But the real issue has to do with neighborhood assessment; where a complex regulatory system meets human psychology. We’ve come to depend on an ever-expanding array of zoning regulations to monitor the built environment. These regulations are too complex for any single person to understand. Yet every day, municipalities are asked to manage the health of our neighborhoods, weigh the risks of growth and take appropriate measures to reduce the impact of new development. If there is one thing we know, it’s that politicians are unable at measuring and responding to growth when placed in situations too complicated to understand.
To begin, people have trouble imagining how small failings can combine to lead to catastrophic disasters. When the latest Low Rise zoning regulations were codified in Seattle, politicians trying to grapple with the impact of growth had in mind to appease their constituencies, by forcing multi-family development to imitate the notion of single-family housing. These poorly designed regulations defined poorly designed development. The series of seemingly minor regulation changes failed quickly by the saturation of so many projects taking advantage of rules with no manner of adjustment, as the community clearly saw disasters unfolding. It was the interplay between these seemingly minor events that led to an unanticipated blight.
Second, people have a tendency to get acclimated to their own environs and if there must be change, its o.k. as long it’s not in their back yard. Developers on the other hand like playing Russian roulette. Success in the last economic boon is not a good predictor of success in weaker economic times. Nonetheless, as things seemed to be going well, people unconsciously adjust their definition of acceptable change and risk.
Third, politicians place elaborate faith in their own truths. More pedestrians die in cross walks than when jaywalking (that’s why we have sky bridges…). That’s because they have a false sense of security in crosswalks and are less likely to look both ways. Politico's selling urban villages and growth, created this illusion of community that encouraged developers to behave in more reckless ways by encouraging less diversity.
Fourth, people match complicated neighborhood politics with complicated governing structures. Zoning changes in Seattle have been completely muddled, with council members, developers and stakeholders hopelessly tangled in confusing lines of authority and responsibilities with blurred definitions of who is ultimately responsible for what.
Fifth, politicians tend to spread good news and hide bad news. Everybody wants to be part of a decision that succeeds and nobody wants to be responsible for the reverse. For decades, has anybody checked on promises by developers and politicians after what was built? A culture of malaise has settled upon all concerned (I'm including myself), from politicians who don’t want to lose face, to developers who do not wish to compromise profits.
Finally, people with similar motivations begin to think alike, whether they are in oversight roles or not. In the years that the city council was compelled to make a series of decisions about what sort of density we might support, they made decisions without a clear sense of the risks, in an environment that encouraged overconfidence. The city council has constructed a world in which the potential for catastrophe is embedded in the fabric of regulations, and changes quickly become irrelevant because the group of politicians and certain stakeholders are so much in each other’s pockets.
So it seems important, as new Seattle zoning regulations become codified, to not only focus on details of design minutia, but also more broadly on helping the community to deal with potentially catastrophic complexity. There must be better methods to improve architecture and ultimately evolve as a community; to help people guard against risk creep, false security, groupthink, the good-news bias and all the rest.
This isn’t just about zoning. It’s a challenge for people living in complex social environments.
apologies to david brooks