Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Portland passes low-density zoning reform

sightline.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 438 posts

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#51

Post by dfxm12 »

klyrs wrote: post #10

I like almost all of this. I have one minor concern, the maximum home size is dropping from 6750 to 2500 square feet. Which is probably fine for a nuclear family, but in my neighborhood, such homes are largely occupied by multigenerational families. In areas closer to colleges and universities, those homes end up being shared by large groups of students. Both of these populations will take a hit under this policy.

but in my neighborhood, such homes are largely occupied by multigenerational families.

In my neighborhood, these are also duplexes (maybe coincidentally, maybe not, I dunno), which are allowed to be bigger.

In areas closer to colleges and universities, those homes end up being shared by large groups of students.

Yeah, but these big houses are probably old. In the universities near me, such large houses haven't been built in my lifetime. I doubt it's too much different in Portland.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#52

Post by kiliantics »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #34
jeffbee wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just reality. EVs solve a specific aspect of cars but they still have the main problem: they are unreasonably large. The future of urban mobility is also its past: walking.

I think this is easy to wish but hard to realize, considering the US population is rapidly aging. There is a balance between prioritizing pedestrians and cyclists while still supporting reasonable mobility for those not in their prime as well as daily freight/parcel services.

This is ridiculous. Yes, of course, provide alternatives for the less able but that is a very small population at any age group. My grandmother at age 86 gets around in Germany on foot and by bicycle just fine. She doesn't have a car and has access to the subway for longer distances. We can still heavily pedestrianise while also allowing for deliveries and the less able, there are many successful examples.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#53

Post by sudosysgen »

wool_gather wrote: post #12
jackyinger wrote: post #7

As a former Portlandian I’m pretty stoked to imagine where this could take the city! A low altitude densification would beat what’s been done to the inner East side... Here’s a fun thought experiment... Imagine if most streets became parks/plazas (aside from a few left for utility reasons) and everyone rode (electric) bikes, or similar relatively light transport options. To me that’s be idyllic. Imagine not being rel…

> Imagine not being relegated to the sidewalk Pedestrians don't mix any better with (electric) bikes that are trying to get places than they do with cars. Reasonably broad and well-maintained sidewalks are essential for everyone's comfort and safety.

In practice, they do. Bikes are much smaller, much nimbler and much slower than cars. Unless the street is completely packed with pedestrians, fully pedestrian streets work well with ebikes.

This is from experience riding bikes and having people ride bikes next to me in fully pedestrian streets as dreamt about by GP.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#54

Post by ISL »

A question for those familiar with the passed Portland legislation: Does it contain protections for urban trees, flora, and fauna?

Here in Seattle, the ADU boom, and infill in general, is slowly removing the green from our neighborhoods. As density increases, it is important to ensure that the resulting community is healthy and sustainable.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#55

Post by scythe »

stakkur wrote: post #13

I live in the area. Proponents have couched this as a 'progressive' vs. 'nimby' effort, which like the rest of life is not true at all. Housing is complex, not good vs. evil, liberal vs. conservative, urgan vs sprawl. If you doubt this, watch how much this comment is downvoted. One thing we know, based on over a century of data around the world: increasing density of housing has little effect on affordability, in the…

>If you doubt this, watch how much this comment is downvoted.

>One thing we know, based on over a century of data around the world: increasing density of housing has little effect on affordability

You're not getting downvoted for disagreeing. You're getting downvoted for asserting something that contradicts established economics with no sources, and backing it up with folksy us-vs-them demonization of such iniquities as "developers", "profit", and "negotiat[ion]". On a messageboard that was originally started for entrepreneurs, this is a particularly poor choice of strategy.

Whether it's the NBER

https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/hier1...

or the Reserve Bank of Australia

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3149272

or the whole country of Japan

https://www.citymetric.com/fabric/tokyo-proves-housing-short...

the evidence is in fact clear: zoning restrictions make housing more expensive.

On the West Coast, there is a persistent hope (among some) that restrictive zoning will prevent people from moving to the West Coast, but this is an impossible fantasy; it's simply nicer there, and a net westward migration of Americans will probably continue for another century. The ongoing westward migration may ebb and flow, and obscure the impact of policy changes, but it isn't going to go away, and the best choice for the long-term health of the urban ecosystem is gradual densification.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#56

Post by danans »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #34
jeffbee wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just reality. EVs solve a specific aspect of cars but they still have the main problem: they are unreasonably large. The future of urban mobility is also its past: walking.

I think this is easy to wish but hard to realize, considering the US population is rapidly aging. There is a balance between prioritizing pedestrians and cyclists while still supporting reasonable mobility for those not in their prime as well as daily freight/parcel services.

> I think this is easy to wish but hard to realize, considering the US population is rapidly aging.

The Florida retirement developments figured this out a long time ago: electric golf carts.

If I recall correctly in one they even recently conducted a golf cart based political rally in support of a presidential candidate.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#57

Post by jeffbee »

stakkur wrote: post #46
matchbok wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what "increasing density" you are talking about. No city has done that. SF rejected it, DC, etc. In fact, I'd bet more places have decreased density than increase it. The increases have only come in the past 5 years (Portland, Minneapolis) There's only one guarantee - limiting density in a growing city with jobs does make housing less affordable. That has been the status quo in every major city in the USA ov…

The intention of the zoning reform linked to here is increasing density in existing low-density areas. Here's (only) one example of analysis of the density housing affordability relationship. Spoiler alert: density always increases housing costs in the long run. https://www.newgeography.com/content/005183-what-price-urban... There has never been a city in the US that has made housing more affordable by increasing den…

Wow, talk about missing the point. That analysis looks at the correspondence between equilibrium compactness and price. It does not look at the marginal change in price for a marginal change in density.

I hope you can see the logical flaw in your statement "density increases housing costs".

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#58

Post by rayiner »

madhadron wrote: post #29
jackyinger wrote: post #7

As a former Portlandian I’m pretty stoked to imagine where this could take the city! A low altitude densification would beat what’s been done to the inner East side... Here’s a fun thought experiment... Imagine if most streets became parks/plazas (aside from a few left for utility reasons) and everyone rode (electric) bikes, or similar relatively light transport options. To me that’s be idyllic. Imagine not being rel…

> Imagine if most streets became parks/plazas Before the massive efforts of the auto industry, this is basically what they were. Streets of small European towns still feel this way and the cars feel very much like the interlopers. So, a return to normalcy.

That framing as a way to misrepresent the fact auto industry gave people what they wanted. Many newly developed parts of Europe are the same way, because that’s what people want.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#59

Post by ogre_codes »

londons_explore wrote: post #41
ogre_codes wrote: post #15

> "It shouldn’t take six years for any city to agree to give itself permission to build the sort of homes that every city once allowed." This is IMO the big thing here. Cities used to allow this kind of construction. Our auto-friendly culture and the desire of landowners to keep poor people off their block has led to increasingly draconian restrictions on private property use. I understand regulations around keeping…

> I understand regulations around keeping homes safe, drainage, and fire safety, Even these, IMO, are government overreach. Instead the government should require you have insurance to pay damages to third parties incase a fire/collapse/flood happens caused by your property. Then leave it up to the insurance company to decide what standards will lower your premium. One insurance company might decide "look at Switzerla…

If my home fire causes my neighbor's house to burn down and kills his kids, the damage is beyond calculation. If everyone on my block has shitty fire prone houses built to the edge of their property line with no exits, we have a city-wide disaster. This has happened many times all over the country before building codes.

> Instead the government should require you have insurance to pay damages to third parties incase a fire/collapse/flood happens caused by your property.

I don't want any F*ing insurance requirements.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#60

Post by abfan1127 »

plasticchris wrote: post #48
londons_explore wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I understand regulations around keeping homes safe, drainage, and fire safety, Even these, IMO, are government overreach. Instead the government should require you have insurance to pay damages to third parties incase a fire/collapse/flood happens caused by your property. Then leave it up to the insurance company to decide what standards will lower your premium. One insurance company might decide "look at Switzerla…

If you are in a flood plain they do. I assume it's the same for the others. But drainage is really more about dealing with density. In the town/city poor drainage on my lot could flood my neighbors house. In the country there's enough space it's not an issue.

flood plains are usually more to do with elevations. If all of my home's runoff goes to my neighbor, its just runoff now. If their home doesn't have drainage (proper grade, etc), then its getting flooded regardless of your drainage. Your drainage may make it worse, but the reality is that the damage is already done. This may apply for more recent builds rather than homes 50-60yrs old.
Post reply on HN