It's infuriating until it prevents your neighbour from building a chemical factory right next to your house.
Like it or not, what you build often substantially impacts your neighbours.
Like it or not, what you build often substantially impacts your neighbours.
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/...
The idea that cost prevents it is a fantasy. It may prevent it in your neighbourhood, and it may prevent some of the most extreme situations, but there are plenty of areas where I live (London suburb) where factories etc. and residential neighbourhood are right next door to each other, and where the land costs are equivalent and it would not at all be a cost problem for many "objectionable" businesses to set up shop right next door to your house if zoning allowed it.
True, factories generally get quickly squeezed out of the inner cores of large cities, but residential and industrial areas often collide in the poorer parts of towns.
The example of Houston is interesting, but not that relevant in the overall scheme of things, given that Houston is very low density for a city, and low density and according reduced competition for space certainly makes it less attractive for people to fight battles over land use.
Despite that, let me quote the addendum:
>Right after I posted the above item I got an email from Nancy Sarnoff, a reporter for the Houston Chronicle, pointing out that land use remains a very live issue in Houston. Mayor Bill White, for one, is trying to stop construction of a 23-story high-rise in a neighborhood of single-family houses.
All they wanted to build was a couple of office building and bike path.
How? Here's a way for me to speculate in this:
- Buy properties around the edge of said private neighborhood, set up all kinds of highly offensive things all surrounding the neighbourhood.
- Buy up properties in said neighbourhood as the price drops until I can get effective control of said organization.
- Remove the aforementioned offensive things and wait for property prices to rice again.
> All they wanted to build was a couple of office building and bike path.
Which impacts policing needs, fire services, traffic, public transport, garbage collections, postal services, and many others. It is also likely to have indirect effects on the local housing market, and through that an effect on local schools, hospitals and others.
There's no such thing as just a couple of office buildings when it comes to urban planning.
Your second argument, based on logistics, is much stronger and bears consideration.