Portland passes low-density zoning reform • Hacker News Board

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#31

Post by stirbot » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 3:58 PM UTC

klyrs wrote: post #10

I like almost all of this. I have one minor concern, the maximum home size is dropping from 6750 to 2500 square feet. Which is probably fine for a nuclear family, but in my neighborhood, such homes are largely occupied by multigenerational families. In areas closer to colleges and universities, those homes end up being shared by large groups of students. Both of these populations will take a hit under this policy.

Would these groups still choose to share a kitchen, bathrooms, etc if they could find co-located, individual units at a similar, affordable price? I doubt it.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#32

Post by onion2k » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 3:58 PM UTC

klyrs wrote: post #10

I like almost all of this. I have one minor concern, the maximum home size is dropping from 6750 to 2500 square feet. Which is probably fine for a nuclear family, but in my neighborhood, such homes are largely occupied by multigenerational families. In areas closer to colleges and universities, those homes end up being shared by large groups of students. Both of these populations will take a hit under this policy.

While that's unfortunate it's probably worth it in order to block a small number of people taking up far too much of the available space.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#33

Post by abakker » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 3:59 PM UTC

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.

nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded. - Yogi Berra

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#34

Post by toomuchtodo » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 3:59 PM UTC

jeffbee wrote: post #25

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.

That's just reality. EVs solve a specific aspect of cars but they still have the main problem: they are unreasonably large. The future of urban mobility is also its past: walking.

I think this is easy to wish but hard to realize, considering the US population is rapidly aging. There is a balance between prioritizing pedestrians and cyclists while still supporting reasonable mobility for those not in their prime as well as daily freight/parcel services.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#35

Post by shuckles » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 4:00 PM UTC

stakkur wrote: post #22

thebradbain wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’ve either studied completely different fields of economics and urban planning than what I’m aware of, or you didn’t study them at all... Sources, please.

I have a master's degree in urban & regional planning. I'm a Portland native, and went to college here and studied the city fairly intently. But I'm not writing a paper here on HN.

I think a serious question for American urban planners to contend with is why the aspects of cities they try so hard to preserve were all established before their profession existed.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#36

Post by bradleybuda » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 4:01 PM UTC

ogre_codes wrote: post #18

klyrs wrote: post #10

I like almost all of this. I have one minor concern, the maximum home size is dropping from 6750 to 2500 square feet. Which is probably fine for a nuclear family, but in my neighborhood, such homes are largely occupied by multigenerational families. In areas closer to colleges and universities, those homes end up being shared by large groups of students. Both of these populations will take a hit under this policy.

I missed that part. Though both multigenerational families and college students could be served well by multi-structure setups as well. Or in many cases, better served.

Or, maybe armchair central planners like you and I and the Portland City Council shouldn’t decide what’s best for people we’ve never met and let them decide instead.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#37

Post by jdminhbg » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 4:01 PM UTC

ohples wrote: post #27

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.

What does this have to do with EVs? I agree that getting rid of government mandated parking will decrease government-subsidized car storage (which is good across the board). Sure that will affect EVs, but it will also affect ICEs equally.

> What does this have to do with EVs?

Having a driveway/garage allows you to charge your EV while parked. An ICE you can just park wherever.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#38

Post by klyrs » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 4:01 PM UTC

jasondclinton wrote: post #19

klyrs wrote: post #10

I like almost all of this. I have one minor concern, the maximum home size is dropping from 6750 to 2500 square feet. Which is probably fine for a nuclear family, but in my neighborhood, such homes are largely occupied by multigenerational families. In areas closer to colleges and universities, those homes end up being shared by large groups of students. Both of these populations will take a hit under this policy.

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.

I hope this can be addressed at the municipal level through a program to install charge points in residential areas in response to local demand.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#39

Post by noelwelsh » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 4:02 PM UTC

klyrs wrote: post #10

I like almost all of this. I have one minor concern, the maximum home size is dropping from 6750 to 2500 square feet. Which is probably fine for a nuclear family, but in my neighborhood, such homes are largely occupied by multigenerational families. In areas closer to colleges and universities, those homes end up being shared by large groups of students. Both of these populations will take a hit under this policy.

2500 square feet is considered a large house in most of the world. I have lived with a group of students, a nuclear family, and with multiple generations in houses smaller than that. It is definitely fine for all the use cases you list.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#40

Post by ogre_codes » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 4:02 PM UTC

klyrs wrote: post #28

ogre_codes wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I missed that part. Though both multigenerational families and college students could be served well by multi-structure setups as well. Or in many cases, better served.

Maybe the college students -- but in my experience, rent in large houses is cheaper per-room than smaller apartments. My brother is a professional musician and lives with others near/at the poverty line -- they simply can't afford to live in smaller places. Maybe that will change on the supply side, but more likely, demand will rise just as fast. Multigenerational families are not better served. If they're doing a ne…

Have you lived in a multi-generational home?

I am right now and have done so in various ways for the past 25 years, it is vastly better to have some separation.

I'm not going to generalize. But for us, multi-generational homes happen over time as opposed to moving the whole family at once regardless. Kids grow up and need space, but can't afford to buy a place. Parents get older and move in with kids, etc etc.