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

Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

darrellowens.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 289 posts

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#131

Post by earthwalker99 »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #51
earthwalker99 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the 1970s, left-wing activists opposed the construction of dingbat apartments and allied with liberal homeowners to pass the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance (NPO), which effectively finished off housing construction in the city Short of sleazebag propaganda, there is no logic or context, historical or otherwise, that can justify describing this as "left wing." They are right wing activists by definition. I d…

Right wing is broadly more about preserving tradition, not opposing change of any kind. If a change doesn’t conflict with a cultural tradition, opposing the change isn’t necessarily right wing IMO.

Nonsense. The terminology comes from the French Revolution, in which the right wing was for preserving the establishment monarchy. Ever since, "right wing" has colloquially meant support for preserving the established order.

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#132

Post by kiba »

ipaddr wrote: post #104
ajmurmann wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is concern about underutilizing land, pass a land value tax and the market will figure out what's the best way to improve the value of the property itself beyond the windfall from the unimproved land going up in value due to surrounding economic activity. When it comes to housing the US seems to suffer some kind of disability that makes it impossible to not be tempted to steer towards a planned economy.

Let the people with the most money decide?

The people with the most money pay the highest tax for the privilege of using the most expensive and most valuable land. If they're any good at it, they'll make a profit on it, the way it should be.

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#133

Post by floydnoel »

caesil wrote: post #120
amluto wrote: post #74

> If a builder chooses to add parking and they’re located 0.5 miles within a transit corridor, they are limited to one space for every two homes. This seems weird. I’m all in favor of getting rid of legislated parking minimums, but it seems to me that, if a developer thinks that adding parking is more economical, they should be allowed to do so.

I think the idea is that if you want to build a building with 3+ spaces per unit, you should be doing it further away from transit. Let buildings with a higher ratio of housing density to parking be closer.

this is 0.5 spaces per unit, not 3+

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#134

Post by apsurd »

Exoristos wrote: post #124
apsurd wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've lived various lifestyles. If i was to bluntly answer your question, really it's because I hate cars. I understand that global economies need last mile delivery infrastructure and so there's roads. I get that. But if you ask me to live a life of Suburban commuting, I'd tell you, from experience: that's inhumane. I'm born and raised in Los Angeles. It's not the absolute worst, but it gives me the credibility I nee…

You were replying to another commenter so patronizingly, which isn't a common interaction, that I was puzzled. But then I realized you do so because you are really just so confident in your opinion on this matter. And I assumed that means this is the opinion held by your social group or political organization, but then I thought I'd let you explain.

oh, so cyberax and I like to comment on these "how should we run our cities" threads. Read his comment history. He's very clear with his perspective.

That's why i replied so dramatically. Mostly, it was meant specifically playful for cyberax.

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#135

Post by apsurd »

cyberax wrote: post #103
apsurd wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i really do take you seriously. and i learn from you. but also: come on, Japan is the planet's most economically significant TINY ISLAND. you don't have to reach for capitalist conspiracy theories to reason about Japan's issues. and i say this as a kind of inevitable anti-capitalist!

Tokyo's issues are not caused by it being on a tiny island. As I said, Japan has literally millions of empty houses right now: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/17/realestate/japan-empty-ho... And there's nothing "conspiracy" about what I'm saying. There's no secret global cabal that wants to push people into cities. It's simply caused by a toxic confluence of ideology and economic forces.

cyberax, did you read your own article you linked to?

In short, the "abandoned houses" are abandoned BECAUSE they're rural.

I can't understand how this serves your view about dense urban cities being bad.

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#136

Post by givemeethekeys »

rhaps0dy wrote: post #65

Down in the article is what Berkeley residents should do to get this passed: > No council meeting has been scheduled yet but Berkeley residents should email the city council at council@cityofberkeley.info with the title “Support Missing Middle Housing.” Request that the city council should pass the Planning Commission’s proposal “as is.” Feel free to discuss your own housing woes as reasons for why it should be passe…

Yeah, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Not until a majority of Berkeley residents are politically active renters.

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#137

Post by klempner »

no_wizard wrote: post #37
BirdieNZ wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Upzoning increases land prices. It only results in a decrease in per-unit average house prices if it is accompanied with development (more housing units per square metre of land). Upzoning doesn't guarantee increased development as developers only build when it makes financial sense to do so, and flooding the market with more units would decrease the potential profit they can make. Existing residents who don't develo…

This is why zoning reform should be coupled with a Land Value Tax

Unfortunately such a tax would be limited by prop 13 in California.

While the proposals here can be implemented on a local level, any change to prop 13 would be a state level ballot proposition.

(For the record, I'd love to see reform of prop 13. While I love the idea of smoothing out over a number of years the impact of sudden inflation or increases in local housing prices on existing residents, it should be a smoothing rather than an entitlement for long term owners of multi-million dollar homes to avoid property taxes.)

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#138

Post by iav »

amluto wrote: post #74

> If a builder chooses to add parking and they’re located 0.5 miles within a transit corridor, they are limited to one space for every two homes. This seems weird. I’m all in favor of getting rid of legislated parking minimums, but it seems to me that, if a developer thinks that adding parking is more economical, they should be allowed to do so.

If a developer is replacing a 2 story, 20 unit building with 20 parking spots with a new 5 story, 50 unit building, they shouldn’t be able to have more than 25 parking spots, as that is already a net increase from the status quo and will thereby increase traffic and congestion (the street isn’t getting wider…). The logical fallacy here is that it assumes those 25 units without a spot won’t just street park.

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#139

Post by HDThoreaun »

jahewson wrote: post #42
marxisttemp wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you considered that density needs to be increased not to provide you with low pollution, low crime, a short commute, food or entertainment options, but instead so that people aren’t forced to live on the street?

Isn’t that logic backwards? It’s only higher-density areas that have significant numbers of people living on the streets.

Why would a homeless person want to live in a low density area? The solution to homelessness being more housing which means increased density has nothing to do with homeless people preferring to live in dense areas.

Re: Berkeley's upzoning would be among nation's largest

#140

Post by xvedejas »

rr808 wrote: post #62

Are they going to add train lines, schools and parks? Or is it just cram in more people into a space until its unbearable. I live in a Jersey City which has sprouted lots of new apartments. Lack of parks and schools are a real problem, at least we have good train service though.

My colleague lives in a European city which has undergone a building boom, and it was surprising to me how density doesn't just mean more people per area, but also more area per person. A very spacious apartment is much more affordable there than in any major US city, and more people therefore get more space to themselves. It's kind of amazing how much more livable that arrangement is.
Post reply on HN