We should plan for success

Cities shouldn’t just settle for “enough” housing.

Now this is how to plan for the future. (Photo by Bettmann)

Here in Washington, D.C., our zoning process includes something called the Future Land Use Map.

This is not the same as the zoning map, which states what can be built by-right. Instead, the FLUM (which is at least a fun acronym) guides the Zoning Commission and the Board of Zoning Adjustment as to the kinds of discretionary allowances they should consider offering developers.

It gets updated every so often, a process that begins with an official proposal from the Office of Planning for consideration by the D.C. Council. This year, we’re due for a new update and O.P. came up with a proposal that was incredibly unambitious and has been roundly denounced by local advocates.

I don’t want to make this about one city, though, because the stated rationale for their proposal reflects a widespread planning paradigm that’s seriously broken.

The O.P. basically looked at how much new housing is legally allowed under the existing map, then looked at some projections of the city’s future housing needs, and then proposed a new map with enough changes to theoretically meet those needs. Many critics are noting that what they’ve put out doesn’t actually achieve what they claim it achieves,¹ which I think reflects an annoying tendency of the city planning discipline to ignore the relevant economics.

The larger issue, though, is that this is a pathetic way for a central city to think about its future.