Portland passes low-density zoning reform • Hacker News Board

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#141

Post by maerF0x0 » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 5:50 PM UTC

clairity wrote: post #96

ogre_codes wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fo…

> is just a different bureaucracy doing similar things,

A key difference in this bureaucracy is their speed of change. Companies can react rapidly to new technology, new scenarios, and they do so on an economic model.

Gov'ts move slowly and lag technology or current events, they do so on a popularity/political power model.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#142

Post by Kednicma » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 5:51 PM UTC

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.

On one hand, no, there's no new protections. On the other hand, trees already have citywide code protecting them [0]; we can't cut them down or prune them beyond reasonable basics. For example, a neighbor recently had a small fire in their front yard from a tossed cigarette butt; the city examined the surviving trees, put up little fences mandating that the trees not be removed or damaged, and ensured that the trees were safe.

We do need more trees outside central Portland, particularly in the eastern neighborhoods [1], and I wish that they would plant fewer deciduous trees, because their leaves block storm drains [2][3].

[0] https://www.portlandoregon.gov/trees/

[1] https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/08/12/east-of-82nd-avenue-po...

[2] https://www.portlandoregon.gov/trees/60043

[3] https://www.kptv.com/news/workers-to-clean-storm-drains-afte...

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#143

Post by JamesBarney » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 5:52 PM UTC

ISL wrote: post #111

mperham wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That kinda sounds like "Yeah no one goes there anymore, it's way too crowded".

It sucks to watch the trees disappear, I love trees in neighborhoods too. But at an urban level if trees disappear that's about aesthetics not the environment. Density is really great for the environment because of reduced commute, better insulation(apt vs house), etc..

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#144

Post by jansan » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 5:53 PM UTC

monadic2 wrote: post #135

kyleblarson wrote: post #70

Portland might not need more density as people are fleeing it in droves for areas with sane leadership that don't have nightly riots.

I"d think they were fleeing a city that refused to protect them from their own cops.

I am not from Portland, but the rest of the world did not get a great picture of the city during the last two or three months (yes, the word "shithole" was dropped a few times). I do not remember any images of businesses being threatened by cops, but what do I know sitting at the other end of the world.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#145

Post by baybal2 » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 5:54 PM UTC

ska wrote: post #63

toomuchtodo wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is easy to wish but hard to realize, considering the US population is rapidly aging. There is a balance between prioritizing pedestrians and cyclists while still supporting reasonable mobility for those not in their prime as well as daily freight/parcel services.

"automobiles" is an idiosyncratic answer to "how do we deal with mobility issue of an aging population?".

> "how do we deal with mobility issue of an aging population?"

Exercise?

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#146

Post by stagger87 » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 5:54 PM UTC

kyleblarson wrote: post #70

Portland might not need more density as people are fleeing it in droves for areas with sane leadership that don't have nightly riots.

Do you have population numbers since covid/riots? Despite a few article about people leaving Portland, I suspect the population is overall still growing as it has been for the last 140 years.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#147

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 5:54 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #126

jeffbee wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

[deleted]

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#148

Post by likpok » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 5:55 PM UTC

noelwelsh wrote: post #75

rayiner wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What does "housing poverty" mean here? As far as I can tell it means "houses smaller than I am used to". In which case I have to ask what is the concern with houses less than 2500 sq ft? I can't find any evidence that housing size, above some minimum[1], is correlated with happiness. See e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45420795#:~:text=The%20U... . https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10902-016-9732-2…

4 rooms per occupant is huge.

Consider a 3/3 with a kitchen, dining room and living room. For 4 people (two kids and two parents) you have 9 rooms, or a little over 2 per person.

This family would need to double their house size before maxing out.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#149

Post by seanmcdirmid » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 5:58 PM UTC

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…

1200 SQF is fine if you have some kind of storage to rely on, don't need two home offices for two people WFHing, have only one kid, and don't need space for a musical instrument of some kind. Otherwise...it isn't workable.

Maybe if we didn't have a kid? Or if I could convince my wife to give up some things? We were just in the housing market and had to pass on these smaller houses very quickly. Not only that, but bigger houses were only 10-20% greater in cost than smaller ones...it was a no brainer to go with 2000 SQF.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#150

Post by matchbok » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 5:59 PM UTC

stakkur wrote: post #46

matchbok wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what "increasing density" you are talking about. No city has done that. SF rejected it, DC, etc. In fact, I'd bet more places have decreased density than increase it. The increases have only come in the past 5 years (Portland, Minneapolis) There's only one guarantee - limiting density in a growing city with jobs does make housing less affordable. That has been the status quo in every major city in the USA ov…

The intention of the zoning reform linked to here is increasing density in existing low-density areas. Here's (only) one example of analysis of the density housing affordability relationship. Spoiler alert: density always increases housing costs in the long run. https://www.newgeography.com/content/005183-what-price-urban... There has never been a city in the US that has made housing more affordable by increasing den…

In times of massive apartment booms, rents have in fact held steady or decreased. Seattle is a recent example. There are only so many people who want to live in a particular city, so supply and demand do play a part here.

https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2019/01/apartment-rents-...

Based on your logic, we could build more apartments in a particular city than humans exist and rents would continue to go up, even if most of those apartments are empty. That clearly doesn't make sense.

Your last argument misses the point. As cities become more fashionable, not building more housing is a guarantee of increased costs due to supply and demand. In cities like SF, rents continue to rise faster than most cities. SF is also the hardest place to build anything. I wonder if those two are related.