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

211–220 of 438 posts

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#211

Post by bluGill »

core-questions wrote: post #156
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…

> 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.

There are a lot of poor people who are not criminals who don't like being lumped in with the criminals. Welcome them, and show by example how to live a better crime free life. Show that education is what made you able to afford fun things. Show that you aren't actually smarter, but a few life choices that they can point their kids to (as an adult it is often too late) can bring their kids to your level.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#212

Post by Karunamon »

core-questions wrote: post #156
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…

> 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.

A pretty good correlation exists between poverty and crime. You see the same kind of reactions in even small cities when there's a plan to build a homeless shelter or halfway house or any other such institutions, nobody wants it in their back yard, nobody wants the negative externalities.

You can call it cold, and it is, but it's also entirely rational.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#213

Post by darawk »

FreakyT wrote: post #191
treis wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> Traffic, street parking, and public spaces all get more congested A proper transit network and walkable design ensures that this doesn't become a problem. > Plus a neighbor building a bigger building impacts my views and the light that falls on my property. People get so hung up on this, but that's just how it goes -- cities change. Just because you bought a place doesn't mean you're entitled to the exact same view…

> A proper transit network and walkable design ensures that this doesn't become a problem.

While that's true, if you don't have a proper transit network, it's a real problem. And many cities aren't in a position to build a proper transit network at the drop of a hat. Don't get me wrong, I wish they did or could efficiently build one. But sometimes you have to deal with reality as it is, not as you'd like it to be, unfortunately.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#214

Post by alistairSH »

ghaff wrote: post #134
hinkley wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The usual is to count "finished" space. So if an attic has been converted to a bedroom like the house I grew up in, that would normally be counted as part of the house space. Same with basements. My current house has both an attic and a basement but they're very unfinished. My basement can get wet so I don't store much down there but there's a lot up in the attic. Having storage space outside of the living quarters m…

This is true, usually.

It leads to interesting quirks in real estate listings, where identical houses get listed with very different sizes. Example, my house was listed at 1500sqft. Same model one row over was listed at 2000sqft. The 500sqft different is the basement - it's finished in both homes, but was not part of the original building listing (1972).

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#215

Post by kube-system »

jungletime wrote: post #108
rayiner wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Most of the US still lives in really crappy old homes built in the last century, with asbestos insulation, tar shingles, fiber board, and wood rot. Doesn't really compare with building standards in Europe, even Eastern Europe. China also has modernized and built some awesome cities. Middle East, and Asian cities are also pretty modern. I'm not really sure who you are comparing to? India? Africa?

US homes are relatively new compared to many of the homes in Europe, so I'm not sure why you're calling them 'old'.

Also, Europe's prevalent masonry construction might "feel" solid, but that doesn't equal a high level of "building standards". A whole lot of western safety/environmental/plumbing/electrical/accessibility standards have changed in the past 20-70 years.

Much in the way chrome-adorned '60s US cars "felt" solid, and older people scoffed at the inornate "plastic cars" of the '90s, this perception of quality didn't translate to actual engineering superiority.

Some of the over-sized chintzy boxes that are built in the US are actually built to pretty dang good standards, i.e.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Building_Code

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#216

Post by [deleted] »

war1025 wrote: post #205
ajmurmann wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#217

Post by ClumsyPilot »

dmitriy_ko wrote: post #133
jungletime wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the US still lives in really crappy old homes built in the last century, with asbestos insulation, tar shingles, fiber board, and wood rot. Doesn't really compare with building standards in Europe, even Eastern Europe. China also has modernized and built some awesome cities. Middle East, and Asian cities are also pretty modern. I'm not really sure who you are comparing to? India? Africa?

Average US home is twice as big as European. Only Australian homes are bigger: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/average-h...

Thats not neccesarily contradicting his point, the house coild be large but poorly built. In fact that could make sence

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#218

Post by stickfigure »

cptskippy wrote: post #190
stickfigure wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Would you say that's the norm? One au pair is a luxury, 3 seems lavish.

It's certainly not the norm. But we're not talking about average house size, we're talking about maximum house size. You're clipping off the edge of the bell curve. People with big families don't get to live in Portland?

FWIW he's a single dad, and au pairs aren't always on duty. It's less lavish than it sounds.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#219

Post by lkbm »

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.

Depends on the group of students or size of a multi-generational household. I live in a 14-person house, and previously a 19-person one.

Students frequently enjoy larger communities, especially since it's often a lot more affordable to have a large house split 10-20 ways than a medium house split five. ("Medium" is a stretch, since five bedrooms is a large house in the US.)

These aren't the most common arrangements, but that doesn't mean they should be prohibited.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#220

Post by alistairSH »

noelwelsh wrote: post #202
ericd wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Culture isn't fixed, but it can be slow and resistant to change.

To use your example, ending slavery took a civil war that almost ended the US. And we're still dealing with the aftermath (economic equity, police brutality, etc).

Post reply on HN