If you'd like a fresh example of how zoning (a simple & fine idea) has become a micromanaging busybody that's accidentally tearing gashes in our civilization, here's one
(thread)
1. Portland high school (with a disproportionately Black student body) is up for a remodel, cool cool opb.org/article/2022/1…
2. District concludes it can't safely do the remodel without moving students offsite. Bummer, really wish folks had known about that sooner, but OK.
3. Fortunately, there's a community college campus right across the street. Many classrooms are available because the community college has gone heavily remote.
4. UNfortunately (hey my sister and I used to play this game), the high school is in the IR zone and the community college is in the CI2 zone
wait, what
5. Turns out that the city's "campus institutional" zone allows "colleges" but not "schools."
"A school is not identified as an accessory use to a college," the city planning spokesperson tells me.
(For the record, this situation is very not her fault; she's correct.)
6. Result: District concluded that because that because the zoning “could take years” to change, the college (at which many high school students have attended classes for years, it's one of the selling points of this high school) can't host the high school from 2024-27.
7. Instead, starting one year from now, current plan is relocate the student body for 3 years to another high school a 19-minute drive (and a 56-minute bus journey) away
🤯
good thing schools don't face attendance or graduation challenges these days
8. Most of this comes from @RManning47's excellent reporting for @OPB opb.org/article/2023/0…
The good news (city spokesperson told me today) is that the city is "currently in conversations with the school district to see how we might help find an alternative solution."
(It's possible there are also other obstacles not yet unearthed by OPB's reporting, I don't know.)
But even in a rosy scenario, letting teenagers learn in otherwise empty college classrooms across the street SHOULD NOT REQUIRE AN EMERGENCY ACTION BY CITY COUNCIL or whatever.
This is one of a million ways well-intentioned zoning rules have clogged the arteries of our society's common sense.
We've self-ossified. It stops us from helping each other out: quickly building publicly funded housing. Letting someone rent a parking space across the street.
Sometimes, when enough people with enough power get pissed, something changes. Usually, what they get is a targeted carveout - a special exception.
A short term win, in exchange for even more complex rules in the long run.
What we need most is simplicity.
But that requires politicians & public employees to say "there are a lot of things we don't actually need to control," and it requires members of the public to back them up.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Today, @GovTinaKotek signed this year's HB 2001, a fast-track omnibus package to address Oregon's long-term shortage of homes, especially lower-cost homes.
It's the biggest rewrite of state housing law since 1973, written to last til 2073.
But uh, what exactly does it do?
🧵
@GovTinaKotek First, a grain of salt: I have skin in this game.
Last spring, soon-to-be House Majority Leader @juliefahey told me this bill would be 2023's biggest chance to help fix our housing shortage & asked me to start building support.
In August my then-colleague @stephrouth & I visited the Oregon coast to talk to people from both parties & from many jobs to better understand the shortage, especially in smaller cities
Why is Oregon doing this? @Citizen_Cate and I are so glad you asked!
For months, we've counted the ways parking mandates - little-known rules quietly imposed in the 1950s & 60s - hide huge costs inside everything we pay for, from rent to grapes.
What a potentially magnificent public plaza, linking one of the nation’s biggest car-free streets (16th) to a huge riverfront park…if not for a big curving auto turnaround that takes up half the space!
Denver, you rule in lots of ways! wyd??
The other side of this little loop seems to have perfectly usable auto access. I don’t get it!
This is the other angle, from the park. I would linger over so many gelatos in those six curbside parking spaces
Portland's council just unanimously approved new updates to its low-density zoning code, a fast follow-up on 2020's landmark vote to re-legalize 4plexes & mixed-income 6plexes citywide.
We didn't get everything right the first time around!
This project makes 6 great changes:
1) Legalizes townhomes citywide.
You know townhomes from such classic cities as Baltimore and Paris. If you want to own a smaller lot that shares its structure with neighbors, you can - no need to rent to save $.
Our new code even lets them go "sideways" on midblock lots. Yuss.
2) Fully legalizes cottage clusters.
I'm biased, I live in one myself! But til now, to build one you had to do a custom negotiation with bureaucrats & risk being dragged through court by nearby homeowners.
@sophiegreenleaf I suspect PDX population is already rebounding & will resume steady growth, a bit slower than 2010s.
But either way, there's a question here: HOW does a city catch up to past underbuilding?
If homes didn't already exist, what's going to make them exist now?
1 main answer...
...*lower cost factors.*
In the absence of (or in combo with) big new public housing subsidies, the only way to build your way out of housing deficit is to lower the cost factors of creating homes.
Many folks think upzoning = more homes, therefore enough upzoning = enough homes.
As a zoning reformer, I'm sad to say this isn't how it goes.
This is wrong for the same reason 4plex legalization doesn't = immediate transformation of every low-density street.
(short thread)
The problem with both of these assumptions is COST.
Newly built homes have many cost factors. One of them is land cost per new home. This is high in places with too few homes.
(In places with more homes than would-be residents, like the Ohio city I grew up in, it's low.)
If there's a perfectly good 1plex on a lot that would need to be torn down to build a 4plex, the 4plex probably isn't going up. Buying the oneplex just to scrap it would drive rents in the 4plex homes too high to find tenants.
That's why the NIMBY nightmare scenario is mistaken.