The Perils of Block-by-Block Rezoning

On December 10, the Pittsburgh Planning Commission held a hearing for an important plan being presented by the Department of City Planning. In response to years of study, they presented a plan for Transit-Oriented Development in Pittsburgh. This plan is something that Pro-Housing Pittsburgh fully supports.

The plan that they presented was a relatively modest plan. The plan would rezone the areas around three transit stations along Pittsburgh’s busways and LRT infrastructure - Herron Station in Polish Hill, Sheraden Station in Sheraden, and South Hills Junction in Mt. Washington. After examining the plan, I didn’t think it would spark much controversy - the plan was, after all, very tame - rezoning a few parcels to allow for multi-family development, and allow for some additional height, all within a 10-minute walk of some of our best-served transit stations.

But then the Planning Commission meeting happened. Dozens of angry residents, primarily from Polish Hill, came out to trash the plan. Polish Hill is their neighborhood, and they were being targeted by a plan that would change their neighborhood in unthinkable ways (more neighbors, oh no!). But jokes aside, I think we can be sympathetic to the way they feel about this - out of the 91-neighborhoods in the city, theirs was one of three being targeted by this plan. While I vehemently disagree with their conclusions and rationale, I can at least understand why they felt this way.

This has made me believe that targeted rezonings, as proposed by DCP, are probably not the right way to successfully pass reform. I understand why DCP decided to do it this way, and prior to the meeting I think I probably even agreed with them, thinking that this was a very milquetoast change that was so conservative that it would be unlikely to spark outrage. But after seeing the reaction yesterday, I think it has made me believe that the right way to is to make clear that we are all shouldering the responsibility. DCP should have proposed a rezoning of all lots within 1/2 mile of our major transit stops, including all major bus, busway, and LRT stops.

There are a few reasons why I think this might have gone over better:

• While it may be unintuitive, I think a proposal like this would have sparked less outrage. A few neighborhoods wouldn’t have felt like they were being singled out and therefore would not have organized dozens of speakers

• More importantly, those neighborhoods wouldn’t have been being singled out! Under DCP’s plan, any TOD happening would, indeed, be in their neighborhood. Under a broader rezoning, perhaps some would, but perhaps some would go elsewhere.

• Broader-scale rezonings are better policy, both because they spread development throughout our city, but also because they don’t spike land-values (Phillips, 2024) in one specific area. If you suddenly upzone a few select areas, the land values (and perhaps home prices) in those areas might shoot through the roof. You have created zoning capacity for far more units in those specific areas, so developers will pay much more for that land. But if you rezone across a wider area, land values will go up very little.

While I could be proven wrong on this, I do think we have evidence that broader rezonings spark less outrage than targeted rezonings. Earlier this year, Councilman Bobby Wilson along with many co-sponsors in Council passed Ordinance 59, which allowed attached homes on any residential lot citywide. While there was opposition to this, as we might expect from any zoning change, it didn’t spark nearly the vitriol that we saw for the TOD proposal.

Ultimately, broad rezonings are both better policy, and perhaps, better politics.

Written by David Vatz (X @davidvatz bsky davidvatz.bsky.social)