3 ms·

It's a symptom as much as a cure. Oregon has immense amounts of available land to build housing on, but it also has BA-like restrictions that remove most of th

It's a symptom as much as a cure. Oregon has immense amounts of available land to build housing on, but it also has BA-like restrictions that remove most of that from possible housing expansion. This law won't do much if that isn't fixed. (The law allows for duplexes to be built in single-family areas without rezoning.)

davidw 7y ago
Oregon's UGB allows cities to grow, just in a controlled way. Absent that, and maintaining subsidies for driving, you get Houston or Phoenix like sprawl. HB 2001 allows up to 4-plexes in many cities. You could actually get a lot of housing out of that kind of development, it turns out: https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/add-housing-by-allowing-one-triplex-per-city-block/ https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/add-housing-by-allowing... Which makes sense, as most places in Europe are way more land-constrained than the US and manage to house people by growing up and in, rather than only out.
- downerending 7y ago
  I'd argue that Phoenix compares quite favorably to the BA or Portland. It has an efficient transportation structure, and more importantly, interleaved levels of housing that make it relatively easy to live near (within walking distance even) to one's work, regardless of economic class. Except for the rich, that's essentially impossible in the BA, and pretty near for Portland.
  - notJim 7y ago
    This is not born out by commute statistics. 86% commute by car in Phoenix compared to 65% in Portland. If you're saying Phoenix can work well at an individual level, I might agree, but as far as urban planning goes, I'd say Portland is much better. Subjectively I've lived in both places, and Phoenix is far far more car-dependent than Portland. Walking along those 6-lane streets throughout the city, traversing massive parking lots through strip malls does not make for pedestrian-friendliness.
    - munificent 7y ago
      Well, neither does 120°F summers. I think there's an argument that Pheonix fundamentally can't be pedestrian friendly so optimizing for car-and-bus-friendliness is a justifiable strategy.
      - davidw 7y ago
        Just because summers are hot doesn't mean there aren't a whole lot of days the rest of the year when you couldn't get around quite happily by bike or on foot. People get around by bike in Montreal in the winter. With the right architecture, even hot places, like, say, Seville, Spain, are pretty nice for pedestrians. Transportation should be a "right tool for the job" thing, rather than "well since I can't go to Costco with my 4 kids on a bike, bikes are totally useless for everyone" thing.
        whatshisface 7y ago
        If all the cars come out on the same day of the year, it doesn't matter if it's only once a year, the roads have to be ready for it.
        onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
        Phoenix is not THAT hot most days of the summer -- and it's barely hot outside a few hours of the day outside of summer -- IFF you're in the shade. Phoenix could've invested in trees and shade, and less in concrete to absorb the heat, and it could be much more bearable.
        davidw 7y ago
        Doesn't work like that. Not at all.

davidw 7y ago

Oregon's UGB allows cities to grow, just in a controlled way. Absent that, and maintaining subsidies for driving, you get Houston or Phoenix like sprawl. HB 2001 allows up to 4-plexes in many cities. You could actually get a lot of housing out of that kind of development, it turns out: https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/add-housing-by-allowing-one-triplex-per-city-block/ https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/add-housing-by-allowing... Which makes sense, as most places in Europe are way more land-constrained than the US and manage to house people by growing up and in, rather than only out.

downerending 7y ago
I'd argue that Phoenix compares quite favorably to the BA or Portland. It has an efficient transportation structure, and more importantly, interleaved levels of housing that make it relatively easy to live near (within walking distance even) to one's work, regardless of economic class. Except for the rich, that's essentially impossible in the BA, and pretty near for Portland.
- notJim 7y ago
  This is not born out by commute statistics. 86% commute by car in Phoenix compared to 65% in Portland. If you're saying Phoenix can work well at an individual level, I might agree, but as far as urban planning goes, I'd say Portland is much better. Subjectively I've lived in both places, and Phoenix is far far more car-dependent than Portland. Walking along those 6-lane streets throughout the city, traversing massive parking lots through strip malls does not make for pedestrian-friendliness.
  - munificent 7y ago
    Well, neither does 120°F summers. I think there's an argument that Pheonix fundamentally can't be pedestrian friendly so optimizing for car-and-bus-friendliness is a justifiable strategy.
    - davidw 7y ago
      Just because summers are hot doesn't mean there aren't a whole lot of days the rest of the year when you couldn't get around quite happily by bike or on foot. People get around by bike in Montreal in the winter. With the right architecture, even hot places, like, say, Seville, Spain, are pretty nice for pedestrians. Transportation should be a "right tool for the job" thing, rather than "well since I can't go to Costco with my 4 kids on a bike, bikes are totally useless for everyone" thing.
      - whatshisface 7y ago
        If all the cars come out on the same day of the year, it doesn't matter if it's only once a year, the roads have to be ready for it.
        onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
        Phoenix is not THAT hot most days of the summer -- and it's barely hot outside a few hours of the day outside of summer -- IFF you're in the shade. Phoenix could've invested in trees and shade, and less in concrete to absorb the heat, and it could be much more bearable.
        davidw 7y ago
        Doesn't work like that. Not at all.