News

The only thing one can say with certainty about the recovery of our city to date is that it has been led by locals. And thanks to the countless hard-fought struggles for survival, things are looking up.

Not surprisingly, as the rebuilding gains a bit of traction, more people are interested in investing in the community. Some of these projects are great news for the city while others will certainly do great harm to the community should they be allowed to move forward. Throw in the lure of a free trip to the Go-Zone money pile and the possibilities are endless.

Some of the projects that have been in the news lately include:

• Victory Real Estate Investments LLC of Columbus, GA with their secret, then public, then secret again plans to create a suburban-style, automobile-oriented shopping center at South Carrollton and Bienville;
• The transformation of a former pesticide store into a coffee shop on South Carrollton Avenue. The owner of the property happens to be a New Orleans judge;
• And on St. Charles Avenue a prominent citizen is aiming to re-zone his property for high-rise condos.

The common thread in these various projects is the necessity of zoning changes to make the projects work. In New Orleans, requests for zoning changes have historically opened the doors for all kinds of shenanigans. The motivation is high, because a change in zoning can suddenly transform a dog of a property into a goldmine.

As you might guess, New Orleanians tend to be very wary of zoning changes. After all, what makes some rezoning change requests fail, while others gain the blessing of the City Council? Is there a consistent logic? Here are two recent examples: A local chef seeks a zoning change to open a restaurant in an uptown neighborhood. This request is denied. Developers need a zoning change for a hotel in the French Quarter. They succeed.

The situation is not helped by the perception that many of the mechanisms that affect a successful change of a property’s zoning do not occur in public view. It sometimes appears that it is dinners at a steakhouse where the real meetings take place—out of the view of the recorded minutes of the City Council Chamber.

One of the challenges of discussing zoning in urban areas, is that zoning itself is often part of the problem. Many of the aspects of New Orleans we love could not be built today under the current zoning laws. Those cool outbuilding on the property lines—need a 3’ setback now. Houses next to each other—can’t do it. Neighborhood corner stores—better know that council person. Hubig’s Pie plant in the middle of the Marigny? Are you crazy? —that mixes light industrial with residential.

The biggest culprit in trying to square good urban design with existing zoning tends to be parking requirements; but there are plenty of other obstacles such as minimum setbacks and the challenges of trying to create a vibrant mix of residential and commercial uses—the hallmark of urban environments.

This is why zoning fights in New Orleans are inherently problematic: It takes a zoning change to do a really crappy project. But it also (often) takes a zoning change, to do a really good project. The projects you can do with no problems tend to be the mediocre ones. Because zoning changes are neither inherently good nor inherently bad, the process by which they are determined is critically important to the rebuilding of the city. This process must be open and transparent.

And it should be in the hands of the City Planning professionals rather than the Council. Unfortunately, this power to effect zoning changes appears to be a mechanism for generating campaign contributions and other forms of political power, so convincing the council to limit it will require a determined effort on the part of ordinary citizens. Given the abuse some residents and neighborhoods have received via zoning changes, it is understandable that some residents feel the best course of action is to stand firm with the line “No changes to the existing zoning” (or the corollary which only allows for down-zoning).

We may, however, want to look at this problem anew if we hope to emerge from this recovery with our historic urban fabric intact. Given that our zoning ordinances came out of the 1950s and came to us via the suburbs, it should not be surprising that it is easier to build a new store with a suburban parking lot than it is to rebuild the urban shopping districts such as Oak Street, Freret Street, St. Claude Avenue, or Magazine Street. It is simpler to build an in-fill house that looks like Kenner than it is to build a double camel back on an existing lot.

We just spent two years developing several new recovery plans for the city, many of which have projects or neighborhood and district components that represent a significant departure from previous plans. If the City Council has adopted these new plans as city policy, doesn’t that suggest a need to affirm existing zoning as consistent with the vision or to change the zoning to allow the new vision to emerge and prevent inappropriate, piecemeal changes?

The existing zoning didn’t create Uptown, Treme, or St. Roch. It will take some zoning changes to create visionary new projects. We just have to beware the purveyors of snake oil who also need zoning changes to set up shop.

Filed under: Editorials | Rebuilding New Orleans