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

221–230 of 438 posts

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#221

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

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.

Dorms have RAs, security officers, cleaning staff, food courts, university police, and a wrap of social services that can nudge a person slipping back into line, or send them packing quickly. Landlords, rightly, shouldn't be able to send people packing with little to no notice. Without the security, social services, and cleaning staff I expect any project of the same scale as a large University to catastrophically fail due to public outcry regarding the inevitable decay of living conditions.

The unfortunate reality is that mentally ill people that don't know how to take care of themselves are expensive. Think cleaning feces off of every imaginable surface, thousand room bed bug outbreaks, all the awful diseases that occur in unkempt showers or locker rooms. How will we keep so many people in confined quarters happy and busy enough to not cause massive problems?

I fully support measures to take care of every living being on earth, but let's not make perfectly avoidable mistakes in the process.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#222

Post by zjaffee »

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…

That's ridiculous, there are other reasons for zoning laws outside of these things. Certain types of housing stock (i.e. condos and townhomes), need to be built to a higher quality than single family homes because it's much easier to tear down and replace a single family home or a rental apartment building should it move into disrepair. Over the long run this very regularly leads to housing units where the maintenance costs are far higher than the mortgage payment.

Multiplex homes also run a greater risk of falling into disrepair over the long term if you have a situation of split ownership.

The solution to our housing crisis cannot be more "missing middle" it needs to be larger scale projects with 50+ units each with strict standards around building quality.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#223

Post by alistairSH »

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.

Why wouldn't the market solve this? If people want a parking spot with their new home, they'll demand the builder create one.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#224

Post by kube-system »

jeffbee wrote: post #80
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…

That's contrary to all available data. People over 70 are the least-likely group of adults to have drivers' licenses and have the highest public transport mode share or any group, take the fewest trips, and travel the smallest distance per day. The elderly are arguably the people who stand to gain the most from compact patterns of development.

> People over 70 are the least-likely group of adults to have drivers' licenses

Not in the US! It's pretty common for them to continue driving until they have enough accidents that they're dropped by their insurance company.

https://www.businessinsider.com/young-people-drivers-license...

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#225

Post by estebank »

jackyinger wrote: post #127
pkulak wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not to mention the speeds and mass involved, and visibility that a cyclist has vs a driver (without even starting to consider the vehicles that are popular in the US).

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#226

Post by bluGill »

darawk wrote: post #213
FreakyT wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, un…

To add to your point, even if you were willing to invest in a proper network it will take years to get going. People are set in their ways and so they won't stop driving, even the hard core supporters of the idea will drive everywhere for a while. Eventually something will cause them to try transport, but the first time they will fail to figure out how to ride and so be late to their... Eventually they will figure it out and over 10 years you can get a good ridership for the population density. Then over the next 30 years you can get density to increase to the point where there is enough population density to justify the network you needed to create to get there.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#227

Post by maxerickson »

stickfigure wrote: post #218
cptskippy wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It'd be interesting to take a look at how much existing housing exceeds 2500 square feet, and how it is occupied. It's quite possible that not allowing new construction over that size would leave plenty of it available.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#228

Post by zjaffee »

alistairSH wrote: post #206
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…

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…

You do own the views in numerous cities due to historical precedent, and cities cant change these laws as it would be considered unconstitutional taking.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#229

Post by bluGill »

alistairSH wrote: post #206
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…

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…

In a city there shouldn't be set backs at all. If you want light buy a bigger lot and set yourself back. If you want a garden move out to farm country or put it on the roof (wasted space to most, as it happens I'm installing solar on my roof today, but even then most of my roof is wasted space)

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#230

Post by zjaffee »

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…

Sometimes we need to relearn from the lessons of the 20th century and not go around and build tenements again.

Minimum standards are a necessary thing for long term sustainability of cities and are especially important as things pertain to public health. Anti tenement laws became popular during the spanish flu outbreak for a reason.

Post reply on HN