25 ms·

Portland passes low-density zoning reform

221 points by g8oz 6y ago

therealdrag0 6y ago
Surprised no one is talking about the affordability requirements.
matchbok 6y ago
Exactly the right step. In the long-run, this will do a lot for housing affordability in the city.
- coldpie 6y ago
  Yeah, there's some great stuff in here. Lowering and removing parking mandates is huge, too. That allows for a much more walkable city as we don't have to reserve a bunch of empty space for cars.
kindatrue 6y ago
This seems disastrous for homeowners and landlords hoping to recreate this Silicon Valley success flywheel https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/1129046954409902081 https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/1129046954409902081
- Splendor 6y ago
  Good.
- kory 6y ago
  For landlords, you're correct. Rents will go down as more housing floods the market and the profiteering will cease. Look at Vancouver BC, where rents are significantly lower than land prices. But I don't entirely agree with this point. Regular folks that are getting rich off property are the single family homeowners. Density tends to increase land value. This law makes single family home land more valuable and easier to sell, since a developer can plop townhomes or a second house in the backyard and profit. So now on top of regular people, you've got builders competing for the same properties, hence prices will rise. I'd be worried if I owned a townhome or condo, since I wouldn't have any empty land to be built on and that's the kind of home that will be built on the now upzoned land. But there are no swathes of empty land in Portland to fill with more single family homes. Folks that own property the in the (now up-zoned) expensive neighborhoods are NIMBY because they want to preserve the low density neighborhood they live in that are close to everything, not because they want housing prices to soar more. Older neighborhoods like that just aren't built anymore--developers pick off the shelf of 1-5 nearly identical plans and fill a neighborhood with them. Old west coast city neighborhoods have a cool vibe that doesn't really exist in many places anymore, and can't really be replicated. With this up zone that will be going away over time. That's OK, because these neighborhoods should have been upzoned a long time ago and the land needs to be accessible to more people. But the conversation is more nuanced than "my housing price will go down!!1"
  - crooked-v 6y ago
    > But there are no swathes of empty land in Portland to fill with more single family homes. This is a key thing. There is very little undeveloped land within Portland city limits, and the vast majority of it is lots under 1000 square feet. Most of what is there is in places that would be expensive, laborious, or unappealing to work with, like the sides of heavily sloped hills, lots completely surrounded by other lots without road access (have fun trying to work out right of way for a driveway), or waaay out nearly in the suburbs, at which point you may as well go five more minutes in that direction and save yourself some on the taxes.
- mrfusion 6y ago
  Good?
- francis_t_catte 6y ago
  Good. Housing should not be treated as an investment.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    Housing is an investment, but it isn't a savings account. There is a difference. As an investment a house is a place including neighborhood to live for a long time. You should be friends with the neighbors. When you get old it is a cheap place to live (you have it paid for). It is a place to save your memories (little Bobby tables bit the rail there...). A place to make what fits your life. It isn't a savings account to get cash out of when you want some.
  - Tiktaalik 6y ago
    This policy will make SFHs in Portland an extremely good investment in the long term as you can now substantially increase the amount of rentable units on the same amount of land. If you have the means buy a cheap SFH lot in Portland while you can. If we really actually want to make housing not an investment then we need to empower our government to fund the development of publicly owned housing for everyone.
    - triceratops 6y ago
      I've never understood the arguments in favor of publicly funded housing. Public funding is used for things that are a common good (e.g. roads, public parks, defense, food safety) or that are important but otherwise wouldn't get funded (e.g. basic research). Housing fits neither of those buckets. If you occupy a publicly funded housing unit, I can't - it's not a public good. And there are always developers and builders willing to stump up cash to build new housing.
      - therealdrag0 6y ago
        Checkout how public housing works in Singapore.
      - Tiktaalik 6y ago
- Analemma_ 6y ago
  Good. What's good for homeowners and landlords is not necessarily good for society. Indeed, the main reason housing is so unaffordable is that we have privileged the equity of homeowners/landlords above all other considerations. It's long past time for these two classes to have a much softer voice at the table.
- egypturnash 6y ago
  Good. Kids who grow up in Portland now might have a chance to keep on living there, instead of getting thrown off at high speed because they were more suited to a career other than "programmer" like all my artist friends from San Francisco were.
valuearb 6y ago
So “One Thousand Lawyers of Oregon” came up with a new scheme to cram people in density after they banned development on millions of acres of land right outside Portland.
- matchbok 6y ago
  Nobody wants to live out there, there are no jobs or transit.
  - justaguy88 6y ago
    Build transit?
  - rootusrootus 6y ago
    What? I live 100 feet from the urban growth boundary. 20 minutes from downtown Portland. Nearest transit is a quarter mile away and the bus runs once an hour during daylight only. Nobody seems to mind that, houses in this area sell immediately. If you pushed the boundary out another mile it would take no time at all before it would be filled with new homes.
    - NobodyNada 6y ago
      And as far as jobs go, the tech industry is huge out here. The city of Wilsonville alone has Xerox, 3D Systems, Mentor Graphics, FLIR, Tyco Electronics, DW Fritz, and probably more that I’m forgetting — and that’s one of the smaller cities on the outskirts of the urban growth boundary.
      - pyronik19 6y ago
        They haven't burned down yet?
  - hackeraccount 6y ago
    If nobody wants to live out there why did they need to have a ban?
jackyinger 6y ago
As a former Portlandian I’m pretty stoked to imagine where this could take the city! A low altitude densification would beat what’s been done to the inner East side... Here’s a fun thought experiment... Imagine if most streets became parks/plazas (aside from a few left for utility reasons) and everyone rode (electric) bikes, or similar relatively light transport options. To me that’s be idyllic. Imagine not being relegated to the sidewalk, not having to worry about being hit by some idiot driving way to fast in a residential area. Edit: What’s with the downvotes? Geez have some imagination. Bikes don’t need to have right of way everywhere either... I guess vehicle-centrism goes far beyond cars.
- wool_gather 6y ago
  > Imagine not being relegated to the sidewalk Pedestrians don't mix any better with (electric) bikes that are trying to get places than they do with cars. Reasonably broad and well-maintained sidewalks are essential for everyone's comfort and safety.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    In practice, they do. Bikes are much smaller, much nimbler and much slower than cars. Unless the street is completely packed with pedestrians, fully pedestrian streets work well with ebikes. This is from experience riding bikes and having people ride bikes next to me in fully pedestrian streets as dreamt about by GP.
    - wool_gather 6y ago
      I have a very different experience than you. I ride or walk everywhere I go. Bikes may be slower than cars, but -- when they're being used for commuting, not toodling around on a Sunday afternoon -- they are much, much faster than pedestrians. When I'm walking, I don't want bikes whizzing by me at three times my speed. When I'm biking, I don't want to be constantly worrying about people on foot -- or their kids, or their dogs -- suddenly stopping or changing direction without looking.
ebg13 6y ago
I'm stoked about eliminating parking mandates and restriction on homes per lot, but not thrilled by binding that to floor area maximums.
klyrs 6y ago
I like almost all of this. I have one minor concern, the maximum home size is dropping from 6750 to 2500 square feet. Which is probably fine for a nuclear family, but in my neighborhood, such homes are largely occupied by multigenerational families. In areas closer to colleges and universities, those homes end up being shared by large groups of students. Both of these populations will take a hit under this policy.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  I missed that part. Though both multigenerational families and college students could be served well by multi-structure setups as well. Or in many cases, better served.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    Maybe the college students -- but in my experience, rent in large houses is cheaper per-room than smaller apartments. My brother is a professional musician and lives with others near/at the poverty line -- they simply can't afford to live in smaller places. Maybe that will change on the supply side, but more likely, demand will rise just as fast. Multigenerational families are not better served. If they're doing a new build, it can work. But imagine trying to purchase not one, but four houses on the same lot. That's a helluva coincidence to wait for, for them all to be vacant simultaneously.
    - ogre_codes 6y ago
      Have you lived in a multi-generational home? I am right now and have done so in various ways for the past 25 years, it is vastly better to have some separation. I'm not going to generalize. But for us, multi-generational homes happen over time as opposed to moving the whole family at once regardless. Kids grow up and need space, but can't afford to buy a place. Parents get older and move in with kids, etc etc.
      - klyrs 6y ago
        No, I haven't. Some of my immediate neighbors do; one household immigrated as a family so they're on the forefront of my mind. I appreciate your perspective; thanks for sharing.
stakkur 6y ago
I live in the area. Proponents have couched this as a 'progressive' vs. 'nimby' effort, which like the rest of life is not true at all. Housing is complex, not good vs. evil, liberal vs. conservative, urgan vs sprawl. If you doubt this, watch how much this comment is downvoted. One thing we know, based on over a century of data around the world: increasing density of housing has little effect on affordability, in the long run. More often than not, it has the opposite effect. More simply, we do it backwards: we claim--based on in-migration 'projections' that are nearly always overestimates--that there's a shortage and we must build our way out of it. Example: 20 years ago, Portland estimated a million new residents by 2025. Growth in that period: 105,000, in large part due to annexation. This leaves out the realities of how things get built. Private developers do the work, for profit, most often for investment groups. If it doesn't 'pencil out', nobody will build it. And this is why 'affordable housing' demands, codes, agreements all get bargained down in the end. They have for decades in Portland, despite repeated promises of 'this time, we really mean it'. Developers hold the cards. I could list dozens of projects of thousands of units. 'But government can build/partner!', you say? No, that rarely works either, especially in Portland. 'But this is law and it must be adhered to!', you say? No, that's not true. When it comes to building, everything gets negotiated, and there's nothing that gets bargained harder on than public entities trying to set housing prices.
- xster 6y ago
  Do you have a reference?
- thebradbain 6y ago
  You’ve either studied completely different fields of economics and urban planning than what I’m aware of, or you didn’t study them at all... Sources, please.
  - stakkur 6y ago
    I have a master's degree in urban & regional planning. I'm a Portland native, and went to college here and studied the city fairly intently. But I'm not writing a paper here on HN.
ogre_codes 6y ago
> "It shouldn’t take six years for any city to agree to give itself permission to build the sort of homes that every city once allowed." This is IMO the big thing here. Cities used to allow this kind of construction. Our auto-friendly culture and the desire of landowners to keep poor people off their block has led to increasingly draconian restrictions on private property use. I understand regulations around keeping homes safe, drainage, and fire safety, but legislation and restrictions on things like whether I have a second building on my property and a separate driveway for each one are government overreach.
- rumanator 6y ago
  > This is IMO the big thing here. Cities used to allow this kind of construction. And cities were awful due to that, I'm afraid. > Our auto-friendly culture and the desire of landowners to keep poor people off their block has led to increasingly draconian restrictions on private property use. There's no need to pull out emotional conspiracy theories. Restrictions are in general due to the need to impose an urban plan that meets the urban planner's established goals for the community and also complies with environmental restrictions, such as traffic and noise levels. > but legislation and restrictions on things like whether I have a second building on my property and a separate driveway for each one are government overreach. Letting people freely build "second buildings on their property" is an euphemism for wanting to build shanty towns with no regard to living conditions or environmental restrictions. Each plot is defined based on a zoning expectation,which reflects real-world restrictions and an urban plan. If you want higher density construction then just work with your city to rezone and review the urban plan for your neighborhood. Expecting to be able to just build "houses" in your backyard is how you get firetrap shanty towns that violate environmental and safety restrictions. Just because you don't know why a fence is placed somewhere, that doesn't mean it has no purpose.
- 37r6ehehediud 6y ago
  I'm not sure this scans. It would be true if the only regulations that applied were the ones being discussed but Portland goes out of its way to avoid large apartment buildings in many neighborhoods and they have a vendetta against building roads that aren't shit for some reason. If you removed all relevant regulations you wouldn't see the kind of buildings the article is praising you'd see large apartment buildings and suburbs sprawling jnto the woods. Good on Portland for doing something about the situation I guess but it's hard to feel impressed when they created the problem in the first place.
adnjoo 6y ago
Cities are more environmentally friendly than suburbs
eplanit 6y ago
In 2020, Portland officially becomes a shithole city.
- imtringued 6y ago
  Why would 4 duplex housing turn a city into a shithole?
ISL 6y ago
A question for those familiar with the passed Portland legislation: Does it contain protections for urban trees, flora, and fauna? Here in Seattle, the ADU boom, and infill in general, is slowly removing the green from our neighborhoods. As density increases, it is important to ensure that the resulting community is healthy and sustainable.
- mperham 6y ago
  I'm all for more green in cities but don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Suburban sprawl destroys far more environment. Density stops sprawl. This is net positive for trees and the environment.
  - ISL 6y ago
    From where I sit in Seattle, I'm watching the trees around our home disappear in favor of five-over-one cubes. I've chosen to live here, in part, because it doesn't feel like a city. When the trees disappear, we are likely to contribute to that sprawl.
    - JamesBarney 6y ago
      That kinda sounds like "Yeah no one goes there anymore, it's way too crowded". It sucks to watch the trees disappear, I love trees in neighborhoods too. But at an urban level if trees disappear that's about aesthetics not the environment. Density is really great for the environment because of reduced commute, better insulation(apt vs house), etc..
    - seanmcdirmid 6y ago
      Where are you experiencing the construction of a bunch of five over ones? Definitely not Ballard, which is mostly townhomes. This seems to be a bigger problem in downtown Bellevue (I didn't know what five over ones meant before then!), maybe West Seattle?
      - egypturnash 6y ago
kyleblarson 6y ago
Portland might not need more density as people are fleeing it in droves for areas with sane leadership that don't have nightly riots.
- monadic2 6y ago
  I"d think they were fleeing a city that refused to protect them from their own cops.
  - jansan 6y ago
    I am not from Portland, but the rest of the world did not get a great picture of the city during the last two or three months (yes, the word "shithole" was dropped a few times). I do not remember any images of businesses being threatened by cops, but what do I know sitting at the other end of the world.
    - monadic2 6y ago
      It's in large part because of the cops that this country a shithole. Blame them.
    - Kednicma 6y ago
      Where are you from and which media outlets have you been consuming? From a local perspective, the national attempts to portray the protests are rather futile, since the area under contention is only about two blocks large [0] and it's not on most folks' daily walks. Even only a few blocks away, Portland continues life as normal [3], or as normal as COVID-19 will let us be [4]. To follow up on the grandparent's point, the local and imported police are not really doing their job when it comes to breaking up street fights [1] and are trying to pin blame on recently-elected politicians [2]. We're not a shithole just because the fascists have come to town to have fights, and definitely not just because some of those fascists are employed by the federal government. So, yeah, where are you from and what have you heard? It sounds like you don't know much of anything of our local situation, from "the other end of the world", although Oregon's antipode is in the middle of the Indian Ocean and you probably aren't quite so remote. [0] https://imgur.com/gallery/zJ6dNxf https://imgur.com/gallery/zJ6dNxf [1] https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/08/portland-police-respond-to-criticism-for-not-intervening-in-violent-downtown-clash.html https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/08/portland-police-... [2] https://www.wweek.com/news/state/2020/08/13/oregon-state-police-leave-portland-trying-to-fault-the-new-reform-minded-district-attorney-for-their-departure/ https://www.wweek.com/news/state/2020/08/13/oregon-state-pol... [3] https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/7/22/1962969/-The-most-important-image-you-will-see-of-Portland https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/7/22/1962969/-The-most... [4] https://www.oregonlive.com/living/2020/04/a-drive-thru-strip-club-movie-popcorn-to-go-oregon-businesses-get-creative-during-coronavirus.html https://www.oregonlive.com/living/2020/04/a-drive-thru-strip...
setgree 6y ago
One great thing about zoning reform is that it's a topic where progressives and Silicon Valley types, i.e. "the grey tribe" [0], have a lot of common ground. I (and presumably many HN readers) support zoning reform for all the typical grey tribe reasons, and progressives support it because they recognize the racist history of zoning laws, which I also find persuasive [1,2]. The more common ground we can find between tribes like this, the less, I think, it will feel like America is coming apart at the seams. [0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin... [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/25/snob-zoning-is-racial-housing-segregation-by-another-name/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/25/snob-... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/07/racist-history-portland/492035/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/07/racist-...
salmon30salmon 6y ago
Density isn't really the problem in Portland. There are a LOT of empty apartments in this city. There are also a LOT of "short term rentals" in the city that sit vacant. Here are the concerns that I do not see addressed with this: 1. Will the City of Portland make the required infrastructure improvements to support more density? For example, will the storm sewers, which currently overflow poo into the river, support all the extra.. poo. 1a. Will the city invest in roads and public transit? Walking and biking are both great, but Portland is cold, dark and wet for 7 months a year. No matter how easy and safe you make it, people won't want to ride in those conditions. 1b. Portland 911 systems are currently stressed beyond reason. I waited on hold for 4 minutes on 911 (not non-emergency) a few weeks ago. This isn't a rare occurrence. 1c. Will Portland address the tent in the room? Homelessness is endemic in the city, and it isn't _only_ due to lack of housing. The city has very few options for mental health and drug treatment. Will the city invest in that? If not, livability will be negatively impacted by this. 1d. Assuming COVID ever ends, will Portland be business friendly enough to attract employers to employ the expected glut of people? Right now, large business are leaving Portland (Google has halted its expansion plans for example). 1e. Will Oregon fund schools in a way that can account for the new residents? Schools are already over-crowded and Oregon has one of the worst graduation rates in the country. Will the city/state commit to building schools to support new students? If so, where? They are in-filling in neighborhoods with few plots available 2. This will disadvantage low-income workers who won't be able to afford the new houses. Though more density does lower prices, it normally lowers prices in the less desirable neighborhoods. People of means buy the new condos/townhomes that are built, leaving the poor to take the less nice houses or continue to live further out. 2a. The Utopian dream of a urban playground where everyone is walking and birds are chirping and there is Trek in every garage doesn't play for a majority of people. People rarely live where they work. This is not normally a personal choice. Other factors play into it. Being around their family, kids' friends, better schools, new job on the other side of town etc. I understand the myopia of the crowd on this site is to picture everyone has a well-connected and well-heeled tech worker, but reality is far different. 3. Tongue in cheek-isg: this is all celebrated within the same week as another story claiming people are abandoned the density of SFO, NYC, SEA to work remotely in towns like BOI, AUS, Bend etc. There is obviously a _desire_ to have land and space and privacy. If we go to a remote-first work world, why do we think that anyone would want to live in this density?
lbrito 6y ago
Slightly off-topic, but to me these kinds of articles always offer an amazing insight into how the average (okay, if they're literally average or not is debatable) American thinks cities and urban planning. If you read a bit through the comment box, about half of the comments are from people scandalized and terrified that Portland will immediately turn into a huge dumpster rife with crime because of the new legislation. The gist of it is that having 3 or 4 apartments per lot (in a few select lots, mind you) will turn your city into a crack den. That is a really quaint mindset. I can only imagine what those people commenting on the news would think about Paris, London or basically any major city outside the US where having dozens of apartments per lot is the norm and has been for decades or centuries.
- ArkVark 6y ago
  Parts of London and Paris now do resemble crack dens -- but its less about the density and more about the people living there, notably the changing demographics taking place in those cities in the last decade.
- tgb 6y ago
  An example from the RNC on Monday night: > They’re not satisfied with spreading the chaos and violence into our communities. They want to abolish the suburbs altogether by ending single family home zoning. This forestry zoning would bring crime, lawlessness and low quality apartments into now thriving suburban neighborhoods. President Trump smartly ended this government overreach, but Joe Biden wants to bring it back. These are the policies that are coming to a neighborhood near you. So make no mistake, no matter where you live, your family will not be safe in the radical Democrats America. https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/2020-republican-national-convention-rnc-night-1-transcript https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/2020-republican-nationa...
  - imtringued 6y ago
    Honestly, the way this is framed sounds to me as if we were still living in the 15th century where "aristocrats" are trying to live as far away from the "plebeians" as possible.
VLM 6y ago
How will it burn WRT rioting? Its a serious danger in Portland.
bichiliad 6y ago
For anyone interested in reading on density, neighborhoods, and what sorts of things work well in cities, I can't recommend The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs enough[0]. She wrote the book in the 60s and it has really stood the test of time. Edit: I'd add that the book does a good job about explaining the sorts of motivations there were behind un-densifying cities (or keeping density from rising) in the first place. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_and_Life_of_Great_American_Cities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_and_Life_of_Great_Am...
ican1 6y ago
I see a lot of people arguing over what should be the minimum floor space requirement for a person. Instead of deciding this beforehand why not let everyone choose what they want, i.e. let the free market operate? The market can build houses of all sizes and the people can choose depending on their budget and taste. As an illustration many people in Japan live in shoebox apartments which may seem horrendously small to Americans but it beats being homeless.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
AcerbicZero 6y ago
This, is corruption, mixed with a dash of good old crony capitalism. Portland has some amazing neighborhoods, and this plan enables developers to build relatively high density apartment complexes without parking in those neighborhoods. The dogwhistles of "low density" and "low income" really just mean "no parking" and "full price for most of you". Anecdotal example - They're building an ~80 unit 3 story apartment complex at the end of a relatively busy street that serves as a main artery for accessing the light rail - so the neighborhood already sees somewhat higher than average street parking usage - and they're doing all of this on a lot that's barely bigger than the houses next to it. If you're ever curious about how Portland's city council handles most of their issues, just take a look at where the vast majority of homeless shelters are located in the city (hint - its OldTown-Chinatown), compare that to the demographics of the area (Its as dark as Portland gets), and then take a guess where they intend to add more homeless shelters.
- abstractbarista 6y ago
  Maybe all the people there will walk to the light rail? Seems like an ideal situation, actually. Mass public transit near high-density housing.
- freeone3000 6y ago
  The project you're describing is the actual textbook definition of density. That apartment building seems like a good idea.
01100011 6y ago
It would be nice if cities established redevelopment funds, which admittedly would have to be substantial, to properly buy out homeowners and redevelop large tracts of land. The sort of piece meal, plot-by-plot redevelopment that is possible today is just not sufficient to allow for the kinds of redesign that are needed to remake cities. Buying out existing homeowners reduces concerns about the externalities of densification. Pay them a fair price for their property and the inconvenience/trauma of relocation and then get on with making a truly livable, dense, efficient city. That all assumes a government is even capable of predicting future trends(will retail die? will the next generation flee the city? will mfg jobs return? etc). But if we're going to play that game, lets play it competently.
- nip180 6y ago
  I’m generally against eminent domain in the case that land is being forcibly purchased from one private party and sold to another private party. I’m against it because of its very high abuse potential. Property rights are essential in keeping society civil. Sure, I pay taxes and give up some of my property in order to provide common good. I’m happy to pay for schools and roads. Sure, maybe the government will need to build a highway over my property, I understand it needs a mechanism to do this for the public good. However, if the government forces me to sell to a private party I’m concerned that the reason will be less about public good and more about enriching the private party. It opens up the government to legitimate ethics concerns. It makes people begin to feel cheated out of their property. This is bad for society as a whole.
ed25519FUUU 6y ago
> Portland’s new rules will also offer a “deeper affordability” option: four to six homes on any lot if at least half are available to low-income Portlanders at regulated, affordable prices. For a progressive city that views itself no doubt as "believing science", it's pretty amazing they still stick these types of economic restrictions into law. Maybe we should start saying "believe economists" when it comes to these riders? Please just increase the supply of housing. Increase it at the top and the bottom.
gregwebs 6y ago
> At those hearings, pro-housing testimony outnumbered anti-housing testimony more than six to one. Maybe this is what it takes to get zoning reform.
- redisman 6y ago
  Doing something other than whining on the internet? Definitely a good lesson.

221 points by g8oz 6y ago

therealdrag0 6y ago

Surprised no one is talking about the affordability requirements.

matchbok 6y ago

Exactly the right step. In the long-run, this will do a lot for housing affordability in the city.

coldpie 6y ago
Yeah, there's some great stuff in here. Lowering and removing parking mandates is huge, too. That allows for a much more walkable city as we don't have to reserve a bunch of empty space for cars.

kindatrue 6y ago

This seems disastrous for homeowners and landlords hoping to recreate this Silicon Valley success flywheel https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/1129046954409902081 https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/1129046954409902081

Splendor 6y ago
Good.
kory 6y ago
For landlords, you're correct. Rents will go down as more housing floods the market and the profiteering will cease. Look at Vancouver BC, where rents are significantly lower than land prices. But I don't entirely agree with this point. Regular folks that are getting rich off property are the single family homeowners. Density tends to increase land value. This law makes single family home land more valuable and easier to sell, since a developer can plop townhomes or a second house in the backyard and profit. So now on top of regular people, you've got builders competing for the same properties, hence prices will rise. I'd be worried if I owned a townhome or condo, since I wouldn't have any empty land to be built on and that's the kind of home that will be built on the now upzoned land. But there are no swathes of empty land in Portland to fill with more single family homes. Folks that own property the in the (now up-zoned) expensive neighborhoods are NIMBY because they want to preserve the low density neighborhood they live in that are close to everything, not because they want housing prices to soar more. Older neighborhoods like that just aren't built anymore--developers pick off the shelf of 1-5 nearly identical plans and fill a neighborhood with them. Old west coast city neighborhoods have a cool vibe that doesn't really exist in many places anymore, and can't really be replicated. With this up zone that will be going away over time. That's OK, because these neighborhoods should have been upzoned a long time ago and the land needs to be accessible to more people. But the conversation is more nuanced than "my housing price will go down!!1"
- crooked-v 6y ago
  > But there are no swathes of empty land in Portland to fill with more single family homes. This is a key thing. There is very little undeveloped land within Portland city limits, and the vast majority of it is lots under 1000 square feet. Most of what is there is in places that would be expensive, laborious, or unappealing to work with, like the sides of heavily sloped hills, lots completely surrounded by other lots without road access (have fun trying to work out right of way for a driveway), or waaay out nearly in the suburbs, at which point you may as well go five more minutes in that direction and save yourself some on the taxes.
mrfusion 6y ago
Good?
francis_t_catte 6y ago
Good. Housing should not be treated as an investment.
- bluGill 6y ago
  Housing is an investment, but it isn't a savings account. There is a difference. As an investment a house is a place including neighborhood to live for a long time. You should be friends with the neighbors. When you get old it is a cheap place to live (you have it paid for). It is a place to save your memories (little Bobby tables bit the rail there...). A place to make what fits your life. It isn't a savings account to get cash out of when you want some.
- Tiktaalik 6y ago
  This policy will make SFHs in Portland an extremely good investment in the long term as you can now substantially increase the amount of rentable units on the same amount of land. If you have the means buy a cheap SFH lot in Portland while you can. If we really actually want to make housing not an investment then we need to empower our government to fund the development of publicly owned housing for everyone.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    I've never understood the arguments in favor of publicly funded housing. Public funding is used for things that are a common good (e.g. roads, public parks, defense, food safety) or that are important but otherwise wouldn't get funded (e.g. basic research). Housing fits neither of those buckets. If you occupy a publicly funded housing unit, I can't - it's not a public good. And there are always developers and builders willing to stump up cash to build new housing.
    - therealdrag0 6y ago
      Checkout how public housing works in Singapore.
    - Tiktaalik 6y ago
Analemma_ 6y ago
Good. What's good for homeowners and landlords is not necessarily good for society. Indeed, the main reason housing is so unaffordable is that we have privileged the equity of homeowners/landlords above all other considerations. It's long past time for these two classes to have a much softer voice at the table.
egypturnash 6y ago
Good. Kids who grow up in Portland now might have a chance to keep on living there, instead of getting thrown off at high speed because they were more suited to a career other than "programmer" like all my artist friends from San Francisco were.

valuearb 6y ago

So “One Thousand Lawyers of Oregon” came up with a new scheme to cram people in density after they banned development on millions of acres of land right outside Portland.

matchbok 6y ago
Nobody wants to live out there, there are no jobs or transit.
- justaguy88 6y ago
  Build transit?
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  What? I live 100 feet from the urban growth boundary. 20 minutes from downtown Portland. Nearest transit is a quarter mile away and the bus runs once an hour during daylight only. Nobody seems to mind that, houses in this area sell immediately. If you pushed the boundary out another mile it would take no time at all before it would be filled with new homes.
  - NobodyNada 6y ago
    And as far as jobs go, the tech industry is huge out here. The city of Wilsonville alone has Xerox, 3D Systems, Mentor Graphics, FLIR, Tyco Electronics, DW Fritz, and probably more that I’m forgetting — and that’s one of the smaller cities on the outskirts of the urban growth boundary.
    - pyronik19 6y ago
      They haven't burned down yet?
- hackeraccount 6y ago
  If nobody wants to live out there why did they need to have a ban?

jackyinger 6y ago

As a former Portlandian I’m pretty stoked to imagine where this could take the city! A low altitude densification would beat what’s been done to the inner East side... Here’s a fun thought experiment... Imagine if most streets became parks/plazas (aside from a few left for utility reasons) and everyone rode (electric) bikes, or similar relatively light transport options. To me that’s be idyllic. Imagine not being relegated to the sidewalk, not having to worry about being hit by some idiot driving way to fast in a residential area. Edit: What’s with the downvotes? Geez have some imagination. Bikes don’t need to have right of way everywhere either... I guess vehicle-centrism goes far beyond cars.

wool_gather 6y ago
> Imagine not being relegated to the sidewalk Pedestrians don't mix any better with (electric) bikes that are trying to get places than they do with cars. Reasonably broad and well-maintained sidewalks are essential for everyone's comfort and safety.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  In practice, they do. Bikes are much smaller, much nimbler and much slower than cars. Unless the street is completely packed with pedestrians, fully pedestrian streets work well with ebikes. This is from experience riding bikes and having people ride bikes next to me in fully pedestrian streets as dreamt about by GP.
  - wool_gather 6y ago
    I have a very different experience than you. I ride or walk everywhere I go. Bikes may be slower than cars, but -- when they're being used for commuting, not toodling around on a Sunday afternoon -- they are much, much faster than pedestrians. When I'm walking, I don't want bikes whizzing by me at three times my speed. When I'm biking, I don't want to be constantly worrying about people on foot -- or their kids, or their dogs -- suddenly stopping or changing direction without looking.

ebg13 6y ago

I'm stoked about eliminating parking mandates and restriction on homes per lot, but not thrilled by binding that to floor area maximums.

klyrs 6y ago

I like almost all of this. I have one minor concern, the maximum home size is dropping from 6750 to 2500 square feet. Which is probably fine for a nuclear family, but in my neighborhood, such homes are largely occupied by multigenerational families. In areas closer to colleges and universities, those homes end up being shared by large groups of students. Both of these populations will take a hit under this policy.

ogre_codes 6y ago
I missed that part. Though both multigenerational families and college students could be served well by multi-structure setups as well. Or in many cases, better served.
- klyrs 6y ago
  Maybe the college students -- but in my experience, rent in large houses is cheaper per-room than smaller apartments. My brother is a professional musician and lives with others near/at the poverty line -- they simply can't afford to live in smaller places. Maybe that will change on the supply side, but more likely, demand will rise just as fast. Multigenerational families are not better served. If they're doing a new build, it can work. But imagine trying to purchase not one, but four houses on the same lot. That's a helluva coincidence to wait for, for them all to be vacant simultaneously.
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    Have you lived in a multi-generational home? I am right now and have done so in various ways for the past 25 years, it is vastly better to have some separation. I'm not going to generalize. But for us, multi-generational homes happen over time as opposed to moving the whole family at once regardless. Kids grow up and need space, but can't afford to buy a place. Parents get older and move in with kids, etc etc.
    - klyrs 6y ago
      No, I haven't. Some of my immediate neighbors do; one household immigrated as a family so they're on the forefront of my mind. I appreciate your perspective; thanks for sharing.

stakkur 6y ago

I live in the area. Proponents have couched this as a 'progressive' vs. 'nimby' effort, which like the rest of life is not true at all. Housing is complex, not good vs. evil, liberal vs. conservative, urgan vs sprawl. If you doubt this, watch how much this comment is downvoted. One thing we know, based on over a century of data around the world: increasing density of housing has little effect on affordability, in the long run. More often than not, it has the opposite effect. More simply, we do it backwards: we claim--based on in-migration 'projections' that are nearly always overestimates--that there's a shortage and we must build our way out of it. Example: 20 years ago, Portland estimated a million new residents by 2025. Growth in that period: 105,000, in large part due to annexation. This leaves out the realities of how things get built. Private developers do the work, for profit, most often for investment groups. If it doesn't 'pencil out', nobody will build it. And this is why 'affordable housing' demands, codes, agreements all get bargained down in the end. They have for decades in Portland, despite repeated promises of 'this time, we really mean it'. Developers hold the cards. I could list dozens of projects of thousands of units. 'But government can build/partner!', you say? No, that rarely works either, especially in Portland. 'But this is law and it must be adhered to!', you say? No, that's not true. When it comes to building, everything gets negotiated, and there's nothing that gets bargained harder on than public entities trying to set housing prices.

xster 6y ago
Do you have a reference?
thebradbain 6y ago
You’ve either studied completely different fields of economics and urban planning than what I’m aware of, or you didn’t study them at all... Sources, please.
- stakkur 6y ago
  I have a master's degree in urban & regional planning. I'm a Portland native, and went to college here and studied the city fairly intently. But I'm not writing a paper here on HN.

ogre_codes 6y ago

> "It shouldn’t take six years for any city to agree to give itself permission to build the sort of homes that every city once allowed." This is IMO the big thing here. Cities used to allow this kind of construction. Our auto-friendly culture and the desire of landowners to keep poor people off their block has led to increasingly draconian restrictions on private property use. I understand regulations around keeping homes safe, drainage, and fire safety, but legislation and restrictions on things like whether I have a second building on my property and a separate driveway for each one are government overreach.

rumanator 6y ago
> This is IMO the big thing here. Cities used to allow this kind of construction. And cities were awful due to that, I'm afraid. > Our auto-friendly culture and the desire of landowners to keep poor people off their block has led to increasingly draconian restrictions on private property use. There's no need to pull out emotional conspiracy theories. Restrictions are in general due to the need to impose an urban plan that meets the urban planner's established goals for the community and also complies with environmental restrictions, such as traffic and noise levels. > but legislation and restrictions on things like whether I have a second building on my property and a separate driveway for each one are government overreach. Letting people freely build "second buildings on their property" is an euphemism for wanting to build shanty towns with no regard to living conditions or environmental restrictions. Each plot is defined based on a zoning expectation,which reflects real-world restrictions and an urban plan. If you want higher density construction then just work with your city to rezone and review the urban plan for your neighborhood. Expecting to be able to just build "houses" in your backyard is how you get firetrap shanty towns that violate environmental and safety restrictions. Just because you don't know why a fence is placed somewhere, that doesn't mean it has no purpose.
37r6ehehediud 6y ago
I'm not sure this scans. It would be true if the only regulations that applied were the ones being discussed but Portland goes out of its way to avoid large apartment buildings in many neighborhoods and they have a vendetta against building roads that aren't shit for some reason. If you removed all relevant regulations you wouldn't see the kind of buildings the article is praising you'd see large apartment buildings and suburbs sprawling jnto the woods. Good on Portland for doing something about the situation I guess but it's hard to feel impressed when they created the problem in the first place.

adnjoo 6y ago

Cities are more environmentally friendly than suburbs

eplanit 6y ago

In 2020, Portland officially becomes a shithole city.

imtringued 6y ago
Why would 4 duplex housing turn a city into a shithole?

ISL 6y ago

A question for those familiar with the passed Portland legislation: Does it contain protections for urban trees, flora, and fauna? Here in Seattle, the ADU boom, and infill in general, is slowly removing the green from our neighborhoods. As density increases, it is important to ensure that the resulting community is healthy and sustainable.

mperham 6y ago
I'm all for more green in cities but don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Suburban sprawl destroys far more environment. Density stops sprawl. This is net positive for trees and the environment.
- ISL 6y ago
  From where I sit in Seattle, I'm watching the trees around our home disappear in favor of five-over-one cubes. I've chosen to live here, in part, because it doesn't feel like a city. When the trees disappear, we are likely to contribute to that sprawl.
  - JamesBarney 6y ago
    That kinda sounds like "Yeah no one goes there anymore, it's way too crowded". It sucks to watch the trees disappear, I love trees in neighborhoods too. But at an urban level if trees disappear that's about aesthetics not the environment. Density is really great for the environment because of reduced commute, better insulation(apt vs house), etc..
  - seanmcdirmid 6y ago
    Where are you experiencing the construction of a bunch of five over ones? Definitely not Ballard, which is mostly townhomes. This seems to be a bigger problem in downtown Bellevue (I didn't know what five over ones meant before then!), maybe West Seattle?
    - egypturnash 6y ago

kyleblarson 6y ago

Portland might not need more density as people are fleeing it in droves for areas with sane leadership that don't have nightly riots.

monadic2 6y ago
I"d think they were fleeing a city that refused to protect them from their own cops.
- jansan 6y ago
  I am not from Portland, but the rest of the world did not get a great picture of the city during the last two or three months (yes, the word "shithole" was dropped a few times). I do not remember any images of businesses being threatened by cops, but what do I know sitting at the other end of the world.
  - monadic2 6y ago
    It's in large part because of the cops that this country a shithole. Blame them.
  - Kednicma 6y ago
    Where are you from and which media outlets have you been consuming? From a local perspective, the national attempts to portray the protests are rather futile, since the area under contention is only about two blocks large [0] and it's not on most folks' daily walks. Even only a few blocks away, Portland continues life as normal [3], or as normal as COVID-19 will let us be [4]. To follow up on the grandparent's point, the local and imported police are not really doing their job when it comes to breaking up street fights [1] and are trying to pin blame on recently-elected politicians [2]. We're not a shithole just because the fascists have come to town to have fights, and definitely not just because some of those fascists are employed by the federal government. So, yeah, where are you from and what have you heard? It sounds like you don't know much of anything of our local situation, from "the other end of the world", although Oregon's antipode is in the middle of the Indian Ocean and you probably aren't quite so remote. [0] https://imgur.com/gallery/zJ6dNxf https://imgur.com/gallery/zJ6dNxf [1] https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/08/portland-police-respond-to-criticism-for-not-intervening-in-violent-downtown-clash.html https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/08/portland-police-... [2] https://www.wweek.com/news/state/2020/08/13/oregon-state-police-leave-portland-trying-to-fault-the-new-reform-minded-district-attorney-for-their-departure/ https://www.wweek.com/news/state/2020/08/13/oregon-state-pol... [3] https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/7/22/1962969/-The-most-important-image-you-will-see-of-Portland https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/7/22/1962969/-The-most... [4] https://www.oregonlive.com/living/2020/04/a-drive-thru-strip-club-movie-popcorn-to-go-oregon-businesses-get-creative-during-coronavirus.html https://www.oregonlive.com/living/2020/04/a-drive-thru-strip...

setgree 6y ago

One great thing about zoning reform is that it's a topic where progressives and Silicon Valley types, i.e. "the grey tribe" [0], have a lot of common ground. I (and presumably many HN readers) support zoning reform for all the typical grey tribe reasons, and progressives support it because they recognize the racist history of zoning laws, which I also find persuasive [1,2]. The more common ground we can find between tribes like this, the less, I think, it will feel like America is coming apart at the seams. [0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin... [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/25/snob-zoning-is-racial-housing-segregation-by-another-name/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/25/snob-... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/07/racist-history-portland/492035/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/07/racist-...

salmon30salmon 6y ago

Density isn't really the problem in Portland. There are a LOT of empty apartments in this city. There are also a LOT of "short term rentals" in the city that sit vacant. Here are the concerns that I do not see addressed with this: 1. Will the City of Portland make the required infrastructure improvements to support more density? For example, will the storm sewers, which currently overflow poo into the river, support all the extra.. poo. 1a. Will the city invest in roads and public transit? Walking and biking are both great, but Portland is cold, dark and wet for 7 months a year. No matter how easy and safe you make it, people won't want to ride in those conditions. 1b. Portland 911 systems are currently stressed beyond reason. I waited on hold for 4 minutes on 911 (not non-emergency) a few weeks ago. This isn't a rare occurrence. 1c. Will Portland address the tent in the room? Homelessness is endemic in the city, and it isn't _only_ due to lack of housing. The city has very few options for mental health and drug treatment. Will the city invest in that? If not, livability will be negatively impacted by this. 1d. Assuming COVID ever ends, will Portland be business friendly enough to attract employers to employ the expected glut of people? Right now, large business are leaving Portland (Google has halted its expansion plans for example). 1e. Will Oregon fund schools in a way that can account for the new residents? Schools are already over-crowded and Oregon has one of the worst graduation rates in the country. Will the city/state commit to building schools to support new students? If so, where? They are in-filling in neighborhoods with few plots available 2. This will disadvantage low-income workers who won't be able to afford the new houses. Though more density does lower prices, it normally lowers prices in the less desirable neighborhoods. People of means buy the new condos/townhomes that are built, leaving the poor to take the less nice houses or continue to live further out. 2a. The Utopian dream of a urban playground where everyone is walking and birds are chirping and there is Trek in every garage doesn't play for a majority of people. People rarely live where they work. This is not normally a personal choice. Other factors play into it. Being around their family, kids' friends, better schools, new job on the other side of town etc. I understand the myopia of the crowd on this site is to picture everyone has a well-connected and well-heeled tech worker, but reality is far different. 3. Tongue in cheek-isg: this is all celebrated within the same week as another story claiming people are abandoned the density of SFO, NYC, SEA to work remotely in towns like BOI, AUS, Bend etc. There is obviously a _desire_ to have land and space and privacy. If we go to a remote-first work world, why do we think that anyone would want to live in this density?

lbrito 6y ago

Slightly off-topic, but to me these kinds of articles always offer an amazing insight into how the average (okay, if they're literally average or not is debatable) American thinks cities and urban planning. If you read a bit through the comment box, about half of the comments are from people scandalized and terrified that Portland will immediately turn into a huge dumpster rife with crime because of the new legislation. The gist of it is that having 3 or 4 apartments per lot (in a few select lots, mind you) will turn your city into a crack den. That is a really quaint mindset. I can only imagine what those people commenting on the news would think about Paris, London or basically any major city outside the US where having dozens of apartments per lot is the norm and has been for decades or centuries.

ArkVark 6y ago
Parts of London and Paris now do resemble crack dens -- but its less about the density and more about the people living there, notably the changing demographics taking place in those cities in the last decade.
tgb 6y ago
An example from the RNC on Monday night: > They’re not satisfied with spreading the chaos and violence into our communities. They want to abolish the suburbs altogether by ending single family home zoning. This forestry zoning would bring crime, lawlessness and low quality apartments into now thriving suburban neighborhoods. President Trump smartly ended this government overreach, but Joe Biden wants to bring it back. These are the policies that are coming to a neighborhood near you. So make no mistake, no matter where you live, your family will not be safe in the radical Democrats America. https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/2020-republican-national-convention-rnc-night-1-transcript https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/2020-republican-nationa...
- imtringued 6y ago
  Honestly, the way this is framed sounds to me as if we were still living in the 15th century where "aristocrats" are trying to live as far away from the "plebeians" as possible.

VLM 6y ago

How will it burn WRT rioting? Its a serious danger in Portland.

bichiliad 6y ago

For anyone interested in reading on density, neighborhoods, and what sorts of things work well in cities, I can't recommend The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs enough[0]. She wrote the book in the 60s and it has really stood the test of time. Edit: I'd add that the book does a good job about explaining the sorts of motivations there were behind un-densifying cities (or keeping density from rising) in the first place. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_and_Life_of_Great_American_Cities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_and_Life_of_Great_Am...

ican1 6y ago

I see a lot of people arguing over what should be the minimum floor space requirement for a person. Instead of deciding this beforehand why not let everyone choose what they want, i.e. let the free market operate? The market can build houses of all sizes and the people can choose depending on their budget and taste. As an illustration many people in Japan live in shoebox apartments which may seem horrendously small to Americans but it beats being homeless.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

AcerbicZero 6y ago

This, is corruption, mixed with a dash of good old crony capitalism. Portland has some amazing neighborhoods, and this plan enables developers to build relatively high density apartment complexes without parking in those neighborhoods. The dogwhistles of "low density" and "low income" really just mean "no parking" and "full price for most of you". Anecdotal example - They're building an ~80 unit 3 story apartment complex at the end of a relatively busy street that serves as a main artery for accessing the light rail - so the neighborhood already sees somewhat higher than average street parking usage - and they're doing all of this on a lot that's barely bigger than the houses next to it. If you're ever curious about how Portland's city council handles most of their issues, just take a look at where the vast majority of homeless shelters are located in the city (hint - its OldTown-Chinatown), compare that to the demographics of the area (Its as dark as Portland gets), and then take a guess where they intend to add more homeless shelters.

abstractbarista 6y ago
Maybe all the people there will walk to the light rail? Seems like an ideal situation, actually. Mass public transit near high-density housing.
freeone3000 6y ago
The project you're describing is the actual textbook definition of density. That apartment building seems like a good idea.

01100011 6y ago

It would be nice if cities established redevelopment funds, which admittedly would have to be substantial, to properly buy out homeowners and redevelop large tracts of land. The sort of piece meal, plot-by-plot redevelopment that is possible today is just not sufficient to allow for the kinds of redesign that are needed to remake cities. Buying out existing homeowners reduces concerns about the externalities of densification. Pay them a fair price for their property and the inconvenience/trauma of relocation and then get on with making a truly livable, dense, efficient city. That all assumes a government is even capable of predicting future trends(will retail die? will the next generation flee the city? will mfg jobs return? etc). But if we're going to play that game, lets play it competently.

nip180 6y ago
I’m generally against eminent domain in the case that land is being forcibly purchased from one private party and sold to another private party. I’m against it because of its very high abuse potential. Property rights are essential in keeping society civil. Sure, I pay taxes and give up some of my property in order to provide common good. I’m happy to pay for schools and roads. Sure, maybe the government will need to build a highway over my property, I understand it needs a mechanism to do this for the public good. However, if the government forces me to sell to a private party I’m concerned that the reason will be less about public good and more about enriching the private party. It opens up the government to legitimate ethics concerns. It makes people begin to feel cheated out of their property. This is bad for society as a whole.

ed25519FUUU 6y ago

> Portland’s new rules will also offer a “deeper affordability” option: four to six homes on any lot if at least half are available to low-income Portlanders at regulated, affordable prices. For a progressive city that views itself no doubt as "believing science", it's pretty amazing they still stick these types of economic restrictions into law. Maybe we should start saying "believe economists" when it comes to these riders? Please just increase the supply of housing. Increase it at the top and the bottom.

gregwebs 6y ago

> At those hearings, pro-housing testimony outnumbered anti-housing testimony more than six to one. Maybe this is what it takes to get zoning reform.

redisman 6y ago
Doing something other than whining on the internet? Definitely a good lesson.