How long after light rail will we start to see parking lots developed?

[BrushStart]

I'm not sure. I have had some friends on the Hamtramck zoning board [[and zoning board of appeals) and they often ask that people build to street. I hear the ZBA usually doles out easy variances, though.

At some point soon, once M1 rail is built, or even while construction is occurring, Detroit needs to change its way of thinking. I anticipate that there will be developers coming to the table with projects, and the city really needs to have some tempered restraint in how they make decisions. We're entering a period where quality needs to take precedence over quantity when it comes to key development areas. We can't just accept every crap development plan because we've been desperate for anything for so long. I think the next 10 years are going to be pivotal in deciding what kind of a city Detroit is going to be.

Are we going to get back to our roots and be a walkable, transit-friendly urban city, or are we going to be like the newer, sprawl-filled, auto-centric cities with a token downtown? With the way things are trending, I'd bet my farm that urban cities are going to survive the test of time and be in-demand for generations to come. The likes of Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, and San Jose, etc, are not going to dominate forever. They are going to flame out when the cost of driving becomes prohibitive and the generation now coming of age begins to choose cities based on quality-of-life factors. And, even assuming the sunbelt cities continue to thrive, Detroit makes far more sense as an urban core than it does as an office park. There will always be people who appreciate the lifestyle only true urbanity can offer, and Detroit can be one of the select handful of cities that can offer that lifestyle outside of the East Coast.

[Detroitnerd]

At some point soon, once M1 rail is built, or even while construction is occurring, Detroit needs to change its way of thinking. I anticipate that there will be developers coming to the table with projects, and the city really needs to have some tempered restraint in how they make decisions. We're entering a period where quality needs to take precedence over quantity when it comes to key development areas. We can't just accept every crap development plan because we've been desperate for anything for so long. I think the next 10 years are going to be pivotal in deciding what kind of a city Detroit is going to be.

We need to demand quality downtown. And we also have to change some long-standing mind-sets. And, most of all, we need to get rid of PANIC and MANIA, which too often have dominated decisions. I think the M1 placement debate was a good example for starters. We need to deliberate and get what's best for the future, instead of MANIA [[we've GOT to get ON BOARD with this PROGRAM because it means JOBS, JOBS, JOBS!) and PANIC [[we've GOT to GET THIS BUILDING TORN DOWN RIGHT NOW because it's an EYESORE!).

[Mikeg]

Zoning is essentially a map of land uses. It is supported by a bunch of goals, objectives and ordinances that spell out definitions, minimums, and other legal stuff.

Zoning does little to spark a developer to develop land in a way that is to its best use. It provides the lowest common denominator. Proper land use will limit the amount of driveways, increase pedestrian and transit accessibility, allow for the best use of the land in ways that have the best impact on the social, economic, and environmental sectors.

Everybody on this thread seems to think they are a "land use planner", yet nobody seems capable of using the right terminology. Also, nobody seems able to explain how planning and zoning is applied in the real world by municipal administrators based on decisions made by elected officials [[and/or their appointees) and quite often by circuit judges through consent decrees.

I don't consider myself a planning expert by any means, but I think I acquired enough experience during a six-year stint as an appointed planning commissioner to be able to do a better job of explaining it than I'm seeing here.

A community that is properly planned and zoned should have at a minimum:

a) an adopted Master Development Plan that is based on the community's vision of the "highest and best land use" for all areas in the municipality. The Master Plan should include a map showing where certain categories of private land uses [[industrial, commercial, residential, etc.) and public uses [[parks, wetlands, etc.) are optimally intended to be located; this is generally described with maps showing zoning categories or classifications at the neighborhood area level [[not parcel-level detail). The Master Plan map is intended to be used as a guide for making decisions about rezoning requests for specific parcels.

b) an adopted set of zoning ordinances and regulations; these describe the various zoning classifications and the principally-permitted land uses within each and the development regulations for each type of zoning classification [[max. permitted heights, setbacks, etc.). Zoning classifications are typically described with terms such as, heavy industrial, light industrial, high-rise commercial, regional commercial, local commercial, office, high density residential, medium density residential, low density residential, etc. Land uses are the types of activity that are allowed to occur within a specific zoning classification, such as a gas station which would be allowed within all commercial zoning classifications except local commercial. A specific zoning classification does not define the "lowest common denominator" for permitted development but rather defines the most intense level of development allowed. For example a parcel with a Heavy Industrial zoning classification could be developed with a Light Industrial land use without need for rezoning.

c) a map showing the current zoning classification of all land parcels. The current land use may be at odds with either or both the current zoning map [[in which case it is a non-conforming use) and the Master Plan map. A non-conforming use may be the result of subsequent rezoning which allows them to be "grandfathered" or it could be that the owner challenged a denied rezoning request in circuit court and won a consent judgement.

d) a Planning Commission and a Board of Zoning Appeals; the elected officials serve in these roles unless they have delegated those responsibilities to appointees who serve in those roles to provide recommendations to the elected officials and/or make binding decisions outright [[typically the BZA makes decisions granting variances to the regulations while the Planning Commission makes recommendiations on rezoning requests).


The Planning Commission typically holds a public hearing whenever a parcel owner requests a rezoning. They base their recommendation for approval or denial on whether the request represents the "highest and best use" for that parcel, taking into account the Master Plan map and the existing uses on surrounding parcels. Their recommendation is then forwarded to the elected officials who hold another public hearing and then make the final decision based on the Planning Commission's recommendation, plus whatever other factors they wish to include [[those factors could be anything, including public opposition or other political considerations). The final decision could approve the requested zoning classification or a less-intense classification within that zoning category.

If the petitioner is not satisfied with the final decision, they can challenge it in circuit court. If the municipality prevails in circuit court, the zoning change granted by the final decision is then updated on the zoning map.

However, the elected officials will often agree to a consent judgement if they feel the municipality might lose the case [[in which case the petitioner gets everything they asked for). The consent judgement can be for the requested zoning or a lesser intense version within that category, but it can also include restrictions on the development that are above and beyond the regulations in the zoning ordinance for that land use [[the ability to impose tighter restrictions can sometimes make a consent judgement even more attractive to the municipality). However, a land use granted by a consent judgement is not considered a rezoning and it is not reflected on the zoning map.

[ghettopalmetto]

That's all and terrific, Mikeg--if you want to build a place a that looks like Troy. "Neighborhood-level" zoning? Sounds like "pods" of isolated, single-use land-planning to me!

I mean, how does an appointed board of commissioners know what a good place for "corporate research campus" is, as I have seen on some zoning maps? What if I want to build a modest mixed-use neighborhood or a golf course on that land? Now I have to get a God damned variance from "corporate research campus"! How do the planning commissioners determine where to put the neighborhood of $300,000 homes versus those that cost a measly $285,000?

Now, I'm not saying that someone should be able to start a pig farm on Woodward. But I think Woodward would be better served by a form-based zoning regulation, like the kind that were used before "experts" took over the micromanagement of everything after World War II. It's the kind of regulation that created Detroit in its heyday, and it can work again.

Cities are messy, complex places. You can't possibly hope to put a few self-interested "community leaders" with no other hobbies in charge of determining what "highest-and-best-use" means for every half-acre in the city. Because really, how do they know? It's over-planned micromanaging at its finest. Do you think people in horn-rimmed glasses and blue-hair wigs sat in a wood-paneled room in Manhattan in 1890 and said, "This is how we're going to zone New York City--this parcel can be a restaurant but only if it doesn't serve Italian food, this parcel can be a five-story apartment building as long as 20% of the residents are Irish [[otherwise we'll only permit a four-story building), a hot dog stand can go right smack-dab here, but dare not five feet from there, and here's a good spot for a haberdasher to locate, as long as it's not within six blocks of another haberdasher..." The thought of it is absurd, at best.

Show the developers what the hell you want the place to LOOK like, rather than trying to dictate the real-estate market to them.

[BrushStart]

Show the developers what the hell you want the place to LOOK like, rather than trying to dictate the real-estate market to them.

I agree, but I think what you have to do is show them through the use of zoning classifications, i.e. we've determined that the neighborhood "Woodward Midtown" is optimally served by high-rise commercial and medium density residential. Furthermore, permitted buildings classified in this group are those that are yay tall and yay wide, with entrance ways that abut the street.

[ghettopalmetto]

I agree, but I think what you have to do is show them through the use of zoning classifications, i.e. we've determined that the neighborhood "Woodward Midtown" is optimally served by high-rise commercial and medium density residential. Furthermore, permitted buildings classified in this group are those that are yay tall and yay wide, with entrance ways that abut the street.

Frankly, it seems that if you want an "urban" city, you need to remove as many restrictions as possible on the development. That's not to be confused with a laissez-faire uber-capitalist approach. It's just that if suburbia as we know it is the natural product of over-regulation, then it follows that less regulation produces something less similar.

In other words: call the corridor "mixed-use". Ban heavy industrial uses, but permit residential/offfice/retail without getting too specific. Create some limitations: maximum setbacks from the sidewalks, provisions for alleys, maximum parking requirements, standards of materials to be used, minimum percentage of property to be occupied by the building, etc. In other words--let the zoning govern the construction of the buildings themselves, and not the usage of the space [[which is what suburban zoning regulations do). It can even be done with pictures. It's that easy.

And since a form-based zoning regulation already permits a multitude of uses, there is absolutely no need for every developer to seek a variance every time he wants to build any damned thing at all = cut red tape. Win win.

[Detroitnerd]

Yeah, I got the sense from MikeG's description that he was working for someplace with broad-brush zoning and such.

[detmsp]

But zoning regulations can also dictate setback lines [[minimum or maximum), width of sidewalk required, minimum/maximum number of parking spaces, where parking is permitted to be constructed, maximum floor area ratio, building heights, things like that. All of those factors contribute to how the land is used. That's why I don't understand the distinction between "zoning", which is the legal statute used to effect "land use" policy.

In Houston you can build a skyscraper in the middle of a residential neighborhood. In Detroit you can't. That's the difference.

[Detroitnerd]

I guess broad-brush zoning "worked" in the postwar period. Like look at Sterling Heights. They had a rail line through there, zoned it industrial, set up large residential areas and commercial strips and basically handed it over to the developers. The developers took it from there. They knew they were going to build new housing, new factories, new shops. They allotted a certain amount of space and expected it to fill up.

In the city, though, shouldn't it be a little different? Shouldn't it be more mixed use? Doesn't it sometimes make sense to have a residential tower next to an office tower? With air-scrubbers and pollution controls, can't you have light industry [[everything from pickling to medical marijuana to cigar-making) in a residential or commercial area? I see the need to argue for a certain flexibility in a city. Zoning was designed to "solve" problems that cropped up in newly built areas. Don't we need another toolbox dealing with a settlement laid out in the 1810s?

[j to the jeremy]

GP, while zoning can include details like setbacks, parking, etc, it is usually possible to get exemptions as long as you have a good plan laid out. In suburban environments, the reason we have so much mindless sprawl architecture is because most builders don't care to make things too hard on themselves, and just do whatever's allowed. The reason so many small town downtowns got wrecked in the 80s is because many places simply didn't zone for mixed uses. Thus, streetwalls got replaced with one story supermarkets and hardware stores, set back in seas of parking

[DetroitPlanner]

But zoning regulations can also dictate setback lines [[minimum or maximum), width of sidewalk required, minimum/maximum number of parking spaces, where parking is permitted to be constructed, maximum floor area ratio, building heights, things like that. All of those factors contribute to how the land is used. That's why I don't understand the distinction between "zoning", which is the legal statute used to effect "land use" policy.

Zoning is the cop. It keeps the nudie bars where you want them and the factories where you want them. It is the lowest common denominator. Variances in zoning allow for either better or worse conditions.

Zoning is a tool used by government. You can have a skilled craftsmen [[zoning board, site plan reviewers, those willing to push the envelope to get something better) or a schlub who don't know any better using that same tool and get very different outcomes. Thats why land use is more important than zoning in most cases. Zoning came out of the world of Jacob Riis who advocated for better conditions for those living in New York slums. Unfortunately much of it was witten by lawyers 50+ years ago.

[Wesley Mouch]

In Houston you can build a skyscraper in the middle of a residential neighborhood. In Detroit you can't. That's the difference.

When I was there, it looked like they mostly were built downtown.

So by that standard, it looks like there's no real difference between zoned and unzoned -- except lots of energy and hot wind that discourage developers.

Developers don't want to build skyscrapers in residential neighborhoods. Unless they think they can change that neighborhood. And guess what, that's really OK. Some houses can be found elsewhere.

And what about the poor residents? Well, after the skyscraper is built, the house next door is worth a whole lot. The money will help them get over their pain.

[Hermod]

I guess broad-brush zoning "worked" in the postwar period. Like look at Sterling Heights. They had a rail line through there, zoned it industrial, set up large residential areas and commercial strips and basically handed it over to the developers. The developers took it from there. They knew they were going to build new housing, new factories, new shops. They allotted a certain amount of space and expected it to fill up.

In the city, though, shouldn't it be a little different? Shouldn't it be more mixed use? Doesn't it sometimes make sense to have a residential tower next to an office tower? With air-scrubbers and pollution controls, can't you have light industry [[everything from pickling to medical marijuana to cigar-making) in a residential or commercial area? I see the need to argue for a certain flexibility in a city. Zoning was designed to "solve" problems that cropped up in newly built areas. Don't we need another toolbox dealing with a settlement laid out in the 1810s?

Yes, in the city it should be different.

Build the worker flats right next to the factory so they can walk to work.

The nomenklatura can have dachas by the river.

[Detroit Stylin]

Yes, in the city it should be different.

Build the worker flats right next to the factory so they can walk to work.

The nomenklatura can have dachas by the river.

LMBAO @ that....