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

81–90 of 438 posts

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#81

Post by cptskippy »

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.

> ...2500 square feet. Which is probably fine for a nuclear family...

Post-War homes (e.g. after WWII) in America were intended for the nuclear family and were typically under 1000 sq/ft. Most 60s and 70s ranch homes were 1200-1700 sq/ft and considered spacious.

A modern 2500 sq/ft house is at a minimum 3 bedroom, 3.5 bath, and a bonus room.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#82

Post by setgree »

One great thing about zoning reform is that it's a topic where progressives and Silicon Valley types, i.e. "the grey tribe" [0], have a lot of common ground. I (and presumably many HN readers) support zoning reform for all the typical grey tribe reasons, and progressives support it because they recognize the racist history of zoning laws, which I also find persuasive [1,2].

The more common ground we can find between tribes like this, the less, I think, it will feel like America is coming apart at the seams.

[0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin...

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/25/snob-...

[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/07/racist-...

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#83

Post by mperham »

ISL wrote: post #54

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.

I'm all for more green in cities but don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Suburban sprawl destroys far more environment. Density stops sprawl. This is net positive for trees and the environment.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#84

Post by crooked-v »

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.

> Which is probably fine for a nuclear family, but in my neighborhood, such homes are largely occupied by multigenerational families.

In that case, build a duplex or triplex designed with easy (but lockable) access between units. That gives you a lot of living area, and the same building is also suitable for housing multiple families if it ever changes hands.

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

Multi-unit buildings with each unit shared between two people, or (now also allowed by the new zoning) 'cottage cluster' arrangements with a number of physically separate homes sharing one driveway/common area.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#85

Post by wool_gather »

sudosysgen wrote: post #53
wool_gather wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I have a very different experience than you. I ride or walk everywhere I go.

Bikes may be slower than cars, but -- when they're being used for commuting, not toodling around on a Sunday afternoon -- they are much, much faster than pedestrians.

When I'm walking, I don't want bikes whizzing by me at three times my speed. When I'm biking, I don't want to be constantly worrying about people on foot -- or their kids, or their dogs -- suddenly stopping or changing direction without looking.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#86

Post by Pfhreak »

londons_explore wrote: post #68
Pfhreak wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your idea doesn't seem to be thought through -- who ensures the insurance companies are solvent enough to pay out? How do you deal with irreversible damage? Why invest a ton of energy into figuring out the right risk calculations for shoddy work rather than say, "This passes the threshold of really unsafe, don't do it". It's so much simpler, cheaper, and easier to understand to just draw a few lines in the sand. No a…

> Why would we want to invest a massive amount of effort into figuring out, e.g., the actual insurance risk of poorly built structures rather than saying, "No, you cannot use highly flammable plastic cladding on your highrise." Wouldn't the insurance company say the same thing? Or rather they would say "we won't insure that thing". Which amounts to "You cannot build that thing if insurance is a requirement".

So now you have a widely distributed system of insurers to deal with making the rules, rather than people I've elected to represent my interests? (Even if said elections don't always go my way.)

Who are those insurers beholden to, what are their incentives to represent the consumer in any way?

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#87

Post by derg »

jeffbee wrote: post #25
jasondclinton wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The removal of the off-street parking mandate will also impact EV adoption. Parking is already difficult to find in many older Portland neighborhoods. Edit: You need a place to plug-in your EV at night.

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.

Walking and biking with some public transit to fill the gaps honestly.

Outside of the obvious downsides to a car centric culture, the united states would definitely have healthier people if it were feasible to walk to more destinations. And I don't mean this just on an individual fitness level either. Getting out of the car and actually walking and interacting with people is an important community aspect, which this country severely lacks.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#88

Post by mrkstu »

scythe wrote: post #55
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…

California has already convinced residents and citizens of other states to leave or stay away- it is only migrants from other countries keeping population growth going:

"Twenty-seven states and the District of Columbia lost population through net domestic migration between 2018 and 2019, six of which had losses over 25,000, and three of which experienced losses greater than 100,000. The top states with net domestic migration loss were California (-203,414), New York (-180,649), Illinois (-104,986), New Jersey (-48,946), Massachusetts (-30,274) and Louisiana (-26,045)."

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2019/popest-n...

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#89

Post by dgellow »

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.

2500 sq feet ≈ 232m²

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#90

Post by jasondclinton »

TheGallopedHigh wrote: post #23
jasondclinton wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The removal of the off-street parking mandate will also impact EV adoption. Parking is already difficult to find in many older Portland neighborhoods. Edit: You need a place to plug-in your EV at night.

It stated that off street parking was optional...

Isn't that exactly the definition of the removal of a mandate?
Post reply on HN