10 ms·

>I have a second building on my property and a separate driveway for each one are government overreach. Increasing density has definite externalities. Traffic

by treis 6y ago

>I have a second building on my property and a separate driveway for each one are government overreach. Increasing density has definite externalities. Traffic, street parking, and public spaces all get more congested. Plus a neighbor building a bigger building impacts my views and the light that falls on my property. We do need some way of balancing those concerns with development. IMHO, we've swayed too far towards one extreme. We should relax those restrictions while being cognizant that we don't swing too far back to the other extreme.

ad404b8a372f2b9 6y ago
In the city I live in (somewhere in Europe), there are no such restrictions. Every time someone sells their house they split the terrain in two and rebuild because it's more advantageous price wise. As a result terrains got smaller and smaller, we used to have a beautiful city with old buildings, tons of trees, large gardens, a really calm and safe place to raise a family, now it looks like shit and crime has gotten out of control. Now they're building towers downtown for low income housing. Not a fun experience if you've built your life with your family there.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  Areas where it is profitable to do this are areas where housing demand is increasing. Which means that anybody who owns property in such an area can sell it for more than they paid for it, move somewhere else and have the significant monetary gain to compensate them for their trouble. And the gain wouldn't exist with stricter zoning because it comes from the fact that your property is worth more when somebody can buy it and build twice as much housing on it.
  - mertd 6y ago
    > And the gain wouldn't exist with stricter zoning because it comes from the fact that your property is worth more when somebody can buy it and build twice as much housing on it. Counterpoint Bay Area. Industry hotspot, liberally allows office development, aggressively fights any new residential develpment and also freezes property taxes at the time of purchase.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      Three of those are just other ways of increasing real estate prices. They're additive, not alternative. Now suppose somebody could knock down your million dollar three bedroom home there, put up five condos that size on the same lot and sell them each for $750K. That'd make the property itself worth more than a million dollars, right?
      - feteru 6y ago
        Isn't that the residential development they're talking about that is prohibited/restricted?
      - mertd 6y ago
        Your general point is true. I'm pointing out an alternative where zoning stays predominantly single family yet the real estate prices grow unbounded.
      - asdff 6y ago
        Prices are high because there is demand. Zoning keeps supply scarce. The reason why you can sell these condos for 750k is because of demand and scarcity. If everyone turned their million dollar home into condos, supply would increase, demand would be met, prices would fall, and suddenly you wouldn't have a million dollar home or 5 750k condos. On top of that in CA, if you were to hold your million dollar home, your property taxes are locked in even while the asset value increases exponentially. You can even give your house to your kid, and they will pay the tax rate you paid. If you tear out your house and build 5 new condos, suddenly you are paying market rate property tax again.
        AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        > Prices are high because there is demand. Zoning keeps supply scarce. Which is why the price falls from a million dollars to $750k for the same amount of square footage. But now you have five times as much square footage on the same piece of land, which is more than the decrease in price per square foot. And still would be even if the price per unit fell to $400k. > On top of that in CA, if you were to hold your million dollar home, your property taxes are locked in even while the asset value increases exponentially. Which is just a facet of existing local tax law. You could get to the same place by just having very low property taxes in general.
  - iateanapple 6y ago
    > move somewhere else and have the significant monetary gain to compensate them for their trouble People don’t want to leave their homes and move away from family and friends just so a city can grow. Life isn’t just about money. I don’t want my city to grow any larger - higher density means lower quality of life for the people who have lived here for decades - aka my actual community.
- CountSessine 6y ago
  Isn’t this really a complaint about population growth rather than development? Blaming development for your changing city seems a bit passive aggressive.
  - ajmurmann 6y ago
    "it's too crowded now. Nobody moves there anymore"
BurningFrog 6y ago
Those are real, but minor issues. Increased density also brings good externalities, like more services, retail etc. In practice, handing out veto powers against construction has had disastrous results for everyone not already owning homes.
- rumanator 6y ago
  > Those are real, but minor issues. Increased density also brings good externalities, like more services, retail etc. Not necessarily. Just because you add a residential tower that doesn't mean you'll get a grocery store in its ground floor. If the urban plan specifies high-density residential area then all you can expect is residential buildigs.
FreakyT 6y ago
> Traffic, street parking, and public spaces all get more congested A proper transit network and walkable design ensures that this doesn't become a problem. > Plus a neighbor building a bigger building impacts my views and the light that falls on my property. People get so hung up on this, but that's just how it goes -- cities change. Just because you bought a place doesn't mean you're entitled to the exact same view forever.
- rumanator 6y ago
  > A proper transit network and walkable design ensures that this doesn't become a problem. How do you expect to put together a working transit network, which is very sensitive to urban planning, if you are also argue in favour of ignoring any restriction imposed by urban planners?
  - imtringued 6y ago
    Nobody is arguing in favor of ignoring any restriction imposed by urban planners.
    - rumanator 6y ago
      You're literally commenting in a thread where people are complaining against building regulation that stops people from building extra houses in their backyard as they please. Worse than that, you're intentionally ignoring half the posts made though out this thread where people complain about urban plans that limit occupation density.
- darawk 6y ago
  > A proper transit network and walkable design ensures that this doesn't become a problem. While that's true, if you don't have a proper transit network, it's a real problem. And many cities aren't in a position to build a proper transit network at the drop of a hat. Don't get me wrong, I wish they did or could efficiently build one. But sometimes you have to deal with reality as it is, not as you'd like it to be, unfortunately.
alistairSH 6y ago
Parking strikes me as something the market will fix without a need for subsidized public parking. Traffic needs system-wide reform. No argument there. Walkable neighborhoods, bike lanes, transit, etc. Views - you don't (normally) own the views from your property. I live on a golf course; if it gets redeveloped into condos, I'm SOL. Light - appropriate building setbacks mitigate this. I'm not disagreeing really, just pointing out that your concerns are mostly valid, but have solutions.
- zjaffee 6y ago
  You do own the views in numerous cities due to historical precedent, and cities cant change these laws as it would be considered unconstitutional taking.
  - alistairSH 6y ago
    I know some mountain and coastal areas actually do have view ordinances, but they're typically very limited (sometimes only to trees, not construction, etc). But, I don't believe that's the norm in most places.
    - zjaffee 6y ago
      NYC has a very complicated system of buying and selling air rights which is what I was thinking of when I wrote this.
    - Tiktaalik 6y ago
      City of Vancouver has a policy of protected public views. The goal is to make it so that views of Vancouver's mountains are reasonably accessible by anyone, not just those that purchased a north facing suite in a tall condo tower. It's pretty much the same underlying concept as why we create public parks. The view cones are scattered around and are usually tied to areas of heavy public pedestrian activity, such as parks. The policy is very popular. https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/protecting-vancouvers-views.aspx https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/protecting-va...
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> views and the light that falls on my property We need blanket legislation outlawing the notion that by virtue of purchasing a plot of land one is also purchasing control over everything visible from said plot at the time of purchase.
- rumanator 6y ago
  > We need blanket legislation outlawing the notion that by virtue of purchasing a plot of land one is also purchasing control over everything visible from said plot at the time of purchase. We already have that, in the form of urban planning. There are professionals in charge of ensuring everyone's rights are respected by defining and upholding an urban plan and construction regulation. Otherwise a you get is a sea of shanty towns.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  Indeed. We have people who are suing their neighbors who grew large pine trees in a forested area because it disrupted someone's view. I'm not even sure if the trees in question were planted or just allowed to grow.
  - CincinnatiMan 6y ago
    What you mention is a different scenario from a developer building an 8-story complex next to a 2-story SFH, and it's reasonable to think we (society) could treat them differently if we so chose.
    - imtringued 6y ago
      What you are talking about has absolutely nothing to do with the article. The proposal says that there should be a maximum of 4 units (not stories) per lot plus an additional 2 units if those two units are rented out as affordable housing. The article shows that the neighborhood already has a 6 unit building with 3 stories. It's absolutely nothing new.
- paulcole 6y ago
  This is a huge reason so much of inner SE Portland doesn’t have high-rise development. Would block downtown’s view of Mt. Hood.
ogre_codes 6y ago
A lot of this is more the result of poor planning by the city, and shouldn't be the burden of the property owners to resolve. Congestion is largely the result of over-reliance on cars for transportation which is inefficient. Rather than put limits on how I can use my land, the city should be planning infrastructure that supports more dense use. Portland has reasonable public transport and fairly good bike/ pedestrian routes.
jabl 6y ago
> Increasing density has definite externalities. So does endless sprawl. Arguably larger, even.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
sneak 6y ago
Lack of density is the ultimate externality: the increased resource consumption caused by the inefficiency of spreading everything out more has to be borne by every member of society. Everyone pays in life-seconds, in money, in pollution, in reduced societal interactions. Cities exist for a reason.

by treis 6y ago

ad404b8a372f2b9 6y ago

In the city I live in (somewhere in Europe), there are no such restrictions. Every time someone sells their house they split the terrain in two and rebuild because it's more advantageous price wise. As a result terrains got smaller and smaller, we used to have a beautiful city with old buildings, tons of trees, large gardens, a really calm and safe place to raise a family, now it looks like shit and crime has gotten out of control. Now they're building towers downtown for low income housing. Not a fun experience if you've built your life with your family there.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
Areas where it is profitable to do this are areas where housing demand is increasing. Which means that anybody who owns property in such an area can sell it for more than they paid for it, move somewhere else and have the significant monetary gain to compensate them for their trouble. And the gain wouldn't exist with stricter zoning because it comes from the fact that your property is worth more when somebody can buy it and build twice as much housing on it.
- mertd 6y ago
  > And the gain wouldn't exist with stricter zoning because it comes from the fact that your property is worth more when somebody can buy it and build twice as much housing on it. Counterpoint Bay Area. Industry hotspot, liberally allows office development, aggressively fights any new residential develpment and also freezes property taxes at the time of purchase.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    Three of those are just other ways of increasing real estate prices. They're additive, not alternative. Now suppose somebody could knock down your million dollar three bedroom home there, put up five condos that size on the same lot and sell them each for $750K. That'd make the property itself worth more than a million dollars, right?
    - feteru 6y ago
      Isn't that the residential development they're talking about that is prohibited/restricted?
    - mertd 6y ago
      Your general point is true. I'm pointing out an alternative where zoning stays predominantly single family yet the real estate prices grow unbounded.
    - asdff 6y ago
      Prices are high because there is demand. Zoning keeps supply scarce. The reason why you can sell these condos for 750k is because of demand and scarcity. If everyone turned their million dollar home into condos, supply would increase, demand would be met, prices would fall, and suddenly you wouldn't have a million dollar home or 5 750k condos. On top of that in CA, if you were to hold your million dollar home, your property taxes are locked in even while the asset value increases exponentially. You can even give your house to your kid, and they will pay the tax rate you paid. If you tear out your house and build 5 new condos, suddenly you are paying market rate property tax again.
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        > Prices are high because there is demand. Zoning keeps supply scarce. Which is why the price falls from a million dollars to $750k for the same amount of square footage. But now you have five times as much square footage on the same piece of land, which is more than the decrease in price per square foot. And still would be even if the price per unit fell to $400k. > On top of that in CA, if you were to hold your million dollar home, your property taxes are locked in even while the asset value increases exponentially. Which is just a facet of existing local tax law. You could get to the same place by just having very low property taxes in general.
- iateanapple 6y ago
  > move somewhere else and have the significant monetary gain to compensate them for their trouble People don’t want to leave their homes and move away from family and friends just so a city can grow. Life isn’t just about money. I don’t want my city to grow any larger - higher density means lower quality of life for the people who have lived here for decades - aka my actual community.
CountSessine 6y ago
Isn’t this really a complaint about population growth rather than development? Blaming development for your changing city seems a bit passive aggressive.
- ajmurmann 6y ago
  "it's too crowded now. Nobody moves there anymore"

BurningFrog 6y ago

Those are real, but minor issues. Increased density also brings good externalities, like more services, retail etc. In practice, handing out veto powers against construction has had disastrous results for everyone not already owning homes.

rumanator 6y ago
> Those are real, but minor issues. Increased density also brings good externalities, like more services, retail etc. Not necessarily. Just because you add a residential tower that doesn't mean you'll get a grocery store in its ground floor. If the urban plan specifies high-density residential area then all you can expect is residential buildigs.

FreakyT 6y ago

> Traffic, street parking, and public spaces all get more congested A proper transit network and walkable design ensures that this doesn't become a problem. > Plus a neighbor building a bigger building impacts my views and the light that falls on my property. People get so hung up on this, but that's just how it goes -- cities change. Just because you bought a place doesn't mean you're entitled to the exact same view forever.

rumanator 6y ago
> A proper transit network and walkable design ensures that this doesn't become a problem. How do you expect to put together a working transit network, which is very sensitive to urban planning, if you are also argue in favour of ignoring any restriction imposed by urban planners?
- imtringued 6y ago
  Nobody is arguing in favor of ignoring any restriction imposed by urban planners.
  - rumanator 6y ago
    You're literally commenting in a thread where people are complaining against building regulation that stops people from building extra houses in their backyard as they please. Worse than that, you're intentionally ignoring half the posts made though out this thread where people complain about urban plans that limit occupation density.
darawk 6y ago
> A proper transit network and walkable design ensures that this doesn't become a problem. While that's true, if you don't have a proper transit network, it's a real problem. And many cities aren't in a position to build a proper transit network at the drop of a hat. Don't get me wrong, I wish they did or could efficiently build one. But sometimes you have to deal with reality as it is, not as you'd like it to be, unfortunately.

alistairSH 6y ago

Parking strikes me as something the market will fix without a need for subsidized public parking. Traffic needs system-wide reform. No argument there. Walkable neighborhoods, bike lanes, transit, etc. Views - you don't (normally) own the views from your property. I live on a golf course; if it gets redeveloped into condos, I'm SOL. Light - appropriate building setbacks mitigate this. I'm not disagreeing really, just pointing out that your concerns are mostly valid, but have solutions.

zjaffee 6y ago
You do own the views in numerous cities due to historical precedent, and cities cant change these laws as it would be considered unconstitutional taking.
- alistairSH 6y ago
  I know some mountain and coastal areas actually do have view ordinances, but they're typically very limited (sometimes only to trees, not construction, etc). But, I don't believe that's the norm in most places.
  - zjaffee 6y ago
    NYC has a very complicated system of buying and selling air rights which is what I was thinking of when I wrote this.
  - Tiktaalik 6y ago
    City of Vancouver has a policy of protected public views. The goal is to make it so that views of Vancouver's mountains are reasonably accessible by anyone, not just those that purchased a north facing suite in a tall condo tower. It's pretty much the same underlying concept as why we create public parks. The view cones are scattered around and are usually tied to areas of heavy public pedestrian activity, such as parks. The policy is very popular. https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/protecting-vancouvers-views.aspx https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/protecting-va...

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

> views and the light that falls on my property We need blanket legislation outlawing the notion that by virtue of purchasing a plot of land one is also purchasing control over everything visible from said plot at the time of purchase.

rumanator 6y ago
> We need blanket legislation outlawing the notion that by virtue of purchasing a plot of land one is also purchasing control over everything visible from said plot at the time of purchase. We already have that, in the form of urban planning. There are professionals in charge of ensuring everyone's rights are respected by defining and upholding an urban plan and construction regulation. Otherwise a you get is a sea of shanty towns.
ogre_codes 6y ago
Indeed. We have people who are suing their neighbors who grew large pine trees in a forested area because it disrupted someone's view. I'm not even sure if the trees in question were planted or just allowed to grow.
- CincinnatiMan 6y ago
  What you mention is a different scenario from a developer building an 8-story complex next to a 2-story SFH, and it's reasonable to think we (society) could treat them differently if we so chose.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    What you are talking about has absolutely nothing to do with the article. The proposal says that there should be a maximum of 4 units (not stories) per lot plus an additional 2 units if those two units are rented out as affordable housing. The article shows that the neighborhood already has a 6 unit building with 3 stories. It's absolutely nothing new.
paulcole 6y ago
This is a huge reason so much of inner SE Portland doesn’t have high-rise development. Would block downtown’s view of Mt. Hood.

ogre_codes 6y ago

A lot of this is more the result of poor planning by the city, and shouldn't be the burden of the property owners to resolve. Congestion is largely the result of over-reliance on cars for transportation which is inefficient. Rather than put limits on how I can use my land, the city should be planning infrastructure that supports more dense use. Portland has reasonable public transport and fairly good bike/ pedestrian routes.

jabl 6y ago

> Increasing density has definite externalities. So does endless sprawl. Arguably larger, even.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

sneak 6y ago

Lack of density is the ultimate externality: the increased resource consumption caused by the inefficiency of spreading everything out more has to be borne by every member of society. Everyone pays in life-seconds, in money, in pollution, in reduced societal interactions. Cities exist for a reason.