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

401–410 of 438 posts

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#401

Post by imtringued »

CincinnatiMan wrote: post #372
ogre_codes wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What you are talking about has absolutely nothing to do with the article. The proposal says that there should be a maximum of 4 units (not stories) per lot plus an additional 2 units if those two units are rented out as affordable housing. The article shows that the neighborhood already has a 6 unit building with 3 stories. It's absolutely nothing new.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#402

Post by imtringued »

rumanator wrote: post #400
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…

> A proper transit network and walkable design ensures that this doesn't become a problem. How do you expect to put together a working transit network, which is very sensitive to urban planning, if you are also argue in favour of ignoring any restriction imposed by urban planners?

Nobody is arguing in favor of ignoring any restriction imposed by urban planners.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#403

Post by imtringued »

asdff wrote: post #343
freeone3000 wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to make driving suck so much that people would rather take the bus.

Or make the bus suck less. Curbed bus lanes with fat fines for violators would do more to change urban America than anything else; a de facto revival of the streetcar. Why drive through the gridlock at 7mph when the bus is going 35mph right past you?

It would certainly be cheaper than anything that is rail based.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#404

Post by imtringued »

burkaman wrote: post #256
siruncledrew wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes, that's one of the main goals. They are encouraging affordable 6-plexes in the hopes of making housing in the city more affordable. Note that there is a rent ceiling based on the area, you can't build a 6-plex and charge whatever you want.

Indeed, the 6 plex is not profitable for developers seeking a quick buck. That exception is meant for non profits who want to fund affordable housing.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#405

Post by imtringued »

waynecochran wrote: post #351
siruncledrew wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Might be a win for slum lords.

You do not seem to know what a slum is and therefore I want you to stop misusing that word.

Slums are usually the result of government restricting or failing to build enough housing (of the right kind) which forces people to build their own permanent housing without any permits at all. Because slum residents have to pay for the entire building upfront and build it themselves you can expect the quality of the buildings to be very low.

There are slums in San Francisco. Those so called "tent cities". You get rid of slums by fulfilling housing demand.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#406

Post by monadic2 »

jansan wrote: post #172
Kednicma wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are you from and which media outlets have you been consuming? From a local perspective, the national attempts to portray the protests are rather futile, since the area under contention is only about two blocks large [0] and it's not on most folks' daily walks. Even only a few blocks away, Portland continues life as normal [3], or as normal as COVID-19 will let us be [4]. To follow up on the grandparent's point,…

I am from Europe and one thing that I have heard is that your new DA is buddy with Antifa and announced that only major violations will get punished. This is basically a written invitation to rioters and looters to keep going. Oh, and of course I saw the Adam Haner scene that looked like a beheading from Irak until he was kicked in the head by BLM "Security", which then reminded me more of the curb stomping scene fro…

But the PPD allowing white supremacists to beat the shit out of antifascists is OK? If you ain't antifascist you're just a fucking fascist.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#407

Post by imtringued »

noodlesUK wrote: post #183
crooked-v wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As somebody living in Portland, there just aren't many existing homes over 2500 square feet (relatively speaking, compared to other homes) in the first place. We have skinny blocks through most of the city, so there's less places for McMansions to even fit. The ones that do exist within city limits are generally $700K and up - if you want under that you'll need to look in a high-crime neighborhood. If you want an exi…

There’s a big difference between 2500 sqft and 5000+

5000 sqft was mentioned because those types of buildings are no longer allowed.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#408

Post by imtringued »

tgb wrote: post #270
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…

Honestly, the way this is framed sounds to me as if we were still living in the 15th century where "aristocrats" are trying to live as far away from the "plebeians" as possible.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#409

Post by imtringued »

stakkur wrote: post #61
shuckles wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accommodating more people at the same, high prices is a benefit you seem to ignore. And historic growth shouldn’t be used as an input to an estimate of demand because growth itself depends on supply.

>>And growth shouldn’t be used as an input to an estimate of demand because growth itself depends on supply This is famously untrue with housing. Because it's so hard to match units demanded to units built, housing growth nearly always precedes demand. How? By leaning on estimates of demand (in-migration, etc.), which I mentioned above. And those estimates are almost always severe overestimates.

Do you not know basic economics? If I can build a house for $500000 and sell it for $600000 I'm going to build a house. I don't give single damn if someone makes up random numbers. All I have to care about is whether I can find a buyer. Looking for a buyer is equivalent to looking for demand.

Every time someone talks about something as brain dead as saying housing growth precedes demand they are just showing off their loyality to their political "tribe" because there is not enough ignorance in this world to believe something this stupid.

Do you know what 25 year olds are going to do if housing is too expensive but their parents have a nice 2500sqft house that they refuse to sell? They are going to stay at their parents house or live with a room mate because that's what they have been forced to do. If you build a house/apartment of course it is going to be filled immediately because there are already people in the city who are waiting for you to build the damn house. Not a single person has to migrate or come from a different region.

When you are saying "housing growth precedes demand" you are actually talking about "pent up demand" over several decades but trying to hide it via political speech with an agenda behind it. It's basically equivalent to saying "we have screwed up for 50 years now it's going to take decades to clean up the mess we have created so why bother? Let's just blame the few remaining people who are doing their part to fix this mess for causing the problems we have created.".

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#410

Post by imtringued »

JamesBarney wrote: post #136
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…

How does increased density drive increase prices? Say we have a city. Currently there are 10,000 old apartments. I decide to go in and build an additional 10,000 new apartments. Why would the price to rent one of the old apartments go up? I don't understand what the proposed mechanism is at all.

In theory construction costs of taller buildings are higher, in practice housing prices far exceed cost of construction everywhere. Some rich people buy luxury apartments as second or third apartments but don't live in them.

None of these are enough to make the entire cities more expensive to live in but they are highly visible so those who need to justify their selfish actions (preventing housing) seek deniable plausibility in them.

Post reply on HN