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

201–210 of 438 posts

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#201

Post by ajmurmann »

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 understand that most cities also have restrictions like minimum unit size and requirements for every unit to have it's own bathroom and kitchen. In the past people who just started out and poor people had the option to rent such rooms and that way afford to live in urban areas and avoid a crazy commute. To make that work now you have to find roommates and take over a unit that wasn't meant for this use case.

It's nice that we want minimum standards of living for everyone, but removing options we find appalling didn't create the options we want everyone to have

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#202

Post by noelwelsh »

ericd wrote: post #124
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.

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 f…

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Culture is not a fixed thing. The majority of present day US citizens do not believe slavery is acceptable, but in the past a majority were prepared to tolerate slavery. Yes, changes to housing will bring about changes of attitudes to housing, but so what? That has already happened---US houses have grown by 40% since the 1980s per the BBC article. Why could this not happen again?

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#203

Post by gedy »

truth__indulger wrote: post #189
core-questions wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the desire of landowners to keep poor people off their block Well, can we come up with a more constructive and friendly way of doing this? It's not unreasonable for normal middle-class folks to not want to have to live in a problematic, crime-ridden, situation with high personal-security risks and property crime. That's why we pay for police, after all.

Wow, White Supremacist much? Defending one's home or property or feeling entitled to "Safety" from "Crime" is White Privilege.

It this sarcasm? Wanting safety from crime is now same level as KKK or Nazis?

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#204

Post by harryh »

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.

Seattle is a city. If you want to live someplace that "doesn't feel like a city" then....don't live in a city.

While, perhaps, you moving might "contribute to that sprawl" that impact will be more than offset by multiple people moving into the greater density being created in Seattle. Overall it's a significant net win for the environment.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#205

Post by war1025 »

ajmurmann wrote: post #201
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 understand that most cities also have restrictions like minimum unit size and requirements for every unit to have it's own bathroom and kitchen. In the past people who just started out and poor people had the option to rent such rooms and that way afford to live in urban areas and avoid a crazy commute. To make that work now you have to find roommates and take over a unit that wasn't meant for this use case. It's n…

The silly thing in my opinion is that college dormitories are exactly that type of housing. No kitchens, shared bathrooms. Works perfectly fine for housing large numbers of young people.

Somehow we've decided that we shouldn't give anyone other than college students access to that type of housing.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#206

Post by alistairSH »

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…

Parking strikes me as something the market will fix without a need for subsidized public parking.

Traffic needs system-wide reform. No argument there. Walkable neighborhoods, bike lanes, transit, etc.

Views - you don't (normally) own the views from your property. I live on a golf course; if it gets redeveloped into condos, I'm SOL.

Light - appropriate building setbacks mitigate this.

I'm not disagreeing really, just pointing out that your concerns are mostly valid, but have solutions.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#207

Post by honksillet »

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.

That just your opinion, though. Others may want more.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#208

Post by mech4bg »

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.

I was a little confused by this, but correct me if I'm wrong but the 2500 sq ft limit is just for R5 lots correct? Larger lots, like R10, can have much larger dwellings on them still.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#209

Post by [deleted] »

malandrew wrote: post #181
centimeter wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FHA prevented landowners from using peaceful, private strategies to keep poor people off their block (which a 100% rational desire), so obviously they are going to use coercive government-based strategies instead.

> which a 100% rational desire Yup. Anyone who has Amazon Ring notifications turned on knows this very well. You can pretty much see all the implicit geographic boundaries within which people are posting videos of property crime with far greater frequency. Queen Anne where I used to live in Seattle is a good example. Tons of ring cameras, yet very very few videos of property crime posted on the hill itself. As you mo…

[deleted]

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#210

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN