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

91–100 of 438 posts

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#91

Post by ogre_codes »

klyrs wrote: post #72
ogre_codes wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you lived in a multi-generational home? I am right now and have done so in various ways for the past 25 years, it is vastly better to have some separation. I'm not going to generalize. But for us, multi-generational homes happen over time as opposed to moving the whole family at once regardless. Kids grow up and need space, but can't afford to buy a place. Parents get older and move in with kids, etc etc.

No, I haven't. Some of my immediate neighbors do; one household immigrated as a family so they're on the forefront of my mind. I appreciate your perspective; thanks for sharing.

Also, I think the point about big homes and multi-generational families is on-point and wasn't trying to disparage it. I just was pointing out that there is at least some mitigation.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#92

Post by miketery »

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.

Personal EVs such as scooters, EUCs, bicycles, and non electric options are smaller, have more throughput, and are less dangerous. Imagine a 2 lane road, turned into a park with smaller two lanes for 2 way bike traffic. Just beautiful.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#93

Post by jasondclinton »

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.

Bold claim. No city has managed to implement a walking-only mobility plan, yet. I'd like to see that future but it seems increasingly unlikely.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#94

Post by crooked-v »

dfxm12 wrote: post #51
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 b…

As somebody living in Portland, there just aren't many existing homes over 2500 square feet (relatively speaking, compared to other homes) in the first place. We have skinny blocks through most of the city, so there's less places for McMansions to even fit. The ones that do exist within city limits are generally $700K and up - if you want under that you'll need to look in a high-crime neighborhood.

If you want an existing home over 5000 square feet within city limits, expect to pay upwards of $1.2 million if you want to live out towards the suburbs, or $1.5 million for something closer to dense walkable neighborhoods.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#95

Post by tandr »

crooked-v wrote: post #84
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 home…

These rules (lockable access between units) work well for student-occupied dwellings, but not so much for multi-generation families, that have a completely different dynamics of what "shared" and "private" areas are, and how they are used.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#96

Post by clairity »

ogre_codes wrote: post #59
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 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…

yup, passing that power on to insurance companies is just a different bureaucracy doing similar things, solving nothing more in the process. all parties together and separately need to be involved and invested in maintaining reasonably safe environments, not just an arms-length bureaucracy.

our failure is in trying to pawn off all responsibility to remote agencies and institutions, raher than the parts best-suited for them (bureaucracies are reasonably good at following rules and doing the same thing over and over), and accepting that we can't each absolve ourselves from some of that responsibility.

we want some best-suited regulation, the minimum needed to achieve reasonable safety, and no less, but also no more. regulation isn't good for every tiny tail risk we can imagine, as we see with the housing crisis (in major cities).

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#97

Post by NobodyNada »

rootusrootus wrote: post #20
matchbok wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody wants to live out there, there are no jobs or transit.

What? I live 100 feet from the urban growth boundary. 20 minutes from downtown Portland. Nearest transit is a quarter mile away and the bus runs once an hour during daylight only. Nobody seems to mind that, houses in this area sell immediately. If you pushed the boundary out another mile it would take no time at all before it would be filled with new homes.

And as far as jobs go, the tech industry is huge out here. The city of Wilsonville alone has Xerox, 3D Systems, Mentor Graphics, FLIR, Tyco Electronics, DW Fritz, and probably more that I’m forgetting — and that’s one of the smaller cities on the outskirts of the urban growth boundary.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#99

Post by curiousllama »

ogre_codes wrote: post #59
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 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…

Well said - I love the mix of reasoned historical argument and "get off my lawn!"

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#100

Post by crooked-v »

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.

I would say that the main problem with EVs right now isn't that they're large. You can get an electric Smart or Twizy and those aren't much more than driver's seats on wheels. And don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good: plenty of people who have full-size cars now would switch to something like one of those to save money once it was cheap enough...

...if not for the actual practical problem, which is that for a lot of people living in dense urban areas, there's no way to keep an EV charged up. Street parking and surface lots don't have chargers, old parking garages and almost all new parking garage construction doesn't have chargers, apartment buildings or shared houses with official or ad-hoc parking don't have chargers.

I have that problem myself: I'd probably have replaced my car with an EV already if only I actually had somewhere to plug it in.

Post reply on HN