Huge change to Zoning Laws in Portland. (real estate, rent)

[gannon322]

Originally Posted by texasdiver

Fine. Here's a Seattle example. I happen to know the developer of this lot who took a broken down single family bungalow in Lake City and put up these four units instead each of which has a studio apartment in the ground floor that the owners can rent out if they want. https://goo.gl/maps/Vkaddo6Q9XTgamyC7

Across the street a different developer did something similar: https://goo.gl/maps/j1rV4qdU2szeRvxR8

People have to live somewhere. If you don't allow increased density then Portland either becomes as expensive as San Francisco or as sprawling as Houston.

Fair enough and those units don't look bad. However, a direct result of one multi unit going up is just as we see here, then every home is at risk and everything turns into a multi-unit complex. Residential neighborhoods of this sort are not set up for that. Also, once these multi unit complexes go up they're never coming down, if this decision turns out to be shortsighted tough luck....there is no going back short of eminent domain, which doesn't happen that often anymore.


I'm not against density, density makes sense downtown and commercial corridors, but not residential neighborhoods designed for single family residents.

and this is generally what I've seen when an area is upzoned.

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7789...7i16384!8i8192

[doc1]

Originally Posted by texasdiver

Fine. Here's a Seattle example. I happen to know the developer of this lot who took a broken down single family bungalow in Lake City and put up these four units instead each of which has a studio apartment in the ground floor that the owners can rent out if they want. https://goo.gl/maps/Vkaddo6Q9XTgamyC7

Across the street a different developer did something similar: https://goo.gl/maps/j1rV4qdU2szeRvxR8

People have to live somewhere. If you don't allow increased density then Portland either becomes as expensive as San Francisco or as sprawling as Houston.

Those are attractive, nicely done, IMO. The first example is my favorite.

Any idea how much the rents are in both complexes?

[texasdiver]

Originally Posted by doc1

Those are attractive, nicely done, IMO. The first example is my favorite.

Any idea how much the rents are in both complexes?

They aren't rentals. They subdivided and old lot with a decaying bungalow and created four new homes, each with an accessory studio apartment and sold them all individually. You'd have to look up zillow to find the prices But they went quick. And people love buying homes with ready made small accessory rental apartments.

I don't know about the one across the street. Whether it is condos or rentals.

[gannon322]

Originally Posted by texasdiver

They aren't rentals. They subdivided and old lot with a decaying bungalow and created four new homes, each with an accessory studio apartment and sold them all individually. You'd have to look up zillow to find the prices But they went quick. And people love buying homes with ready made small accessory rental apartments.

I don't know about the one across the street. Whether it is condos or rentals.

Exactly to my point, where as you might have had two cars for a SFR, now you have 12 and probably more with friends and guests. This is from one lot, add this happening to more lot on the same street and it becomes a nightmare for those living there. These are residential neighborhoods so mass transit isn't realistic. This is how neighborhoods are lost.

[texasdiver]

Originally Posted by gannon322

Exactly to my point, where as you might have had two cars for a SFR, now you have 12 and probably more with friends and guests. This is from one lot, add this happening to more lot on the same street and it becomes a nightmare for those living there. These are residential neighborhoods so mass transit isn't realistic. This is how neighborhoods are lost.

If you want to park a car you can always pay for parking, or buy a more expensive house that has dedicated parking. That's how the free market works. There are plenty of parking lots in the area. And Lake City way is a block away and has plenty of express buses to Central Seattle and cross town buses to the Northgate transit center. There are also grocery stores within walking distance. It is an easy place to live and get around by bike, foot, scooter, e-bike and transit. Why should people who don't want cars be forced to subsidize those who do? That's socialism for cars.

Some of the most affluent neighborhoods on the entire planet are in the upper east side of New York City. Few of them have free dedicated parking.

[gannon322]

Originally Posted by texasdiver

If you want to park a car you can always pay for parking, or buy a more expensive house that has dedicated parking. That's how the free market works. There are plenty of parking lots in the area. And Lake City way is a block away and has plenty of express buses to Central Seattle and cross town buses to the Northgate transit center. There are also grocery stores within walking distance. It is an easy place to live and get around by bike, foot, scooter, e-bike and transit. Why should people who don't want cars be forced to subsidize those who do? That's socialism for cars.

Some of the most affluent neighborhoods on the entire planet are in the upper east side of New York City. Few of them have free dedicated parking.

The upper east side of New York City is considered a downtown with subway stops every few blocks. These are residential neighborhoods developed to be single family residents. These areas are not set up to be ultra dense. Why is this so hard to understand?

You're trying really hard to explain away this idea of a square peg in a round hole.

[texasdiver]

Originally Posted by gannon322

The upper east side of New York City is considered a downtown with subway stops every few blocks. These are residential neighborhoods developed to be single family residents. These areas are not set up to be ultra dense. Why is this so hard to understand?

You're trying really hard to explain away this idea of a square peg in a round hole.

And the upper east side was also once a neighborhood of single family homes. Thankfully 19th century zoning regulations didn't try to preserve those neighborhoods in amber.

I have faith that the free market will solve the problem. If people value parking they will pay for it. That's the American way. I just oppose state-mandated socialism for cars which is what mandatory car parking requirements amount to. And I don't think the highest purpose of public streets should be to provide free car storage for local residents.

95% of the greater Seattle and Portland areas are overflowing with free parking for those for whom that is a priority. I simply don't object to increased density like you do simply because "all the cars will have no place to go!"

I object to crappy cheap multi-family housing thrown up with lack of design standards. And poorly designed streets that lack safe walking and biking corridors and spaces. And a lot of the other garbage I see built every day. But I don't object to increased density simply because the cars don't have enough space. People who value abundant free parking above all else will still have the other 95% of the city to choose from.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Originally Posted by gannon322

Exactly to my point, where as you might have had two cars for a SFR, now you have 12 and probably more with friends and guests. This is from one lot, add this happening to more lot on the same street and it becomes a nightmare for those living there. These are residential neighborhoods so mass transit isn't realistic. This is how neighborhoods are lost.

This reminds me of the Yogi Berra quote. "No one goes there nowadays, it’s too crowded."

Sure, densification can be a pain in the ass for people who already live in a neighborhood but investment and densification are a sign that a neighborhood is desirable. The fabric and vibe a of a neighborhood will change but that will happen anyways over time.

When I look at a lot of the new suburban construction happening in the Portland area I get a bit more concerned because you get high density but none of the walkability or amenities that you get in the city. You have your neighbors bedroom window 8 feet from your but you still have to get into your car to buy a cup of coffee.

[doc1]

Originally Posted by texasdiver

They aren't rentals. They subdivided and old lot with a decaying bungalow and created four new homes, each with an accessory studio apartment and sold them all individually. You'd have to look up zillow to find the prices But they went quick. And people love buying homes with ready made small accessory rental apartments.

I don't know about the one across the street. Whether it is condos or rentals.

Per Zillow, the homes at 12015 33rd Ave NE Seattle, Washington went for 325K. That's quite reasonable, IMO.

[BBMW]

Yes, if they're developing from farmland. If you're developing already developed areas, people already owning property there can, and often do, put up a fight.

Originally Posted by texasdiver

No, in the beginning it would have been farmland and wood huts. Then clusters of wooden homes with dirt streets followed by medieval stone structures on narrow streets. Then rebuilding with broad avenues in the late 1800s under Napoleon III in the Haussman style which is shown here. Paris didn't just happen. It evolved with a lot of careful intentional direction and planning over the centuries.

Point being, cities are not static. They constantly evolve. Trying to freeze in place a certain 1950s single family home aesthetic across the entire city of Portland during a time of rapid growth is an exercise doomed to fail. If you don't plan for it in a rational manner, it will still leak out in ways that you don't like such as skyrocketing prices, suburban sprawl, horrendous traffic and so forth.

By the way. You want to know why Parisian roofs all look like this with Mansard roof ines similar to barns? It is because of 19th century tax laws and zoning restrictions which measured and taxed buildings up to the base of the roof. Property was taxed by the number of stories but they didn't count attics above the roof line so everyone built an extra floor within the roof to cut their taxes and push above the zoning height restrictions.