meant better affordable childcare and eldercare and less loneliness. It would be better for the planet to build up rather than out. It makes it much easier to have a good working public transportation system so fewer cars. Where businesses and residences are close together biking to work even becomes possible. It frees up land for recreation and agriculture. It allows community resources like clinics, hospitals etc to be more evenly distributed. It potentially provides housing for the communities that will have to flee the waterfront.

For all the naysayers who think that higher density is the end of the world need only to look at our neighbors to the east, Japan and South Korea. Density in Tokyo and it's metropolitan area is beyond what the US will ever reach, but even if it did, Japan and SK have not only achieved that density but have found a way to still maintain a clean, orderly city that has thousands of parks, affordable restaurants and affordable housing. life will go on and the NIMBYists of CA will need to eventually deal with the growing population as every other state has. My home state of CO is dealing with the same issues of density and in fact most of the people have moved from CA to CO for more reasonable and sustainable cities and neighborhoods.

Single family zoning is perhaps the biggest environmental disaster of our history. It has built over, paved over and ornamental lawned over millions of acres of land. It has created the need for miles and miles of multi-lane freeways that are clogged with cars belching toxins into the air and leaking it into the ground. It has created a supply chain that requires tens of thousands of big rigs, more belching, more leaking. But we all want it, our little patch of ground with fenced in yard of green grass. And we sooth our guilt by crying "climate change, climate change."

Good God, can you imagine another 7.5 million people living in L.A.? It's a nightmare now.

My comment got prematurely submitted. I was saying that in older neighborhoods like San Francisco’s Victorian crescent, duplexes and triplexes and fourplexes were seamlessly—almost invisibly—mixed with single family houses. Indeed, a problem there is that recent affluente buyers are combining units, reducing the housing supply. The ostensible reason for zoning is the separation of incompatible uses. It’s best if pesticide plants are kept away from homes. The huge peak traffic flows of sports arenas require specific location. There’s nothing incompatible about a fourplex and a oneplex. Maybe there are a few extra cars on the street. But that could when existing residents buy cars for their children. Reasonable standards for light and air—not designed to prevent building—can be maintained. Zoning was quickly adapted to be a tool of exclusion. Only the affluent could meet the rules. There’s no doubt that zoning was used as a tool of racial exclusion. Today the economic exclusion remains. Zoning was not meant to “guarantee” anybody’s property value and should not be used as such (not that triplexes in an attractive neighborhood would reduce its value, they’d probably increase it). California has evolved a lot in the last 40 years. It’s time to stop playing by antiquated planning rules.

"Should California Get Rid of Single-Family Zoning?" No. But real estate developers don't like that answer, they see dollar signs and have the perfect astroturf cover for their greed.

We need to start thinking about living in single family homes as basically unethical. Pretty much no one *needs* to have their own plot of land and take up all that vertical airspace above them that could house more people. Apartment living and density is much better for the environment, because the per-person energy costs are much lower. It also makes public transportation much more feasible, and reduces the need for cars. We need to build high speed rail from city center to city center, expand public transit, get cars off the road, and get people into tall and efficient city apartments. Single family homes are simply selfish.

Our housing problems in California cannot be wished away. People move here for work. Companies like Apple are not going to pick up and move out of state. California’s population has increased with every census and will most likely continue to do so. It took us decades to get into this problem and it will take a long time to get out. Relaxing single family zoning is one of many approaches that will be needed. A German scholar noted that single family zoning is Not so draconian there. Many older N

S.B. 50 looks like a boondoggle for real estate and construction interests. I'm sure a few million more people in L.A and another million cars on the local highways won't bother them a bit. Nor will they worry about power and water consumption, new school construction, sewage treatment capacity or any other environmental or infrastructure consequence.

At no time in human history has it been less necessary to live/work in a city or region based on its ties to a particular industry. You don’t have to live near Hartford to be in insurance, Wall Street to be in finance, Detroit to be in auto manufacturing, Sn Jose to be in tech or even Ling Island to operate a boiler room. The lemming like behavior to locate in a handful or places that ironically centers around tech is entirely unnecessary.

"Local control" is the code de jeure in many (most) communities and cities used to justify the resistance to building more homes. That is the reason that SB50 and SB330 are needed in California. Local communities and cities have proven that they will resist building more units and cannot be trusted to participate in solving our housing crisis. The State needs to see the big picture and dictate that more homes be built. After all, it is not really a housing crisis, it is a people crisis, where people cannot afford a place to live.

Single-family zoning in this day and age is not inherently racist, nor is it the sole cause of rising housing costs. Some people (myself included) want a yard to have a garden, flower beds and a little space between my home and my neighbors. I don't want to share a wall. This might be the way to reverse out-migration from small, rural towns. If that's the only way I can keep my yard I'll move.

California built housing for 20 million people over the last 5 decades and it still is not enough. The state's population is now 40 million and will be 50 million by 2050. It's time to face the music and admit that the state is already way over populated. There isn't infrastructure or water for this many people.

That and the pending CA inheritance bill and I am moving my CA residence (I treasure for that leafy green quiet) to Florida or Texas. Always can come back Airbnb or short term rentals the way I do with NYC.

No one has built duplexes or triplexes in California for 40 years. It is either MacMansions or massive 6 story apartment complexes. If you live a half hour walk from a bus line that runs once an hour, they would like to bulldoze your neighborhood. And will the 2500 people who live in that complex squeeze onto the one bus? Of course not. Their cars will further clog our crumbling freeways. This is called urban planning.

No one ever thought maintaining single-family zoning would stop population growth. It can make commutes longer, but it's less of an issue now with many working from home. Single-family homes are as affordable as they always were. If they aren't in the places we want them to be affordable, well, it's always been that way too. But downzoning is ultimately a self-defeating proposition. Lowering property values so more people can live in an area drives out the people and businesses which provide jobs and economic value in a community.

Single family zoning was meant to preserve the sensibilities of middle class and striving homeowners who saw high density as contributing to squalor and the rise of tenement slums, regardless of the race of the people involved. The good life meant proper and upright living: quiet, privacy and distance. I would imagine that California communities began downsizing in response to rising immigration, just as the need for more housing was going to become pressing. Class privilege? Race privilege? I don't think it matters, but communities have a right to decide what their neighborhoods should look like.

It sounds like LA needs more low rise buildings that are 4-7 stories high. Each floor can be a spacious condo that feels like a single family home.

Single Family zoning should be ended in our largest cities. This type of zoning was originally used to segregate African Americans, prevent them from gaining equity, and isolate them from services and jobs. Single family exclusionary zoning never deserved to have a place in the 20th century, let alone continue in the 21st...

A huge problem of single-family zoning, other than housing availability, is mobility. The American model of zoning segregates housing from commercial spaces, work, entertainment, etc., forcing the suburban population to rely on cars to go anywhere. What happens when you suddenly cannot drive? Now you are confined to your own home if biking or transit is unavailable. This is a growing issue for the aging population. Zoning is necessary for public health--keeping factories away from residential zones, limiting building height that does not fit in the context of a neighborhood. However, we have to change the scope of single-family zoning to improve our cities. And California will not fix all problems by increasing mass transit. Who wants to take a bus or train if you have to walk 2 miles out of your track home development to get to the nearest transit stop?

Zoning creates assurances which bring value. If I know that no one can build a factory next to my home, or a tall building that will block out the sun, the property is more valuable. California needs to improve its mass transit, especially rail lines so there are fewer cars on the roads. We need to limit population to water capacity. Future developers should contribute to solving that problem, perhaps with desalination facilities.

"Within 20 years, according to Mr. Morrow’s research, the city’s zoning capacity had been cut to just under 4 million people. And that number has barely kept pace since with actual population growth." Maybe the problem isn't a lack of housing growth. Maybe the problem is population growth in a state where the water supply is severely constrained, an issue that climate change is only going to worsen. Articles today about Chennai, India, population 4.2 million, which has essentially run out of water. Other cities in India will soon face the same problem, while the Indian population is on track to increase by several hundred million. Quality of life vs. quantity. Which is better?