The city of Berkeley is on the verge of passing one of the largest zoning reforms in the U.S., per capita. If passed, the city’s zoning map would allow for over 100,000 additional homes in a city of 47,000 existing homes. As far as I’m aware, hardly any cities that have eliminated single-family zoning have allowed this many homes relative to their size.
Berkeley is known by academics for being the birthplace of “single-family zoning” a.k.a. exclusionary zoning. Invented by Berkeley's founding developers, exclusionary zoning prohibited the construction of apartments and multi-family homes in Berkeley’s elite neighborhoods to keep out non-rich inhabitants. This zoning code was quickly exported around the nation. Berkeley had a reckoning about this history in 2020 when race relations and the severe housing crisis in the city intersected. Following the lead of Minneapolis, Berkeley city council broke national headlines by unanimously pledging to end its multi-family housing ban, which composes one-half of the city’s residential zoning.
...
The biggest issue was and is fire zones. Most of the wealthy single-family zones are located within active fire zones or are mostly in areas that were affected by the great firestorm of 1923 — known as the “hillside overlay.” These neighborhoods have small streets and sidewalks with parked cars sitting on top of the sidewalk, making evacuation difficult in the event of a firestorm.
Hillside neighborhood groups and council members were adamant about prohibiting multi-family housing in these areas to keep the population low. But doing so would leave the vast majority of Berkeley’s highest income and most segregated opportunity neighborhoods untouched — defeating the point of reversing exclusionary zoning. Moreover, [due to] market realities many “single-family homes” in the hills are overcrowded with renters and multiple large families
...
Ultimately, the Planning Commission overruled the Planning Department’s proposal to exempt the hillside communities. (Note: the Planning Commission is appointed by councilmembers to while the Planning Department are hired staff).
...
For fire safety, a density limit of 20 homes per acre is imposed. An average compact lot in the hills is about 7,500 square feet, which amounts to 3 - 4 homes allowed as an absolute maximum. Logically, many large estates that exist in Berkeley’s wealthy areas would allow for more than 4 homes.
...
No parking is required per the city’s climate change anti-driving policy. If a builder chooses to add parking and they’re located 0.5 miles within a transit corridor, they are limited to one space for every two homes. Bicycle parking and transit passes are encouraged.
I'm wondering if the parking limit would result in there being unofficial spaces for cars that aren't legally considered parking spaces - or at least, not when the permit is approved.
I'm wondering if the parking limit would result in there being unofficial spaces for cars that aren't legally considered parking spaces - or at least, not when the permit is approved.
Almost certainly, but it does mean that at baseline there's going to be multi-purpose things like permeable paver front yards that could be used for something other than parking if people don't...
Almost certainly, but it does mean that at baseline there's going to be multi-purpose things like permeable paver front yards that could be used for something other than parking if people don't want the parking spaces, as opposed to car-specific infrastructure.
Yes, and garages are often used for storage, too. I'm not sure there's any parking space that couldn't be used for something else? It seems rather silly to tell people they can't have another...
Yes, and garages are often used for storage, too. I'm not sure there's any parking space that couldn't be used for something else?
It seems rather silly to tell people they can't have another parking space, but perhaps it's so easily gamed that there would be little practical difference.
If they're disguised a bit, maybe that helps with aesthetics?
It would certainly look nicer than those dingbat apartment blocks in the article. But I think that telling people that they can't have more parking is fundamentally a matter of practicality, not...
It would certainly look nicer than those dingbat apartment blocks in the article. But I think that telling people that they can't have more parking is fundamentally a matter of practicality, not politics. At rush hour the surface streets are already gridlocked; if Berkeley is going to have twice again as many housing units without additional street capacity those people really can't be driving regardless of whether there are parking places at their houses.
From the article:
...
...
...
...
I'm wondering if the parking limit would result in there being unofficial spaces for cars that aren't legally considered parking spaces - or at least, not when the permit is approved.
Almost certainly, but it does mean that at baseline there's going to be multi-purpose things like permeable paver front yards that could be used for something other than parking if people don't want the parking spaces, as opposed to car-specific infrastructure.
Yes, and garages are often used for storage, too. I'm not sure there's any parking space that couldn't be used for something else?
It seems rather silly to tell people they can't have another parking space, but perhaps it's so easily gamed that there would be little practical difference.
If they're disguised a bit, maybe that helps with aesthetics?
It would certainly look nicer than those dingbat apartment blocks in the article. But I think that telling people that they can't have more parking is fundamentally a matter of practicality, not politics. At rush hour the surface streets are already gridlocked; if Berkeley is going to have twice again as many housing units without additional street capacity those people really can't be driving regardless of whether there are parking places at their houses.