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

291–300 of 438 posts

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#291

Post by ogre_codes »

war1025 wrote: post #205
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…

The silly thing in my opinion is that college dormitories are exactly that type of housing. No kitchens, shared bathrooms. Works perfectly fine for housing large numbers of young people. Somehow we've decided that we shouldn't give anyone other than college students access to that type of housing.

Boarding houses used to be fairly common, I'm not sure if this kind of regulation or something else drove them out of common use. The idea of not having to deal with cooking or meals out every night has a fair amount of appeal by itself.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#292

Post by GurnBlandston »

microtherion wrote: post #267
stickfigure wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's certainly not the norm. But we're not talking about average house size, we're talking about maximum house size. You're clipping off the edge of the bell curve. People with big families don't get to live in Portland? FWIW he's a single dad, and au pairs aren't always on duty. It's less lavish than it sounds.

> People with big families don't get to live in Portland? Nothing in the legislation prohibits big houses. All it does is legalize small ones.

The image near the top of the article explicitly states the previous maximum house size was 6750 sq ft, and new maximum house size for a "1-plex" is 2500 sq ft.

This is a prohibition on new big houses.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#293

Post by ed25519FUUU »

> Portland’s new rules will also offer a “deeper affordability” option: four to six homes on any lot if at least half are available to low-income Portlanders at regulated, affordable prices.

For a progressive city that views itself no doubt as "believing science", it's pretty amazing they still stick these types of economic restrictions into law. Maybe we should start saying "believe economists" when it comes to these riders? Please just increase the supply of housing. Increase it at the top and the bottom.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#294

Post by [deleted] »

microtherion wrote: post #267
stickfigure wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's certainly not the norm. But we're not talking about average house size, we're talking about maximum house size. You're clipping off the edge of the bell curve. People with big families don't get to live in Portland? FWIW he's a single dad, and au pairs aren't always on duty. It's less lavish than it sounds.

> People with big families don't get to live in Portland? Nothing in the legislation prohibits big houses. All it does is legalize small ones.

[deleted]

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#296

Post by mertd »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #187
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…

Areas where it is profitable to do this are areas where housing demand is increasing. Which means that anybody who owns property in such an area can sell it for more than they paid for it, move somewhere else and have the significant monetary gain to compensate them for their trouble. And the gain wouldn't exist with stricter zoning because it comes from the fact that your property is worth more when somebody can buy…

> And the gain wouldn't exist with stricter zoning because it comes from the fact that your property is worth more when somebody can buy it and build twice as much housing on it.

Counterpoint Bay Area. Industry hotspot, liberally allows office development, aggressively fights any new residential develpment and also freezes property taxes at the time of purchase.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#297

Post by freeone3000 »

ajmurmann wrote: post #288
darawk wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

We need to make driving suck so much that people would rather take the bus.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#298

Post by freeone3000 »

bluGill wrote: post #229
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…

In a city there shouldn't be set backs at all. If you want light buy a bigger lot and set yourself back. If you want a garden move out to farm country or put it on the roof (wasted space to most, as it happens I'm installing solar on my roof today, but even then most of my roof is wasted space)

Setbacks are required in cities, otherwise many buildings wouldn't receive any natural light at ground level. Two- and three-story buildings don't really need them, the sidewalk is enough.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#300

Post by valuearb »

matchbok wrote: post #5
valuearb wrote: post #4

So “One Thousand Lawyers of Oregon” came up with a new scheme to cram people in density after they banned development on millions of acres of land right outside Portland.

Nobody wants to live out there, there are no jobs or transit.

Just like you, progressives in PDX tell the lower classes what they should want.
Post reply on HN