it seems to me like it's contrary to the organic nature of city growth.
i mean, if a neighborhood has developped to the point where it can support a healthy local commercial economy (whether offices or like eateries) and market trends point to that being a highly desirable trend, then city planning seems like it's suppressing natural growth and the ability for a neighborhood to mature into something more than just a neighborhood.
i suppose it's a Bad Thing(tm) if a waste treatment plant opens up right next to some luxury condos, but is it a same bad thing if an entrepreneur converts a residential lot into a small pizzeria?
plus, isn't designating "downtown" with specific borders kinda damaging? psychologically, isn't this sort of like a segregation of economy and growth? as in, "we're downtown. we're hip. but if you're located south of pratt st., then you're not in downtown, and you're not hip. doof." plus, as in say austin/chicago's zoning, downtown has this huge massive zone something like CBD or DMU (which in Austin basically mean anything goes, yay), but this is all landlocked by huge swaths of single use zoning, keeping any mixed-use, potentially transit-oriented growth within arbitrary boundaries.
long point short: maybe dont't let the market swing all the way, but don't try and control so much? after all, it seems that the best neighborhoods tend to have mixed-use within or nearby, and it seems hard for me to picture that planners regularly, when working on remapping or something, anticipate market forces and can properly zone land in an adequate fashion.
i mean, if a neighborhood has developped to the point where it can support a healthy local commercial economy (whether offices or like eateries) and market trends point to that being a highly desirable trend, then city planning seems like it's suppressing natural growth and the ability for a neighborhood to mature into something more than just a neighborhood.
i suppose it's a Bad Thing(tm) if a waste treatment plant opens up right next to some luxury condos, but is it a same bad thing if an entrepreneur converts a residential lot into a small pizzeria?
plus, isn't designating "downtown" with specific borders kinda damaging? psychologically, isn't this sort of like a segregation of economy and growth? as in, "we're downtown. we're hip. but if you're located south of pratt st., then you're not in downtown, and you're not hip. doof." plus, as in say austin/chicago's zoning, downtown has this huge massive zone something like CBD or DMU (which in Austin basically mean anything goes, yay), but this is all landlocked by huge swaths of single use zoning, keeping any mixed-use, potentially transit-oriented growth within arbitrary boundaries.
long point short: maybe dont't let the market swing all the way, but don't try and control so much? after all, it seems that the best neighborhoods tend to have mixed-use within or nearby, and it seems hard for me to picture that planners regularly, when working on remapping or something, anticipate market forces and can properly zone land in an adequate fashion.