Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

To ease the housing crunch, more places end single-family zoning

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 200 posts

Re: To ease the housing crunch, more places end single-family zoning

#21

Post by an_account »

imglorp wrote: post #7

It needs to be affordable as well as multi unit. There is a massive influx in many burbs of "luxury apartments" with rents $2500+ and I'm not talking downtown NYC. That's more than most mortgages.

“Luxury” is often a marketing term used for very much not luxury apartments. There’s nothing “luxury” about a 900 sqft apartment that happens to have decent stainless steel appliances and a modern look.

New apartments (like new cars) are always priced higher than older buildings, but give it a few years and prices drop.

Re: To ease the housing crunch, more places end single-family zoning

#22

Post by willcipriano »

dragonwriter wrote: post #16
c3534l wrote: post #4

I hate how that's phrased. No one is ending single-family housing. They're legalizing multi-resident housing.

> I hate how that's phrased. No one is ending single-family housing. That would be a fair complaint, if the word “housing” had been used in place of “zoning”. Single-family zoning is a legal restriction that allows only single-family housing. Ending it is not the same as ending single-family housing . If you are going to complain about phrasing, you should complain about the actual phrasing.

I got the same impression from the headline. When trying to communicate I have found that it is best to be understood as opposed to being dictionary correct. Personally I would've went with "allow multi-family housing", but I also probably wouldn't click on the article because it's just saying that making smaller homes allows you to have more of them over a given area.

Re: To ease the housing crunch, more places end single-family zoning

#23

Post by slothtrop »

ticviking wrote: post #15
rayiner wrote: post #2

> We don't have the space to incorporate a city, or urbanized living, within this small village of a community that we have," says Julie Lee, president of a neighborhood civic association and founding member of Arlingtonians for Upzoning Transparency, a group fighting the plan. Comments to these zoning fights are full of gems like this. Arlington is about the size of Buffalo NY and 50% denser. It hasn’t been anything…

An interesting question to ask is why do we always seem to grow by increasing density rather than establishing new small towns? Leon Krier's Drawing For Architecture contrasts over-expansion both with excessive density and excessive sprawl and by duplication. It seems to me that if it were legal to do so there are plenty of tiny towns that could grow to the size of a small city like Arlington or Buffalo.

> we always seem to grow by increasing density rather than establishing new small towns?

Not sure why you aren't figuring urban sprawl into this equation.

Re: To ease the housing crunch, more places end single-family zoning

#24

Post by xyzelement »

I kinda get it and kinda hate it.

I am a pretty responsible dude but nothing has made me as invested in my community, surroundings, etc as owning a home. I always loved the US but once we bought the house I really understood it on the next level.

Apartments are great for single people and retirees. Families should have a house with a back yard and a drive way. It's our dream.

Re: To ease the housing crunch, more places end single-family zoning

#25

Post by lazypenguin »

I don’t care much for multi-family housing personally. I don’t want to share a wall with anyone, not even a family member and I’m willing to make some concessions for that freedom.

However, recently I became interested in adding an “accessory dwelling unit” on my property to accommodate aging relatives. Despite having the space for a small 500-750 sqft unit on my property, my city’s zoning rules killed the idea. The rules had some interesting limitations like the ADU can’t be more forward than the front of the house, can’t be in a front yard, can’t be more than 40% of viewable property for front, has to be more than 20ft away etc.

Personally I’d be happy with more lax rules around ADU/mother-in-law units/etc. before everything becomes multiplexes.

Re: To ease the housing crunch, more places end single-family zoning

#27

Post by toast0 »

ticviking wrote: post #15
rayiner wrote: post #2

> We don't have the space to incorporate a city, or urbanized living, within this small village of a community that we have," says Julie Lee, president of a neighborhood civic association and founding member of Arlingtonians for Upzoning Transparency, a group fighting the plan. Comments to these zoning fights are full of gems like this. Arlington is about the size of Buffalo NY and 50% denser. It hasn’t been anything…

An interesting question to ask is why do we always seem to grow by increasing density rather than establishing new small towns? Leon Krier's Drawing For Architecture contrasts over-expansion both with excessive density and excessive sprawl and by duplication. It seems to me that if it were legal to do so there are plenty of tiny towns that could grow to the size of a small city like Arlington or Buffalo.

> An interesting question to ask is why do we always seem to grow by increasing density rather than establishing new small towns?

That would be increasing the density of the rural area the new small town springs up in. New towns do spring up in places where they can, but it's usually either some company drops a facility there and then housing pops up to support the facility as people decide they'd like a shorter commute, etc; or it's in the outskirts of built up areas, but then people complain about sprawl.

Re: To ease the housing crunch, more places end single-family zoning

#28

Post by blululu »

unethical_ban wrote: post #10

It is critical that any housing solution incorporate equity, in my opinion. Taking away home ownership so we can all pay apartment owners for our entire lives is wrong.

You don’t need a lawn to have equity. There a plenty to frameworks that can offer equity in these recently legalized multi-family dwellings. Condominiums, duplexes, townhouses to make a few.

Re: To ease the housing crunch, more places end single-family zoning

#29

Post by bradleyjg »

imglorp wrote: post #7

It needs to be affordable as well as multi unit. There is a massive influx in many burbs of "luxury apartments" with rents $2500+ and I'm not talking downtown NYC. That's more than most mortgages.

True affordability only occurs when market rates are affordable. That means more units, period. Set aside schemes are always inefficient and often corrupt.

Re: To ease the housing crunch, more places end single-family zoning

#30

Post by tomtheelder »

xyzelement wrote: post #24

I kinda get it and kinda hate it. I am a pretty responsible dude but nothing has made me as invested in my community, surroundings, etc as owning a home. I always loved the US but once we bought the house I really understood it on the next level. Apartments are great for single people and retirees. Families should have a house with a back yard and a drive way. It's our dream.

With all due respect that’s _your_ dream. I hated growing up in a house with a back yard and a driveway. I’m not sure I would have wanted to grow up in downtown Manhattan, but an apartment in a small city would have been infinitely better.
Post reply on HN