I've read a ton of articles in every major news outlet about the issue of rewriting the zoning code and the work of the Zoning Code Commission. Several have focused on the players involved - especially the dust up over Sharif Street's appointment to and subsequent dismissal from the commission.
Aside from Plan Philly, which has an entire section that explains what zoning is and why its important, most of the coverage of the Zoning Code Commission hasn't gone to in depth to explain the large issue. So I was pleasantly surprised when my daily Google News search for "Michael Nutter" (you'd think I was stalking the guy) turned up an article in Bryn Mawr Now about one of his appointments to the Commission - Professor Daniela Voith.
Using one of my favorite techniques - comparison to a television, movie or video games - the writer breaks down zoning for the wider audience:
A city's zoning code determines what kinds of buildings can be built where. Anyone who's played the popular computer game SimCity can name three basic zones: residential, commercial, and industrial. SimCity devotees probably understand that placing a nuclear power plant next to a pizza parlor would be bad planning, and that connecting the suburbs to downtown with light rail is good planning.
And, in interviewing one of the actual appointees in depth, rather than just printing her bio from the Nutter press release, this writer provides some insight into the importance of the Zoning Code Commission:
The commission is in its infancy, but one thing Voith is sure of is the need to create smart, fair zoning for the city's future. She points to Houston to illustrate why thoughtful zoning is important.
"Houston has no zoning code whatsoever," she says. "Any building type can occur next to any other building type. The thinking was that capitalism should drive all development. You ended up with some very strange juxtapositions there."
Voith says it's also part of the commission's job to point out rules in the current code that are no longer useful. "For example," she says, "it's currently written that if you build a new townhouse, you must also provide parking for that townhouse. On the face, it makes a lot of sense.
"But since most townhouses don't have both front and rear entry, a lot of developers ended up building garages on the first floor. In reality, that just takes away the curb in front of the townhouse, so it doesn't create an additional parking space. Instead it gives the space to a particular family, which isn't good for the pedestrian environment. A garage isn't inherently attractive—it's probably not going to built of brick—and now the sidewalk in front of the townhouse can't have trees, either.
"It was a well-intended rule that actually eats away at the quality of the urban fabric, and runs counter to what makes older neighborhoods of Philadelphia great."
Nice work, Bryn Mawr Now.