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

381–390 of 438 posts

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#381

Post by harryh »

CincinnatiMan wrote: post #378
harryh wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To the degree that Seattle is inherently expensive, then sure.

But to the degree that it is unnecessarily expensive because of laws that make it illegal for people to build sufficient housing on property they own, then those laws are bad.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#382

Post by nickff »

staybailey wrote: post #371
makomk wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The issue (from a government perspective) with easements as opposed to zoning is that cities won't profit (as much) off the sale of easements. Governments make a lot of money from development, and they're not about to give it up.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#383

Post by fomine3 »

davidf18 wrote: post #79
stakkur wrote: post #13

I live in the area. Proponents have couched this as a 'progressive' vs. 'nimby' effort, which like the rest of life is not true at all. Housing is complex, not good vs. evil, liberal vs. conservative, urgan vs sprawl. If you doubt this, watch how much this comment is downvoted. One thing we know, based on over a century of data around the world: increasing density of housing has little effect on affordability, in the…

I have no idea where you are getting your data. Zoning density restrictions and overuse of historic landmark status create artificial scarcity of land resulting in higher housing costs. These both create market failures in housing. In Japan for 20 years there have been federal laws overriding local law that restricts zoning density. The result: in Tokyo they have been building 140,000 housing units per year compared…

In Tokyo, builders made condominiums too much in small spaces and gov don't stop them well, so these made too much crowd in train/station at morning and lack of nursery school, meanwhile non-big cities losing population. Centralization is another problem.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#384

Post by mleonhard »

ISL wrote: post #111
mperham wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm all for more green in cities but don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Suburban sprawl destroys far more environment. Density stops sprawl. This is net positive for trees and the environment.

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.

Economic growth, dense housing, and nature-destroying sprawl with soul-crushing commutes. Every city must pick two.

If you don't want your city to grow, how about voting for anti-business policies? That will stop the jobs growth and stop your city from growing. Then you won't have to deal with change.

Another option is to go full NIMBY and try to block new housing. This will cause housing prices to skyrocket, which will harm all the young people who grew up in your city, the folks who come to fill all the new jobs, and the poor (many will become homeless).

You must decide by yourself what you wish to do. I hope you will make a decision that reflects your core values, even if it comes with some disappointment.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#385

Post by [deleted] »

neutronicus wrote: post #174
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1200 SQF is fine if you have some kind of storage to rely on, don't need two home offices for two people WFHing, have only one kid, and don't need space for a musical instrument of some kind. Otherwise...it isn't workable. Maybe if we didn't have a kid? Or if I could convince my wife to give up some things? We were just in the housing market and had to pass on these smaller houses very quickly. Not only that, but big…

Most of your objections essentially agree with parent comment's coda: > The reason most houses are 2500 square feet nowadays is because you have to maintain a space for all the things you want to do inside your house. Whereas if you share space with your community for those things that many people do then you don't have to maintain a separate space for it. If you go to an office and keep your instrument in a locker s…

[deleted]

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#386

Post by freebee87 »

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…

Have you been to NYC? Or Tokyo? Or Singapore? Have you ever lived in a dense city before? These things just don't happen.

Developers a profit motived and are very aware of what sells and what doesn't. There are a million mechanisms by which we can avoid having a single story house surrounded by skyscrapers.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#387

Post by cringepirate »

pessimizer wrote: post #334
cringepirate wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This old attempted gotcha. It doesn't prove what you think it does.

I am well aware of the story. BTW British rail stopped being profitable back in 1955 (7 years after nationalisation).

It proves that maybe you shouldn't let government take public ownership of companies. Government will frequently provide the worse of both worlds as it tries to appease everyone and ends up serving no-one.

The result for the UK is that we have a very expensive rail service that is horrible to use and it is simply cheaper to drive.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#388

Post by lmz »

freebee87 wrote: post #386
makomk wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Have you been to NYC? Or Tokyo? Or Singapore? Have you ever lived in a dense city before? These things just don't happen. Developers a profit motived and are very aware of what sells and what doesn't. There are a million mechanisms by which we can avoid having a single story house surrounded by skyscrapers.

Re: profit motive. The new skyscrapers owned by the developers will have views. The existing single story house won't.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#389

Post by siemprenocasa »

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 reminds me of what Japan does (or in some cases around the Bay Area). People buy plots not for the house, but for the land. Then they built a new house/building in place of the old one - usually for better efficiency, amenities, and longevity.

I would argue it's a good thing because it reduces sprawl and uses present land more efficiently.

It's better than bulldozing hectares of land to build new developments in these isolated pockets.

Generally, buyers would rather have something new where they don't have to worry about the repairs/maintenance/annoyance that comes from owning older houses, where it ends up being a money pit for future value (not including historical/charming old homes). It's like choosing: would you rather drive a 1990 or 2018 Toyota sedan?

IDK, maybe this is an opportunity for a "home rebuilding" tax credit incentive or some kind of higher tax on developing new land instead of current land?

As someone who moved to the US, I think one realization why this has not really taken effect is that there is just so much land, there is seemingly always more to build on. Thinking about smaller, denser nations, that is just not a feasible strategy.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#390

Post by pmiller2 »

whatshisface wrote: post #346
asdff wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If my purposely extreme example isn't extreme enough to get you to side against it, just imagine one that's even more extreme.

If your purposely extreme example wasn't enough to convince, why do you think your hypothetical "more extreme" example will?
Post reply on HN