5 ms·

Why haven't they simply rezoned some areas to allow higher density housing? This sort of blanket change doesn't grant much control on which zone should increase

Why haven't they simply rezoned some areas to allow higher density housing? This sort of blanket change doesn't grant much control on which zone should increase density.

barry-cotter 7y ago
That’s the point. Granting control on which zone should improve density has worked very well for land owners, not so much for anyone else. They haven’t set duplexes as a ceiling but as a floor on density.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  In what way does this provide a floor on density? It seems that building single-family residences is still legal in areas where it was before.
cycrutchfield 7y ago
Because leaving it up to local governments to decide which areas to upzone will result in perverse outcomes, as entrenched interests will simply seek to protect their assets instead of provide the most good for the most people. Removing the element of control prevents this from happening.
- geezerjay 7y ago
  Local government have insight on the capacity of services currently available in some regions, and also which growth strategy they could follow to avoid very expensive investments with very negative externalities (i.e., congestioned freeways whose capacity can't be extended). Allowing high-density residential construction near public transportation hubs creates more value than allowing urbam sprawl to grow indefinitely. The single most important reason why people are forced to waste their lives in long commutes is allowing residential neighborhoods to spring up in the middle of nowhere in places where their only way in and out of their homes is through a long congestioned road served by no public transportation service.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 7y ago
    You've got the wrong end on this one. Oregon law prescribes urban growth boundaries, so there's already a mechanism to counter sprawl. HB 2001 is in no way a "build more sprawl" bill. The bill also allocates funds to local governments in order to help them understand how their infrastructure needs may change under the bill. "Appropriates moneys to Department of Land Conservation and Development to provide technical assistance to local governments in implementing middle housing regulations and to plan improvement of urban services supporting middle housing."
  - bluGill 7y ago
    We know from experience that one lane roads are enough to support a city of all two story buildings. There are plenty of examples of such cities more than 500 years old that are still going strong.
podunkPDX 7y ago
They have! Problem is that our zoning is about detached single family homes. When we bought our current home (2015) it was zoned R2.5 (residential, min. 2500sqft lot). We are now zoned as R2. All that means is shrinking the required lot size for a single family home. This bill changes a lot of that. Also, Oregon (esp. Multnomah county) is kinda different.

Why haven't they simply rezoned some areas to allow higher density housing? This sort of blanket change doesn't grant much control on which zone should increase density.

barry-cotter 7y ago

That’s the point. Granting control on which zone should improve density has worked very well for land owners, not so much for anyone else. They haven’t set duplexes as a ceiling but as a floor on density.

sokoloff 7y ago
In what way does this provide a floor on density? It seems that building single-family residences is still legal in areas where it was before.

cycrutchfield 7y ago

Because leaving it up to local governments to decide which areas to upzone will result in perverse outcomes, as entrenched interests will simply seek to protect their assets instead of provide the most good for the most people. Removing the element of control prevents this from happening.

geezerjay 7y ago
Local government have insight on the capacity of services currently available in some regions, and also which growth strategy they could follow to avoid very expensive investments with very negative externalities (i.e., congestioned freeways whose capacity can't be extended). Allowing high-density residential construction near public transportation hubs creates more value than allowing urbam sprawl to grow indefinitely. The single most important reason why people are forced to waste their lives in long commutes is allowing residential neighborhoods to spring up in the middle of nowhere in places where their only way in and out of their homes is through a long congestioned road served by no public transportation service.
- jasonwatkinspdx 7y ago
  You've got the wrong end on this one. Oregon law prescribes urban growth boundaries, so there's already a mechanism to counter sprawl. HB 2001 is in no way a "build more sprawl" bill. The bill also allocates funds to local governments in order to help them understand how their infrastructure needs may change under the bill. "Appropriates moneys to Department of Land Conservation and Development to provide technical assistance to local governments in implementing middle housing regulations and to plan improvement of urban services supporting middle housing."
- bluGill 7y ago
  We know from experience that one lane roads are enough to support a city of all two story buildings. There are plenty of examples of such cities more than 500 years old that are still going strong.

podunkPDX 7y ago

They have! Problem is that our zoning is about detached single family homes. When we bought our current home (2015) it was zoned R2.5 (residential, min. 2500sqft lot). We are now zoned as R2. All that means is shrinking the required lot size for a single family home. This bill changes a lot of that. Also, Oregon (esp. Multnomah county) is kinda different.