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

371–380 of 438 posts

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#371

Post by staybailey »

makomk wrote: post #347
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.

So basically, we need to legally mandate that the only way for people to ensure that they have basic things like sunlight and not staring into a brick wall - or perhaps worse, having an endless parade of other people staring into their rooms and garden from the new multi-story art gallery across the street - is via sprawl that makes existing suburbia look positively compact? The problem with this kind of thinking is…

The standard solution to this is called an easement, which basically means I own the air rights over your property so that I can ensure my views are unobstructed.

Getting rid of the idea of owning the neighbors airspace entails figuring out how to fairly allocate easements that generally don't currently exist because of legacy reasons.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#372

Post by CincinnatiMan »

ogre_codes wrote: post #257
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.

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.

What you mention is a different scenario from a developer building an 8-story complex next to a 2-story SFH, and it's reasonable to think we (society) could treat them differently if we so chose.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#373

Post by Nasrudith »

ogre_codes wrote: post #291
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.

Boarding houses used to be fairly common, I'm not sure if this kind of regulation or something else drove them out of common use. The idea of not having to deal with cooking or meals out every night has a fair amount of appeal by itself.

Zoning and technology both had a role to play in their demise. Zoning reduced their scope, technology made living outside the city while working more possible and reduced the need.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#375

Post by alistairSH »

makomk wrote: post #363
alistairSH wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The market will probably solve this, but it might not necessarily do so in a way you like. No widespread EV adoption and cars running on oil indefinitely because EVs are not viable for most people would be a perfectly valid free market solution to the problem.

That seems unlikely. If people demand off-street parking as part of a new home, they can also demand a charger. Or install one themselves. There is no prohibition on off-street parking linked to these changes.

As for on-street parking, I don't feel particularly inclined to subsidize (via my tax payments) parking for the public's gross overuse of cars. I'd rather my tax dollars go to transit and alternative infrastructure.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#376

Post by mleonhard »

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…

I think it will be a long time before any existing cities ban cars. It would be faster to start a new car-less city. I dream of doing that someday.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#377

Post by alistairSH »

Tiktaalik wrote: post #310
alistairSH wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know some mountain and coastal areas actually do have view ordinances, but they're typically very limited (sometimes only to trees, not construction, etc). But, I don't believe that's the norm in most places.

City of Vancouver has a policy of protected public views. The goal is to make it so that views of Vancouver's mountains are reasonably accessible by anyone, not just those that purchased a north facing suite in a tall condo tower. It's pretty much the same underlying concept as why we create public parks. The view cones are scattered around and are usually tied to areas of heavy public pedestrian activity, such as pa…

That's super neat, thanks for sharing.

As a counter, Seattle doesn't have much comparable. You an buy "air rights" to protect your view, but there isn't a general protection for home-owners. It's fairly common for a small home to be replaced with a newer, much taller, structure, taking neighbor's views with it.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#378

Post by CincinnatiMan »

harryh wrote: post #204
ISL wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From where I sit in Seattle, I'm watching the trees around our home disappear in favor of five-over-one cubes. I've chosen to live here, in part, because it doesn't feel like a city. When the trees disappear, we are likely to contribute to that sprawl.

Seattle is a city. If you want to live someplace that "doesn't feel like a city" then....don't live in a city. While, perhaps, you moving might "contribute to that sprawl" that impact will be more than offset by multiple people moving into the greater density being created in Seattle. Overall it's a significant net win for the environment.

>Seattle is a city. If you want to live someplace that "doesn't feel like a city" then....don't live in a city.

Seattle is expensive. If you want to live someplace that "isn't expensive" then....don't live somewhere that is expensive.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#379

Post by core-questions »

didibus wrote: post #247
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.

> Well, can we come up with a more constructive and friendly way of doing this That's what the article is doing. Lots of people commit crime because they are homeless, or in financial struggle. If you allowed for zoning that would bring down the cost of rent, and therefore the cost of living, more people could get themselves off the street, and more people would have more money (from spending less of it on rent). Tha…

> If you allowed for zoning that would bring down the cost of rent, and therefore the cost of living, more people could get themselves off the street

Lowering the cost of living is probably a good idea, you're not wrong, but there are some people for whom it will never matter how much the rent is, because they're not with-it enough to organize themselves to be able to pay it or to be a reasonable tenant. Mental health programs are the only hope I have for dealing with that, but they're too underfunded and frankly too voluntary presently to make the real difference we seek.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#380

Post by core-questions »

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…

Most of those things only work when you have the vast majority of the citizens in the country as net positive taxpayers. Unfortunately, that's not the case in the USA - you're ultimately becoming a "have not" country, full of itinerant people with no employment or prospects, thanks to massive-scale de-industrialization.

> basic income scheme

Paying people who don't contribute so that they can continue to not contribute is not going to get you out of this problem.

Your ideas are nice, you sound like a good person who wants good things for the world, but also somewhat naive and sheltered - somehow the socialist version of the libertarian shouting "bootstraps".

> they'll have to leave all their physical equipment behind, and we can institute a system of grants to help workers form a union and start using that stuff

It's just as likely to be burned to the ground in protest, these days. Much as the computer is more the OS than it is the hardware, the factory is more the business processes + engineering than it is the raw assembly line. Take that magic smoke out and even the nicest equipment will produce nothing. You expect squatters to move in and just resume producing widgets?

Post reply on HN