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

271–280 of 438 posts

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#271

Post by jabl »

alistairSH wrote: post #223
jasondclinton wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The removal of the off-street parking mandate will also impact EV adoption. Parking is already difficult to find in many older Portland neighborhoods. Edit: You need a place to plug-in your EV at night.

Why wouldn't the market solve this? If people want a parking spot with their new home, they'll demand the builder create one.

Strange that a country that so strongly professes its belief in the power of free markets can't allow said free market to figure out the optimal amount of parking.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#272

Post by egypturnash »

wool_gather wrote: post #85
sudosysgen wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In practice, they do. Bikes are much smaller, much nimbler and much slower than cars. Unless the street is completely packed with pedestrians, fully pedestrian streets work well with ebikes. This is from experience riding bikes and having people ride bikes next to me in fully pedestrian streets as dreamt about by GP.

I have a very different experience than you. I ride or walk everywhere I go. Bikes may be slower than cars, but -- when they're being used for commuting, not toodling around on a Sunday afternoon -- they are much, much faster than pedestrians. When I'm walking, I don't want bikes whizzing by me at three times my speed. When I'm biking, I don't want to be constantly worrying about people on foot -- or their kids, or t…

"having a bell, ringing it when you overtake pedestrians, and waving and saying thanks" helps from both sides of this, IMHO. Bonus points if you maybe holler "cute dog!", "great hat!", or some other compliment instead of "thanks!".

I, too, ride or walk everywhere I go, and have several shared cyclist/pedestrian paths that I use a lot. My least favorite thing to encounter on the path, walking or riding, is that asshole with the multi-thousand-dollar racing bike and no bell who just blazes past me with no warning. Fuck that guy, "share the road" works both ways.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#273

Post by AcerbicZero »

This, is corruption, mixed with a dash of good old crony capitalism. Portland has some amazing neighborhoods, and this plan enables developers to build relatively high density apartment complexes without parking in those neighborhoods. The dogwhistles of "low density" and "low income" really just mean "no parking" and "full price for most of you".

Anecdotal example - They're building an ~80 unit 3 story apartment complex at the end of a relatively busy street that serves as a main artery for accessing the light rail - so the neighborhood already sees somewhat higher than average street parking usage - and they're doing all of this on a lot that's barely bigger than the houses next to it.

If you're ever curious about how Portland's city council handles most of their issues, just take a look at where the vast majority of homeless shelters are located in the city (hint - its OldTown-Chinatown), compare that to the demographics of the area (Its as dark as Portland gets), and then take a guess where they intend to add more homeless shelters.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#274

Post by 01100011 »

It would be nice if cities established redevelopment funds, which admittedly would have to be substantial, to properly buy out homeowners and redevelop large tracts of land. The sort of piece meal, plot-by-plot redevelopment that is possible today is just not sufficient to allow for the kinds of redesign that are needed to remake cities.

Buying out existing homeowners reduces concerns about the externalities of densification. Pay them a fair price for their property and the inconvenience/trauma of relocation and then get on with making a truly livable, dense, efficient city.

That all assumes a government is even capable of predicting future trends(will retail die? will the next generation flee the city? will mfg jobs return? etc). But if we're going to play that game, lets play it competently.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#275

Post by egypturnash »

kindatrue wrote: post #3

This seems disastrous for homeowners and landlords hoping to recreate this Silicon Valley success flywheel https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/1129046954409902081

Good. Kids who grow up in Portland now might have a chance to keep on living there, instead of getting thrown off at high speed because they were more suited to a career other than "programmer" like all my artist friends from San Francisco were.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#276

Post by jabl »

eikenberry wrote: post #129
jackyinger wrote: post #7

As a former Portlandian I’m pretty stoked to imagine where this could take the city! A low altitude densification would beat what’s been done to the inner East side... Here’s a fun thought experiment... Imagine if most streets became parks/plazas (aside from a few left for utility reasons) and everyone rode (electric) bikes, or similar relatively light transport options. To me that’s be idyllic. Imagine not being rel…

What you describe requires the elimination of residential zoning completely to allow for small businesses to mix in with the homes. You can't eliminate cars until you eliminate the need for driving to stores and you can't eliminate that without mixed zoning.

The imposition of residential only zoning all over the world is, in retrospect, a huge mistake.

This has been posted on HN before, but the Japanese zoning system makes a lot of sense: https://www.andrewalexanderprice.com/blog20191002.php

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#277

Post by [deleted] »

treis wrote: post #155
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…

>I have a second building on my property and a separate driveway for each one are government overreach. Increasing density has definite externalities. Traffic, street parking, and public spaces all get more congested. Plus a neighbor building a bigger building impacts my views and the light that falls on my property. We do need some way of balancing those concerns with development. IMHO, we've swayed too far towards…

[deleted]

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#278

Post by egypturnash »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #164
ISL wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Where are you experiencing the construction of a bunch of five over ones? Definitely not Ballard, which is mostly townhomes. This seems to be a bigger problem in downtown Bellevue (I didn't know what five over ones meant before then!), maybe West Seattle?

When I left the U District a couple of years ago, it was in part because the entire area was being razed and replaced by those things.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#279

Post by cringepirate »

andys627 wrote: post #137
rayiner wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That framing as a way to misrepresent the fact auto industry gave people what they wanted. Many newly developed parts of Europe are the same way, because that’s what people want.

People didn't want cars, they wanted what the gov't subsidized. Here in the US cars are subsidized and transit, biking, walking is penalized. These dials are turned differently in different countries.

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 of repairing what is now an old car (my Car is over 15 years old and has done many many miles). Driving is cheaper, generally gets me there quicker even when travelling across the whole country.

Rail tickets keep on increasing in price and the service never improves and the whole experience is unpleasant.

In the rest of Europe cars are just taxed heavily and people still buy them. This idea that people don't want cars just isn't true.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#280

Post by alistairSH »

zjaffee wrote: post #228
alistairSH wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parking strikes me as something the market will fix without a need for subsidized public parking. Traffic needs system-wide reform. No argument there. Walkable neighborhoods, bike lanes, transit, etc. Views - you don't (normally) own the views from your property. I live on a golf course; if it gets redeveloped into condos, I'm SOL. Light - appropriate building setbacks mitigate this. I'm not disagreeing really, just…

You do own the views in numerous cities due to historical precedent, and cities cant change these laws as it would be considered unconstitutional taking.

I know some mountain and coastal areas actually do have view ordinances, but they're typically very limited (sometimes only to trees, not construction, etc). But, I don't believe that's the norm in most places.
Post reply on HN