Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow • Hacker News Board

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#641

Post by genocidicbunny » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:23 PM UTC

egberts1 wrote: post #601

kevinburke wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually the compromise position - California proposed SB 50, which would have unilaterally set density standards near transit and permitted fourplexes in single family zones. Cities fiercely opposed this. So instead we have this dumb system where every city gets a target number from the state and can choose where the housing goes, as long as they can show they meet the target. "Local control!" Most of them a…

caldecott and hi-rise near freeways sounds like viable options. you make it sound like it is a bad thing.

Housing right next to highways is pretty bad. There's a huge amount of pollution, both particulate and noise, and depending on the layout, also light. Constant exposure to all of those will quickly lead to a variety of chronic conditions and generally make one miserable.

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#642

Post by s1artibartfast » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:24 PM UTC

ketzo wrote: post #329

thegrimmest wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? if a low density community wants to plan to remain low density, who are the rest of us to stop them?

I don't think you should be blindly downvoted for this -- I think it is a totally valid question, and one that the YIMBY movement needs to find a way to answer consistently. Personally, I would say that lots of low-density communities do remain low-density. And generally, that's because people don't want to move to them. But if you're a small town in Northern California, one of the most desirable places in the world,…

My answer comes from more of a Libertarian perspective it is quite simple. The community does not own the privately held land. If every landowner in the community opposed development, zoning would be unnecessary. If some individuals want to sell to Developers, zoning is just oppression of the minority by Democratic means.

Being part of a democracy does not mean you get to control every single action that could impact you.

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#643

Post by JAlexoid » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:24 PM UTC

api wrote: post #583

nlavezzo wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The answers are very uncomfortable. Are they? Isn't it possible that people who live in beautiful neighborhoods with mature trees, nice big yards, and low traffic streets that are safe for kids to play around, want to keep them that way for primarily those reasons? Of course their desires alone shouldn't be the final word on proposed changes to codes, but implying that all of these homeowners are primarily driven b…

> that are safe for kids It’s all about kids. Without kids in the picture sure, go ahead, make cities look like Coruscant from Star Wars. The instant you have kids you see how important open spaces safe enough for unstructured minimally supervised play are. Without spaces like this all you have are kids drooling on Roblox and YouTube all day. There’s nothing for kids in an urban core. Those spaces don’t have to be un…

I grew up in a Soviet planned city, with courtyard focused developments.

Our playgrounds were(they still are) larger and more accessible, than anything my current neighbours kids get on their 2a of land in rural USA.

Even the new developments in Eastern Europe provide a kid friendly courtyard. Shielded from all traffic and observable by literally the whole community.

Suburbia should be reserved for the insane rich people, that hate their neighbors.

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#644

Post by shiftpgdn » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:25 PM UTC

twblalock wrote: post #618

softsound wrote: post #364

Looking at other countries like Japan with like barely any zoning laws, this looks great, I hope it leads to more mixed cities again and more walkable/liveable areas like before WW2. It is funny that America land of the free had so many restrictions, building up hundreds of zoning laws across the country did a lot of bad and led to a lot of urban sprawl leading to very poor cities and towns that literally cannot pay…

Tokyo has lax zoning, but it looks the way it does only because people who live there want it to look that way. Houston, which also has loose zoning, looks totally different because most Texans want to live in suburbs and drive cars. In other words, zoning laws are generally an expression of what the majority of people already wanted. I can tell you for sure that in most parts of California (and most of the rest of t…

Texans don't want to live in suburbs in drive cars, they have no choice because it's illegal to build dense housing via deed covenants and city ordinances that work in place of zoning. The most expensive and desirable housing (not counting the hyper-wealthy enclaves) in Houston is also the most walkable and dense.

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#645

Post by sgt » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:25 PM UTC

rockinghigh wrote: post #486

sgt wrote: post #414

"San Francisco’s Sunset District will be upzoned for new, high density housing to help add 80,000 new homes via the housing element approved by SF city gov’t and the state." I don't understand that statement along with the photo. That is a high density neighborhood. The houses are very close to each other, many are double story, and I don't see many green areas in between. Did I miss something?

The new zoning would allow buildings up to 85 feet, or ~10 stories. > Areas within a short walk of a rapid bus or light rail line — including stretches of Ocean Avenue, Geary Boulevard and Taraval, Judah and Lombard streets — could see developments 55 to 85 feet high. In other areas close to major bus lines, developers would be allowed to build unlimited density within existing height limits. Virtually everywhere els…

Ok, so the key is that it must be close to public transport. I guess that could work, if the implementation is sensible.

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#646

Post by willnonya » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:25 PM UTC

spockz wrote: post #610

SamBam wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and low traffic streets that are safe for kids to play around Actually, suburban streets are significantly more dangerous than urban streets, in terms of number of children killed, as a fraction of both population and miles driven. > Motor vehicle traffic was the leading mechanism of unintentional injury death among children aged 5–13, with the rural rate (3.1) twice as high as the urban rate (1.5) > Motor vehicle…

But why is that? Maybe because children don’t play on the street at all in the city. So what does the fraction look when we take children playing outside and be healthy instead of just children? The chance remains the same but for the ones that survive there is a better quality of life.

There is also a significant ant difference in the absolute numbers.

Not to mention people tend to be much lore cautious in high traffic areas.

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#647

Post by whimsicalism » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:26 PM UTC

maxsilver wrote: post #422

gumby wrote: post #107

This is a great article about great news (except for the first sentence calling it "A little known law" -- it's been quite contentious). Palo Alto has fought these rules and I'm glad they will be enforced. When I first moved to Palo Alto in the early 80s it had a very progressive climate: a couple of SRO buildings, lower average income than some of the neighboring towns, a lot of social support programs, and decidedl…

> With no constraints on construction will there be a small boom in new development, tearing down virgin forest in order to make empty developments? Probably? I live in Michigan, which (with the exception of two spots) has no meaningful limits on construction. Even the cities that technically have-and-enforce zoning, waive all the rules constantly anytime a developer asks. And yes -- it means developers can build alm…

> (prices here are still astronomical, and while they look cheaper in comparison to California, is only because of the severely reduced income locals make -- prices are still at record-all-time highs)

You are confusing cause & effect here.

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#648

Post by steveklabnik » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:27 PM UTC

sdenton4 wrote: post #628

hibikir wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has little to do with the existence of zoning laws themselves, but the specific zones that they define. Japan has zones, so does Spain. But there's just nothing anywhere near as Restrictive as most US cities' R1 zone. Many places have R2s and R3s that are still more restrictive than the least dense thing than a Spanish city has. Remove zones alone, and HOAs will get areas into legally binding covenants that are…

Dumb question, but how do HOAs enforce things? Presumably they have some binding agreement, but I can't imagine why someone would opt into one. 'Why yes, I'd love to pay dues and fines to my noisiest neighbors.'

> I can't imagine why someone would opt into one.

You cannot buy without being a part of the HOA.

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#649

Post by sgt » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:27 PM UTC

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #446

sgt wrote: post #414

"San Francisco’s Sunset District will be upzoned for new, high density housing to help add 80,000 new homes via the housing element approved by SF city gov’t and the state." I don't understand that statement along with the photo. That is a high density neighborhood. The houses are very close to each other, many are double story, and I don't see many green areas in between. Did I miss something?

If you think two-story houses are high-density, You Too Might Be Part of The Problem™.

Fair enough. But honestly I wouldn't be happy if my area (which has big properties, lots of space between each house) was de-zoned into an anarchy where developers could build 10 story "luxury housing", increasing traffic and noise. I guess the intention is good, but it won't work everywhere.

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#650

Post by nradov » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:27 PM UTC

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #596

nlavezzo wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The answers are very uncomfortable. Are they? Isn't it possible that people who live in beautiful neighborhoods with mature trees, nice big yards, and low traffic streets that are safe for kids to play around, want to keep them that way for primarily those reasons? Of course their desires alone shouldn't be the final word on proposed changes to codes, but implying that all of these homeowners are primarily driven b…

> Are they? Isn't it possible that people who live in beautiful neighborhoods with mature trees, nice big yards, and low traffic streets that are safe for kids to play around, want to keep them that way for primarily those reasons? You mean like all the medium-density neighborhoods of San Francisco? American R-1 suburbs are a nightmare for kids, and that's why you never see any kids outside there, tell me how this: h…

You don't see many kids in San Francisco because homes are tiny, prices are crazy, police don't enforce public order, and the public school system is mess. Opening up zoning restrictions is generally a good thing, but it's not going to make SF an attractive place for middle-class families to raise small children.