Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

darrellowens.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

681–690 of 1001 posts

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

#681

Post by EarlKing »

captainzidgel wrote: post #539
EarlKing wrote: post #519

California is still in the middle of a drought, and politicians want to railroad the production of additional housing supply for more people when the state can barely afford to provide for the water needs of the population it has? Yeah, sounds like California.

yeah let the homeless die off some more so i can keep watering my lawn

This has nothing to do with creating housing for the homeless. Homeless shelters already exist. This is about creating affordable housing for people moving into an area that can't support the population it already has. Until all the appropriations that were made for creating additional reservoirs start actually seeing results there shouldn't be ANY new construction.

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

#682

Post by twiddling »

yamtaddle wrote: post #619
jackson1442 wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can have all this (and more!) in cities as well. Lived in Seattle for a bit and my apartment had several neighborhoods of single-family homes within a couple blocks: each with mature trees, yards, and low traffic streets. Sure, the yard maybe isn't as massive as you can get in a suburb, but there's still plenty of space (and far more public parks). Because they were so close to dense housing, they also had the ad…

Old narrow-street, maybe an alley in the back, grid-layout suburbs with the odd block corner zoned commercial and all-neighborhood-streets routes to all kinds of businesses and parks and libraries and such are a whole different beast from the twisty-road car-dependent mazes of post-70s suburbia. And they're so much damn nicer. Too bad no-one builds them anymore.

problem isn't zoning but design regulations. A lot of street design is dictated by being able to fire engine equipment in and turned around. Hence no new alleys are being built.

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

#683

Post by anyfoo »

ipaddr wrote: post #579
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…

The answers are very uncomfortable Like cleaner air, safer streets, less traffic and a better place to raise a child and/or dog with backyards and privacy.

> Like cleaner air, safer streets, less traffic and a better place to raise a child and/or dog with backyards and privacy.

So, like in European cities.

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

#684

Post by Tiktaalik »

rnk wrote: post #529
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…

It's not that mysterious why people want this. For people of means, they want to preserve the quality of life that they see in having mostly single family homes and in the past keep it full of white people with money, hopefully the only whites thing has faded. Of course racism was a core issue in how these exclusions panned out in the US. If I'm in a city and and I own one of these houses, it's clear economically tha…

I dunno why this is being downvoted because in my experience this is spot on, and I've heard such things from my neighbours. (maybe people are uncomfortable with the truth spoken so plainly)

Most of all people want exclusivity. Only having a handful of neighbours is something that is hard to buy. It's easier enforced through regulation.

Established neighbourhoods push for regulations to keep people out.

In the past it absolutely was for racist reasons. Today more likely economic ones. Apartments means renters which means less wealthy people. Exclusive detached home areas are pretty much guaranteed to have a high floor of wealth.

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

#685

Post by naravara »

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.

> Maybe because children don’t play on the street at all in the city.

They absolutely do

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

#686

Post by tinglymintyfrsh »

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…

I'm in Austin. I believe there to be inconsistency in zoning here because I'm on the top floor of a 10+ floor residential building looking down on a neighborhood park, single family homes, a motel, and smaller apartment buildings.

The building occurring downtown is insane. I haven't seen anything like it since the booms in Shanghai and Dubai.

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

#687

Post by kelnos »

nlavezzo wrote: post #627
vineyardmike wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? Yes that is absolutely something people want. You can get that in cities if you give up on yard and instead share with parks. That said, some of the reasons people want it are uncomfortable. Some pe…

I'm sure at town meetings there are plenty of unsavory things said, and people with prejudices show up in disproportionate numbers. It's just not accurate or OK to imply that all property owners seeking to keep their neighborhoods from rapidly changing to higher densities are doing so out of prejudice. Give people the benefit of believing they are primarily motivated by rational self interest rather than some irratio…

> I'm sure at town meetings there are plenty of unsavory things said, and people with prejudices show up in disproportionate numbers. It's just not accurate or OK to imply that all property owners seeking to keep their neighborhoods from rapidly changing to higher densities are doing so out of prejudice.

Perhaps not, but it's the people who attend town meetings and complain (more often than not for prejudiced reasons, IME) who influence housing policy. City planning leadership reacts to and votes on the opinions of those people primarily, not the people who don't show up.

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

#688

Post by steveklabnik »

HWR_14 wrote: post #657
steveklabnik wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This SimCity style thinking about zoning is just too simplistic. Yes, absolutely, nobody wants to live next to a smelter. But not every commercial property is a smelter. People love to live near corner stores, yet that is "commercial."

The smelter is "Industrial" not "Commercial". At least in SimCity abstractions. Usually commercial and some level of manufacturing overlap in zoning, but smelters are in a different category.

Sure. Three or five total zoning designations is still not fine-grained enough, especially if they're exclusive.

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

#690

Post by florbo »

kiba wrote: post #594
ipaddr wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answers are very uncomfortable Like cleaner air, safer streets, less traffic and a better place to raise a child and/or dog with backyards and privacy.

Streets are dangerous because of cars zipping around. Cars contribute to air pollution quality (until electrified) and noise quality. So, you ban cars from streets and allow only pedestrians and cyclists. Next, you allow local amenities to pop up so you don't feel the need to get a car out. The suburban pattern of development as it currently exists isn't the only way to facilitate the quality of life you're looking f…

When are US cities going to ban cars? My guess is 0-2 in the next century.
Post reply on HN