Market Urbanism

Liberalizing cities | From the bottom up

“Market Urbanism” refers to the synthesis of classical liberal economics and ethics (market), with an appreciation of the urban way of life and its benefits to society (urbanism). We advocate for the emergence of bottom up solutions to urban issues, as opposed to ones imposed from the top down.

How to Sidestep FAR Restrictions: Mezzanine Floors

By

Most municipalities use the Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) metric to restrict development within their communities.  F.A.R. is calculated by dividing the total floor area of a building by the area of the site it is built upon.  In achieving planners’ and neighbors’ questionable objective of “preserving the character” of their communities, F.A.R. is a somewhat arbitrary metric that does little to effectively regulate “character”.

In what I see as a great example of the silliness of FAR limits, a recent development in Brooklyn used an interesting, yet not unusual, method to build more space than allowed by zoning laws: mezzanine floors.  From Curbed NY:

On the blueprints as "storage space" and not calculated into the building’s overall floor-to-area ratio, the zoning-busting half-floors can be converted to living space after the fact, as long as it’s kept reasonably hush-hush—though the broker in this case eagerly told the gadfly, "Those storage spaces can be converted into living spaces after the closing." Maybe a bump on the head is to blame?

Photos from original source, Pardon Me For Asking:

 

The lengths developers are willing to go to subvert zoning, goes to show the extent that restrictions harm the marketplace.  Unfortunately, methods like this aren’t effective against more affordability-destroying restrictions such as limits on the number of units allowed on a piece of land.

Comments

  1. NYC’s original zoning code (1916-1961) did not employ a floor area ratio (F.A.R.) regulation system and was thus, conceptually speaking at least, a much better (and, also, more market urbanism-oriented) zoning code, in my opinion. If I remember correctly from what I’ve seen of the 1916 code so far, the 1916 code was much more circumspect than the current one, and it restricted itself, more or less, to regulating the kind of things that a zoning code should be, so it seems to me, legitimately regulating — the allowable negative impacts (e.g., shadows) that a given property owner can impose on others (and vice versa).

    Furthermore, it seems to me that the regulations in the 1916 code were better related to what was being regulated (e.g., the width of a street being the basis for height and set-back regulations, with the regulations for a certain width street varying from one type of zone to another). And while these regulations did differ from one zone to another (making them, indeed, “zoning” — zoned building regulations, rather than city-wide ones), the variations among the various zones were, if I remember correctly, relatively modest ones.

    Also, unlike today’s zoning, it seems to me that the 1916 code was more tolerant of a mix of uses. For instance, the South Village (which is now thought of as being a part of SoHo), was (if I’m understanding the regulations correctly) an “unrestricted zone,” which allowed for a mix of residences and light industry. (If I recall correctly, one impetus for the 1961 revision was, in fact, that planners, like James (?) Felt [someone Jane Jacobs thought of as the enemy], believed that the 1916 code was too lax in its separation of uses.)

    Today’s F.A.R.-based NYC zoning code, on the other hand, seems to be specifically set up so that “planners” (and community groups) can “regulate” (in truth, “micro-manage” and stifle) the amount and location of new development within the City. The emphasis moved from setting allowable limits (e.g., how much shadow I can create for my neighbor and how much shadow my neighbor can create for me) that might reasonably differ somewhat from one type of zone to another (e.g., manufacturing vs. residential) to making it feasible for urban planners to try to plan for (i.e., spur) or restrict development — in much the same way that economic planners once tried to spur economic development in certain sectors of the economy (and in certain localities of a nation) while retarding it in others.

  2. NYC’s original zoning code (1916-1961) did not employ a floor area ratio (F.A.R.) regulation system and was thus, conceptually speaking at least, a much better (and, also, more market urbanism-oriented) zoning code, in my opinion. If I remember correctly from what I’ve seen of the 1916 code so far, the 1916 code was much more circumspect than the current one, and it restricted itself, more or less, to regulating the kind of things that a zoning code should be, so it seems to me, legitimately regulating — the allowable negative impacts (e.g., shadows) that a given property owner can impose on others (and vice versa).

    Furthermore, it seems to me that the regulations in the 1916 code were better related to what was being regulated (e.g., the width of a street being the basis for height and set-back regulations, with the regulations for a certain width street varying from one type of zone to another). And while these regulations did differ from one zone to another (making them, indeed, “zoning” — zoned building regulations, rather than city-wide ones), the variations among the various zones were, if I remember correctly, relatively modest ones.

    Also, unlike today’s zoning, it seems to me that the 1916 code was more tolerant of a mix of uses. For instance, the South Village (which is now thought of as being a part of SoHo), was (if I’m understanding the regulations correctly) an “unrestricted zone,” which allowed for a mix of residences and light industry. (If I recall correctly, one impetus for the 1961 revision was, in fact, that planners, like James (?) Felt [someone Jane Jacobs thought of as the enemy], believed that the 1916 code was too lax in its separation of uses.)

    Today’s F.A.R.-based NYC zoning code, on the other hand, seems to be specifically set up so that “planners” (and community groups) can “regulate” (in truth, “micro-manage” and stifle) the amount and location of new development within the City. The emphasis moved from setting allowable limits (e.g., how much shadow I can create for my neighbor and how much shadow my neighbor can create for me) that might reasonably differ somewhat from one type of zone to another (e.g., manufacturing vs. residential) to making it feasible for urban planners to try to plan for (i.e., spur) or restrict development — in much the same way that economic planners once tried to spur economic development in certain sectors of the economy (and in certain localities of a nation) while retarding it in others.

  3. In the City of Kirkland, WA we’ve written into the code that floor area w/ more than 5′ of head room would count toward FAR, usually applied to attic areas, though. Our code is written in such a way as to limit ‘bulk and mass’, but I agree that it often is counter-productive toward even that end! In fact, come to think of it, one neighborhood – who has the opt-out option – chose not to have an FAR reg; and from that standpoint you could argue that the other ‘restrictions’ work better anyways to achieve the necessary balance.

  4. In the City of Kirkland, WA we’ve written into the code that floor area w/ more than 5′ of head room would count toward FAR, usually applied to attic areas, though. Our code is written in such a way as to limit ‘bulk and mass’, but I agree that it often is counter-productive toward even that end! In fact, come to think of it, one neighborhood – who has the opt-out option – chose not to have an FAR reg; and from that standpoint you could argue that the other ‘restrictions’ work better anyways to achieve the necessary balance.

Trackbacks

Meta