U.S. Zoning, Explained 

Nice. Thank you for updating your stuff. All too many creators cover the most basic stuff first, and never update their old stuff.

How does one use 100 blades in a year? Isn't that like a blade used every 3-4 days? wtf

How do you make your map animations!? I love how clean and simple they are.

Just playing The Hits.

Really liked this update. Remaking a video and updating it, isn't bad. I think this topic is one of the most evergreen topics ever, nicely done video

yeah it sucks As someone who was born and raised in the US, I'm looking to start some sort of career outside of the US once I graduate university. There are other places that were more practically designed than the US, and I want to live in one of those places.

@@Nedliuswell leave than, I like the zoning

You can mod mixed-use lots into Cities Skylines

@@Labyrinth6000 yes as you can see in my message, I'm going to leave, thanks for re-stating that. Why do you like US zoning?

@@Labyrinth6000 you like the lack of connectivity?

Literally could fit a whole community with anything they would need on a daily basis in these lots.

you're not allowed to imagine it, because Costco needs all of the money and power, you can go to hell in what Costco is concerned. Only Costco and other rich, powerful organizations need to be allowed to live, everyone else can drop dead

Honestly a good chuck.

A whole city lol...

Yes, though Costco has redeeming qualities. Wal-Marts could fit those other things in too.

HAHAHAHHAHAHAA

I would love to see a video like that

The channel Life Where I'm From has a great video about zoning in Japan!

+1 from me. Japan does zoning best. One national zoning code for the entire country and it doesnt discriminate for "character of the neighbourhood" or having low pollution commercial or industrial uses close to homes. Life Where I'm From made an amazing video on this topic. Apparently they had a crazy housing bubble in 1970-80's and the Federal gov steps in to fix the issue by making zoning be one federal standard.

@@littlekirby6 I think the language difference is too big to understand the documents needed to have a more comprehensive video, it can work if City Beautiful get's help of a japanese researcher or youtuber doing similar videos.

Japan's zoning, summarized: "Is that a 1,000 year old temple?" "Yeah" "Next to the municipal gov't skyscraper?" "Yeah" "And an apartment block, all in the shopping district?" "Yeah" **repeat for whole country**

I got myself thinking on that as well.

Discovering HOAs exist in America blew my mind.

We're even taking away rights, like abortion, at this point. Blue states are the only ones acknowledging some basic freedoms anymore

Thanks man, I've been thinking about it for quite a long time and you have given my thoughts a perfect wording.

Hey, at least you get the gun.

Same in Ukraine, chaotic but convenient

It seems that there only needs to be two zones: industrial, with all its smoke and noise, and mixed residential-comercial. Even this division might become obsolete if factories become perfectly green.

A study once showed that with zoning and without zoning a city ends up looking about the same. The difference is that zoning creates more expense, more bureaucracy. BTW that includes "private zoning" like homeowners association agreements.

@@raylopez99 I want to believe it ends up the same but looking at the difference between US/Canada and say Europe or Japan will lead me to believe it doesn’t all end up the same.

@@Homer-OJ-Simpson Well. living in a part of the south EU where they have less strict zoning than the USA, and I have property in both areas, I find the density of the EU is higher than in the USA, simply due to geographic factors. So by and large zoning is just another hoop to jump through, does nothing but aggravate people.

What’re you talking about? SimCity and CS simplified it so much that that’s one of the major complaints by players

​@@ClementinesmWTF Yeah C:S is simpler than the actual US zoning.

@@erkinalp - Not by much, unfortunately.

Thats a game though, you have simplify for gameplay purposes

Are there any plans to reactivate that rail line running through there for passenger use? :] Thanks for sharing btw.

@@StLouis-yu9iz It's been studied in the past, but there are no active plans that I know of.

@@JCMik5646 Sounds like a great project for Pittsburgh urbanists to coalesce around then! :]

Japan comes to mind where mixed-use zoning is widespread and actually allows for the creation of lively neighborhoods with great walkability.

1930s Germany. Excellent Infrastructure. They are the Standard.

Maybe you should question whether zoning is moral in the first place

We do not care about the opinions of other countries. I wish people outside of America to stop telling us how to live.

​@@Labyrinth6000bruh we can learn from other countries.

They allowed Orthanc in my neighborhood as a kid. Some weirdos moved in and proclaimed the time of the orc had come. I had no choice but to move out 😢.

Lol true! Plus Orthanc further violated zoning restrictions when it added an industrial area to its residential facilities, not to mentioni violating the protected open space.

@@ThePoopantsPlayers Lol

So is hobbiton the low density suburb of middle earth?

Things got a little more flexible with Wormtongue on the zoning board

this is a really good comment, how bad does a residential area get affected when turned into a r3??? from r1 to r3

definitely agree, cycling and walking are amazing for people’s health and more cities should be encouraging it as opposed to car dependance

Still better than India LOL

@@Sam_FIFA And a lot worse than Germany, France, the Netherlands etc.

I prefer to live in exclusive neighborhoods than the city streets with crime folk.

@@MilitantPacifistawe don’t care about their opinions, stay on their side of the pond.

@@Labyrinth6000 one of the reason cities are so shit in the US are these zoning laws

Many small towns below 15k population have been abandoned after WW2. Many people have been displaced into suburbs, inner cities, farms, isolated gas stations, and car mechanic shops to earn their bread. Passenger railways have either been demolished or converted over to freight rails, so that’s another reason why townships are so car centric. Difficult to say what will happen in the future, as most of our infrastructure systems fall apart, interest on decades long debt accumulates more, and we have less skilled tradesmen to do the heavy lifting. We’re basically living in a century of decline.

Large lot size requirements in low density housing often means that people use way too much extra water trying to keep their yards green.

​​@@nicokelly6453 people on the east coast/ southeast have little need to water their lawns. We have plenty of annual rainfall that keeps grass green for most of the year. Some grass may brown in the winter.

If anything, I'd think that areas that live in desert/drought conditions are more fitted to contract and limit sprawl by necessity, no?

@@jatsko3113 People refuse to believe that their way of life (sprawling suburbs) are contributing as much to the drought as it is. My town has tried limiting water usage, but it's more of a suggestion than anything. They don't want denser living "ruining their picturesque downtown" which draws in millions of dollars in tourism every year. My city council also somehow let two (250 homes total) subdivisions be built on the fringe of our city limits, which completely baffles me as I've heard them quote water shortages as their primary reason for not allowing denser living.

part of the number is probably as much or more to do with the fact Japan has a very odd habit of demolishing homes when someone new buys a property. It's really wasteful as often just doesn't need to be done. Whereas int he west, the UK and north America at least, we do not demolish enough old low quality housing stock. I'm all for implementing japanese zoning (paticularly in the UK where it would really address the major issues of total endless nimbyism) but one thing japan is terrible at is historic preservation. That's the biggest area of improvmenet there is to make with Japanese zoning.

@@mytimetravellingdog thats also historical and has to do with the way the gov subsidized housing back in 1980s. The old houses deteriorated quickly due to lack of earthquake resilience. They basically made it so your house was worthless after 30 years so it created this societal expectation. Also they dont consider housing as an investment. They treat it as any other basic need. highly recommend you watch the Life Where I'm from video regarding this.

Where I grew up, they are! I can't understand why anybody would oppose having restaurants, cafes or corner stores mixed in with residential streets. There is literally no downside. People's first reaction is sometimes that it will bring traffic... No... Having more options within walking distance will reduce traffic.

contemporary gentrification in city centers (at least in Europe) is that dynamic going full circle lol

Maybe some people prefer to self segregate by nature, don’t you ever think of that?

​@@Labyrinth6000I've never met someone that chose to be poor (unless they were gambling)

​​@@Labyrinth6000 American cities were generally very integrated in the early 1900s. These racial housing covenants mostly came into existence in the 40s and 50s with the rise of the modern suburb. If people all wanted to self-segregate, why didn't they before the racial zoning laws, and why did those guidelines have to be created in the first place?

@@Labyrinth6000 Redlining

@@jamesjesus1828nobody chooses to be poor but that’s not what he said.

This is in line with many zoning codes in the US BTW

​@@SBKWaffles Except US cities seldom have mixed use zones.

Dortmund oder Kaiserslautern?

Does the goverment set restrictions of plot ratio to each type of use?

@alreel9147 Your Typo was bought to your attention?

It's common, but depends on the utility of those measures for the jurisdiction. Baltimore has at least 10 different residential zoning classifications, many of which include only fine distinctions, e.g. there are two zonings that are each identical to others for density, but one permits semidetached and one doesn't.

100%. The fear of what it will do to their property values is completely illogical though. Having walkable amenities ALWAYS (without exception) increases property values. Car dependent suburbs are always the cheapest and poorest areas.

No, because they're the same colors as SimCity classically was. It's just become a standard game colorscheme.

That would be a dream

They do very much exist outside the US. I grew up in mixed use suburbs that were predominantly (but not exclusively) single family homes, very family friendly with quiet leafy streets, and had extremely low crime, tons of parks, good schools, and all the kids played on the street and ride bikes around. But in my suburb, and the next, and the next, you were never more than a 15 minute walk from a train station and vibrant little shopping street, and the mixed zoning also meant we had things like quaint little cafés, restaurants, video stores and fish n chip shops scattered around the corners of residential streets too. I didn't even bother getting my driver's license until I was 19, I didn't need a car. Yet we lived in a 4 bedroom house on a large block. It baffles me that anybody would oppose relaxing zoning laws to allow that, or "fear" that it would bring crime or reduce property values. My only theory is that those people must be incredibly insular, ignorant or irrationally fearful. The idea that a café opening near a house will bring crime or reduce property values is just ridiculous, it does the opposite. Lively streets are safe, desirable streets and so much better for kids.

You are right. Land use in China is pretty different from some western countries. Actually, every 15 years, the Chinese local government makes land use planning of their city for the next 15 years. The scheme may include zoning, concrete land use and economic development target of each district of the city. So basically, most developers have known what can be built in certain areas many years before they decided to bid for the right to use the land. But it also takes the government a lot of time to decide which one could get it. So it's not easy for cities like Shanghai to have a new building in the city proper.

i agree. keep industrial, and agricultural seperate, but most places are better off mixed use

Jobs and grocery stores can never be near homes. It's a soviet-style city planning fantasy. It doesn't work. People need to work where whey are most needed, not where the city planner says they should. And people can not change their homes every time they change a job as some of even modern-day new-urbanists propose.

@Vlad VsyaRusi i litteraly live in an apartment with grocery store at the first storey and i dont see whats the problem with this,i litteraly walk down the stairs and i m at the store to buy food

@@vladvsyarusi3458 jobs and grocery stores absolutely should be near homes. The reason why america is so fat is because of how often we need to drive to do anything

@@cheflos Every job possible job being near one's house is impossible. Don't fall for this idea, it's been tested in USSR and it doesn't work well even in the most totalitarian systems where the government tells you where to live and where to work and how you are paid. And it is absolutely incomparable with an efficient economy that provides a good standard of living.

@@vladvsyarusi3458 I’m not saying every job possible needs to be within walking distance, nor am i saying that the government has to choose your job. What I’m saying is that there should be jobs available within walking distance, especially like ones in grocery stores. People who cant drive due to age or economic factors are effectively immobile in most residential areas of cities and need the help of someone else to drive them. Should an elderly couple have to rely on the assistance of good neighbors to bring them groceries? Or should a teenager who can legally work but can’t legally get their license have to walk two hours to their grocery store bagging job? Many sprawling suburbs don’t have good public transit connections to the city where all the jobs are. Preventing jobs and stores near where people live only serves to isolate us from one another.

I’m a planner and I can tell you it’s not the planner these days, it’s the NIMBYS.

@@hikki6089 I agree with you that they can stop or influence a lot of projects. At the same time the extraordinary amount of zoning code that acts as straightjacket for any development kills creativity and make most cities and neighborhoods like a copy of a copy of a copy. We design for cars not humans.

i think zoning needs to be simplified a lot. we don’t need so many zones. agricultural, industrial, and mixed use is all we need. make space for farming, don’t build industrial stuff near homes, and that’s it

Maybe people prefer to self segregate by nature and choice? What’s wrong with that? I know houses in nicer neighborhoods have much more valuable over the poorer neighborhoods. I remember back in high school in the early 2010s, people by majority still prefer to stay in groups of their own race during lunch break. Also, I’ve been in major cities like “little” China town Houston and I come across those who openly hate any others of the same race of another country like Vietnamese, Korean, and Thai. Same with “little Mexico” (I have family there) who really hate those from Guatemala, Honduras, etc. I’d highly suggest you go outside and see for yourself.

You are countering an argument I never made.

They only have 13 zones if I remember correctly, and that applies on a national level.

There is a barbershop there with mostly black barbers too. One of mine from nyc moved out there

They should strike down homelessness and crime, perhaps that would make it a responsible sheltered city.

@@MrPolandball Increased density should deal with homelessness since poor people will be able to afford housing.

@@MrPolandball They’ll have a lot of work to do to accomplish that

Let’s say you are living in a single family home. Your home is in a neighborhood rated as R1. R1 is for single family homes. R2 is for duplex homes. R3 & R4 are for multiple families on that same property size. Then you have C1-4 for commercial properties and I1-4 for Industrial structures. Would you like it if your newborn was using his property for his RV repair business? Where he is parking other RVs all along the street in front of his property as well as in front of your property? The home across from you is housing a pharmacy. But it’s a pharmacy for illegal drugs. The house on the other side of your house is a mom& pop market that sells liquor without a license. Alcoholics are using your yard as their toilet. And customers from across the street are using your front yard to shoot their drugs into their bodies. Then they leave the needles, bottles, and other trash in your yard. House behind you is a shooting range, bullets are zipping over and through your house on a daily basis. And you are trying to raise your family there? Police wouldn’t be able to stop any of these activities from happening. But because of zoning laws, they can shut them down.

This is purely american in netherlands there is also zoning but its way more free with different types of homes

Most apartments I've applied for anywhere require you to make 3x the monthly rent. They want to make sure you can afford rent along with your other bills, and perhaps they want you to have some money left over at the end of the month. If you didn't make the income restriction, you had to show you have 12 months of rent in savings (or it could have been more, maybe 3 years?)

@@skibumshwn Damn 4 months seems like a long time ago now. Now I have much better working knowledge about what's going on 'behind the scenes.' And yes, it _is_ classism. Or at least _mostly_ classism. It's also about creating artificial demand, maintaining a monopoly with the other properties, and catering to the rich, because rich people will pay INSANE amounts of money for exclusivity. Most properties will take in _very_ few renters at a time, regardless of how many apartments they have open. They do this because they're all working together to fabricate demand and keep their own and each others' prices up. This is called a monopoly and it's very illegal. There's also a secret blacklist they all share that you'll be put on if you exercise your rights against them in court. If you've ever stood in front of a judge against a landlord/property manager/king shit asshole, then you're going to have a hard time finding an apartment in the future. That's the real reason we have homeless people. They can afford rent just fine. But nobody will rent to them because they stood up for themselves. There's also the issue of classism and catering to the rich. The rich are piss scared of sharing air with the poor. And I mean they are downright _TERRIFIED_ of it. As they should be, after what they've done. And that fear is the driving force for only moving into Richy Rich neighborhoods. If just one poor person moved in (obviously a mistake by the landlord/property manager/king shit asshole), they would swiftly be evicted for some made up non-sense reason. Maybe even a felonious made up reason. Like arson. They want rich people in their properties so bad, they don't even care if the rich ever pay their rent. But hard working, dedicated poor people who can carefully manage their budget and thus afford the same property, will be accused of arson, get evicted, and possibly serve time for it. The takeaway from this is private property should be abolished. Human lives shouldn't be put into the hands of the private sector. This blatant corruption has gone on long enough. Their bottomless greed is forcing the government to get involved. The fall of western society will be the fault of the rich. I can't believe how far I've come in 4 months.

@@techmouse. Wow. Yes there is a sorting into classes with property values and rent prices. Each person individually tries to move up in the class system to separate themselves from the lower class. Rightfully so. None of this is necessarily the product of the landlord though. New construction has a minimum break even point where there needs to be a minimum rent price. Some people won't be able to afford this. Other properties may have been constructed 50 years ago, be owned outright and can rent for a lower than market rate. Poorer people typically move into these as they can afford to. I'm not sure how you suggest we decide who lives in what house/apartment if not by affordability. Do we randomly assign people to random houses/apartments? Does government build only one type of house at one price point? I think we have those; they are called "The Projects" and no one likes them. What's the issue with you not being able to afford the new apartment that you want to move into? One can move to Omaha or a small rural town and rent a house for $400-500 a month (my family has a rental property and the tenant pays $400 a month an a home build in the 1800s). If one can't afford the cool downtown apartment, then move elsewhere. I don't understand this "I can't afford it so no one should have it" attitude.

@@techmouse. Or get roommates. In college my friends rented living rooms and shared rooms with friends.

One friend rented the half-basement (4' in height) for $80 a month. Another rented a shed for $25 a month. Perhaps governments should stop dictating how and where people live so they can find affordable housing. Some municipalities restrict a house to only three unrelated people. 1/5th of the mortgage is cheaper than 1/3rd...

I think a lot of people living there fear what might be built next to them if the zone was changed. Imagine having a nice house with a garden on a nice quiet street and then one day finding out that the plot next door to yours is going to be developed into an apartment block, car park or some offices. It would have a significant impact on the whole street and many people like the low density housing.

@@bluemountain4181 not only that, but there is a consistent fear that greater density will lead to a devaluation of their home. If you’re in Cali and paid 2mil for a 2 bedroom, you’re not interested in people only being willing to pay 1mil for it 20 years down the road. Ideally, you support policies that will make your home worth 4mil

People constantly going on about "property values". They think that more diversity and corner shops and frequent transit nearby will lower their property values, while the opposite is true. Or more likely, they don't want to live among "those people", whoever that might be, and use all kinds of excuses to keep suburbia as it is, with its useless large monocultural front gardens, setback requirements, bad walkability etc.

You won't find many in the comments section of urbanist videos for sure. I live in R1 and I strongly prefer it to other options... but I can see commercial zones from my backyard (I can easily walk to a grocery store and a dozen restaurants). I also have just enough space to have a dog, to safely ride a bike, and my neighborhood is pleasant and quiet to walk in. It probably helps that I'm on the edge of the neighborhood rather than deep in the middle of it... but I definitely get the appeal of a quiet street, prolific parks and trails, and not being able to touch my neighbors out the window (though the houses arent *that* far apart). I will say that I wish there was more mass transit, particularly trains, to and through the 'burbs. Sadly people who want great public transit and people want to live in the suburbs don't overlap much. I also think that remote work may allow for less dense housing options in the long run, which will decrease the need to build ever increasing density in urban cores. There are obviously a lot of people who want to be in city centers, but a big problem is that thats where most of the jobs are... and it snowballs on itself as more concentrated jobs means more desire to live in an area, which drives up housing costs and limits the space available to any individual or family. Maybe half-empty office towers in S.F., NYC, and other places will diminish demand for housing in those places, bringing down housing costs along with it. Anyway... some of us like R1, but since a significant number of videos on this channel demonize it, you probably won't get too many folks here defending it, and even fewer being willing to admit as much.

​@@patrickmcclanahan2856but that just worsens the affordability crisis.

The Minneapolis Federal Reserve (Federal Reserve data is great for getting housing information) has a couple of articles on this titled "Twin Cities region sees a year of lukewarm progress against persistent housing challenges" and "Multifamily construction surged in Ninth District during pandemic" both from 2022 (the latter includes broader looks across the Federal Reserve 9th district). The upshot is the zoning changes don't seem to have done much. There has been a shift to more multi-family unit construction, but that's not unique or even uniquely large in Minneapolis. The entire country has, for the past several years in a trend that pre-dates the pandemic, had the largest boom in multi-family unit construction since the 80s. There is also good data with the Atlanta Federal Reserve's Home Affordability Monitor. That last part is about ownership rather than rent costs, but is relevant still. The Minneapolis metro is one of the most affordable ones to buy a home outside of rust-belt in decline cities (which don't really work as a point of comparison since new construction isn't needed to drop housing prices when population, especially the wealthy population, of a city is declining). But Minneapolis is, for instance, more affordable when considering median income vs median home cost than any major metro in Texas for instance or really anywhere in the Sunbelt. But it was also more affordable to own than these areas before the zoning changes too. What I take from the data we have so far is that zoning reform will either take longer than 2 years to have a noticeable impact (a point that could be true given the time it takes for a lot of construction of larger units and the time it takes to build up the money for things like ADUs) or zoning reform isn't really a significant route to affordability in most of the country. While I think both play a part, I do believe that the 2nd alternative is going to be more relevant to a lot of areas. That's in large part because zoning reform in academic studies don't find major impacts on prices, typically findings effects of well under 10% of the price. What that indicates to me is that zoning most of the US is at most just a minor addition to existing market demand for lower density. The US generally has a lot of land compared to it's population (compared to most countries) and a population that largely can afford car ownership, with the result being demand for sprawling outward. In essence, we're rich (relative to other areas) and therefore through that money around in wasteful patterns of development and use local governments to give relatively minor boosts to that tendency (the bigger boosts come from the state and federal levels with the support for highways). If the US is really going to change it's urban fabric it will either take maintaining the current rate of multi-family construction for a very long time (the highest levels of construction since the 80s means a lot less when we've got a hundred million more people AND smaller household sizes), or it's going to take real attacks on federal and state highway spending and redirection to active transport (walking/cycling) and transit. If we try to just raise spending to do both expanding cars and expanding non-car transportation, cars will win out simply due to greater familiarity and current use.

The "middle suburbs" of Australian cities are/were similar. While they share a similar character to low density US suburbs, they are built around train/metro stations only about 800m (1/2 mile) apart, which are each the anchor of a "Main Street" style shopping strip. So pretty much all houses in these relatively compact suburbs are within a 15 minute walk of that. Plus corner stores/businesses scattered throughout too. It's actually excellent suburban planning because you can have single family homes and cars, BUT also be

What are green area shortages?

@@ianhomerpura8937 very few and limited in space, compared to population density

What about the 1906 earthquake which also created a fire that destroyed so many buildings due to them being connected to each other? Zoning prevents that from happening.

Hopefully more efficient water use, because central and southern California have no water

@@Labyrinth6000 While it's true it is harder to have fires spread with distance between buildings, that's not the reason we don't see mass city fires in the developed world in the many densely packed areas we still have. Indeed the old school Great Fires don't really show up almost anywhere now. The reasons for that are multi-factor. First, more effective fire departments. Also, building codes with good fire prevention. In addition, less use of open flames for cooking/lighting/heating. And finally, better awareness in the population on fire prevention. Now fires either tend to be contained to single buildings, or they tend to be wildfires that enter into built-up areas (most notably in the US west where the primary victims of wildfires are single-family zoned areas).

@@TheScourge007 There's also another point here that fires in single family zones tend to be fast, hot, and propagate with the wind. Pioneer species tend to take root in neglected greenfield developments, and pioneer species also tend to be more flammable, they grow fast and without the need for much water. This is mostly also because those pioneer species tend to have adapted for growth in high-fire areas already. New growth forests with fast growing monocultures or even minor variance in trees (usually imposed by regulatory agencies on logging companies) burn hotter and faster than old growth forests that have a lot of ecological diversity. Ecological diversity that helps to cut down on the level of highly flammable underbrush and replace it with underbrush that retains a much larger amount of water. The ecosystem has adapted to the relative rate of change that occurs in nature, humans have accelerated this change, and thus allowed pioneer species and invasive species to thrive.

@@234fddesa great points!

It's the same reason why you dont want someone building a gas station next to your home in the middle of a block of single-family homes. Modify zoning? Sure. But dont act like people give up the right to opposition of whatever some developer wants to plop next to your house.

Yeah, a lot of the criticism of zoning reform is overblown. No one is going to put a 10-story apartment building in a low-density neighborhood.

the funniest thing to me is that suburbanites really hate that shit, but the only thing usually separating those types of huge commerical high rises and apartment buildings from their single family homes are like, walmarts, and parking, and really shitty fast food centers and strip malls, and 7 lanes of driving infrastructure. At that point you could honestly put the single family home right next to the super overbuilt high rises, I'd much prefer that.

@@danielkelly2210 There are places like that, actually. In my city, there are several places where you can see single family houses (though they are different than the American ones) on one side of the street and a row of high-rise apartment blocks on the other.

@@xandercruz900 funnily enough if you were to add those cafes and tiny little grocery shops you’d eliminate the local need for gas stations entirely

Well that is just Zoning with extra steps. Why should you be able to oppose a factory next to your home, but someone cant oppose an apartment complex next to theirs?

@@xandercruz900 Something like what you mention could definitely be incorporated into a more decentralised system. The point I was making is to avoid planners sitting down and saying "this little parcel of land here is for single-family homes, and this parcel over here is for retail, and that parcel over there is for high-density residential". Organic distance-based rules like "no very-high-density apartment complexes within X hundred metres of single-family residential" can absolutely be part of a system like that.

@@simonalger5512 That's usually not how zoning works, it's less prescriptive. This video neglected to mention that those large amounts of r1 zoning on the edge of towns, that promote suburban sprawl, are usually done that way because that's what land developers, property ownership companies, it's what they want, and it's much harder for a municipality of 100,000 with a net tax of like, 5 million, maybe, to stand up against a handful of land developers that have net worth probably in the hundreds of millions. It's cheap and easy development that's basically free for the municipalities, all the up front costs are taken care of by the land developers, and then they sell the single family homes and then the city is basically left holding the slowly rotting bag of unsustainable infrastructure maintenance.

@@234fddesa Can you provide an example of that? I think it's much more typical for public infrastructure to stop at the equivalent of "R5", or possibly half-acre zoning where septic doesn't work but wells do.

probably falls under mixed use now. a lot of stuff like that was built before zoning laws were so oppressive

@@benjaminsmith3645 Thank you for the reply. That's what I imagined from what I had researched, I was doubtful because a professor said it could be considered special use zoning. I ended up settling with mixed use, once more thanks for the help 😁🙂

I like the zoning laws, gives my house value as opposed to poor areas.

@@Labyrinth6000 yes I agree but now a days some of these zoning laws and HOAs are making people feel Insufferable