Portland passes low-density zoning reform • Hacker News Board

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#391

Post by javagram » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 1:10 AM UTC

makomk wrote: post #347

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> views and the light that falls on my property We need blanket legislation outlawing the notion that by virtue of purchasing a plot of land one is also purchasing control over everything visible from said plot at the time of purchase.

So basically, we need to legally mandate that the only way for people to ensure that they have basic things like sunlight and not staring into a brick wall - or perhaps worse, having an endless parade of other people staring into their rooms and garden from the new multi-story art gallery across the street - is via sprawl that makes existing suburbia look positively compact? The problem with this kind of thinking is…

There’s already a solution, air rights. E.g. these NYC condo owners who paid the $11 million to buy out their neighbors’ building not to build any higher. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/22/nyregion/manhattan-real-e...

In most cases this really isn’t a problem though. The fantasy of “big tall buildings” being slapped everywhere is just that. NIMBYs are fully mobilized just to stop stuff like duplexes, townhomes, or the neighbor putting a pop-up 4th story on their existing row house, not imaginary 100-story skyscrapers going up in the middle of a suburb.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#392

Post by nmfisher » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 1:22 AM UTC

freebee87 wrote: post #386

makomk wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically, we need to legally mandate that the only way for people to ensure that they have basic things like sunlight and not staring into a brick wall - or perhaps worse, having an endless parade of other people staring into their rooms and garden from the new multi-story art gallery across the street - is via sprawl that makes existing suburbia look positively compact? The problem with this kind of thinking is…

Have you been to NYC? Or Tokyo? Or Singapore? Have you ever lived in a dense city before? These things just don't happen. Developers a profit motived and are very aware of what sells and what doesn't. There are a million mechanisms by which we can avoid having a single story house surrounded by skyscrapers.

Counterpoint - Melbourne CBD. Jampacked full of enormous residential towers that are cheaply/poorly designed, far too close together, offer zero amenities and that block out all sunlight.

I used to be in favour of laxer planning regulations until I moved to Melbourne. A lassez faire approach just doesn’t work.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#393

Post by monadic2 » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 1:49 AM UTC

jansan wrote: post #144

monadic2 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I"d think they were fleeing a city that refused to protect them from their own cops.

I am not from Portland, but the rest of the world did not get a great picture of the city during the last two or three months (yes, the word "shithole" was dropped a few times). I do not remember any images of businesses being threatened by cops, but what do I know sitting at the other end of the world.

It's in large part because of the cops that this country a shithole. Blame them.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#394

Post by CountSessine » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 4:07 AM UTC

Tiktaalik wrote: post #310

alistairSH wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

City of Vancouver has a policy of protected public views. The goal is to make it so that views of Vancouver's mountains are reasonably accessible by anyone, not just those that purchased a north facing suite in a tall condo tower. It's pretty much the same underlying concept as why we create public parks. The view cones are scattered around and are usually tied to areas of heavy public pedestrian activity, such as pa…

This goes a long way toward explaining the housing affordability disaster in Vancouver.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#395

Post by zjaffee » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 5:24 AM UTC

alistairSH wrote: post #280

zjaffee wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

NYC has a very complicated system of buying and selling air rights which is what I was thinking of when I wrote this.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#396

Post by therealdrag0 » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 6:22 AM UTC

triceratops wrote: post #324

Tiktaalik wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This policy will make SFHs in Portland an extremely good investment in the long term as you can now substantially increase the amount of rentable units on the same amount of land. If you have the means buy a cheap SFH lot in Portland while you can. If we really actually want to make housing not an investment then we need to empower our government to fund the development of publicly owned housing for everyone.

I've never understood the arguments in favor of publicly funded housing. Public funding is used for things that are a common good (e.g. roads, public parks, defense, food safety) or that are important but otherwise wouldn't get funded (e.g. basic research). Housing fits neither of those buckets. If you occupy a publicly funded housing unit, I can't - it's not a public good. And there are always developers and builder…

Checkout how public housing works in Singapore.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#397

Post by therealdrag0 » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 6:30 AM UTC

Surprised no one is talking about the affordability requirements.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#398

Post by rumanator » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 6:45 AM UTC

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…

> This is IMO the big thing here. Cities used to allow this kind of construction.

And cities were awful due to that, I'm afraid.

> 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.

There's no need to pull out emotional conspiracy theories. Restrictions are in general due to the need to impose an urban plan that meets the urban planner's established goals for the community and also complies with environmental restrictions, such as traffic and noise levels.

> but legislation and restrictions on things like whether I have a second building on my property and a separate driveway for each one are government overreach.

Letting people freely build "second buildings on their property" is an euphemism for wanting to build shanty towns with no regard to living conditions or environmental restrictions.

Each plot is defined based on a zoning expectation,which reflects real-world restrictions and an urban plan. If you want higher density construction then just work with your city to rezone and review the urban plan for your neighborhood.

Expecting to be able to just build "houses" in your backyard is how you get firetrap shanty towns that violate environmental and safety restrictions.

Just because you don't know why a fence is placed somewhere, that doesn't mean it has no purpose.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#399

Post by rumanator » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 6:48 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #242

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…

> views and the light that falls on my property We need blanket legislation outlawing the notion that by virtue of purchasing a plot of land one is also purchasing control over everything visible from said plot at the time of purchase.

> We need blanket legislation outlawing the notion that by virtue of purchasing a plot of land one is also purchasing control over everything visible from said plot at the time of purchase.

We already have that, in the form of urban planning. There are professionals in charge of ensuring everyone's rights are respected by defining and upholding an urban plan and construction regulation.

Otherwise a you get is a sea of shanty towns.

Re: Portland passes low-density zoning reform

#400

Post by rumanator » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 6:53 AM UTC

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…

> A proper transit network and walkable design ensures that this doesn't become a problem.

How do you expect to put together a working transit network, which is very sensitive to urban planning, if you are also argue in favour of ignoring any restriction imposed by urban planners?