Portland passes low-density zoning reform • Hacker News Board

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#171

Post by stickfigure » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 6:15 PM UTC

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.

A friend of mine has four kids and three au pairs. Plus frequent overnight guests like grandparents. That's not going to fit in 2500 sq ft.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#172

Post by jansan » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 6:15 PM UTC

Kednicma wrote: post #160

jansan wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Where are you from and which media outlets have you been consuming? From a local perspective, the national attempts to portray the protests are rather futile, since the area under contention is only about two blocks large [0] and it's not on most folks' daily walks. Even only a few blocks away, Portland continues life as normal [3], or as normal as COVID-19 will let us be [4]. To follow up on the grandparent's point,…

I am from Europe and one thing that I have heard is that your new DA is buddy with Antifa and announced that only major violations will get punished. This is basically a written invitation to rioters and looters to keep going. Oh, and of course I saw the Adam Haner scene that looked like a beheading from Irak until he was kicked in the head by BLM "Security", which then reminded me more of the curb stomping scene from American History X. Also, I did not fail to noticed that your mayor decided to completely ignore this incident. So yeah, from my narrow view, Portland did not look like the posterchild of civilization recently.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#173

Post by throwaway0a5e » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 6:17 PM UTC

specialist wrote: post #138

rayiner wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's one version. Caro's The Power Broker details how Bob Moses was the agent of the powerful forces behind the automobile. The only stakeholders not represented, or even consulted, were the average taxpaying citizens. Any dissent was ruthlessly squashed. Urban planners and normal citizens have been critical since the very beginning. The debate really picked up after WWII, with the resumption of peace time economy.…

If it truly was about reaching a density point where cars no longer make sense we'd have built rail. Why didn't we?

Transportation is fundamentally about time and money trade-offs. Supply goes up and cost comes down or vise versa. If you want cost low you gotta have a lot of supply. It doesn't matter whether the wheels are steel or rubber you just need to have the supply. For an economy to flourish people need to be able to not be trapped going to a job or shopping at a particular store because the cost of getting there is workable but that is exactly the reality that transit scarcity creates.

If it was just about the cars they wouldn't have spent the 60s and 70s killing mass transit projects while also killing highways. Infrastructure development in the US ground to a halt because in the 60s the upper middle class managed to get far away from the poors for the first time in history and they wanted to keep it that way by keeping the cost of living outside the inner city from getting too low.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#174

Post by neutronicus » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 6:20 PM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #149

jschwartzi wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 big…

Most of your objections essentially agree with parent comment's coda:

> 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.

If you go to an office and keep your instrument in a locker someplace with practice rooms and your kids spend a lot of time elsewhere (outside, neighbors' houses, etc) then it probably is?

But yeah, for my wife and I (who only have one kid, but may want more) it was still the same thought process as you. We've been living in 1200 square feet with an 8 month old and we make it work but we're both working / studying / networking from the living room and going a little batty in the process, not to mention that our kitchen is tiny and probably not ventilated well enough given that the stove and oven are gas.

So we went for 2500 rather than enter the market and incur closing costs again if we want another kid or both wind up permanently remote post-COVID.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#175

Post by nicoburns » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 6:21 PM UTC

jasondclinton wrote: post #19

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.

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.

Perhaps it will lead to public transport infrastructure being built out. Well, we can dream.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#176

Post by BurningFrog » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 6:23 PM UTC

treis wrote: post #155

ogre_codes wrote: post #15

> "It shouldn’t take six years for any city to agree to give itself permission to build the sort of homes that every city once allowed." This is IMO the big thing here. Cities used to allow this kind of construction. Our auto-friendly culture and the desire of landowners to keep poor people off their block has led to increasingly draconian restrictions on private property use. I understand regulations around keeping…

>I have a second building on my property and a separate driveway for each one are government overreach. Increasing density has definite externalities. Traffic, street parking, and public spaces all get more congested. Plus a neighbor building a bigger building impacts my views and the light that falls on my property. We do need some way of balancing those concerns with development. IMHO, we've swayed too far towards…

Those are real, but minor issues. Increased density also brings good externalities, like more services, retail etc.

In practice, handing out veto powers against construction has had disastrous results for everyone not already owning homes.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#177

Post by specialist » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 6:26 PM UTC

ipnon wrote: post #162

specialist wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's one version. Caro's The Power Broker details how Bob Moses was the agent of the powerful forces behind the automobile. The only stakeholders not represented, or even consulted, were the average taxpaying citizens. Any dissent was ruthlessly squashed. Urban planners and normal citizens have been critical since the very beginning. The debate really picked up after WWII, with the resumption of peace time economy.…

The history of the automobile in America is longer. Until the 1940s you will struggle to find detrimental side effects of automobile adoption. The automobile did for the town what the railroad did for the city. The negative effects of the automobile on American society, as you rightly point, are an effect of the automobiles runaway success. We passed the point where the automobile was a net positive around the 1950s.…

Ya, Caro's summary is very measured, which I think older, calmer me now agrees with:

The problem was never the automobile per se, but the emphasis on the automobile to the exclusion of everything else. Starting with land use policies which only accommodate automobile centric development.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#178

Post by jeffbee » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 6:27 PM UTC

neutronicus wrote: post #167

crooked-v wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The parent comment is saying that all cars, even ones that are small for cars , are unacceptably large. The implication of their conclusion is that they even think the same of bicycles and electric scooters, which, after all, still take space to park. However I agree with the rest of your comment. My wife and I looked into plug-in hybrids (all the tax credit, none of the range anxiety) but there's no place to charge…

Eh, smaller electric cars don't help in practice because various regulations require buildings to come with a parking space of a certain size. Nobody is out there building smaller parking spaces for smaller cars. Indeed, Bay Area city Sunnyvale infamously outlawed "compact" parking spaces.

Electric bicycles by contrast take up the same space as any other bicycle.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#179

Post by tick_tock_tick » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 6:27 PM UTC

bradleybuda wrote: post #36

ogre_codes wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I missed that part. Though both multigenerational families and college students could be served well by multi-structure setups as well. Or in many cases, better served.

Or, maybe armchair central planners like you and I and the Portland City Council shouldn’t decide what’s best for people we’ve never met and let them decide instead.

I mean at this point I'm confident every armchair planner is more competent.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#180

Post by AnthonyMouse » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 6:27 PM UTC

TeaDrunk wrote: post #163

maerF0x0 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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. Additionally- companies can react intentionally slowly to squander and choke new technologies and scenarios, also doing so on an economic model.

But companies have competitors. If one insurance company requires an unnecessarily burdensome design (or charges unreasonable premiums without it) while another allows a more efficient design which is equally safe, customers will prefer the latter and the former will adapt or lose business.

If the government requires an unnecessarily burdensome design, you're screwed.