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

361–370 of 438 posts

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#361

Post by ISL »

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?

Roosevelt/Ravenna/U-District.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#362

Post by megameter »

specialist wrote: post #177
ipnon wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The history of the automobile in America is longer. Until the 1940s you will struggle to find detrimental side effects of automobile adoption. The automobile did for the town what the railroad did for the city. The negative effects of the automobile on American society, as you rightly point, are an effect of the automobiles runaway success. We passed the point where the automobile was a net positive around the 1950s.…

Ya, Caro's summary is very measured, which I think older, calmer me now agrees with: The problem was never the automobile per se, but the emphasis on the automobile to the exclusion of everything else. Starting with land use policies which only accommodate automobile centric development.

The biggest error in early auto policy, in my opinion, was the emphasis on straight-line speed over continuous flow.

The first cars were not that fast and did not accelerate easily, so it makes some sense that there would be advocacy to get every last bit out of the engine through highway design. Add to that the requisite hype for a new, impactful technology and you get the approach that paved the earth.

But we have gradually come to realize the point of traffic calming, roundabouts, transit-oriented design and other tools that make people stigmergically decide on appropriate trip plans and driving parameters.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#363

Post by makomk »

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.

The market will probably solve this, but it might not necessarily do so in a way you like. No widespread EV adoption and cars running on oil indefinitely because EVs are not viable for most people would be a perfectly valid free market solution to the problem.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#364

Post by just_fred »

ng12 wrote: post #239
darawk wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A proper transit network and walkable design ensures that this doesn't become a problem. While that's true, if you don't have a proper transit network, it's a real problem. And many cities aren't in a position to build a proper transit network at the drop of a hat. Don't get me wrong, I wish they did or could efficiently build one. But sometimes you have to deal with reality as it is, not as you'd like it to be, un…

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.

Ah yes, stuff the area full of people so that the quality of life tanks, and then the problem can magically fix itself.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#365

Post by Tiktaalik »

triceratops wrote: post #348
Tiktaalik wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know about Vancouver's specific problems. Why are the construction costs so high there? There's no real reason why construction costs are high. As the amount of construction increases, the available labour pool decreases, and labour costs accordingly increase. There is always lots of construction going on. More highly trained trades would help, but easier said than done. If anything it's more that construct…

That just sounds like demand is outstripping supply. As you said, there's still a lot of construction going on but it's having no effect on prices. Either those developers are going to lose their shirts eventually by overbuilding (bonanza for buyers!) or there really are that many buyers willing to pay those prices. It might be worth digging into why Vancouver has so much housing demand. It's a stunningly beautiful c…

Yeah an important aspect of supply and demand discussions in housing discourse is that demand is liquid and can be effectively infinite because supply creation is constrained by literal real world factors (ie. how many labourers are there, how fast can home designs be developed and reviewed, etc).

So as I said it actually becomes more difficult to build the more you build.

Vis a vis labour demand there's also competition from non-residential construction projects (eg. Amazon building a big warehouse somewhere, dam construction, bridge construction etc).

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#366

Post by Nasrudith »

extrapickles wrote: post #316
freeone3000 wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Also setbacks help slow the spread of fire if one building catches on fire.

That brings to mind one crank concept for bureaucratic reform of explicitly embedded purpose formatted laws to slow the spread of fire and perhaps "generally accepted solutions" added after testing to skip design approval.

Thus you could use setbacks as firebreaks, firewalls, or say something exotic like aerogel barricades.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#367

Post by Nasrudith »

just_fred wrote: post #364
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.

Ah yes, stuff the area full of people so that the quality of life tanks, and then the problem can magically fix itself.

There is no "stuffing" - people move there of their own accord first. That they move there despite the inconveniences is a hint that the area is already in high demand and denying it won't make it any better. There also isn't anything magical about feedback loops.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#368

Post by when_creaks »

egypturnash wrote: post #243
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.

Why, yes; we could bring back a societal safety net and raise the minimum wage, so that it's actually possible for one income to pay rent, utilities, and still have some money left over for saving against a disaster and having some fun. We could take things like "healthcare" or "education" out of the hands of profit-seeking entities and run them with the philosophy that "a healthy population" is a much better profit…

Although not an expert I've never seen a realistic individual and/or corporate tax rate that would generate enough revenue to enable UBI. Is there one?

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#369

Post by just_fred »

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)

Yeah, that's what we did buying in the burbs. Now they want to change all the zoning.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#370

Post by seattle_spring »

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…

Wouldn't that turn visiting even close by hiking areas into a multi hour one way trip?
Post reply on HN