The potent combination of 1) minimum lot sizes and 2) mandatory front, side and rear setbacks has, in nearly all other North American cities, effectively forbidden this common sense adaptation and repurposing of neglected public ways in residential areas. In their absence, many owners would no doubt have long ago sold off the portions of their parcels fronting on the lane, or have constructed the main dwelling closer to the street line so as to allow a larger accessory building to the rear.
The laneway law, for all its benefits, addresses neither of these fundamental constraints on the free use and alienation of land. The laneway house that may be built cannot be deeded to a new owner and must therefore remain a rental unit (purportedly to limit increases in property values). Further, the laneway law comes with its own new setback requirements which have caused unintended consequences in certain zoning districts.
Although the history, purpose and impact of minimum lot sizes has been covered by various writers and researchers, histories of setbacks are extremely rare. I find this a bit surprising since of all land use regulations, setbacks are arguably closest to a pure "taking" of land, in that the municipality deprives a landowner of all, or virtually all development rights to a substantial proportion of his property, with no compensation and often to no clear purpose. If modest side and rear setbacks might be given some vaguely plausible health and safety justification, large front setbacks, in residential areas with very wide streets, are more difficult to rationalize.
Urban Review STL, which has put together the only history of setbacks that I could find, contains a link which suggests that some setbacks, in residential areas at least, originated in a William Penn-like overreaction to disease and fire-prone conditions in the early 19th century city (although these early setbacks, implemented by restrictive covenant, generally had sunset provisions). Today, typical zoning codes offer the following justifications:
"In general, the purpose of setbacks is to ensure that the use of a property does not infringe on the rights of neighbors, to allow room for lawns and trees, for light and sunshine in the home, for space for recreation outside the home, and to serve as filtration areas for storm water run-off." Calvert County, MD.Specifically addressing front setbacks:
"[The setback regulations] require larger front setbacks than side and rear setbacks to promote open, visually pleasing front yards." Portland, OR.Is it possible, then, that this complete deprivation of an owner's right to build upon the front of his lot reflects a purely aesthetic judgment? That judgment being, impliedly, that a patch of Kentucky bluegrass, to be forever mowed and fertilized, is more "visually pleasing" than the house that would otherwise be located there, and furthermore that his aesthetic concern overrides all competing concerns, including those of land values, efficient use of land, property rights and alternative notions of good urban design. Vancouver architect Graham Barron, whose blog Stephen links, concludes that the setback requirements of the laneway law were similarly motivated by aesthetics, or more accurately, one particular aesthetic viewpoint.
If anyone knows of a study which has looked at the economic implications of setback laws on development patterns and/or land values I'd be very curious to read it. Certainly it's an area which could use more discussion.