
Portland passes low-density zoning reform - g8oz
https://www.sightline.org/2020/08/11/on-wednesday-portland-will-pass-the-best-low-density-zoning-reform-in-us-history/
======
ogre_codes
> "It shouldn’t take six years for any city to agree to give itself permission
> to build the sort of homes that every city once allowed."

This is IMO the big thing here. Cities used to allow this kind of
construction. Our auto-friendly culture and the desire of landowners to keep
poor people off their block has led to increasingly draconian restrictions on
private property use. I understand regulations around keeping homes safe,
drainage, and fire safety, but legislation and restrictions on things like
whether I have a second building on my property and a separate driveway for
each one are government overreach.

~~~
treis
>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.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _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.

~~~
makomk
So basically, we need to legally mandate that the only way for people to
ensure that they have basic things like sunlight and not staring into a brick
wall - or perhaps worse, having an endless parade of other people staring into
their rooms and garden from the new multi-story art gallery across the street
- is via sprawl that makes existing suburbia look positively compact?

The problem with this kind of thinking is that the denser housing is, the more
its livability relies on things outside of the homeowners' direct ownership
and control. So long as YIMBYs keep pushing this idea that keeping access to
things like sunlight cannot be a shared act, it doesn't matter how many pretty
drawings of wide sunlit boulevards of townhouses or towers in parks they
produce to claim that density doesn't have to mean dark, dystopian hellscape -
because the moment there's money in it, someone can just slap a big tall
building right in one of those crucial empty spaces, and according to the
YIMBYs the people affected would have no right to complain because they didn't
personally and individually own them.

~~~
freebee87
Have you been to NYC? Or Tokyo? Or Singapore? Have you ever lived in a dense
city before? These things just don't happen.

Developers a profit motived and are very aware of what sells and what doesn't.
There are a million mechanisms by which we can avoid having a single story
house surrounded by skyscrapers.

~~~
nmfisher
Counterpoint - Melbourne CBD. Jampacked full of enormous residential towers
that are cheaply/poorly designed, far too close together, offer zero amenities
and that block out all sunlight.

I used to be in favour of laxer planning regulations until I moved to
Melbourne. A lassez faire approach just doesn’t work.

------
jackyinger
As a former Portlandian I’m pretty stoked to imagine where this could take the
city! A low altitude densification would beat what’s been done to the inner
East side...

Here’s a fun thought experiment... Imagine if most streets became parks/plazas
(aside from a few left for utility reasons) and everyone rode (electric)
bikes, or similar relatively light transport options. To me that’s be idyllic.
Imagine not being relegated to the sidewalk, not having to worry about being
hit by some idiot driving way to fast in a residential area.

Edit: What’s with the downvotes? Geez have some imagination. Bikes don’t need
to have right of way everywhere either... I guess vehicle-centrism goes far
beyond cars.

~~~
wool_gather
> Imagine not being relegated to the sidewalk

Pedestrians don't mix any better with (electric) bikes that are trying to get
places than they do with cars. Reasonably broad and well-maintained sidewalks
are essential for everyone's comfort and safety.

~~~
pkulak
When I'm walking with my 8-year-old, we both scramble right the hell out of
the street if there's a car anywhere in our vision. Neither of us could care
less about a bike somewhere. It sure doesn't feel like we're being irrational.

~~~
jackyinger
Well, I think bikers have a lot more incentive not to hit people from a
personal damage point of view. I mean they’re about as vulnerable as a
pedestrian in a collision. So I think you’re thinking right about the risks.

~~~
estebank
Not to mention the speeds and mass involved, and visibility that a cyclist has
vs a driver (without even starting to consider the vehicles that are popular
in the US).

------
klyrs
I like almost all of this. I have one minor concern, the maximum home size is
dropping from 6750 to 2500 square feet. Which is probably fine for a nuclear
family, but in my neighborhood, such homes are largely occupied by
multigenerational families. In areas closer to colleges and universities,
those homes end up being shared by large groups of students. Both of these
populations will take a hit under this policy.

~~~
cptskippy
> ...2500 square feet. Which is probably fine for a nuclear family...

Post-War homes (e.g. after WWII) in America were intended for the nuclear
family and were typically under 1000 sq/ft. Most 60s and 70s ranch homes were
1200-1700 sq/ft and considered spacious.

A modern 2500 sq/ft house is at a minimum 3 bedroom, 3.5 bath, and a bonus
room.

~~~
jschwartzi
You can live in a 1200 square foot home as long as you have access to outdoor
spaces and a third place down the block. I live in an 1100 square foot post-
war home with my fiance and it's plenty of space for what we want to do with
our lives. Other homes in the neighborhood are much larger but don't have a
back yard or trees on the lot. So we're basically in this beautiful
thoughtfully-built 40's era home surrounded by cedar trees, while our
neighbors are these huge ugly 2-story houses rammed right up to the back edge
of their lots with no yard.

You do have to get creative with second bedrooms by installing Murphy beds or
otherwise reducing furniture size and floor space. Modern furniture is way too
big to fit in the rooms of a post-war house. A stacking washer/dryer is very
useful. Basically anything that substitutes vertical space for horizontal
space will help immensely. Ikea has stuff that's size-appropriate but very
cheap.

The reason most houses are 2500 square feet nowadays is because you have to
maintain a space for all the things you want to do inside your house. Whereas
if you share space with your community for those things that many people do
then you don't have to maintain a separate space for it.

~~~
rconti
We live in an 1140sqft house, just 2 of us. With just 1 (small) bathroom it is
less than ideal, particularly when we have guests, but it works -- just. It is
basically a box of a house with 3 bedrooms, a living room, a kitchen, and a
place to eat. There is no "extra" space aside from the rooms -- no wide
hallways, no sitting areas, no extra horizontal surfaces to put junk.

Of course, we have more space than we "need" \-- 2 additional bedrooms. But,
again, they're just large enough for what they do. 1 has a guest bed (and not
any room for anything else, really) and the other is an "office" which is
handy during covid-19 for sure.

If we had kids, there would be room for them to sleep, but no playroom, for
example. Our laundry is in the garage, as is our "workout room". That space is
not counted in the official size of the house, because the garage is
converted.

~~~
Judgmentality
That sounds like a pretty cushy setup to me. What exactly is it you're
lacking?

~~~
rconti
It is pretty "comfortable", but that's to say, "just enough". Each room is
12x12, there's no "free" space. There's no "extra" space in the house in
general; for example the kitchen table is where all of the projects happen
(wife was making some jewelry the other day, I've soldered and built computers
and so on there).

The additional things we'd want are all luxuries.

* Indoor room where we can work out (treadmill, bike, elliptical are all in the garage)

* Master bathroom with an actual walk in shower, space where we don't have to squeeze past each other getting ready, etc.

* Closet space

* Garage that can be used for parking cars and bikes, working on things, etc. (I've had a bike on a stand in the backyard for a month now, as I work on building it, and parts strewn all over a patio table)

All totally unnecessary, of course. But given that we have a decently-sized
lot for silicon valley (6000sqft) it would be nice to have more indoor space.
Especially since I spent all my waking hours in here now :)

------
lbrito
Slightly off-topic, but to me these kinds of articles always offer an amazing
insight into how the average (okay, if they're literally average or not is
debatable) American thinks cities and urban planning.

If you read a bit through the comment box, about half of the comments are from
people scandalized and terrified that Portland will immediately turn into a
huge dumpster rife with crime because of the new legislation. The gist of it
is that having 3 or 4 apartments per lot (in a few select lots, mind you) will
turn your city into a crack den.

That is a really quaint mindset. I can only imagine what those people
commenting on the news would think about Paris, London or basically any major
city outside the US where having dozens of apartments per lot is the norm and
has been for decades or centuries.

~~~
tgb
An example from the RNC on Monday night:

> They’re not satisfied with spreading the chaos and violence into our
> communities. They want to abolish the suburbs altogether by ending single
> family home zoning. This forestry zoning would bring crime, lawlessness and
> low quality apartments into now thriving suburban neighborhoods. President
> Trump smartly ended this government overreach, but Joe Biden wants to bring
> it back. These are the policies that are coming to a neighborhood near you.
> So make no mistake, no matter where you live, your family will not be safe
> in the radical Democrats America.

[https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/2020-republican-
nationa...](https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/2020-republican-national-
convention-rnc-night-1-transcript)

~~~
imtringued
Honestly, the way this is framed sounds to me as if we were still living in
the 15th century where "aristocrats" are trying to live as far away from the
"plebeians" as possible.

------
kindatrue
This seems disastrous for homeowners and landlords hoping to recreate this
Silicon Valley success flywheel
[https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/1129046954409902081](https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/1129046954409902081)

~~~
francis_t_catte
Good. Housing should not be treated as an investment.

~~~
Tiktaalik
This policy will make SFHs in Portland an extremely good investment in the
long term as you can now substantially increase the amount of rentable units
on the same amount of land.

If you have the means buy a cheap SFH lot in Portland while you can.

If we really actually want to make housing not an investment then we need to
empower our government to fund the development of publicly owned housing for
everyone.

~~~
triceratops
I've never understood the arguments in favor of publicly funded housing.
Public funding is used for things that are a common good (e.g. roads, public
parks, defense, food safety) or that are important but otherwise wouldn't get
funded (e.g. basic research). Housing fits neither of those buckets.

If you occupy a publicly funded housing unit, I can't - it's not a public
good. And there are always developers and builders willing to stump up cash to
build new housing.

~~~
Tiktaalik
There are literally 300 homeless people living in a tent city in a public park
in Vancouver right now in part because there is no affordable housing.

Seems to me that there's a market failure here where the market cannot create
affordable housing. It's not regulations alone that have made it so that
developers can't make affordable housing. The construction costs are simply
too high for a for-profit developer to be able to do it.

Housing these homeless people, thus reducing health costs and emergency worker
costs is of course a public good. I would like to be able to use that park
again.

But aside from all that I don't agree with your narrow thesis of what public
dollars should be spent on anyway. If I'm a renter I'd rather have my monthly
rent go to back into the public purse to be re-invested in more public works
than to some S&P500 listed REIT to pad some wealthy investors' dividends. If
housing development is such a good investment then of course the public should
get in on it.

~~~
triceratops
> The construction costs are simply too high for a for-profit developer to be
> able to do it.

I don't know about Vancouver's specific problems. Why are the construction
costs so high there?

In the Bay Area regulations, and tax laws that incentivize holding on to old
housing, are largely to blame for the lack of housing supply.

> If I'm a renter I'd rather have my monthly rent go to back into the public
> purse to be re-invested in more public works than to some S&P500 listed REIT
> to pad some wealthy investors' dividends

Who in turn pay taxes on those dividends. Maybe increase those taxes, and
taxes on the property itself.

> If housing development is such a good investment then of course the public
> should get in on it.

Lots of businesses are a good investment. That's not a good reason for the
public sector to get into it.

~~~
Tiktaalik
> I don't know about Vancouver's specific problems. Why are the construction
> costs so high there?

There's no real reason why construction costs are high. As the amount of
construction increases, the available labour pool decreases, and labour costs
accordingly increase. There is always lots of construction going on. More
highly trained trades would help, but easier said than done.

If anything it's more that construction costs are artificially low in the USA
since there is a class of illegal immigrant labour which can be exploited and
paid low. That does not exist in Canada.

~~~
triceratops
That just sounds like demand is outstripping supply. As you said, there's
still a lot of construction going on but it's having no effect on prices.
Either those developers are going to lose their shirts eventually by
overbuilding (bonanza for buyers!) or there really are that many buyers
willing to pay those prices.

It might be worth digging into why Vancouver has so much housing demand. It's
a stunningly beautiful city, but the local economy doesn't seem to correlate
with the price of real estate. There are no FAANGs paying senior engineers
$400k, so why are people spending so much money?

~~~
Tiktaalik
Yeah an important aspect of supply and demand discussions in housing discourse
is that demand is liquid and can be effectively infinite because supply
creation is constrained by literal real world factors (ie. how many labourers
are there, how fast can home designs be developed and reviewed, etc).

So as I said it actually becomes more difficult to build the more you build.

Vis a vis labour demand there's also competition from non-residential
construction projects (eg. Amazon building a big warehouse somewhere, dam
construction, bridge construction etc).

------
ISL
A question for those familiar with the passed Portland legislation: Does it
contain protections for urban trees, flora, and fauna?

Here in Seattle, the ADU boom, and infill in general, is slowly removing the
green from our neighborhoods. As density increases, it is important to ensure
that the resulting community is healthy and sustainable.

~~~
mperham
I'm all for more green in cities but don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Suburban sprawl destroys far more environment. Density stops sprawl. This is
net positive for trees and the environment.

~~~
ISL
From where I sit in Seattle, I'm watching the trees around our home disappear
in favor of five-over-one cubes. I've chosen to live here, in part, because it
doesn't feel like a city. When the trees disappear, we are likely to
contribute to that sprawl.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Where are you experiencing the construction of a bunch of five over ones?
Definitely not Ballard, which is mostly townhomes. This seems to be a bigger
problem in downtown Bellevue (I didn't know what five over ones meant before
then!), maybe West Seattle?

~~~
egypturnash
When I left the U District a couple of years ago, it was in part because the
entire area was being razed and replaced by those things.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
The U District? They've been putting up a bunch of town homes north of 45th
(so 3 stories, not 1 + 5s), down near U village maybe?

We considered buying a place out there for like 30 seconds, the U District
just felt so depressing. We bought in Ballard which has a lot of townhomes (we
bought one), but it doesn't feel depressing.

~~~
egypturnash
Nah, the U, I was a couple blocks off the Ave by 50th. When I'd walk a couple
of blocks to Morsel's new location in the bottom of one of those on 50th and
the Ave, I could see 3-4 more of various sizes (ranging from "filling up one
plot" to "two or three entire blocks" while I ate if I got a window seat.

The U was a lot less depressing when I moved in around, what, 2012/3 I think
it was?

------
matchbok
Exactly the right step. In the long-run, this will do a lot for housing
affordability in the city.

~~~
coldpie
Yeah, there's some great stuff in here. Lowering and removing parking mandates
is huge, too. That allows for a much more walkable city as we don't have to
reserve a bunch of empty space for cars.

------
adnjoo
Cities are more environmentally friendly than suburbs

------
gregwebs
> At those hearings, pro-housing testimony outnumbered anti-housing testimony
> more than six to one.

Maybe this is what it takes to get zoning reform.

~~~
redisman
Doing something other than whining on the internet? Definitely a good lesson.

------
01100011
It would be nice if cities established redevelopment funds, which admittedly
would have to be substantial, to properly buy out homeowners and redevelop
large tracts of land. The sort of piece meal, plot-by-plot redevelopment that
is possible today is just not sufficient to allow for the kinds of redesign
that are needed to remake cities.

Buying out existing homeowners reduces concerns about the externalities of
densification. Pay them a fair price for their property and the
inconvenience/trauma of relocation and then get on with making a truly
livable, dense, efficient city.

That all assumes a government is even capable of predicting future trends(will
retail die? will the next generation flee the city? will mfg jobs return?
etc). But if we're going to play that game, lets play it competently.

~~~
nip180
I’m generally against eminent domain in the case that land is being forcibly
purchased from one private party and sold to another private party. I’m
against it because of its very high abuse potential.

Property rights are essential in keeping society civil. Sure, I pay taxes and
give up some of my property in order to provide common good. I’m happy to pay
for schools and roads. Sure, maybe the government will need to build a highway
over my property, I understand it needs a mechanism to do this for the public
good. However, if the government forces me to sell to a private party I’m
concerned that the reason will be less about public good and more about
enriching the private party. It opens up the government to legitimate ethics
concerns. It makes people begin to feel cheated out of their property. This is
bad for society as a whole.

------
setgree
One great thing about zoning reform is that it's a topic where progressives
and Silicon Valley types, i.e. "the grey tribe" [0], have a lot of common
ground. I (and presumably many HN readers) support zoning reform for all the
typical grey tribe reasons, and progressives support it because they recognize
the racist history of zoning laws, which I also find persuasive [1,2].

The more common ground we can find between tribes like this, the less, I
think, it will feel like America is coming apart at the seams.

[0] [https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-
anythin...](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-
except-the-outgroup/)

[1]
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/25/snob-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/25/snob-
zoning-is-racial-housing-segregation-by-another-name/)

[2]
[https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/07/racist-...](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/07/racist-
history-portland/492035/)

------
bichiliad
For anyone interested in reading on density, neighborhoods, and what sorts of
things work well in cities, I can't recommend The Death and Life of Great
American Cities by Jane Jacobs enough[0]. She wrote the book in the 60s and it
has really stood the test of time.

Edit: I'd add that the book does a good job about explaining the sorts of
motivations there were behind un-densifying cities (or keeping density from
rising) in the first place.

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_and_Life_of_Great_Am...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_and_Life_of_Great_American_Cities)

------
ed25519FUUU
> _Portland’s new rules will also offer a “deeper affordability” option: four
> to six homes on any lot if at least half are available to low-income
> Portlanders at regulated, affordable prices._

For a progressive city that views itself no doubt as "believing science", it's
pretty amazing they still stick these types of economic restrictions into law.
Maybe we should start saying "believe economists" when it comes to these
riders? Please just increase the supply of housing. Increase it at the top and
the bottom.

------
ebg13
I'm stoked about eliminating parking mandates and restriction on homes per
lot, but not thrilled by binding that to floor area maximums.

------
stakkur
I live in the area. Proponents have couched this as a 'progressive' vs.
'nimby' effort, which like the rest of life is not true at all. Housing is
complex, not good vs. evil, liberal vs. conservative, urgan vs sprawl. If you
doubt this, watch how much this comment is downvoted.

One thing we know, based on over a century of data around the world:
increasing density of housing has little effect on affordability, in the long
run. More often than not, it has the _opposite_ effect. More simply, we do it
backwards: we claim--based on in-migration 'projections' that are nearly
always overestimates--that there's a shortage and we must build our way out of
it. Example: 20 years ago, Portland estimated a million new residents by 2025.
Growth in that period: 105,000, in large part due to annexation.

This leaves out the realities of how things get built. Private developers do
the work, for profit, most often for investment groups. If it doesn't 'pencil
out', nobody will build it. And this is why 'affordable housing' demands,
codes, agreements all get bargained down in the end. They have for decades in
Portland, despite repeated promises of 'this time, we really mean it'.
Developers hold the cards. I could list dozens of projects of thousands of
units.

'But government can build/partner!', you say? No, that rarely works either,
especially in Portland. 'But this is law and it must be adhered to!', you say?
No, that's not true. When it comes to building, everything gets negotiated,
and there's nothing that gets bargained harder on than public entities trying
to set housing prices.

~~~
scythe
>If you doubt this, watch how much this comment is downvoted.

>One thing we know, based on over a century of data around the world:
increasing density of housing has little effect on affordability

You're not getting downvoted for disagreeing. You're getting downvoted for
asserting something that contradicts established economics with no sources,
and backing it up with folksy us-vs-them demonization of such iniquities as
"developers", "profit", and "negotiat[ion]". On a messageboard that was
originally started for entrepreneurs, this is a particularly poor choice of
strategy.

Whether it's the NBER

[https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/hier1...](https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/hier1948.pdf)

or the Reserve Bank of Australia

[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3149272](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3149272)

or the whole country of Japan

[https://www.citymetric.com/fabric/tokyo-proves-housing-
short...](https://www.citymetric.com/fabric/tokyo-proves-housing-shortages-
are-political-choice-4623)

the evidence is in fact clear: zoning restrictions make housing more
expensive.

On the West Coast, there is a persistent hope (among some) that restrictive
zoning will prevent people from moving to the West Coast, but this is an
impossible fantasy; it's simply nicer there, and a net westward migration of
Americans will probably continue for another century. The ongoing westward
migration may ebb and flow, and obscure the impact of policy changes, but it
isn't going to go away, and the best choice for the long-term health of the
urban ecosystem is gradual densification.

~~~
mrkstu
California has already convinced residents and citizens of other states to
leave or stay away- it is only migrants from other countries keeping
population growth going:

"Twenty-seven states and the District of Columbia lost population through net
domestic migration between 2018 and 2019, six of which had losses over 25,000,
and three of which experienced losses greater than 100,000. The top states
with net domestic migration loss were California (-203,414), New York
(-180,649), Illinois (-104,986), New Jersey (-48,946), Massachusetts (-30,274)
and Louisiana (-26,045)."

[https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-
releases/2019/popest-n...](https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-
releases/2019/popest-nation.html)

------
therealdrag0
Surprised no one is talking about the affordability requirements.

------
AcerbicZero
This, is corruption, mixed with a dash of good old crony capitalism. Portland
has some amazing neighborhoods, and this plan enables developers to build
_relatively_ high density apartment complexes without parking in those
neighborhoods. The dogwhistles of "low density" and "low income" really just
mean "no parking" and "full price for most of you".

Anecdotal example - They're building an ~80 unit 3 story apartment complex at
the end of a relatively busy street that serves as a main artery for accessing
the light rail - so the neighborhood already sees somewhat higher than average
street parking usage - and they're doing all of this on a lot that's barely
bigger than the houses next to it.

If you're ever curious about how Portland's city council handles most of their
issues, just take a look at where the vast majority of homeless shelters are
located in the city (hint - its OldTown-Chinatown), compare that to the
demographics of the area (Its as dark as Portland gets), and then take a guess
where they intend to _add_ more homeless shelters.

~~~
abstractbarista
Maybe all the people there will walk to the light rail? Seems like an ideal
situation, actually. Mass public transit near high-density housing.

------
salmon30salmon
Density isn't really the problem in Portland. There are a LOT of empty
apartments in this city. There are also a LOT of "short term rentals" in the
city that sit vacant.

Here are the concerns that I do not see addressed with this:

1\. Will the City of Portland make the required infrastructure improvements to
support more density? For example, will the storm sewers, which currently
overflow poo into the river, support all the extra.. poo.

1a. Will the city invest in roads and public transit? Walking and biking are
both great, but Portland is cold, dark and wet for 7 months a year. No matter
how easy and safe you make it, people won't want to ride in those conditions.

1b. Portland 911 systems are currently stressed beyond reason. I waited on
hold for 4 minutes on 911 (not non-emergency) a few weeks ago. This isn't a
rare occurrence.

1c. Will Portland address the tent in the room? Homelessness is endemic in the
city, and it isn't _only_ due to lack of housing. The city has very few
options for mental health and drug treatment. Will the city invest in that? If
not, livability will be negatively impacted by this.

1d. Assuming COVID ever ends, will Portland be business friendly enough to
attract employers to employ the expected glut of people? Right now, large
business are leaving Portland (Google has halted its expansion plans for
example).

1e. Will Oregon fund schools in a way that can account for the new residents?
Schools are already over-crowded and Oregon has one of the worst graduation
rates in the country. Will the city/state commit to building schools to
support new students? If so, where? They are in-filling in neighborhoods with
few plots available

2\. This will disadvantage low-income workers who won't be able to afford the
new houses. Though more density does lower prices, it normally lowers prices
in the less desirable neighborhoods. People of means buy the new
condos/townhomes that are built, leaving the poor to take the less nice houses
or continue to live further out.

2a. The Utopian dream of a urban playground where everyone is walking and
birds are chirping and there is Trek in every garage doesn't play for a
majority of people. People rarely live where they work. This is not normally a
personal choice. Other factors play into it. Being around their family, kids'
friends, better schools, new job on the other side of town etc. I understand
the myopia of the crowd on this site is to picture everyone has a well-
connected and well-heeled tech worker, but reality is far different.

3\. Tongue in cheek-isg: this is all celebrated within the same week as
another story claiming people are abandoned the density of SFO, NYC, SEA to
work remotely in towns like BOI, AUS, Bend etc. There is obviously a _desire_
to have land and space and privacy. If we go to a remote-first work world, why
do we think that anyone would want to live in this density?

~~~
nxc18
On 3, as much as I hope the trend is true (I'd love more cheap apartments in
the urban core) I'm not sure it is. People are moving and changing but I
haven't seen any data that conclusively proves any narrative beyond 'people
move houses even in a pandemic'.

FWIW I currently live in comparatively non-dense socal and I'm planning on
moving to Portland this fall. I plan to move into the Pearl district and work
remote. I walk all the time (even when the weather is bad, it doesn't bother
me) so I think it will be nice to have more than two coffee shops within
walking distance. For context, my current city is just big enough to support a
niche ice cream shop and some weird restaurants, but not big enough for there
to be enough competitive pressure to force them to actually be good. It is
nice when a market can be robust enough to force out poor competitors.

A lot of folks moving from real cities to rural areas may be shocked to find
how bad the food, coffee, shopping, and arts scenes can be. There's nothing
wrong with Walmart+Target, Starbucks+Dunkin'Donuts, Olive Garden+Outback
Steakhouse, but it is IMO worth it to have more options, even at the expense
of a large lawn and privacy from neighbors.

~~~
salmon30salmon
The Pearl District isn't too bad, especially if you are not a fan of gardening
and the such. However realtors tend to use a very liberal definition of what
the Pearl District is, and the closer you get to the river, the sketchier it
is. Open air drug use, visible domestic violence, car break ins, assaults
etc.. But as long as you are above 10th and north of Davis you should be fine

------
VLM
How will it burn WRT rioting? Its a serious danger in Portland.

------
kyleblarson
Portland might not need more density as people are fleeing it in droves for
areas with sane leadership that don't have nightly riots.

~~~
monadic2
I"d think they were fleeing a city that refused to protect them from their own
cops.

~~~
jansan
I am not from Portland, but the rest of the world did not get a great picture
of the city during the last two or three months (yes, the word "shithole" was
dropped a few times). I do not remember any images of businesses being
threatened by cops, but what do I know sitting at the other end of the world.

~~~
Kednicma
Where are you from and which media outlets have you been consuming? From a
local perspective, the national attempts to portray the protests are rather
futile, since the area under contention is only about two blocks large [0] and
it's not on most folks' daily walks. Even only a few blocks away, Portland
continues life as normal [3], or as normal as COVID-19 will let us be [4].

To follow up on the grandparent's point, the local and imported police are not
really doing their job when it comes to breaking up street fights [1] and are
trying to pin blame on recently-elected politicians [2]. We're not a shithole
just because the fascists have come to town to have fights, and definitely not
just because some of those fascists are employed by the federal government.

So, yeah, where are you from and what have you heard? It sounds like you don't
know much of anything of our local situation, from "the other end of the
world", although Oregon's antipode is in the middle of the Indian Ocean and
you probably aren't quite so remote.

[0] [https://imgur.com/gallery/zJ6dNxf](https://imgur.com/gallery/zJ6dNxf)

[1] [https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/08/portland-
police-...](https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/08/portland-police-
respond-to-criticism-for-not-intervening-in-violent-downtown-clash.html)

[2] [https://www.wweek.com/news/state/2020/08/13/oregon-state-
pol...](https://www.wweek.com/news/state/2020/08/13/oregon-state-police-leave-
portland-trying-to-fault-the-new-reform-minded-district-attorney-for-their-
departure/)

[3] [https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/7/22/1962969/-The-
most...](https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/7/22/1962969/-The-most-
important-image-you-will-see-of-Portland)

[4] [https://www.oregonlive.com/living/2020/04/a-drive-thru-
strip...](https://www.oregonlive.com/living/2020/04/a-drive-thru-strip-club-
movie-popcorn-to-go-oregon-businesses-get-creative-during-coronavirus.html)

~~~
jansan
I am from Europe and one thing that I have heard is that your new DA is buddy
with Antifa and announced that only major violations will get punished. This
is basically a written invitation to rioters and looters to keep going. Oh,
and of course I saw the Adam Haner scene that looked like a beheading from
Irak until he was kicked in the head by BLM "Security", which then reminded me
more of the curb stomping scene from American History X. Also, I did not fail
to noticed that your mayor decided to completely ignore this incident. So
yeah, from my narrow view, Portland did not look like the posterchild of
civilization recently.

~~~
monadic2
But the PPD allowing white supremacists to beat the shit out of antifascists
is OK? If you ain't antifascist you're just a fucking fascist.

------
eplanit
In 2020, Portland officially becomes a shithole city.

~~~
imtringued
Why would 4 duplex housing turn a city into a shithole?

------
valuearb
So “One Thousand Lawyers of Oregon” came up with a new scheme to cram people
in density after they banned development on millions of acres of land right
outside Portland.

~~~
matchbok
Nobody wants to live out there, there are no jobs or transit.

~~~
rootusrootus
What?

I live 100 feet from the urban growth boundary. 20 minutes from downtown
Portland. Nearest transit is a quarter mile away and the bus runs once an hour
during daylight only. Nobody seems to mind that, houses in this area sell
immediately. If you pushed the boundary out another mile it would take no time
at all before it would be filled with new homes.

~~~
NobodyNada
And as far as jobs go, the tech industry is huge out here. The city of
Wilsonville alone has Xerox, 3D Systems, Mentor Graphics, FLIR, Tyco
Electronics, DW Fritz, and probably more that I’m forgetting — and that’s one
of the smaller cities on the outskirts of the urban growth boundary.

~~~
pyronik19
They haven't burned down yet?

