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

101–110 of 438 posts

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#101

Post by jeffbee »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #67
jeffbee wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why you can't have a city based on cars. The very old cannot drive! I don't know why this perfectly obvious and globally well-known fact is so little-known to Americans.

There are entire retirement communities where the elderly use their golf carts and cars to get around (Sun City, FL, The Villages, FL, etc). Not only do the very old still drive, many prefer it because they’re old . Go talk to some old folks. I did when I put together a community funded Tesla Model 3 rideshare for them in a retirement community. The pool is their preferred exercise method to walking, especially in in…

I think you've mistaken revealed preference for supply constraints.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#102

Post by salmon30salmon »

Density isn't really the problem in Portland. There are a LOT of empty apartments in this city. There are also a LOT of "short term rentals" in the city that sit vacant.

Here are the concerns that I do not see addressed with this:

1. Will the City of Portland make the required infrastructure improvements to support more density? For example, will the storm sewers, which currently overflow poo into the river, support all the extra.. poo.

1a. Will the city invest in roads and public transit? Walking and biking are both great, but Portland is cold, dark and wet for 7 months a year. No matter how easy and safe you make it, people won't want to ride in those conditions.

1b. Portland 911 systems are currently stressed beyond reason. I waited on hold for 4 minutes on 911 (not non-emergency) a few weeks ago. This isn't a rare occurrence.

1c. Will Portland address the tent in the room? Homelessness is endemic in the city, and it isn't _only_ due to lack of housing. The city has very few options for mental health and drug treatment. Will the city invest in that? If not, livability will be negatively impacted by this.

1d. Assuming COVID ever ends, will Portland be business friendly enough to attract employers to employ the expected glut of people? Right now, large business are leaving Portland (Google has halted its expansion plans for example).

1e. Will Oregon fund schools in a way that can account for the new residents? Schools are already over-crowded and Oregon has one of the worst graduation rates in the country. Will the city/state commit to building schools to support new students? If so, where? They are in-filling in neighborhoods with few plots available

2. This will disadvantage low-income workers who won't be able to afford the new houses. Though more density does lower prices, it normally lowers prices in the less desirable neighborhoods. People of means buy the new condos/townhomes that are built, leaving the poor to take the less nice houses or continue to live further out.

2a. The Utopian dream of a urban playground where everyone is walking and birds are chirping and there is Trek in every garage doesn't play for a majority of people. People rarely live where they work. This is not normally a personal choice. Other factors play into it. Being around their family, kids' friends, better schools, new job on the other side of town etc. I understand the myopia of the crowd on this site is to picture everyone has a well-connected and well-heeled tech worker, but reality is far different.

3. Tongue in cheek-isg: this is all celebrated within the same week as another story claiming people are abandoned the density of SFO, NYC, SEA to work remotely in towns like BOI, AUS, Bend etc. There is obviously a _desire_ to have land and space and privacy. If we go to a remote-first work world, why do we think that anyone would want to live in this density?

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#103

Post by crooked-v »

kory wrote: post #43
kindatrue wrote: post #3

This seems disastrous for homeowners and landlords hoping to recreate this Silicon Valley success flywheel https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/1129046954409902081

For landlords, you're correct. Rents will go down as more housing floods the market and the profiteering will cease. Look at Vancouver BC, where rents are significantly lower than land prices. But I don't entirely agree with this point. Regular folks that are getting rich off property are the single family homeowners. Density tends to increase land value. This law makes single family home land more valuable and easie…

> But there are no swathes of empty land in Portland to fill with more single family homes.

This is a key thing. There is very little undeveloped land within Portland city limits, and the vast majority of it is lots under 1000 square feet. Most of what is there is in places that would be expensive, laborious, or unappealing to work with, like the sides of heavily sloped hills, lots completely surrounded by other lots without road access (have fun trying to work out right of way for a driveway), or waaay out nearly in the suburbs, at which point you may as well go five more minutes in that direction and save yourself some on the taxes.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#104

Post by jungletime »

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.

This is an issue in Vancouver. One large house built to house an extended family of sometimes as many as 20 people.

Its a way of depriving city of property taxes, that would have otherwise have taxed multiple dwellings for the same amount of people. So the 2500 sqft limit is to collect more tax.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#105

Post by pkulak »

rayiner wrote: post #49
noelwelsh wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2500 square feet is considered a large house in most of the world. I have lived with a group of students, a nuclear family, and with multiple generations in houses smaller than that. It is definitely fine for all the use cases you list.

Most of the world lives in housing poverty compared to American norms.

My family is considered "underhoused" by the US government, because we have fewer bedrooms than occupants. I certainly don't feel it myself. We have three bedrooms for the four of us, and even chose to use the third as a media room until the kids get sick of the bunk beds.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#106

Post by crooked-v »

tandr wrote: post #95
crooked-v wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I don't really understand what the drastic difference there is supposed to be. If you want to use all the units as a shared living space, just leave the common-area connecting doors propped open. This is functionality that many duplex and triplex units already have.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#107

Post by pkulak »

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.

When I'm walking with my 8-year-old, we both scramble right the hell out of the street if there's a car anywhere in our vision. Neither of us could care less about a bike somewhere. It sure doesn't feel like we're being irrational.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#108

Post by jungletime »

rayiner wrote: post #49
noelwelsh wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2500 square feet is considered a large house in most of the world. I have lived with a group of students, a nuclear family, and with multiple generations in houses smaller than that. It is definitely fine for all the use cases you list.

Most of the world lives in housing poverty compared to American norms.

Most of the US still lives in really crappy old homes built in the last century, with asbestos insulation, tar shingles, fiber board, and wood rot. Doesn't really compare with building standards in Europe, even Eastern Europe. China also has modernized and built some awesome cities. Middle East, and Asian cities are also pretty modern. I'm not really sure who you are comparing to? India? Africa?

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#110

Post by gurkendoktor »

cptskippy wrote: post #81
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.

To spare fellow non-Americans the jump to Google:

2500 sqft = 232 sqm

1000 sqft = 92 sqm

I am living in the latter with my wife plus one small child, and it's clear to us that we want more space for children later. 2500 sqft seems pretty large, but not crazy large either, especially with ~3 kids (=just two generations).

Post reply on HN