Rochester's Zoning Alignment Project
Rochester is changing up it's zoning plans from this
To this:
The new zoning plan will change how land in Rochester is used in accordance with the Placemaking Plan in Rochester 2034.
More development will be allowed in each district, and the map has changed to allow more intensive land use and higher density development. Here is a table of the new districts and the major changes from the old ones:
The expansion of MDR and creation of flexible mixed use will be the largest changes I think, though previously commercially zoned areas in Rochester also allowed for residential. In general restrictions are loosened up incrementally across the board.
The more interesting changes, in my opinion, are changes to the map. One change that immediately jumped out to me was the region north of University Ave, around the rail line. This is all M-1 industrial (light pink) and will be changed to Flexible Mixed Use. Compare before and after the zoning changes. This area near the rail line and running alongside East Ave is full of parking, storage, and a handful of industrial centers like L3Harris and Gleason Works.
Other changes aren't so drastic. They mostly involve increasing NMU and MDR zoning along RTS bus routes. If you want to check out the changes more yourself click here to go to the new zoning map. Or go to https://rochesterzap.com/ to learn more yourself.
Overall, are these changes good? They do the job of matching Rochester's Zoning code with the plan already agreed to in Rochester 2034, and that's what the Zoning Alignment Project (ZAP) is about. Now I wish I was paying more attention when Rochester 2034 was being discussed. I like the goals of Rochester 2034. Like many other cities along the Rust Belt, Rochester has lost a lot of its industry and needs to reinvent itself. Rochester has made many mistakes, neglecting the value of an urban style of living in favor of car dependence. Much of historic Rochester has been bulldozed to make room for cars, parking, and urban highways. The City of Rochester has lost population every decade since the 1950s, and has only stopped the population loss according to the latest census figures. And now, as Rochester's largest companies have gone bankrupt or moved out of Rochester, the city needs to reconsider its priorities.
The new priorities of Rochester are ones I agree with. Many of the principles of "New Urbanism" are being adopted, these principals recognize that a city is a limited geographic area, and better use can be made of the space. Cities are by definition a place where a lot of people live. And the more people that can live in a certain area the better, for a number of reasons. A store-owner can attract a larger number of customers, an employer can hire from more people within a reasonable commute. Police, firemen, and emergency services are generally closer, can serve more people, and can respond more quickly which can save lives or reduce fire damage. Infrastructure is more efficient, fewer miles of roads, pipes, electrical lines, etc. need to be laid for an area. Multi-unit buildings can be heated more efficiently, fewer miles need to be driven to perform everyday tasks. Plus, people living in an area already developed will decrease pressure
on new development. So farms can be closer to population centers, and
woods and undeveloped land can exist. In general, city living is better for the environment; important for reducing carbon emissions.
City living provides more choices. In Honeoye Falls, the village where I grew up, there was one grocery store, one liquor store, one pharmacy, one barber, one salon, one cafe, one Chinese restaurant, three bars, and two pizza places. I think the point is made. There are just limited options in a small village, unless you are willing to drive several miles.
It's for these reasons that density is a good thing. And the denser cities are the more things are possible. It would be really cool if Rochester had the density to support light rail or trolleys again, though I'd settle for more RTS bus service. The new zoning plan increases zoning incrementally across the board, but does the least in LDR. I would have pushed for higher density zoning in more of the South Wedge and around Park Ave; the neighborhoods with the highest demand for housing according to the 2018 Housing Market Study. As things stand, people are leaving houses to the north and west of the city. So in Rochester any up-zoning in these areas won't have any effect.
It seems only natural to me that the area I highlighted above be zoned to accommodate 4-family dwellings. This is the area of the city I live closest to, and the area I know the most about. It's a lovely part of the city and I understand why people want to live here. And why not let them. Furthermore, up-zoning wouldn't suddenly replace the houses here with 4-family units and quadruple the density. Here are 2 nearby streets around Park Ave that have been zoned R-1 and R-2 for many decades. Would you be able to tell which is which by looking at it?
I'll grant that currently in Rochester R-1 and R-2 (soon to be LDR and MDR) currently only have one difference: 2-family units are allowed in R-2, while they are disallowed in R-1. That's it. The zoning changes to MDR allow for up to 4-family units, a doubling of what was previously allowed. But I still don't think you're going to see a lot of change all at once. For one, Rochester isn't Seattle, Boston, SF, or NYC, the pressure to build in Rochester is at least an order of magnitude smaller. For another there are other restrictions besides zoning, like lot size, that restrict what can be built on a given property.
I don't know what the logic in keeping these areas low density is here. Maybe rich home-owners want to safe-guard their property value. Maybe the city wants to build its "critical mass" of people closer to downtown. Something just seems off to me about the scheme. Neighborhoods that are in high demand shouldn't be exempt from new construction. Rochester has said it wants a "critical mass" but I think they stand a better shot of doing so by allowing development across a wider area. Just throwing numbers out there, a 10% increase in population density across the whole south-east area of the city would be better than a 20% increase in population density in the areas currently zoned MDR. I could go on but I think I'll leave it there. More to come as Rochester develops.
(The picture above is zoned R-1/LDR, the picture below is zoned R-2/MDR)
Comments
Post a Comment