Height Limits as a Catalyst for Development

Marohn's argument begins with the example of Sarasota, Florida, where the cost of land is a barrier to small-scale, incremental development. Marohn explains that despite the demand for growth, cities artificially inflate the cost of land by allowing high-density, tall projects next to vacant lots and strip malls. The effect of so much helter-skelter development, according to Marohn: "A small number of people will sell their vacant lots at a premium. The development on these lots will absorb the latent demand. Everyone else with a vacant lot will wind up with nothing – no demand, no sale – and, in the interim, any incremental development will be stifled, along with any naturally-occurring redevelopment (non-subsidized)."

After noting that before the "suburban experiment" development occurred incrementally: "Cities matured by moving to the next plateau of financial value, growing incrementally up, incrementally out and becoming incrementally more intense." To mimic a more natural process of incrementalism, Marohn suggests height restrictions as a regulatory mechanism preferable to zoning codes: "I would allow the next increment of development, but nothing more…. Something simple: The maximum building height shall be two stories or 1.5 times the average height of the directly adjacent buildings, whichever is greater."

*This post was updated 11/3/2014 with the proper spelling of the author's name.