4 ms·

Huge apartment buildings are “lumpy” and indeed impose externalities locally. I’ve been thinking a lot recently about if we could evenly distribute housing, we

by gkop 5y ago

Huge apartment buildings are “lumpy” and indeed impose externalities locally. I’ve been thinking a lot recently about if we could evenly distribute housing, we could cut through some of the NIMBY opposition. Quad plexes by right [0 for example] makes a lot of sense to me. If you’re OK with a quad plex next door, IMO you’re not part of the problem. Unfortunately, in many places SFH owners will come out in force to fight nearby quad plexes. [0] https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/08/portland-changes-zoning-code-to-allow-duplexes-triplexes-fourplexes-in-areas-previously-reserved-for-single-family-homes.html https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/08/portland-changes...

wayoutthere 5y ago
Car culture makes this difficult. Either you make requirements for on-site parking (more expensive; limits housing styles in residential areas) or the neighborhood becomes a parking lot. Until we have a less car-centric economy, anything more than a duplex will change the character of most residential neighborhoods.
xyzelement 5y ago
>> Quad plexes by right [0 for example] makes a lot of sense to me. If you’re OK with a quad plex next door, IMO you’re not part of the problem I would actually not be OK with quads next door to my house right now, because that is not the type of life I bought into. That may sound crazy so let me explain. For 39 years, I valued density/walkability/convenience of city life, and lived in NYC for most of that time. Now that I have a family, I value certain other things in my life. We specifically chose a town that was "dense enough" but not "too dense" - zoning here allows neither mansions nor quads you're talking about. This has impact on things like - how busy the traffic is on local streets, how much green space there is, etc. Everyone who lives in this town chose it for the same reason. Is not wanting quads next door NIMBYism? I don't think so... When I lived in the city, I wanted more tall buildings next to me, when I live in this town, I want more "this-town-style" homes next to me. Why am I ok with this? Simply because nobody moves to this town unless you want this life. If you want a more dense town with duplexes, triplexes etc, then there are other towns around us that are already zoned this way and people who live there want that. If you want even more density, NYC outer boroughs are just a few miles away. So people have choice.
- brendoelfrendo 5y ago
  >I would actually not be OK with quads next door to my house right now, because that is not the type of life I bought into. This is, definitionally, NIMBYism. Resisting necessary change in your town because it doesn't jive with what you want is more or less the problem. Now, maybe your town doesn't need quads or apartments or anything of the sort. Maybe the properties and zoning laws that exist are able to meet demand. But if your town is growing faster than single-family construction can keep up; if people aren't able to afford to live close to their jobs; if you see your town becoming more exclusive, something that often comes at the expense of local businesses or municipal budgets; then reality dictates that we embrace change. Of course, it sounds like you're in an area close to NYC, so you would hold that there's already suitable choice of housing in your area to meet peoples' needs. I think the areas where this debate is more prevalent are the ones in the PNW, Southeast, and Mountain west/Southwest portions of the US where cities are busting at the seams and zoning is a huge barrier for the stock of housing.
  - xyzelement 5y ago
    You may be totally right about PWN etc. and I think you're right about my assessment about the NYC area being already fine. But I guess I am not super comfortable with this sentence: "Resisting necessary change in your town." Who gets to decide what is truly necessary? Is it people who already live in the town? That seems the most democratic and least tyrannical. Or is it people from elsewhere that are somehow empowered to decide how the town ought to be, and if so how does that work?
  - nradov 5y ago
    How do determine what growth is necessary and what is optional? Should we compress more and more people into existing cities, or would it make more sense to build new cities in regions with fewer geographical constraints? How do we balance the interests of existing residents versus those who would like to move in? Considering that most US population growth is due to immigration, what is the optimal level of net migration?
  - jjav 5y ago
    > Resisting necessary change in your town because it doesn't jive with what you want is more or less the problem. Should there be a process to determine what change is necessary? Who should be able to participate in that process?

by gkop 5y ago

wayoutthere 5y ago

Car culture makes this difficult. Either you make requirements for on-site parking (more expensive; limits housing styles in residential areas) or the neighborhood becomes a parking lot. Until we have a less car-centric economy, anything more than a duplex will change the character of most residential neighborhoods.

xyzelement 5y ago

>> Quad plexes by right [0 for example] makes a lot of sense to me. If you’re OK with a quad plex next door, IMO you’re not part of the problem I would actually not be OK with quads next door to my house right now, because that is not the type of life I bought into. That may sound crazy so let me explain. For 39 years, I valued density/walkability/convenience of city life, and lived in NYC for most of that time. Now that I have a family, I value certain other things in my life. We specifically chose a town that was "dense enough" but not "too dense" - zoning here allows neither mansions nor quads you're talking about. This has impact on things like - how busy the traffic is on local streets, how much green space there is, etc. Everyone who lives in this town chose it for the same reason. Is not wanting quads next door NIMBYism? I don't think so... When I lived in the city, I wanted more tall buildings next to me, when I live in this town, I want more "this-town-style" homes next to me. Why am I ok with this? Simply because nobody moves to this town unless you want this life. If you want a more dense town with duplexes, triplexes etc, then there are other towns around us that are already zoned this way and people who live there want that. If you want even more density, NYC outer boroughs are just a few miles away. So people have choice.

brendoelfrendo 5y ago
>I would actually not be OK with quads next door to my house right now, because that is not the type of life I bought into. This is, definitionally, NIMBYism. Resisting necessary change in your town because it doesn't jive with what you want is more or less the problem. Now, maybe your town doesn't need quads or apartments or anything of the sort. Maybe the properties and zoning laws that exist are able to meet demand. But if your town is growing faster than single-family construction can keep up; if people aren't able to afford to live close to their jobs; if you see your town becoming more exclusive, something that often comes at the expense of local businesses or municipal budgets; then reality dictates that we embrace change. Of course, it sounds like you're in an area close to NYC, so you would hold that there's already suitable choice of housing in your area to meet peoples' needs. I think the areas where this debate is more prevalent are the ones in the PNW, Southeast, and Mountain west/Southwest portions of the US where cities are busting at the seams and zoning is a huge barrier for the stock of housing.
- xyzelement 5y ago
  You may be totally right about PWN etc. and I think you're right about my assessment about the NYC area being already fine. But I guess I am not super comfortable with this sentence: "Resisting necessary change in your town." Who gets to decide what is truly necessary? Is it people who already live in the town? That seems the most democratic and least tyrannical. Or is it people from elsewhere that are somehow empowered to decide how the town ought to be, and if so how does that work?
- nradov 5y ago
  How do determine what growth is necessary and what is optional? Should we compress more and more people into existing cities, or would it make more sense to build new cities in regions with fewer geographical constraints? How do we balance the interests of existing residents versus those who would like to move in? Considering that most US population growth is due to immigration, what is the optimal level of net migration?
- jjav 5y ago
  > Resisting necessary change in your town because it doesn't jive with what you want is more or less the problem. Should there be a process to determine what change is necessary? Who should be able to participate in that process?