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

111–120 of 438 posts

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#111

Post by ISL »

mperham wrote: post #83
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.

From where I sit in Seattle, I'm watching the trees around our home disappear in favor of five-over-one cubes. I've chosen to live here, in part, because it doesn't feel like a city. When the trees disappear, we are likely to contribute to that sprawl.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#112

Post by jeffbee »

miketery wrote: post #92
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.

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.

Indeed, a two-way bikeway takes up the same space that car drivers consider to be one lane, so you can take a two-lane road and convert it to a bikeway with spacious sidewalks. As a bonus, such a road will have throughput that car drivers cannot even dream of.

https://twitter.com/Cycling_Embassy/status/12981531351276462...

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#113

Post by foogazi »

onion2k wrote: post #32
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.

While that's unfortunate it's probably worth it in order to block a small number of people taking up far too much of the available space.

Can’t they still have really large lots ?

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#114

Post by hinkley »

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.

Am I correct in thinking that attic space doesn't count as square footage? There are hardly any attics in Seattle, they've all been converted to cramped living space and everybody stores their crap in the garage.

You can put a lot of people in 2500 square feet if you design it well instead of just slapping walls together.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#115

Post by cptskippy »

gurkendoktor wrote: post #110
cptskippy wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...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).

In my opinion, 2500sqft/232sqm is more than enough for a family of 6.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#116

Post by jschwartzi »

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.

You can live in a 1200 square foot home as long as you have access to outdoor spaces and a third place down the block. I live in an 1100 square foot post-war home with my fiance and it's plenty of space for what we want to do with our lives. Other homes in the neighborhood are much larger but don't have a back yard or trees on the lot. So we're basically in this beautiful thoughtfully-built 40's era home surrounded by cedar trees, while our neighbors are these huge ugly 2-story houses rammed right up to the back edge of their lots with no yard.

You do have to get creative with second bedrooms by installing Murphy beds or otherwise reducing furniture size and floor space. Modern furniture is way too big to fit in the rooms of a post-war house. A stacking washer/dryer is very useful. Basically anything that substitutes vertical space for horizontal space will help immensely. Ikea has stuff that's size-appropriate but very cheap.

The reason most houses are 2500 square feet nowadays is because you have to maintain a space for all the things you want to do inside your house. Whereas if you share space with your community for those things that many people do then you don't have to maintain a separate space for it.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#117

Post by pkulak »

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…

First of all, there's a really good chance you have the causation wrong. Some city gets really popular, people want to move there, density increases some pittance, and boom, increasing density just caused a massive spike in prices.

And second, today's luxury condo will almost always become tomorrow's "affordable" housing. Developers build something new and shiny matching all the trends, get their money and leave. When whatever style of countertop they are building now goes out of fashion, that place will be nice and cheap.

And lastly, even if that didn't happen, moving someone out of somewhere and into a "luxury" condo, still opens up the housing below. Even if it's someone new moving to town, they are still moving into the new condo, not fighting for the existing stock.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#118

Post by klyrs »

jungletime wrote: post #104
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.

I live in vancouver and I don't have a problem with high occupancy houses that are actually utilized. It's the jerks in GRVD who have unoccupied mansions that have been blowing up housing costs that I have a real problem with. Vancouver has addressed that, but afaik Burnaby, tricities and north van haven't.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#119

Post by rconti »

cptskippy wrote: post #115
gurkendoktor wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

In my opinion, 2500sqft/232sqm is more than enough for a family of 6.

Agreed. I grew up in a 2400sqft house, there were 4 of us. Ample bathrooms and bedrooms and an office, and 2 living rooms plus a separate dining room. Not massive, but larger than necessary for 4.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#120

Post by 0xdde »

rayiner wrote: post #58
madhadron wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What is this based on? A dogmatic belief that markets perfectly line up with public sentiment and desires?
Post reply on HN