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

251–260 of 438 posts

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#251

Post by siruncledrew »

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…

Wouldn't this also be a win for real estate developers and property investors?

- Purchase old home or lot.

- Tear down old structure.

- Build new 4-plex or 6-plex.

- Sell/Rent 4-6 units on a plot.

Example: "ABC" owns rancher on a single plot. Rents out rancher for $4000/mo. Current revenue is $48000/yr. "ABC" turns rancher into modern 6-plex on the same plot. Rents out each of the 6 units for $2000/mo. New revenue is $144000/yr.

Of course, capital required to build a new structure will erode returns for initial years, but as long as the demand to live in Portland is still high, it seems like a more profitable strategy longterm?

Unless I am totally off-base with these assumptions.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#252

Post by spyspy »

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.

WeLive apartments are basically dorms for adults. A coworker lived in one for a few months while they got their bearings in NYC. For a slightly inflated rent you a fully furnished apartment with a bunch of people in the same situation as you - instant new network of friends and connections to get you started in a new place.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#253

Post by ican1 »

I see a lot of people arguing over what should be the minimum floor space requirement for a person. Instead of deciding this beforehand why not let everyone choose what they want, i.e. let the free market operate? The market can build houses of all sizes and the people can choose depending on their budget and taste. As an illustration many people in Japan live in shoebox apartments which may seem horrendously small to Americans but it beats being homeless.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#254

Post by egypturnash »

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…

The big requirement for "more cycling", IMHO, is "more errands being within comfortable cycling distance". Mixed-use zoning makes this a lot easier.

(I have never learnt to drive, and rely on cycling, walking, and transit; I find I am generally a lot happier when I live with a lot of errands in cycling distance!)

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#255

Post by noelwelsh »

ericd wrote: post #236
noelwelsh wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My point is that it doesn't seem like you've bothered to put yourself in the shoes of the people that this will affect. You're effectively saying "it's what I do, so it'll be fine for them". The change in housing size that you're talking about encompasses a 40 year period , your slavery example, much longer. Culture can change, but it doesn't happen suddenly, by fiat, it happens on generational timescales.

Do you think every house in Portland is going to be bulldozed and rebuilt inline with the new regulations? More likely it will take decades before the changing regulations are reflected in the housing stock.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#256

Post by burkaman »

siruncledrew wrote: post #251
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…

Wouldn't this also be a win for real estate developers and property investors? - Purchase old home or lot. - Tear down old structure. - Build new 4-plex or 6-plex. - Sell/Rent 4-6 units on a plot. Example: "ABC" owns rancher on a single plot. Rents out rancher for $4000/mo. Current revenue is $48000/yr. "ABC" turns rancher into modern 6-plex on the same plot. Rents out each of the 6 units for $2000/mo. New revenue is…

Yes, that's one of the main goals. They are encouraging affordable 6-plexes in the hopes of making housing in the city more affordable. Note that there is a rent ceiling based on the area, you can't build a 6-plex and charge whatever you want.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#257

Post by ogre_codes »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #242
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…

> views and the light that falls on my property We need blanket legislation outlawing the notion that by virtue of purchasing a plot of land one is also purchasing control over everything visible from said plot at the time of purchase.

Indeed. We have people who are suing their neighbors who grew large pine trees in a forested area because it disrupted someone's view. I'm not even sure if the trees in question were planted or just allowed to grow.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#258

Post by didibus »

egypturnash wrote: post #243
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.

Why, yes; we could bring back a societal safety net and raise the minimum wage, so that it's actually possible for one income to pay rent, utilities, and still have some money left over for saving against a disaster and having some fun. We could take things like "healthcare" or "education" out of the hands of profit-seeking entities and run them with the philosophy that "a healthy population" is a much better profit…

I'm probably biased being Canadian, but I feel a lot of Americans talk about social democracy like it's this ideological utopian grandiose dream that's never been tried or achieved.

But in reality, there's plenty of countries who've done it for a long time and had great success with it: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Finland, Iceland, Belgium, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, India, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong for example.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#259

Post by bluGill »

francis_t_catte wrote: post #109
kindatrue wrote: post #3

This seems disastrous for homeowners and landlords hoping to recreate this Silicon Valley success flywheel https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/1129046954409902081

Good. Housing should not be treated as an investment.

Housing is an investment, but it isn't a savings account. There is a difference.

As an investment a house is a place including neighborhood to live for a long time. You should be friends with the neighbors. When you get old it is a cheap place to live (you have it paid for). It is a place to save your memories (little Bobby tables bit the rail there...). A place to make what fits your life.

It isn't a savings account to get cash out of when you want some.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#260

Post by strstr »

siruncledrew wrote: post #251
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…

Wouldn't this also be a win for real estate developers and property investors? - Purchase old home or lot. - Tear down old structure. - Build new 4-plex or 6-plex. - Sell/Rent 4-6 units on a plot. Example: "ABC" owns rancher on a single plot. Rents out rancher for $4000/mo. Current revenue is $48000/yr. "ABC" turns rancher into modern 6-plex on the same plot. Rents out each of the 6 units for $2000/mo. New revenue is…

Benefitting developers is a consequence. They are the middle man for housing. You can't get housing without aiding them (at least not easily).

If your goal is to avoid benefitting developers, you will have a hard time encouraging housing.

Post reply on HN