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

331–340 of 438 posts

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#331

Post by triceratops »

Tiktaalik wrote: post #326
triceratops wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never understood the arguments in favor of publicly funded housing. Public funding is used for things that are a common good (e.g. roads, public parks, defense, food safety) or that are important but otherwise wouldn't get funded (e.g. basic research). Housing fits neither of those buckets. If you occupy a publicly funded housing unit, I can't - it's not a public good. And there are always developers and builder…

There are literally 300 homeless people living in a tent city in a public park in Vancouver right now in part because there is no affordable housing. Seems to me that there's a market failure here where the market cannot create affordable housing. It's not regulations alone that have made it so that developers can't make affordable housing. The construction costs are simply too high for a for-profit developer to be a…

> The construction costs are simply too high for a for-profit developer to be able to do it.

I don't know about Vancouver's specific problems. Why are the construction costs so high there?

In the Bay Area regulations, and tax laws that incentivize holding on to old housing, are largely to blame for the lack of housing supply.

> If I'm a renter I'd rather have my monthly rent go to back into the public purse to be re-invested in more public works than to some S&P500 listed REIT to pad some wealthy investors' dividends

Who in turn pay taxes on those dividends. Maybe increase those taxes, and taxes on the property itself.

> If housing development is such a good investment then of course the public should get in on it.

Lots of businesses are a good investment. That's not a good reason for the public sector to get into it.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#332

Post by hakfoo »

war1025 wrote: post #269
Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I always thought there was a market for "semi-assisted living for non-disabled/non-seniors". If they put a cafeteria (maybe make the bottom floors of the building an open-to-the-public food court) and a centralized laundry service in a large apartment building, it changes the product offering dramatically.

You can monetize the service offering-- I could see charging a few hundred dollars more per month for an apartment that included a meal and laundry service plan. (obviously, some tweaks and fiddling would be necessary, but there's a lot of precedent on the math from college dorm plans out there)

The design of the buildings can be economized: instead of having to give up significant square footage for full kitchens, big pantries, and laundry rooms in most/every unit, you can provide a kitchenette and more livable square footage. You can likely cut out some of the high-amperage circuits necessary for cookers and dryers, and some plumbing for laundry rooms. I wonder if it would be viable to consider as an endgame if remote work hangs around after Covid and we end up with a glut of office-tower capacity, although I suspect the cost to retrofit in enough bathrooms/showers would vastly outweigh the cost of dropping in a dishwasher and stove into each unit.

Maintenance costs likely go down, as you don't have need to install or maintain dishwashers, ovens, in-sink food disposal units, and any sort of plumbing or electrical problems they cause. You have fewer noise, weird smell, and small-fire related complaints.

There's clearly a marketable business around "I'm waaaaay too busy doing Important Business Stuff/Living My Extreme Life/Some Other Self-Aggrandizing Fantasy to worry about the nuts and bolts of living" (See products like Soylent and Huel for people who find preparing food and eating a challenge) and this is just another step on the continuum.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#333

Post by unethical_ban »

wool_gather wrote: post #12
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…

> Imagine not being relegated to the sidewalk Pedestrians don't mix any better with (electric) bikes that are trying to get places than they do with cars. Reasonably broad and well-maintained sidewalks are essential for everyone's comfort and safety.

Yes, they do. Do they mix perfectly? No. But a person + 30 lb bike at 20 mph is safer for pedestrians in a collision than 4000 lbs of rigid steel and plastic at the same speed or faster.

Note also that bike paths and rights of way are not designed in mostof the US to prioritize bikes OR walkers.

Imagine if roads and roundabouts were designed exclusively for bikes and pedestrians.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#334

Post by pessimizer »

cringepirate wrote: post #279
andys627 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People didn't want cars, they wanted what the gov't subsidized. Here in the US cars are subsidized and transit, biking, walking is penalized. These dials are turned differently in different countries.

I don't believe that for a second. In the UK where I live the government subsidise rail. Rail is very expensive, slow and unreliable especially compared to my diesel car. I would rather cycle to the train station, get onto the train with my bike and then cycle the other side to work. However it costs me almost twice as much to do and takes me 3 times as long. Even with all the taxes on fuel, emissions and the price o…

In the UK where you live the government ripped up half the rails, then privatized the rest. Oh, Doctor Beeching! Please, Mr. Branson!

The UK once subsidized a working system, then destroyed most of that system without any resulting cost savings, then sold it to billionaires who it now subsidizes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beeching_cuts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation_of_British_Rail

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#335

Post by Tiktaalik »

triceratops wrote: post #331
Tiktaalik wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are literally 300 homeless people living in a tent city in a public park in Vancouver right now in part because there is no affordable housing. Seems to me that there's a market failure here where the market cannot create affordable housing. It's not regulations alone that have made it so that developers can't make affordable housing. The construction costs are simply too high for a for-profit developer to be a…

> The construction costs are simply too high for a for-profit developer to be able to do it. I don't know about Vancouver's specific problems. Why are the construction costs so high there? In the Bay Area regulations, and tax laws that incentivize holding on to old housing, are largely to blame for the lack of housing supply. > If I'm a renter I'd rather have my monthly rent go to back into the public purse to be re-…

> I don't know about Vancouver's specific problems. Why are the construction costs so high there?

There's no real reason why construction costs are high. As the amount of construction increases, the available labour pool decreases, and labour costs accordingly increase. There is always lots of construction going on. More highly trained trades would help, but easier said than done.

If anything it's more that construction costs are artificially low in the USA since there is a class of illegal immigrant labour which can be exploited and paid low. That does not exist in Canada.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#336

Post by xyhopguy »

darawk wrote: post #264
ng12 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

densify portland -> improve tax revenue -> improve transit. nyc certainly benefited from aristocrats and lax labor laws when building the subway, but this isnt something that is impossible for portland. trimet is already huge for a city as small as portland. improving density will only help transit services.

it doesnt have to be subways -- the willamette flood plain isnt great for subways anyway. portland should continue to build out its bus service and cycling infrastructure. portland is already pretty reasonable for living without a car, it will only improve with density.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#337

Post by xyhopguy »

scollet wrote: post #286
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…

Let me also plug biking infra. This, imo, should be an accessible alternative to balance the inefficiencies of motor vehicles (too much space for too little passengers) and rail/bus (too many passengers and dilated commute time).

in the denser parts of portland it already is!

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#338

Post by joelhoffman »

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…

I think you're right in the short term, but in the long term, if everyone does it, I think it runs the risk of actually providing enough supply to drive the rents down by a significant amount. Maybe enough to reduce profits vs the original $4000 ranch. I feel like this is as significant as the other reasons why denser housing has been opposed.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#339

Post by sneak »

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…

Lack of density is the ultimate externality: the increased resource consumption caused by the inefficiency of spreading everything out more has to be borne by every member of society.

Everyone pays in life-seconds, in money, in pollution, in reduced societal interactions.

Cities exist for a reason.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#340

Post by asdff »

whatshisface wrote: post #320
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ho…

If you have a legitimate interest, why not buy out the block yourself and live in your own little Shangri La? Otherwise, you are asking the government to subsidize your lifestyle preferentially over that of your neighbors. Believe it or not, the people living in the apartment next door with the spotlights are your neighbors too.
Post reply on HN