Innovating Regulations in Urban Planning and Development

The physical form of the built environment is shaped by an assortment of standards and regulations. They provide an important, and inescapable framework from the laying out of subdivisions to the control of stormwater runoff. Regulations for the built environment are as old as civilization and date back at least to Hammurabi’s building code of 2000 BC. Desires to creatively work beyond the mundane constraints of rules and regulations and, at times, to avoid them entirely, are no doubt just as old. The subject of regulations leads to the source of how communities have been designed and built—defining how they can and cannot be built—and how these controls continue to shape the physical space in which we live and work.

Public officials, private-sector consultants, and developers generally agree that some form of control is necessary to guide growth, to ensure adequate public services, and to protect our health and safety. The problem arises when standards intended for health and safety overstep their bounds and lose their grounding in the objective measures of their benefit or in a connection with the original rationale for their existence. For example, planners and designers know that many regulations enacted under the banner of environmental preservation—such as septic rules—actually encourage development on large lots in greenfield locations rather than in existing urban areas. Others accept wide street standards and excessive parking ratios even when such adherence wastes space, increases traffic, and degrades environmental quality.

Occasionally, critics of government law and regulations pick out gross examples of ineptness and call for reforms. Because of the inherent conflicts between property owners/social critics and the regulatory agencies involved, each type of regulation often has staunch proponents and critical reformers. The net effect is one of a potentially dynamic enterprise that has often failed to be fully responsive to change and the diffusion of innovation.

How can innovation be permitted to thrive in today’s increasingly regulated environment? What are some of the options that lie ahead? Can other innovative approaches provide an option that is preferable to current practices? These are some of the questions that we have posed for this special issue. We invited submissions that referred both to theoretical principles and to practical experiences and that considered the positive and negative aspects of adapting codes and regulations. Most important, we sought to present possible alternatives to existing practices that deserve consideration.

The five selected papers represent the diversity and divergence of the issues at hand. In the opening paper: “Is the Future of Development Regulation Based in the Past? Toward a Market-Oriented, Innovation Friendly Framework,” Samuel Staley and Eric Claeys offer an alternative framework for development review and local planning. They argue that the current approach is a closed-system framework, in which innovations and change can be adopted only if they were anticipated in the local comprehensive plan or if a political majority can be convinced to support the proposal. Their alternative framework suggests that in the American legal tradition of natural rights, innovations are encouraged as long as they do not limit the rights of other property owners or the community and as long as impacts are mitigated. Such a framework, they argue, subjects land-use regulation to objective, performance-based measures and allows for easier diffusion of innovation.

Emily Talen continues this exploration into regulatory mechanisms by specifically looking at the powerful tool of zoning. Zoning has often been blamed for many of the ills of modern development, including the separation of land use, inflexibility of spatial configuration, and as a barrier to socioeconomic diversity. Her paper “Land Use Zoning and Human Diversity: Exploring the Connection” attempts to answer and provide direction to two fundamental questions: What is the current relationship between human diversity and zoning; and how can zoning, given local experience, be changed to effect more diversity?

Zoning regulations not only specify what is or is not allowed, but they also place specific exactions that directly affect urban form. One such requirement—off-street parking—is the subject of Michael Manville and Donald Shoup’s paper “Parking, People and Cities.” In contrast to streets, they argue, new off-street parking is supplied continuously, making traffic congestion worse and inhibiting street life. By eliminating off-street parking requirements or converting them from minimums to maximums, a shift from auto-centric planning to less congested, more pedestrian-friendly cities would occur.

Accommodating the pedestrian and measuring the walkability of cities is also the theme of Michael Southworth’s paper “Designing the Walkable City.” Analyzing and presenting an assessment of the current situation, Southworth argues that we must revise standards and regulations, promote public education and participation in pedestrian planning, and encourage collaboration and the interdisciplinary planning process. By presenting six criteria for designing a successful pedestrian network, Southworth provides normative steps to achieve an environment that is conducive to pedestrians.

In the concluding paper, “Implementation of EPA’s Water Quality Trading Policy for Storm Water Management and Smart Growth,” Kathleen Trauth and Yee-Sook Shin address environmental regulations and urban growth. They provide a strategy to tackle conflicts that may arise with the requirements to control non-point-source pollutants. The strategy is based on using trade-offs between developments in different portions of a watershed. The strategy is consistent with regulatory requirements in providing a means to maintain compliance with water-quality criteria in all portions of a stream while providing a community with the flexibility to allow continued development in economically important areas.

These papers illustrate the range of directions possible to innovate and improve regulations. Some offer less-orthodox methods, and others strongly advocate normative approaches. Collectively, they serve to broaden the perspective and provide a base for discussion. It is our hope that they will inspire new initiatives and stimulate debate in the often neglected area of urban regulations.