tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post4706731066994620448..comments2024-03-18T16:22:10.302-04:00Comments on Urban kchoze: The utility of directly regulating Floor Area Ratiosimval84http://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-80682104388396515692020-10-10T03:14:56.623-04:002020-10-10T03:14:56.623-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Twinklehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06577636345844528720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-797228144104223652020-10-04T05:43:53.306-04:002020-10-04T05:43:53.306-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Blogger Kinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08362904830886446581noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-32082520981358732882020-07-24T09:51:46.133-04:002020-07-24T09:51:46.133-04:00Très bon ton blog! Je viens de le trouver par hasa...Très bon ton blog! Je viens de le trouver par hasard sur le subreddit r/slatestarcodex.<br /><br />Je suis un immigrant au Québec et je me cherchais des bonnes sources "locales" sur le sujet d'urbanisme.<br /><br />Hope you'll keep posting!pratshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06547757179631426566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-62525503892778195062020-01-28T12:28:10.638-05:002020-01-28T12:28:10.638-05:00IMHO, the problem with fixed FAR and almost no hei...IMHO, the problem with fixed FAR and almost no height limit is that height if a very problematic externality. So, some setbacks and specially height limits will exist.<br />As much I find fixed FAR interesting, if you have some setback and height regulations, and consider the within area where is legal to build, you would not maximise area usage unless you set a FAR less than 100% inside that area OR eliminate those height or setback limits.<br />Very intuitive case of choice: Improve design flexibity and deal with externalities, or reduce externalities by limiting design. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09542176331066539193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-79657110457668947132020-01-16T09:18:57.046-05:002020-01-16T09:18:57.046-05:00The reality is that these geometrical limitations ...The reality is that these geometrical limitations are quite arbitrary, justified by some "externalities" that are not quantified nor evaluated. Furthermore, they are often set at ridiculously low levels that require zoning changes for redevelopment in urban areas to be viable. So developers often have to seek or get zoning changes or variances for their development to see the light of day. This is what creates the uncertainty, because speculators know this and set their expectations at the actual form the development will take rather than the one established by the current regulations. But it's not a given that developers will get it.<br /><br />Now, if geometric regulations allowed for development and were strictly applied, then yes, there would be no uncertainty. But it would still not be good.<br /><br />There are strong negative consequences to this FAR-limiting by geometric regulations as well. I described some of them, maximizing FAR within an envelop is not necessarily good, in fact, it often results in poor design with a bias for studios and 1-BR units that deprive family units of units that would satisfy their needs.<br /><br />Courtyard apartments? C-,L-,T-shaped buildings? All of them require developers to reduce the FAR of their building if they respect geometric requirements, and thus punish them for adopting building shapes that are better for residents. This is not a good outcome at all.simval84https://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-54929147298216228532020-01-16T03:48:23.938-05:002020-01-16T03:48:23.938-05:00There's a problem here: developers maximize FA...There's a problem here: developers maximize FAR because it maximizes value (as you noted, your model assumes no profit margin). <br /><br />If, as in your model, your externalities are caused purely by buildings sticking out of your red box, then maxing out FAR given the volume of the box is actually the best use of the land.<br /><br />In out model, developed value = land value - externalities cost. Since land value is directly proportional to FAR, you should (assuming fixed externalities cost) maximize FAR - that is, your size limits should be set to allow the maximum FAR that doesn't cause more externalities than you can tolerate. Unless externalities scale directly in proportion to FAR and are completely independent of building shape, this means you should never set this by FAR limitations.<br /><br />You have a good point about liquidity, but you shouldn't need FAR limitations for that - assuming the geometric rules are clear, the FAR should be predictable and shouldnt be a big source of uncertainty.pku31https://www.blogger.com/profile/13410885371274534684noreply@blogger.com