"Many suburban towns took exactly this tack in the mid-twentieth century, zoning for large lots and only single-family homes in an effort to price the poor, especially minorities, out of the area."

Are you certain about that? Do you have statistics for this? It's my impression that communities that wanted to keep the "undesirables" out just did it through restricted covenants (before they were struck down) or through "selective marketing" (e.g. redlining). I guess it comes down to what sort of "large lots" you're talking about. I agree that places like Chevy Chase were cut-up in a way to build expensive homes only, but when you start talking about towns with 1-2 acre zoning, I think it has more to do with preventing the town from turning into a suburban waste-land.

And frankly, I think this is still a legitimate objective. I wish more of NoVa looked like Western Loudon and not Eastern Fairfax.

One problem with this is that it may have to effect of pushing sprawl even further out. But if the town is far enough out, it ought to have large-lot zoning to prevent suburban sprawl. If Fairfax and Prince William had a stricter sub-division policy, then the worst of the sprawl may have been contained.

In my book, policies should be put in place to protect rural-suburban areas, expand urban areas and minimize the in-between.

by Reid on Jun 23, 2008 3:36 pm • link • report

Here's an article about FHA policies like "redlining" that effectively and sometimes intentionally promoted housing segregation.

Also see Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel. The town admitted (see page 6) that their zoning was intended to exclude lower-income people.

Obviously, few people admit to having racial motivations, but use "code words" like "undesirables", and sometimes the racial motivation was pretty thinly veiled as in Birmingham, Alabama.

I got many of those links from this article. Here's an overview of the literature on the topic; the relevant part starts at the bottom of page 3.

by David Alpert on Jun 23, 2008 4:04 pm • link • report

Large-lot zoning *is* suburban sprawl. The strip malls are just farther apart, and the gas consumption is just an order of magnitude higher if that's the exclusive landform.

I grew up in large-lot zoning.

by Squalish on Jun 23, 2008 4:13 pm • link • report

"Large-lot zoning *is* suburban sprawl."

I disagree with that. Our at least I believe it is a different sort of sprawl that is less harmful environmentally speaking, based on the simple fact that large-lot zoning results in just a lot fewer people.

I also grew up in a two-acre zoning town. While my lifestyle was probably no different than someone growing up in your average suburbia, there were less than 15,000 in my town. The density was something around 500 per Sq. mile. I suppose that's suburban rather than rural, but it's hardly Levittown.

As for the race and class issues, well all I can say is that it's a lot more complicated than those rather unbalanced articles would have you think.

by Reid on Jun 23, 2008 5:10 pm • link • report

Reid: two-acre zoning makes it feel more environmentally friendly, but you're just ultimately spreading the people out over more land area. And then they have to drive even more. Is the energy consumption per person lower in two-acre zoning? I can't see how. It's only lower when you have walkable areas and reduce car trips, and even lower in urban areas where one unit's waste heat can benefit another.

As for the racism, you can choose not to believe it, but there's plenty of evidence. Some places were overt, some places were covert, some did it without realizing it, but ultimately these rules had the effect of segregating. Same for school districts—look at some of the school district boundaries in Westchester or Long Island and it's hard to come up with a rational reason other than race and class.

Upper middle class white people wanted to live in towns with only other upper middle class white people and go to schools with only other upper middle class white people. Invariably, they found a way.

by David Alpert on Jun 23, 2008 5:16 pm • link • report

2-acre zoning is the opposite of environmentally friendly. anytime intact forests, grasslands or wetlands (seasonal or otherwise) are torn up/dried up and replaced with houses, lawns, driveways, roads, and people other species lose habitat. 10 people spread out over 20 acres is a hell of a lot worse for the environment than 10 pepole within 5 acres and 15 acres in tact, roadless, undisturbed by humans.

by Bianchi on Jun 23, 2008 6:34 pm • link • report

"Reid: two-acre zoning makes it feel more environmentally friendly, but you're just ultimately spreading the people out over more land area."

Not necessarily. I'm not suggesting that everybody should live in two-acre zoning (nor that they create less pollution per person). What I'm suggesting is that given a fixed amount of land around a city, I'd rather push more land into one of two categories: dense or open, less inbetween. Of course I'm not saying not to build walkable urban spaces, I'm just saying that in a choice between typical suburban sub-divisions and two acre zoning, I'd rather have more of the later.

I'm not suggesting that this is the more egalitarian answer. It isn't. But so what? If an 100 acre farm nowhere near transit is going to be broken up and sold, wouldn't it be better for the environment to have 50 homes built on it than 250 (and yes, zero would be the best). The "it just spreads it around" argument only works if there is some place to spread it around to. If enough of the counties around DC had been less laissez faire about the density of the subdivisions, the denser areas would have no choice but to become more dense. Would that create more towns of just upper-middle class white people? I guess. But if the goal is to keep people living in dense areas (sometimes against their wills) then maybe that's an ugly bargain worth taking.

It's not like the normal alternative to two acre zoning is to build city-like density. If you got rid of restrictive zoning in large-lot towns, you're more likely to end up with South Riding, not Dupont Circle.

Tying back to the Burtonsville example: sure it's great to create a village where people can live a walkable distance to the supermarket, but isn't there a chance that this development would draw residents even further out and away from transit and their jobs then they currently live?

by Reid on Jun 23, 2008 6:45 pm • link • report

Reid -

"If an 100 acre farm nowhere near transit is going to be broken up and sold, wouldn't it be better for the environment to have 50 homes built on it than 250 (and yes, zero would be the best). The 'it just spreads it around' argument only works if there is some place to spread it around to."

What you describe is the *crux* of suburbia, the worst example that blogs like this exist to counter. "Gas is cheap, we want a pseudo-isolated home, we want to pretend we're living in the wilderness, we want to get away from the horrors of city living[race, crime, youth, noise, pollution, traffic], and the annoyances of living near industry and commerce." Your example is the archetype of what makes people around here cringe - and I'm surprised you don't realize that.

It's why from the DC city line out to Frederick we have an unbroken sea of identical 'communities' of single family homes. Asphalt and bluegrass are the primary landform. Streams are paved over. Farms are divied up. Deer and squirrels are the only wildlife, and you primarily see them ran over. Nobody lives within walking distance of where they work, play, learn, or shop. The car is the only practical mode of transport. Nobody knows more than one or two neighbors. The nearest thing anybody knows as 'nature' is the drainage pond required by environmental regulations from when they levelled the neighborhood, or sparse woods used as buffer zones between the houses and the highway.

As to why your specific example is unacceptable - building 50 homes there instead of 250 means that four other farms get bulldozed, which are even farther (more oil intensive) from civilization, requiring their own exurban Wal-Marts, killing more of the countryside... the end result is one long blanket of cars-only suburbia to exist from here to LA.

My problem with suburbia, though I respect the aesthetic, environmental, and cultural reasons to be opposed to it, is primarily sustainability. Unless it learns to respect urban life, this country is going to bankrupt itself attempting to keep a 1950's version of The American Dream going - and if the situation with oil production is as bad as many of us think, that's going to come sooner rather than later, and make the Great Depression look downright quaint. You can't live in a place with 1-2 acre zoning without cheap oil/energy - cheap oil, a strong economy, and a subsidized road system makes it all possible.

by Squalish on Jun 24, 2008 12:51 am • link • report

I don't disagree with you. And obviously I agree that smart urban growth and planning are superior to sprawl (whether dense or sparse). My point was that none of those awful communities between DC and Frederick are large-lot zoning, they're the type of places that I think large-lot zoning *could* have prevented, had it been enacted broadly enough. The only large-lot zoning in close proximity to DC that I'm aware of is Great Falls.

Let me put it this way: I am merely saying that one way to push people into living in denser, walkable, transit-oriented spaces is to not offer them those awful communities in the first place. One way to prevent those communities from getting built is to either prevent all development period (obviously the best answer, but not always politically practicable) or ensure that what does get built will not allow many people to move in. One way to do that is through low-density zoning. Of course this only works if there's no higher density zoning even further out. If there is, then yes I agree that low-density zoning "spreads it out". But if there isn't, then I think you are more likely to keep the density closer to the city and transportation nodes, which is what we want.

by Reid on Jun 24, 2008 9:44 am • link • report

Squalish, well stated. Thank you.

by Bianchi on Jun 24, 2008 2:23 pm • link • report