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

261–270 of 438 posts

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#261

Post by ccsnags »

bluGill wrote: post #211
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.

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.

I’m Appalachian. We have ridiculously low violent crime rates for the levels of poverty we have. I believe that this is a function of population density rather than any intrinsic trait of us hilljacks.

I went to PDX often before the lockdown and I was struck by the lack of housing. I met with mostly contractors and construction people and they either lived in campers or an hour north in Washington. These people were middle class and couldn’t afford that city. I can only imagine how awful it would be to have low income in a place like that.

There is no shortage of land though. It is not Manhattan.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#263

Post by bluGill »

stakkur wrote: post #64
jeffbee wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, talk about missing the point. That analysis looks at the correspondence between equilibrium compactness and price. It does not look at the marginal change in price for a marginal change in density. I hope you can see the logical flaw in your statement "density increases housing costs".

From the article: "The trend, however, is indisputable: Greater compactness increases housing costs." The 'compactness index' they're talking about is centered around density (and the impacts of that on transportation, health, travel distances, etc.). And my 'argument' is not about the negative effect of density--it's that I don't believe that density makes housing more affordable.

Density and affordability are independent of each other. Affordability is about supply and demand now. Density is about supply only and says nothing about demand.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#264

Post by darawk »

ng12 wrote: post #239
darawk wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Do you think they built the MTA before they built Manhattan? Population growth creates the tax base, density, and demand required for a successful public transportation system. Demanding that the public transport comes first is simply backwards.

They built the MTA when they still had the flexibility to do it. Portland is too developed now, too many entrenched interests, it'll never get done.

Listen, I am on the same page as you - I would love for it to happen. I would vote for it. I would pay taxes for it. But the reality is that it isn't going to happen, and if you densify the city without the transit, you will have these problems.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#265

Post by war1025 »

zjaffee wrote: post #231
war1025 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And we are seeing massive outbreaks of COVID-19 on college campuses now that some are reopening, these laws were first put in place for related reasons...

> And we are seeing massive outbreaks of COVID-19 on college campuses now that some are reopening

Honestly, great. Let the young catch it to act as firebreaks for the more vulnerable.

If you are going to college in person right now, you have already judged the risks and deemed them acceptable.

The thing I think is ridiculous is the number of universities shutting down completely at the first whiff of an outbreak.

What did they think would happen? Have the backbone to let it burn through.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#266

Post by jabl »

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…

> Increasing density has definite externalities.

So does endless sprawl. Arguably larger, even.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#267

Post by microtherion »

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.

> People with big families don't get to live in Portland?

Nothing in the legislation prohibits big houses. All it does is legalize small ones.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#268

Post by ip26 »

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.

3 bedroom is not some kind of ridiculous luxury if you have teenage son(s) & daughter(s).

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#269

Post by war1025 »

Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #221
war1025 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fa…

> The unfortunate reality is that mentally ill people that don't know how to take care of themselves are expensive.

When did I ever mention housing for the mentally ill?

What I'm saying is I think consenting, functional adults should have the option of living in a dorm-style setting if they so choose.

For one, it's a great way to build community.

For two, it should be a significantly cheaper way to live, which would probably appeal mainly to the poor, but would also appeal to the same set of people that already live with multiple roommates to reduce costs.

Apartment complexes already have on-premise maintenance staff. There is no reason to expect that a dorm-style building couldn't also be staffed appropriately.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#270

Post by tgb »

lbrito wrote: post #165

Slightly off-topic, but to me these kinds of articles always offer an amazing insight into how the average (okay, if they're literally average or not is debatable) American thinks cities and urban planning. If you read a bit through the comment box, about half of the comments are from people scandalized and terrified that Portland will immediately turn into a huge dumpster rife with crime because of the new legislati…

An example from the RNC on Monday night:

> They’re not satisfied with spreading the chaos and violence into our communities. They want to abolish the suburbs altogether by ending single family home zoning. This forestry zoning would bring crime, lawlessness and low quality apartments into now thriving suburban neighborhoods. President Trump smartly ended this government overreach, but Joe Biden wants to bring it back. These are the policies that are coming to a neighborhood near you. So make no mistake, no matter where you live, your family will not be safe in the radical Democrats America.

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/2020-republican-nationa...

Post reply on HN