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

281–290 of 438 posts

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#281

Post by abstractbarista »

AcerbicZero wrote: post #273

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 com…

Maybe all the people there will walk to the light rail? Seems like an ideal situation, actually. Mass public transit near high-density housing.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#282

Post by wool_gather »

egypturnash wrote: post #272
wool_gather wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 asshol…

Yeah, I will go out of my way to avoid shared paths, so I guess we just have different tolerances for these things. :)

I do have a bell and a voice and I'm ready to use them if needed, but I'm happier when they're irrelevant. I take pedestrian priority and safety seriously when I'm riding (as I hope others do for me when I'm walking), so if I can ride in an area where I have less of that worry, I will.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#283

Post by chasd00 »

Karunamon wrote: post #212
core-questions wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the desire of landowners to keep poor people off their block Well, can we come up with a more constructive and friendly way of doing this? It's not unreasonable for normal middle-class folks to not want to have to live in a problematic, crime-ridden, situation with high personal-security risks and property crime. That's why we pay for police, after all.

A pretty good correlation exists between poverty and crime. You see the same kind of reactions in even small cities when there's a plan to build a homeless shelter or halfway house or any other such institutions, nobody wants it in their back yard, nobody wants the negative externalities. You can call it cold, and it is, but it's also entirely rational.

same holds for sending your kids to a bad school. I had a conversation with someone about how i should send my kids to the neighborhood under performing school rather than private school because I was perpetuating the downfall. I said to him that he was perfectly free to sacrifice his kids on that altar but I reserve the right not to sacrifice mine.

if you want to move to a poor neighborhood with high crime in order to help save it then more power to you. However, I don't fault anyone wanting to avoid it either.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#284

Post by nip180 »

01100011 wrote: post #274

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 densi…

I’m generally against eminent domain in the case that land is being forcibly purchased from one private party and sold to another private party. I’m against it because of its very high abuse potential.

Property rights are essential in keeping society civil. Sure, I pay taxes and give up some of my property in order to provide common good. I’m happy to pay for schools and roads. Sure, maybe the government will need to build a highway over my property, I understand it needs a mechanism to do this for the public good. However, if the government forces me to sell to a private party I’m concerned that the reason will be less about public good and more about enriching the private party. It opens up the government to legitimate ethics concerns. It makes people begin to feel cheated out of their property. This is bad for society as a whole.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#285

Post by ajmurmann »

zjaffee wrote: post #230
ajmurmann wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that most cities also have restrictions like minimum unit size and requirements for every unit to have it's own bathroom and kitchen. In the past people who just started out and poor people had the option to rent such rooms and that way afford to live in urban areas and avoid a crazy commute. To make that work now you have to find roommates and take over a unit that wasn't meant for this use case. It's n…

Sometimes we need to relearn from the lessons of the 20th century and not go around and build tenements again. Minimum standards are a necessary thing for long term sustainability of cities and are especially important as things pertain to public health. Anti tenement laws became popular during the spanish flu outbreak for a reason.

That's a great point! Definitely a negative externality I didn't consider and with this in mind requiring a kitchen and bathroom makes sense. Not sure about minimum unit sizes.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#286

Post by scollet »

FreakyT wrote: post #191
treis wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> 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…

Let me also plug biking infra. This, imo, should be an accessible alternative to balance the inefficiencies of motor vehicles (too much space for too little passengers) and rail/bus (too many passengers and dilated commute time).

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#287

Post by salmon30salmon »

nxc18 wrote: post #199
salmon30salmon wrote: post #102

Density isn't really the problem in Portland. There are a LOT of empty apartments in this city. There are also a LOT of "short term rentals" in the city that sit vacant. Here are the concerns that I do not see addressed with this: 1. Will the City of Portland make the required infrastructure improvements to support more density? For example, will the storm sewers, which currently overflow poo into the river, support…

On 3, as much as I hope the trend is true (I'd love more cheap apartments in the urban core) I'm not sure it is. People are moving and changing but I haven't seen any data that conclusively proves any narrative beyond 'people move houses even in a pandemic'. FWIW I currently live in comparatively non-dense socal and I'm planning on moving to Portland this fall. I plan to move into the Pearl district and work remote.…

The Pearl District isn't too bad, especially if you are not a fan of gardening and the such. However realtors tend to use a very liberal definition of what the Pearl District is, and the closer you get to the river, the sketchier it is. Open air drug use, visible domestic violence, car break ins, assaults etc.. But as long as you are above 10th and north of Davis you should be fine

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#288

Post by ajmurmann »

darawk wrote: post #264
ng12 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think they built the MTA before they built Manhattan? Population growth creates the tax base, density, and demand required for a successful public transportation system. Demanding that the public transport comes first is simply backwards.

They built the MTA when they still had the flexibility to do it. Portland is too developed now, too many entrenched interests, it'll never get done. Listen, I am on the same page as you - I would love for it to happen. I would vote for it. I would pay taxes for it. But the reality is that it isn't going to happen, and if you densify the city without the transit, you will have these problems.

Maybe once we have the problems, people will accept the solution

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#289

Post by wool_gather »

war1025 wrote: post #269
Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dorms have RAs, security officers, cleaning staff, food courts, university police, and a wrap of social services that can nudge a person slipping back into line, or send them packing quickly. Landlords, rightly, shouldn't be able to send people packing with little to no notice. Without the security, social services, and cleaning staff I expect any project of the same scale as a large University to catastrophically fa…

> The unfortunate reality is that mentally ill people that don't know how to take care of themselves are expensive. When did I ever mention housing for the mentally ill? What I'm saying is I think consenting, functional adults should have the option of living in a dorm-style setting if they so choose. For one, it's a great way to build community. For two, it should be a significantly cheaper way to live, which would…

Worth noting I think that we also do this kind of housing for people transitioning from prison back to normal life -- "halfway houses".

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#290

Post by ajmurmann »

CountSessine wrote: post #192
ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the city I live in (somewhere in Europe), there are no such restrictions. Every time someone sells their house they split the terrain in two and rebuild because it's more advantageous price wise. As a result terrains got smaller and smaller, we used to have a beautiful city with old buildings, tons of trees, large gardens, a really calm and safe place to raise a family, now it looks like shit and crime has gotten…

Isn’t this really a complaint about population growth rather than development? Blaming development for your changing city seems a bit passive aggressive.

"it's too crowded now. Nobody moves there anymore"
Post reply on HN