4 ms·
the restrictions aren't on the green areas. The city can keep all of our parks and nature and be fine. The restriction are on the building heights and number o
by throwthisawayt 10y ago
the restrictions aren't on the green areas. The city can keep all of our parks and nature and be fine. The restriction are on the building heights and number of units on vast areas of the city that are already developed.
For example, the west portala Sherwood Forest area is essentially a suburb within the city. There are huge lots that are 5000 sq ft when next door neighborhoods you have 1600sq ft lots with 2-3 units. Essentially you have suburb neighborhoods right next to others that have 10x the density.
A developer would love to buy units in those areas and convert to duplexes but is literally impossible to do this.
So again, it's not a question of preserving our parks but a question of preserving our suburbs within the city so rich people get to live in a suburb within the city and watch their property prices skyrocket instead of allowing the city to expand and accommodate the middle class.
- DMac87 10y agoAlso, the city allows buyers to take what used to be a family home (e.g. 4-5 bedrooms), tear it down and put up a 1-2 bedroom house (more modern, more amenities, e.g. garage, sauna, etc). Why policymakers allow this if they believe there's a supply problem is beyond me - on my block the number of bedrooms has gone down by about a quarter in the last few years as a result...
- throwthisawayt 10y agoWhat's the regulation that allows you to do that ? From what I understood, you aren't legally allowed to reduce the number of units that a property is zoned for.
- scythe 10y agoUnits =/= bedrooms. People are replacing units with 3-4 bedrooms with 2-bedroom units that have larger rooms.