Yes, You Can Build Your Way to Affordable Housing (Norwood: neighborhoods, living in)

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

So? You, nor anyone else, deserves to live wherever you want just because you want to. No one else should have to give up their neighborhood for your desires.

We are going to have to disagree here. Laws that prevent density / more affordable housing are wrong. Using the power of law to force lower income people out of your neighborhood because you don't want to "give up your neighborhood" is wrong. This sort of line of thought is only one step removed from the race based zoning of past decades.

No one is forcing you to sell your house and turn it into denser, more affordable housing. But you should not have the right to stop your neighbor from making that choice.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by bu2

There is also the question of the best use of the land for the city. Why should the city force people to keep 1 to 2 acre lots in the core of the city? There is a need for those, but close to the city's core doesn't seem to be a good place for it.

Well, if they purchased the lot based on that being the law, why shouldn't they be able to rely on that?

[arjay57]

They are greatly increasing density on the northside. I've cited several examples where they're putting in 10-15 houses per acre and there are many more.

Of course the new houses tend to cost a lot more than what they replaced.

[jsvh]

Arjay - Are you concerned about Norwood's plan to prohibit large developments in "at risk" neighborhoods and that it will put even more of the development pressure back on to the north side of town?

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Well, if they purchased the lot based on that being the law, why shouldn't they be able to rely on that?

Laws change all the time. There are some which shouldn't be held constant, like those that we have empirical data and plenty of analysis to show is a very real problem.

That said, no one is wanting to force any kind of living on an individual or their property, simply to give them and the market the flexibility we know it needs to maintain affordability.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

Laws change all the time. There are some which shouldn't be held constant, like those that we have empirical data and plenty of analysis to show is a very real problem.

That said, no one is wanting to force any kind of living on an individual or their property, simply to give them and the market the flexibility we know it needs to maintain affordability.

Well, it seems like that would work both ways. Say somebody comes in and puts up a walkable mixed use TOD project with low cost housing.

If zoning is out the window, what's to stop the next fella from putting a car dealership or a truck terminal next door?

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by arjay57

If zoning is out the window, what's to stop the next fella from putting a car dealership or a truck terminal next door?

Is that a big problem in Houston where they don't limit land use?

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Arjay - Are you concerned about Norwood's plan to prohibit large developments in "at risk" neighborhoods and that it will put even more of the development pressure back on to the north side of town?

It depends on the circumstances, jsvh.

If you let big time developers run amok in some of these fragile neighborhoods, there's a very good chance that a lot of current residents will be driven out, economically, culturally, educationally and otherwise.

On the other hand, there may be ways of doing development that avoid that. So these are conversations we need to have.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Is that a big problem in Houston where they don't limit land use?

Well, you get some pretty weird stuff in Houston, like a crematorium next to a residential project.

On the other hand, they do have a lot of stuff that is very similar to zoning.

FORGET WHAT YOU’VE HEARD, HOUSTON REALLY DOES HAVE ZONING (SORT OF)

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by arjay57

It depends on the circumstances, jsvh.

If you let big time developers run amok in some of these fragile neighborhoods, there's a very good chance that a lot of current residents will be driven out, economically, culturally, educationally and otherwise.

On the other hand, there may be ways of doing development that avoid that. So these are conversations we need to have.

True. I am glad to have more people talking about it. But this is a conversation that has been going on for decades and it seems Mary is now taking it beyond that and taking the stance of prohibiting development. That is the sort of approach San Francisco has taken and it has not worked well there.

We need more housing supply, not less to help moderate prices and displacement.