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

311–320 of 438 posts

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#311

Post by feteru »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #303
mertd wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And the gain wouldn't exist with stricter zoning because it comes from the fact that your property is worth more when somebody can buy it and build twice as much housing on it. Counterpoint Bay Area. Industry hotspot, liberally allows office development, aggressively fights any new residential develpment and also freezes property taxes at the time of purchase.

Three of those are just other ways of increasing real estate prices. They're additive, not alternative. Now suppose somebody could knock down your million dollar three bedroom home there, put up five condos that size on the same lot and sell them each for $750K. That'd make the property itself worth more than a million dollars, right?

Isn't that the residential development they're talking about that is prohibited/restricted?

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#312

Post by novok »

bluGill wrote: post #244
eikenberry wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you describe requires the elimination of residential zoning completely to allow for small businesses to mix in with the homes. You can't eliminate cars until you eliminate the need for driving to stores and you can't eliminate that without mixed zoning.

I agree with mixed zoning, but you still need to get supplies to the local stores and trash out of the area. Plus you need places for special construction equipment to get in as there is need. Of course all of the above is a fraction of traffic that we have today. However don't pretend it doesn't exist.

Eliminating cars does not mean eliminating roads.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#313

Post by novok »

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.

That infographic says 2500 feet, but the article says '2500 sqft in a hypothetical 5000 sqft lot'. So it's a ratio, not a set limit.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#314

Post by mertd »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #303
mertd wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And the gain wouldn't exist with stricter zoning because it comes from the fact that your property is worth more when somebody can buy it and build twice as much housing on it. Counterpoint Bay Area. Industry hotspot, liberally allows office development, aggressively fights any new residential develpment and also freezes property taxes at the time of purchase.

Three of those are just other ways of increasing real estate prices. They're additive, not alternative. Now suppose somebody could knock down your million dollar three bedroom home there, put up five condos that size on the same lot and sell them each for $750K. That'd make the property itself worth more than a million dollars, right?

Your general point is true. I'm pointing out an alternative where zoning stays predominantly single family yet the real estate prices grow unbounded.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#315

Post by Tiktaalik »

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…

This is in fact one of the core criticisms of these sort of policies. The concern is that by increasing the allowed density on land, the underlying price of the land also subsequently increases.

Accordingly the "value" that one gets for their dollar decreases. While before one may have paid 1.2M for an house and full lot, now suddenly 1.2M can't buy a full lot, but 900k can buy a 1000sqft apt part of that lot.

There's an upside for someone that needed more room and could never afford a 1.2M house, or a renter that just wants more apt options, but there's a downside for someone who could afford an entire house but is now seeing the price of an entire house go up.

All this being said, in practice it is arguable whether the land values do increase that much. The fact that these changes are being applied city wide at once may limit the effect.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#316

Post by extrapickles »

freeone3000 wrote: post #298
bluGill wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Setbacks are required in cities, otherwise many buildings wouldn't receive any natural light at ground level. Two- and three-story buildings don't really need them, the sidewalk is enough.

Also setbacks help slow the spread of fire if one building catches on fire.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#317

Post by panopticon »

ccsnags wrote: post #261
bluGill wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Interestingly, violent crime rates in Appalachia have been increasing over the last 30 years while urban violent crime rates have been declining over the same period (minus the upward trend of the last 3-4 years).

But Appalachia bucks a lot of statistical trends, so make of that what you will.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#318

Post by Tiktaalik »

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.

This policy will make SFHs in Portland an extremely good investment in the long term as you can now substantially increase the amount of rentable units on the same amount of land.

If you have the means buy a cheap SFH lot in Portland while you can.

If we really actually want to make housing not an investment then we need to empower our government to fund the development of publicly owned housing for everyone.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#319

Post by egypturnash »

didibus wrote: post #258
egypturnash wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, Si…

Yeah we are basically swimming in “unrestrained capitalism is the only option forever” propaganda here.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#320

Post by whatshisface »

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.

Yes, if you give people infinite control over everything visible from their houses, they can build a radio telescope and control half the universe. On the other hand, your proposal is too radical, because I feel like I have a legitimate interest in not getting boxed in by several 100-foot walls spraypainted with obscenities and built one inch away from my property line, lit with daylight-strength spotlights at all hours of the night like that one Mormon temple. There has to be a reasonable middle ground between no control and infinite control.
Post reply on HN