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

201–210 of 289 posts

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

#201

Post by Tostino »

eeghyrdcg wrote: post #182
earthwalker99 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you trying to make a point? If so, what is it? The Sierra Club are liberal activists with zero historically left wing affiliations or common causes. It's entirely irrelevant as far as I can tell.

In my experience in the US people use “left”, “liberal”, “socialist” etc synonymously (and mostly pejoratively). Same for “right”, “conservative”, etc.

But what ignorant people think isn't really relevant here when trying to discuss terms that do in fact mean different things.

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

#202

Post by infecto »

Ar-Curunir wrote: post #188
infecto wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate this and think it’s ideas like this that are dangerous. Thinking like this is discriminating against lower socioeconomic status individuals. This works well for the commuter going to downtown SF for their 9-5; taking weekend trips with a zip car. What about people who don’t work 9-5, or have a job that is not an easy bart hop away. Ideas like this are just has bad as the authors interpretation of past laws.

Poor people take public transit at a much higher percentage than well-off people. Making public transit more accessible would be a net win.

I never said otherwise. Parking maximums does not make transit more accessible. You will have the same problem in the Bay Area that has persisted for decades, different opinions from different cities and the inability to build any kind of new regional transit.

My point is that rules like this impact the lower socioeconomic individuals.

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

#203

Post by infecto »

Ar-Curunir wrote: post #187
infecto wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Bay Area is far from a well designed city with fairly limited public transportation. Yes there is public transportation but it’s relatively limited compared to the places you may want to go.

Berkeley is decent in this regard compared to the rest of the Bay Area, in part because a large fraction of the population does not own cars.

Berkeley is 10 sq miles. That does not really say much to me. Yes it’s great but it’s also tiny. Yes, the Bay Area is composed of multiple counties and municipalities but I think it’s a better comparison when talking about transit.

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

#204

Post by infecto »

infecto wrote: post #165
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 hate this and think it’s ideas like this that are dangerous. Thinking like this is discriminating against lower socioeconomic status individuals. This works well for the commuter going to downtown SF for their 9-5; taking weekend trips with a zip car. What about people who don’t work 9-5, or have a job that is not an easy bart hop away. Ideas like this are just has bad as the authors interpretation of past laws.

Just adding to my opinion. I might be totally wrong but it always felt to me that the Bay Area suffers from the problem of doing things that feel good but don’t improve outcomes for people. Regional transit in the Bay Area is pretty miserable unless your destination is near a BART line. Don’t get me wrong, it can work but it’s fairly limiting. For those with higher disposable income it’s no issue at all. Take Bart and grab a Lyft or take a Lyft from the start. For those with Les disposable income it can be incredibly difficult, take Bart then a bus transfer, perhaps some final walking. It can be a nontrivial ordeal.

It feels good to say cars are bad and implement parking maximums, but similar to the Neighborhood preservation rules in Berkeley, it’s really negatively impacting those without wealth.

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

#206

Post by tekla »

nemo44x wrote: post #197
zozbot234 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can keep your car parked elsewhere and get to it via a folding bike or stand-up scooter.

What about all the things I have to haul? What if I don’t want to ride a bike or the weather is bad? What if I have kids? There’s a million reasons your solution is awful.

> What about all the things I have to haul?

Rent a car. Millions of people do it just fine

> What if I don’t want to ride a bike

Deal with it

> the weather is bad

Deal with it

> What if I have kids

Kids ride bikes just fine.

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

#207

Post by theluketaylor »

cyberax wrote: post #106
theluketaylor wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're reading the demand/supply situation backwards. Even with all the construction in Brooklyn, supply is failing to meet demand, therefore prices are going up. We've failed to meet supply in urban spaces for several generations now and have a massive deficit to pay off before adding any supply can actually drive prices down; we're barely adding enough units to affect the rate of increase of prices.

> You're reading the demand/supply situation backwards. No. I'm reading it exactly right. Density _causes_ higher prices. It makes it easier to create jobs near dense locations, which in turn makes it more attractive for people to move in. This in turn increases housing costs.

That's all only a problem when supply of housing is constricted, which it has been for generations in all urban spaces. Otherwise it's just wealth generation. It's also a problem when economic activity is limited to a handful of key urban spaces, but that isn't true. There are plenty of places to go make a good living. There just isn't anywhere to live.

There should be plenty of different levels of density for people to choose to live in as everyone has different preferences. What's not sustainable in any way is exclusive single family zoning. If, as so many backers of exclusionary zoning claim, people only want to live in SFH, why would we need a law to force that to be the only built form? Surely every single unit built of any other type would fail to find a resident.

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

#208

Post by CalRobert »

nemo44x wrote: post #195
sensanaty wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I now live in the Netherlands but spent some time in SF, and the problem really is just horrifically bad public transport options over there. Sure, the US is a bit different in that getting to other cities is more difficult without a car, that's definitely true. However within the city itself? My building has dedicated parking spaces for the residents - as in you can't even get into the garage if you don't have a key…

Life is a lot more than cities and traveling between them. The USA has a vast array of things not in it even close to cities. The USA is vast and beautiful and many people like to explore our nature, parks, etc, etc.

Indeed, which is why every home should be forced to build a helipad.

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

#209

Post by CalRobert »

sensanaty wrote: post #191
josuepeq wrote: post #109

I like the idea! I also like Dingbats. And parking. Removing parking minimums is a noble idea, but one thing I have noticed is that the new “parking free” apartment buildings in San Francisco, such as the Tenderloin and SOMA, are having a hard time getting all of their units filled, even with prices slashed. This is a problem that buildings with parking seem to not have. Even with good transit, the city is much easie…

I now live in the Netherlands but spent some time in SF, and the problem really is just horrifically bad public transport options over there. Sure, the US is a bit different in that getting to other cities is more difficult without a car, that's definitely true. However within the city itself? My building has dedicated parking spaces for the residents - as in you can't even get into the garage if you don't have a key…

Hilversum here (envious of utrecht) - I wish I hadn't needed to leave the US to live somewhere nice for me.

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

#210

Post by theluketaylor »

zozbot234 wrote: post #169
theluketaylor wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a real danger lurking among the zoning reform efforts we are seeing all over the english-speaking world. There are so many levers baked into the zoning code to prevent development that it's easy to produce a policy that appears to unwind the restrictions without actually permitting any real progress. My city upzoned the entire city from 1 to 3 units per lot across the whole city a few years ago, which is grea…

400 sq ft sits comfortably within the "tiny home" range. It is quite peculiar in a way, but absolutely not "unlivable" in an absolute sense.

That's only true when you can ignore building codes on things like loft stairs and other space-stealers. ADUs in my city must be permanent structures that meet all codes and be fully inspected throughout the build. Anything under 500 sq ft / 46 sq m under north american building codes is a tough scene for livability.

There is a related conversation that our building codes have gone too far and are driving up costs due to the space and materials required to comply, and yet I also like bathrooms with grab handles and wide doorways for accessibility. Tricky problem (though we need to kill the 2 stair rule for low and mid-rise apartments asap. There are tons of modern ways to prevent and suppress fires that don't require anywhere near the expense or form-constricting compliance).

Post reply on HN