Setbacks as Ethnic Cleansing (Ep 2)
'setbacks' are an arbitrary prohibition on using land in a way that makes sense. It causes endless harm in the ecosystem.
Part 2 in a series about zoning, and how it shapes the world and us. Part 1: Parking Minimums as Ethnic Cleansing. Part 3: 35' Height Restrictions as Ethnic Cleansing
I live in Denver, Colorado, which has very boring and conventional zoning, by American standards, so anything true about American zoning is true in Denver, and anything true about zoning in Denver is true about zoning in the rest of the USA.
Last time around, I explained what ethnic cleansing is. it's the displacement of the physical and 'spiritual' existence of a given ethnic group. I then explained that 'minimum parking requirements' cause extensive ongoing harm when it comes to building buildings for people in cities.
Today, lets talk about setbacks. It's also called "maintaining the existing building lines". I’ll be drawing heavily from this 1922 marketing pamphlet, popularizing Zoning to Atlanta homeowners.
The document is a piece of propaganda. If you read it, you’ll see why, so we don’t need to accept at face value anything the authors say, but I do believe them when they say they believe the value of a given residence is diminished by stores and apartments.
Lets see how we ‘maintain the building line’ today:
First, let it be known - the word 'setback' feels vaguely propagandist to use. If I had a refrigerator, and for whatever reason wasn't allowed to use the top shelf, and that person said it's called a 'setback', which, if violated, may cause men with guns to show up and cause me fear I would say 'that's extortion at best, controlling behavior at worst, but whatever it is isn't a setback."
If you google around and try to find the American Planning Association's justifications for a setback, they share some justifications, but never mention a time when there wasn't setbacks. They never mention why anyone might not have been in support of setbacks. It’s simply accepted as fact, and never evaluated again. Sorta like how flat-earthers believe the earth to be flat.
A 'setback' is the amount of space on a given spot of land where a structure will not be allowed to be built if it is too close to a property line.
The people that invented zoning and setbacks said this. Page 3 of the marketing pamphlet.
Mr. Smith has purchased a home in an attractive neighborhood. All of the homes have large well kept yards.
Mr. Smith believes that children, like plants, must have plenty of sun light and room in which to grow. The location selected seems an ideal one in which to live and raise his family. But there is a vacant lot next door. A speculative builder estimates that he can buy that lot, erect a four story, sixteen suite apartment house thereon, rent the apartments, sell to some investor and clean up a handsome profit for himself.
Here's another quote from the document:
Occasionally, in a detached residence section, an apartment house disregards the existing building line and is erected at or near the street line. This cuts off light and air from the neighboring buildings and if it becomes a type will entirely change the character of our residence sections. Atlanta will tend to reproduce conditions obtaining in certain other cities where there are great areas with apartment houses erected right on the street line and with out a bit of vegetation-nothing but the pavement and the bare brick walls. We can prevent the reproduction of such conditions in our residence sections by maintaining the existing building lines.
You might notice that those houses don't use the full 'buildable space' envelope. The garages kinda count. Garages are for cars, so of course they get an exception, and this is an older neighborhood.
Setbacks crush ecosystems. Housing and buildings SHOULD look as fractal in their development as vegetation in a forest. It's unnatural forced standardization to make every building look the same, on the same spot on every lot. They’re like pouring ‘weed killer’ all over the forest, and then wondering why the forest looks unhealthy.
The setbacks seem less bad then they are, because there are plenty of other hurdles to building more interesting buildings.
Floor area requirements (you cannot build on more than X % of the total area of the lot), parking minimums, setback requirements, and business licensing requirements means THE ONLY THING THAT CAN BE BUILT IN A R1 SUBURB is a house for a single family.
This prevents a compound from developing, or a building around an inner courtyard. There can be no shop, workspace, commercial kitchen, restaurant, coffee shop, book store, dentist, day-care, mechanic, construction company, or more.
> Josh, what would the world look like without setbacks?
Vastly, vastly different. I am hesitant to even 'paint a picture' or include pictures of buildings/blocks that have developed without setbacks. These photos would be beautiful, peaceful, dignifying.
It feels de-dignifying, and dismissive of the horror of modern zoning, to make a case beyond "evil politically powerful people used political power to trample over the lives of others who had less power than them.".
The first zoning code document to be ratified by those who could vote was the zoning plan of Atlanta, in 1922. This was right after the Tulsa Race Massacre, and politically powerful supremacist white people (especially those in the south, who lived in single-family-homes) were concerned that black people were collecting power and wealth to themselves, and were able to easily compete with white people in the white people’s own neighborhood.
They also said this:
Zoning will keep the apartments out of the private house sections. The coming of the apartment drives out the private home. Only by setting definite limits to the spread of the apartment can the city be preserved as a city of homes... If Atlanta is to be preserved as a city of homes we must protect the home owner by establishing definite limits beyond which the apartment house may not spread.
When this document was written, the inhabitants of apartment buildings were often black. So, a prohibition on apartment buildings functioned as a good-enough prohibition on black people.
Here in Denver, to find the shape of the old zoning designations, look for where zoning is "single unit" vs "two-unit". The two-unit stuff is where the poor/non-white people were intended to live. Take a look around on https://denvergov.org/maps/map/zoning
For example, here’s Wash Perk, which is popular in Denver. It’s a rare example of what an alternate universe without zoning might be like - a coffee shop, in a neighborhood:
You can see that it has it’s own little zoning designation:
On the map that zone looks VERY different than the single-family-zoning around it.
Here’s what it looks like IRL, though:
It’s completely ‘in character’ with the neighborhood.
Setbacks are immoral, unethical, and a legislative tool used by powerful people to maintain coercive control of less-powerful people. Setbacks have been
If any municipality wanted to eliminate setback requirements, they could have city council sign this ChatGPT-drafted amendment:
Amendment to the Municipal Zoning Code
Title: Elimination of Setbacks from Zoning Regulations
Purpose: The purpose of this amendment is to eliminate all mention of setbacks, property setbacks, and minimum setbacks from the municipal zoning code. By removing these requirements, the municipality aims to promote flexibility in land use and development, encourage innovative design, and facilitate efficient land utilization, while still ensuring public safety and the overall welfare of the community.
Section 1: Repeal of Setback Requirements All sections, subsections, clauses, or provisions within the municipal zoning code that pertain to setbacks, property setbacks, and minimum setbacks are hereby repealed and removed in their entirety. This includes any references to setbacks within the zoning district descriptions, dimensional standards, or other relevant sections of the code.
Section 2: Non-Applicability of Setback Requirements Effective immediately upon the passage of this amendment, setbacks shall no longer be a mandatory requirement for any new construction, alteration, or land development activities within the municipality. Setbacks shall not be used as a determining factor for development permit approvals, zoning variances, or any other land use decision-making processes.
Section 3: Public Safety and Environmental Considerations Despite the elimination of setbacks, it is incumbent upon property owners, developers, and relevant stakeholders to ensure that their projects adhere to reasonable standards of public safety and environmental protection. This includes compliance with building codes, fire codes, environmental regulations, and any other applicable laws or regulations that safeguard the well-being of the community.
Section 4: Severability If any provision or application of this amendment is held invalid, the remainder of the amendment or the application of the provisions to other circumstances shall not be affected.
Section 5: Effective Date This amendment shall take effect immediately upon adoption by the appropriate municipal authorities and following any required public notice and hearing procedures as mandated by law.
Conclusion: By eliminating setbacks from the municipal zoning code, this amendment aims to provide property owners and developers with increased flexibility in land use decisions while still ensuring public safety and community welfare. The municipality recognizes the need for responsible development practices and encourages the implementation of alternative design solutions that meet the requirements of public safety and environmental standards.