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

121–130 of 438 posts

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#121

Post by ericd »

pkulak wrote: post #105
rayiner wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We've lived in both sorts of situations in the recent past. Extra rooms give you flexibility and the opportunity for privacy, which is really nice with young children who aren't sleeping well yet, and might disturb their siblings if they were bunked. There are trade-offs involved in both situations, which one is better for you just depends on what you value.

I generally think that there's too much of a slant toward large houses in the new housing stock in the US, though - they're more expensive to buy and maintain, and generally not the best choice for young people.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#122

Post by rconti »

jschwartzi wrote: post #116
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.

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 b…

We live in an 1140sqft house, just 2 of us. With just 1 (small) bathroom it is less than ideal, particularly when we have guests, but it works -- just. It is basically a box of a house with 3 bedrooms, a living room, a kitchen, and a place to eat. There is no "extra" space aside from the rooms -- no wide hallways, no sitting areas, no extra horizontal surfaces to put junk.

Of course, we have more space than we "need" -- 2 additional bedrooms. But, again, they're just large enough for what they do. 1 has a guest bed (and not any room for anything else, really) and the other is an "office" which is handy during covid-19 for sure.

If we had kids, there would be room for them to sleep, but no playroom, for example. Our laundry is in the garage, as is our "workout room". That space is not counted in the official size of the house, because the garage is converted.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#123

Post by tesseract »

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.

Yes! Sidewalks have existed for literally millennia, for a reason. They are not a newfangled invention that is only necessary because of cars.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#124

Post by ericd »

noelwelsh wrote: post #39
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 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.

Keep in mind that Americans on average have been raised in different environs, and likely different habits from the people you lived with. If you've always lived in close proximity, you've developed ways to cope, which people who've lived in copious space haven't. As an example, people who grew up in the country often find cities to be claustrophobic, impersonal, and uncomfortable. So you can't really say "it works for people in X culture, so it'll be fine for people in Y culture."

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#125

Post by mikem170 »

Pfhreak wrote: post #86
londons_explore wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I don't mean to imply that this invalidates your reasoning, but I thought it would be interesting to point out that Underwriters Laboratories was a private organization funded by insurance companies and did, and still does, a great job making electrical systems safer.

Some people would like to see more things like that.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#126

Post by toomuchtodo »

jeffbee wrote: post #101
toomuchtodo wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Let's get to the bottom of this then. Propose 3-5 questions that you think would provide sufficient insight into the senior housing preferences of this older/elderly cohort and I will get them to a contact at Pew Research to inquire and provide objective data back (unless you have citations you have not provided in thread).

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#127

Post by jackyinger »

pkulak wrote: post #107
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.

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.

Well, I think bikers have a lot more incentive not to hit people from a personal damage point of view. I mean they’re about as vulnerable as a pedestrian in a collision. So I think you’re thinking right about the risks.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#128

Post by jcranmer »

stakkur wrote: post #61
shuckles wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accommodating more people at the same, high prices is a benefit you seem to ignore. And historic growth shouldn’t be used as an input to an estimate of demand because growth itself depends on supply.

>>And growth shouldn’t be used as an input to an estimate of demand because growth itself depends on supply This is famously untrue with housing. Because it's so hard to match units demanded to units built, housing growth nearly always precedes demand. How? By leaning on estimates of demand (in-migration, etc.), which I mentioned above. And those estimates are almost always severe overestimates.

> And those estimates are almost always severe overestimates.

Based on my own experiences with house-hunting, there is a severe lack of supply of houses rather than the opposite.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#129

Post by eikenberry »

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…

What you describe requires the elimination of residential zoning completely to allow for small businesses to mix in with the homes. You can't eliminate cars until you eliminate the need for driving to stores and you can't eliminate that without mixed zoning.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#130

Post by almost_usual »

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…

Some of this simply isn’t up to humans. The West coast is pretty brutal nature wise. I do think it makes sense in major metros, rural areas (that are burning right now) probably not. A lot of water and resources the city gets still come from those rural areas. If the Hetch-Hetchy burned last week it could have had a significant impact on SFs water supply.

We also haven’t had a massive earthquake in awhile. Lots of unreinforced masonry structures in SF still, entire neighborhoods will be wiped out when it happens. New buildings will need to be much safer than existing ones.

Density sounds good and I’m all for it, we need to scale up our infrastructure though.

Also in SF pro-density movements are painted as pro-gentrification, getting the voters on board is hard.

This all costs money and convincing the locals to spend money now to support outsiders usually doesn’t work. The money will be spent on affordable housing for existing residents. This continues the cycle of new well off residents buying expensive homes and pushing more locals out of state or into affordable housing.

Honestly a big earthquake might be the only thing that forces the city to rebuild with safer higher density buildings.

Post reply on HN