HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2018, 12:14 AM
Pavlov's Dog Pavlov's Dog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 356
Quote:
Zoning reform could also address the economic and racial segregation of single-family neighborhoods. The economic segregation of Portland neighborhoods matches neatly with its single-family zoning, and a segregationist history informed those restrictions, Sightline Institute's Michael Andersen wrote earlier this year.
Portland actually has highly desegregated communities compared with most US cities. It actually has gotten a lot of criticism for the fact that the former predominantly African American community is now gentrified, (safe) and highly mixed race.

Also economic segregation is much less an issue in Oregon that in most places due to the way that schools are funded mostly at state level allocations rather than solely based on local taxation. Unfortunately pretty much all schools in Oregon are inadequately funded. There are certainly rich towns and poor towns but the consequences of living in one or the other much less pronounced than in many other states.

I don't what this legislator is hoping to accomplish, or at least the means and the goal don't seem consistent. It seems to favor unbridled development and loss of local decision making. Neither are popular sentiments among Oregonians. I doubt it even makes it to a vote.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2018, 12:27 AM
Jonesy55 Jonesy55 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown View Post
Well, for one thing you don't seem to understand the difference between the government ALLOWING something and the government BANNING something. If you have areas zoned for single family homes, areas zoned for duplexes, rowhomes etc, areas zoned for mid-rise apartment buildings and areas zoned for high-rise apartment buildings then everyone gets to choose their preferred area. But now the government is BANNING one of these types of zoning so people who want to live in that sort of neighborhood won't be able to. Once again, if there is an area near the city center that is zoned for single family homes and that's a problem then rezone that specific area, don't eliminate single family zoning entirely. That's throwing out the baby with the bath water.
As far as I'm reading the proposal they are not banning single family homes, you will still be able to build those homes, it's just that you will also be able to build other types of homes in the area too. So that's more choice isn't it? While still enabling people who want to live in single family homes to do so.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2018, 12:42 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
They're not banning single-family houses, only allowing more choices. I guess that's not obvious to people who don't deal with this stuff.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2018, 12:55 AM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 52,200
Maybe they’ll end up just banning single family detached bungalows.
__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2018, 12:57 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Maybe we'll discover alien life soon. That seems more likely.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2018, 1:26 AM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
They're not banning single-family houses, only allowing more choices. I guess that's not obvious to people who don't deal with this stuff.
Would you feel the same if the shoe were on the other foot and they let people build single family homes in areas currently zoned for apartments?

I mean this stupid house made it into a movie, but that doesn't meant this is good zoning.


Or this one, lol.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2018, 1:39 AM
goat314's Avatar
goat314 goat314 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St. Louis - Tampa
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdxtex View Post
dude west coast leadership is all over the map. they cant get their agendas straight.first its a homeless crisis, then a rental shortage, then a affordable home crisis and then gentrification. now single family homes are....racist!! im pretty sure the predatory lending and redlining of the past is the shady part. but correct, we don't have a housing shortage, let alone a affordable one. if you are in the market to purchase one. we lots of sub 300k homes all over the metro and prices have actually fallen as people pass up portland for slc, seattle or denver. dont get me wrong, im all for density so if they want to say single family homes are promoting segregation, then sure, go for it. but its not going to make anything market rate become "affordable". social justice wackos are running the ship in the PNW at the moment so it will be a few years before that fog clears.
I don't think single family zones are racist (that would be assuming that there are no black single family neighborhoods), but I think it's a civil rights issue and discriminatory to have exclusionary zoning clauses in wealthy areas. Many municipalities around the country have excluded public housing, rental units and multifamily, which concentrates poverty in certain areas. It's basically modern day redlining, which is indeed a classist and many times initially racist policy. What I find extra interesting is that places like Oregon and Minnesota, which have smallish Afro-American populations are implementing these policies. Let's see Chicago, Atlanta, Detroit, and Philadelphia do it. Then I'll be impressed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2018, 1:44 AM
goat314's Avatar
goat314 goat314 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St. Louis - Tampa
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeMusashi View Post
I’ll never not be amazed at the amount of things liberals can co-opt of African Americans to justify any demand or policy their donors want. It really is the Franks Red Hot Sauce of politics. You can “put that shit on everything”.

Anything built from this will benefit the affluent and the subsidized poor. High end apartments/townhouses that people can barely afford making them modern day serfs. Subsidized housing for the poor. Single family houses for the rich. Everyone else will flee inland like a plague of locusts to enact the same policies that drove them there in the first place.

The conspiracy side of my brain sees this as another attack on individualism. Property owners will be well compensated, their heirs will be less able to afford to live in that community. Mom and Dad sell the house to pay for somewhere else to live and their retirement/old age care. That windfall is diluted. The property management landlords are the long term winners.
If you think these policies are being done to appease black folks you are definitely confused. Oregon and Minnesota have negligible black populations. I think a better policy to uplift the Afro-American community is some form of economic and social reparations, NO ONE (even Bernie) won't get behind that agenda, no matter how many times the UN says it's justified.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2018, 2:28 AM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Quebec
Posts: 42,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by goat314 View Post
I don't think single family zones are racist (that would be assuming that there are no black single family neighborhoods)
Exactly, and that's a weird assumption.

From my observations at least, it seems black Floridians like their SFHs just as much as anyone else. The few obvious advantages of that type of living (a private backyard, no neighbors above or below you, etc.) are just as valid for people with higher melanin levels.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2018, 2:48 AM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
Exactly, and that's a weird assumption.

From my observations at least, it seems black Floridians like their SFHs just as much as anyone else. The few obvious advantages of that type of living (a private backyard, no neighbors above or below you, etc.) are just as valid for people with higher melanin levels.
The assumption that most liberals make is that all black people are poor and therefore policies that hurt poor people are racist. It's more politically persuasive for them to say the policies are bad for black people than poor people because liberal voters don't give a flying fuck about poor whites (or more accurately they actively despise poor white people).

That much aside, if the goal is to integrate people racially then I don't think this is a very well thought out plan as it's more likely to integrate people economically. Poor people are still incredibly segregated by race. In fact looking at racial maps of cities it's almost insane the degree to which most big cities are racially segregated. There's the famous example like 8 mile road in Detroit, but basically every big city has those same sort of lines between races even when both sides of the lines are poor. And again it's not just blacks and whites being segregated, hispanics and asians are just as bad. Just from looking at the racial dot map it seems like asians and whites can integrate pretty effectively, but all other races are like oil and water with each other.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2018, 2:51 AM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is offline
He/his/him. >~<, QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Loop, Chicago
Posts: 5,991
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2018, 3:10 AM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 9,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown View Post
Well, for one thing you don't seem to understand the difference between the government ALLOWING something and the government BANNING something. If you have areas zoned for single family homes, areas zoned for duplexes, rowhomes etc, areas zoned for mid-rise apartment buildings and areas zoned for high-rise apartment buildings then everyone gets to choose their preferred area. But now the government is BANNING one of these types of zoning so people who want to live in that sort of neighborhood won't be able to. Once again, if there is an area near the city center that is zoned for single family homes and that's a problem then rezone that specific area, don't eliminate single family zoning entirely. That's throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Actually, it's you who doesn't seem to understand the difference. If a government zones an area for only single family homes, it's banning any other type of development from the area. If you have areas zoned to allow all of these types of developments, then people can choose their preferred home type and their preferred location. They just won't have a say over other people's home types.

And let's face it. You make it sound as if anyone who wants any type of housing can simply choose it. But in reality, in many North American metro areas the vast majority of the residential land is zoned to only allow low density, often detached single family residential. If the zoning is changed and the majority of people in the majority of neighbourhoods want single family detached, nothing will change. The only places where it will change is where there is demand for other types of housing which are currently... banned.

I realize not everyone likes the idea of capitalism and free markets, and I myself agree that there is often a need for regulation so I'm with you there. I just don't think that regulations that ban anything but low density is a good one. I don't believe it accomplishes anything productive.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2018, 3:18 AM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is offline
He/his/him. >~<, QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Loop, Chicago
Posts: 5,991
I think allowing up to 3 units per lot (e.g. duplex + carriage house) is relatively harmless. Honestly a lot of SFR are rented out to multiple unrelated people anyway, might as well make it less shitty.
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2018, 3:48 AM
dubu's Avatar
dubu dubu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: bend oregon
Posts: 1,449
its pretty weird how areas further out are more dense. maybe this would even it out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2018, 3:53 PM
Cory Cory is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Houston
Posts: 3,350
I am all for increasing density but I am over hearing about these plans that do not take into account access to alternative transportation or transit agencies that do not evolve regardless of the development happening.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2018, 4:05 PM
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Envy of the World
Posts: 4,926
I skimmed through the article and obviously didn't read the wording of zoning changes proposed, but WTS, wouldn't this be a tremendous gift to current single family home owners [voters]?

They wouldn't be required to add 4 units to their house, but could be allowed to do so if they wanted. You'll basically end up with a Californication of Oregon, where single family home owners hold so much power and influence over politicians.

In California, there's not much incentive for homeowners to approve zoning changes for higher density levels. If you restrict the supply of housing in your neighborhood, the value of your home will steadily increase, rapidly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2018, 4:20 PM
Leveled Leveled is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown View Post
The assumption that most liberals make is that all black people are poor and therefore policies that hurt poor people are racist. It's more politically persuasive for them to say the policies are bad for black people than poor people because liberal voters don't give a flying fuck about poor whites (or more accurately they actively despise poor white people).

That much aside, if the goal is to integrate people racially then I don't think this is a very well thought out plan as it's more likely to integrate people economically. Poor people are still incredibly segregated by race. In fact looking at racial maps of cities it's almost insane the degree to which most big cities are racially segregated. There's the famous example like 8 mile road in Detroit, but basically every big city has those same sort of lines between races even when both sides of the lines are poor. And again it's not just blacks and whites being segregated, hispanics and asians are just as bad. Just from looking at the racial dot map it seems like asians and whites can integrate pretty effectively, but all other races are like oil and water with each other.

Did a liberal beat up your dad or something? This is edging on hate speech.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2018, 5:43 PM
pdxtex's Avatar
pdxtex pdxtex is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 3,119
the problem with american zoning is we separate uses, not the people. we should take a cue from japan where zoning is nationally regulated and theres like what, 12 zones total. there they allow uses to mix based on the relative nuisance level to housing. so you cant always build a factory in a residential zone but you can always build housing in a industrial area. american's in general need to do some soul searching a bit also. lots of young single people cry foul over high priced one bedroom apartments because thats what they think they deserve.but really, a studio will probably be fine. im all for upzoning but not in a blanket manor. i think there should be tiers of density, maybe relative to transit nodes or the cbd. personally i think anything within three miles of a city's core should be fair game for upzoning, but keep higher intensity multifamily closer to arterial streets and less intensive duplexes and triplexes in the back neighborhood. i just think this measure is reactionary and being hastily presented.
__________________
Portland!! Where young people formerly went to retire.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2018, 6:54 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown View Post
Would you feel the same if the shoe were on the other foot and they let people build single family homes in areas currently zoned for apartments?

[/IMG]
It would be a waste, but I wouldn't legislate against it, aside from the need for certain streets to have active frontages etc. Someone could build retail in front and a house on top for example. In areas without that requirement, a basic house would be technically acceptable.

Of course nobody would do that with a 1/4-acre site being maybe $3,000,000 in some density-allowing districts and $20,000,000 in others.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2018, 7:00 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown View Post

That much aside, if the goal is to integrate people racially then I don't think this is a very well thought out plan as it's more likely to integrate people economically. Poor people are still incredibly segregated by race. In fact looking at racial maps of cities it's almost insane the degree to which most big cities are racially segregated. There's the famous example like 8 mile road in Detroit, but basically every big city has those same sort of lines between races even when both sides of the lines are poor. And again it's not just blacks and whites being segregated, hispanics and asians are just as bad. Just from looking at the racial dot map it seems like asians and whites can integrate pretty effectively, but all other races are like oil and water with each other.
Not Seattle or Portland. On the NYT 2010 maps for example, the dots are pretty mixed. In fact one of the controversies in both cities is the influx of people of all skin colors into formerly black-dominated districts...the opposite of your narrative.

Oregon's policy might result in a lot of new relatively-cheap housing in the richer half of town, which appears tailor made for more integration.

You don't seem to think through your ideas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:40 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.