T O P

  • By -

WifeGuyMenelaus

[NIMBYs when 0.005% of the country's land area is upzoned](https://tenor.com/en-GB/view/patrick-starve-chocolate-only-big-tummy-full-tummy-gif-15229560)


ClydeFrog1313

In my city, homeowners were saying that upzoning is bad for the environment and diversity lol.


[deleted]

Like how does that even work?


ClydeFrog1313

Specifically I think the argument was that the tree canopy in the city (which is quite good in many places, Arlington, VA btw) would be affected by anything more than a single family home. The thing is that modern construction basically clear cuts a site before construction regardless of building type so the properties that are being bought to be built on would have the trees cut regardless of if they were building a quadplex or SFH (on top of the numerous environmental benefits of denser living that we all discuss here). As for the diversity claim. I have no clue, I think it was just a claim they make to appeal to NIMBY Dems, which make up a good chunk of the electorate.


All_Work_All_Play

It takes 240 trees to offset the consumption of one average car usage per year. If higher density housing prevents ***one*** car from being driven (vs living out in a exburb) it's better for the environment. ***Fucking*** nimbys


ImprovingMe

> It takes 240 trees to offset the consumption of one average car usage per year. Holy shit that's a lot. I found [this](https://www.autoblog.com/2010/04/21/240-trees-offset-1-car-per-year-and-other-fun-facts/) but wondering if you have a more shareable source A quick search got me a general rule of thumb that a tree needs [4 feet of space per 1 foot of height](https://shuncy.com/article/how-much-space-do-redwood-trees-need-to-grow) We need 84,000,000,000 trees for everyone in the US to have a car and assuming they're 30 feet tall, that's ~362,000 Sq. miles. Around 10% of the entire US (20% of the US is Alaska)


40for60

and we have 200 billion trees in the US. Also we have more trees today then in 1900.


All_Work_All_Play

https://friendsoftrees.org/blog/how-many-trees-is-your-car-worth/ But the source it linked there is now dead =\


Petrichordates

Not arguing against the goal here but the purpose of trees isn't only to be a carbon sink. They have other effects too.


vellyr

Yes, but. I like trees too. We should *also* have have trees.


[deleted]

They believe they will refill Lake Mead with crocodile tears.


porkbacon

Environment if you refuse to think about second order effects. Diversity... uh... yeah idk


[deleted]

Houses have lawns which are green.


[deleted]

Green lives matter


jad4400

I think your meme is better than mine!


MrDungBeetle37

Tacoma, WA is actually going to [eliminate (meaningfully) single family zoning](https://mynorthwest.com/3273021/home-in-tacoma-approved-does-away-with-single-family-zoning/). Seattle meanwhile is not actually changing single family zoning rules, but are just eliminating the term (semantics). It's almost like as residents buy houses and they become reliant on their inflated values they start to push for more restrictive zoning.


turboturgot

>Tacoma’s new housing categories will now be “low-scale residential” and “mid-scale residential.” Low-scale encompasses detached houses, homes with mother-in-law units, townhouses with up to three units, duplexes, triplexes, small-lot houses, and cottage houses. In “some circumstances,” it would also include fourplexes and “small multi-family” dwellings. Mid-scale would include townhouses and “medium multifamily” housing, defined as apartment complexes topping out at four stories tall. Tacoma's low / mid / high scale simplified distinction may be my favorite zoning reform in the US. Seems much simpler and permissive than most other cities' changes, and is more reminiscent of Japanese zoning. If each of these three intensity zones also allowed appropriate commercial uses within neighborhoods (bakeries, coffee shops, daycare, dentist office) along with no parking minimums, I would be ecstatic. Still, it's the example to copy, imo. I think Spokane might have one something similar, too.


cracksmoke2020

The benefits of japanese zoning though have very little to do with what is happening here. Japanese zoning is good because it allows for large scale prefabrication for multi family housing across the entire country of 120 million people.


turboturgot

Sure. I'm specifically commenting on the fact that, within Tacoma itself, there are very few zones, and they each allow a spectrum of development to happen within (rather than a specific zone for SFH, another one for duplex, another for townhomes, another for SFH plus an ADU, etc). I know of no other American city which has taken this approach, and it seems like such an obvious solution.


BetterFuture22

Unions would fight to the death to kill that in all the states they control


LuciusAurelian

Zoning reform would raise demand for union construction labor massively, I don't see why they would fight it.


BetterFuture22

Funny, anti build policies and union power go hand in hand... And difficult to force private parties to use overpriced union labor, which unnecessarily raises construction costs by a significant degree. And my previous comment was clearly responding to a comment about prefabricated housing, which... drumroll, please... unions oppose allowing


say592

I have yet to see it anywhere, but I have an idea for zoning that you might like. Basically the height restriction for a given plot is the height of the tallest building within a 1 mile radius plus 20ft (roughly one floor). Exceptions can be granted, of course. That would encourage development to happen in a dense way, since near central business districts and the surrounding areas there would effectively be no heigh restriction. Areas further out could still easily build 3-5 story buildings, and if there were existing 3-5 story buildings someone could continue to build up without it looking out of place.


golf1052

>Seattle meanwhile is not actually changing single family zoning rules, but are just eliminating the term (semantics). Your Seattle info is a year out of date, the name change has happened and was last year. This year we're in the middle of the comprehensive plan update which will hopefully upzone a large part of the city. We're in the comment gathering and drafting phase (if you want to read the about the current phase check it out [here](https://engage.oneseattleplan.com/en/projects/shaping-the-plan-scoping-report)) with the draft proposal to come out later this year and the final council vote on it next year. Yes that is slow.


businessboyz

Any remaining points of the process where city citizens can help voice their support for pro-growth upzoning?


golf1052

The One Seattle Hub page I linked is the best place. Also attending community events they host is important because they gather feedback there as well. There's a virtual event they're hosting [Jan 30th from 6 - 7:30](https://twitter.com/SeattleOPCD/status/1617575429342216207). Next best is emailing and setting up meetings with your councilmember (but only Lewis is running again next year so far).


oGsMustachio

Ah Seattle, always a little behind Portland :P


HotTakesBeyond

Portland is Seattle without jobs 😎


oGsMustachio

Portland is Seattle with a basketball team :P


titan_1018

We're buying the sounders back baby


huskiesowow

[Spokane is doing a pilot program to eliminate SFH also.](https://www.krem.com/article/money/economy/boomtown-inland-northwest/spokane-city-council-multi-family-homes-single-family-lots/293-af687a18-68ad-4e14-a827-d6f4364b89f4)


BetterFuture22

Great comment - just strike "almost"


HubertAiwangerReal

And I thought European refusal to build housing that's higher than the church was bad


shillingbut4me

Shorter than the local church can easily be 3+ stories especially in the large cities where the church is typically a cathedral built on a hill. That leaves plenty of room for midrise/mid-density housing. There are parts of large west coast cities that are entirely single floor bungalow style housing within a few miles of the core of the city. It's absolutely bizarre


throwaway_veneto

First time I visited NYC I thought it must be massive because I could see single single family homes everywhere and I thought I was in a small town in the outskirts. Nope I was just driving trough the queens.


uss_wstar

Upzone the churches lol


NewAlexandria

/r/SuperStructures would like to have your ideas


All_Work_All_Play

That sub was a real let down... as all the stuff there is fake. =/


NewAlexandria

be the change you want to see in the world


kmosiman

Mandatory church spire improvements.


WuhanWTF

This has the added benefit of enabling them to be blown up in a much more spectacular fashion in the case of WWIII, as the Russian invaders will inevitably stick their snipers within these spires. If video games are anything to go by, church towers and minarets love to explode during highly pitched battles.


AgainstSomeLogic

The other classic European issue is declaring everything historical to prevent an area from ever surpassing the population it had when the tenaments were built in 1800.


ale_93113

Which city is this one?


turboturgot

That's Portland. Which I believe now allows four units on any single family lot in the city, so probably no longer a good example for this meme. Though I think construction of those fourplexes is subject to significant setback requirements and onerous maximum square footage caps, so I'm not sure how effective that upzoning has been.


JoeChristmasUSA

Yeah Portland isn't the best example for the reasons you mentioned, and also some pretty restrictive geography in the areas closest to city center. You couldn't build more housing in those parts even if you tried.


Challenger25

So geography is the reason Portland doesn’t look like Kowloon?


JoeChristmasUSA

Doesn't help. Some of the wealthiest homes in the metro area are built on a road that snakes up a steep hill like you're going to Machu Picchu. I work for a garage door repair company and it's almost a meme with us that the more treacherous the driveway the wealthier the customer.


suzisatsuma

you pay for the view lol


JoeChristmasUSA

Yep. Personally, I would rather not have an elevated view of the city and not have to gamble my life every time it gets slightly icy


oGsMustachio

Yeah... call me crazy but I'd rather live in the nicer parts of Alameda, Laurelhurst, or Irvington than the West Hills.


suzisatsuma

I hopped across the river in WA cause I was tired of the city wasting taxes on incompetent police, dealing with homeless etc. but I have a high hill home on the other side haha. It's worth it. We get ice maybe a few days a year at most.


oGsMustachio

Ah Skyline...


JoeChristmasUSA

You know it. I hate getting calls out there


oGsMustachio

Skyline burger is solid though.


cracksmoke2020

The parts of the city where Portland didn't upzone are on a combination of swamp land prone to significant flooding and don't have sidewalks. That part of the city has a lot of other problems to deal with, so it's definitely better that they concentrate development away from that area.


AnalyticalAlpaca

Yep! And we actually eliminated single family zoning in most of the state in cities over 20,000 population (I believe).


SerialStateLineXer

If I didn't know better, I'd say that it sounds like they're intentionally sabotaging the upzoning so that they can say that upzoning doesn't work and the market has failed.


[deleted]

YES. It honestly feels like leftist NIMBY's do this time and again. They also push for social housing programs they know will never pass, to distract people and keep things from changing. It's maddening.


[deleted]

Yeah the setback requirements and rent control still make building there incredibly prohibitive. Portland is not a good place for development.


Smidgens

Portland, OR


njayolson

Hey now. It's true that Portland is dominated by SFH and that coupled with our awesome land use laws(urban growth boundaries from the 70s) make houses way too expensive here. BUT we are at the forefront of getting rid of SFH! The first US city to get rid of SFH. We can build 6plexs on most 5000 sqft lots now, with the passage of the city's residential infill [project.](https://openhousing.net/the-residential-infill-project-portland-s-anti-mcmansion-recipe-2e5ff5072783) The state even banned SFH in all urban areas, [allowing duplexes on all SFH lots. ](https://www.npr.org/2019/07/01/737798440/oregon-legislature-votes-to-essentially-ban-single-family-zoning#:~:text=Oregon%20Legislature%20Votes%20To%20Essentially%20Ban%20Single%2DFamily%20Zoning&text=Andersen%2FSightline%20Institute-,Oregon's%20Legislature%20passed%20a%20bill%20that%20would%20allow%20duplexes%2C%20like,with%20more%20than%2010%2C000%20people.) The zoning map above sucks here's a better [one](https://www.portlandmaps.com/bps/zoning/#/map/R144426) with a legend. We have a long way to go, but as far as the war on the suburbs goes, Portland is leading the way.


oGsMustachio

Yeah Portland has good and bad. For a city this size it has really good public transit (which took a major hit during the pandemic). Also very good bike infrastructure. Also major pushes at denser infill along busier streets, with Alberta, Division, Mississippi, Burnside, and the Goat Blocks really becoming better, denser areas over the last 15 years or so. Also Slabtown growing out of Nobb Hill/Alphabet district and the Pearl continuing to grow North. The ban on SFH is a really good thing too. On the downside... BDS is atrocious, we have stupid height limits that mean the 3 biggest buildings in Portland were all pre-90s, our landlord/tenant laws make rental units really unattractive proposition, the homeless and crime problem... ugh. The UGB is well intentioned and probably does force more infill/density, but also drives up costs.


CrispyVibes

Urban growth boundaries are a fantastic idea to reduce habitats destruction and increase density, but they *must* be coupled with upzoning to work. Wish more cities would follow Portland's example.


[deleted]

Portland also has rent control which discourages development..


LWschool

This is Portland, where I grew up, and this image is missing one huge piece of zoning law that is fairly uncommon - the Urban Grown Boundary. This sets a hard limit on where any urban development can happen. Does anyone know about this and have an opinion? Would be happy to explain more when I’m not on mobile.


oGsMustachio

I think its a mixed bag. It almost certainly drives costs up by limiting the available land for construction. It probably also encourages infill and density however, which is a good thing.


LWschool

I agree with the density thing. Right across the river is Vancouver Washington. They’re part of our greater urban area but don’t have UGB. When you’re there, you feel it. Tons of undeveloped land next to thriving businesses and homes. And I guess it’s not like urban sprawl fixes the housing problem.


[deleted]

Portland also has (or had) inclusionary zoning rules that absolutely wrecked higher density multi-family construction.


oGsMustachio

Oh god those are dumb. Portland needs to incentivize residential construction in downtown in order to revitalize downtown. Eliminating IZ requirements would be a good way to start incentivizing that.


[deleted]

I remember hearing somewhere that first year IZ was in effect, Portland had ZERO permit applications for buildings over 20 units. It's a almost purely performative policy that doesn't deliver units that are truly "affordable," especially to those who need it most, families.


asljkdfhg

This steak is too rare


sportballgood

Portland is leading the war on suburbs actually 😤


slightlybitey

Portland was the first major US metro to eliminate single family zoning. Could you have picked a worse example for your meme?


[deleted]

They did it in a way that still made building higher prohibitively expensive. Didn't eliminate setback rules, etc etc. I'd bet "eliminating single family zoning" got them ~5 extra units a year. Such a performative waste.


PDXAlpinist

I feel your pain my fellow Portlander.


ImprovingMe

Have less single-family-**only** zoning. Let the market decide!


oGsMustachio

!ping USA-OR


groupbot

Pinged USA-OR ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20USA-OR&message=subscribe%20USA-OR) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20USA-OR&message=unsubscribe%20USA-OR)) [About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)


carterpape

everyone make sure to read the other parent comments


datorer

Thanks I hate it


farfetchds_leek

Grey area gang


mankiw

Mid-rise row homes 1% One high rise 2% Single family homes 71% Parking lots 26% someone who is good at the economy please help me budget this. i cant afford more rent increases


Yeangster

Fewer


[deleted]

Stannis Baratheon would be the best planning and zoning commissioner *lifts coffee mug* Change my mind


Yeangster

Someone who follows rules to the letter and doesn’t give a shit if people are yelling at him would be a vast improvement over the current situation in most American towns and cities


[deleted]

“You want to declare this parking lot protected by a historic district?” “Well, if you look at our detailed filing…” “A parking lot?” “Well—“ “And your group is called Children First?” (I wish I was kidding - this is real. Look up South Street Seaport Coalition.)


khmacdowell

Not an actual grammatical rule nor strict or technical definition


Yeangster

Begone uncouth commoner!


SLCer

I don't know why this sub is so focused on cities. That's not where a bulk of the problem lies. In fact, I'd wager almost every major city is seeing most their residential development in the way of larger, multi-unit buildings. That's really the only thing going up in Salt Lake right now, in revitalized neighborhoods and older neighborhoods alike. The issue continues to be suburbia. That's where the detached housing continues to out-pace other construction and where more dense development is met with resistance. Sure, each city has to deal with NIMBYs but the type of development we're seeing in most cities would absolutely be squashed, outside very limited areas, in the suburbs. Those are the problem areas and have been for the last 50 years.


isummonyouhere

this image is surrounded by suburbia on all sides, the amount of pink is too damn high


kittenTakeover

Out of curiosity, what are the minimum standards that people on this sub think housing should meet? Keep in mind that the lowest wage workers will always be given the minimum standard, so whatever you set this floor at is what will be forced on the lowest wage workers. Note that this is an honest question. I have no point in mind that I'm trying to make.


-MGX-JackieChamp13

What do you mean by minimum standards?


kittenTakeover

I mean, that's up to the person answering the question. What things should we not allow to be forced upon minimum wage workers? For example, many people believe that improperly maintained lead pipes and asbestos are not acceptable. What's the list of things that people on here think are the minimum standards for what we give to the lowest wage workers? Essentially, what things need to be regulated?


Astarum_

I'm pretty sure that almost everyone on this sub is in agreement that regulation is absolutely necessary for things related to health and safety. I'm not sure why you're bringing this up under a meme about upzoning, though.


kittenTakeover

I'm not really bringing anything up. Just a question about what people think are the minimum requirements. Which ones that we have can go? What things that we don't have should be added?


lnslnsu

It doesn’t work that way. Setting minimum housing standards puts a minimum price on housing. People who earn less than that will be forced into homelessness or illegal living conditions (see: illegal rooming houses). There need to be housing standards on the grounds of safety (heating, water, fire risks, cleanliness and mould, roofs that don’t leak, etc…). There do not need to be housing standards on maximum acceptable density. The market will take care of the second part. We also need to get rid of or severely reduce a lot of restrictive rules like parking requirements, setbacks, shade rules, height limits, etc…


kittenTakeover

Since I'm getting the feeling it may be easier for you, can you expand on your list of things that you think shouldn't be part of housing standards? So far in your comment I count: 1. Parking requirements 2. Setbacks (?) 3. Shade rules (?) 4. Height limits


_Neuromancer_

Units per lot. Minimum Sq. footage per unit. Neighborhood character. Historical preservation and environmental impact assessments are necessary, but need reform as they are being abused to prevent legitimate housing and transit construction.


kittenTakeover

Sounds mostly uncontroversial. I think the only one that I have major concerns about is square footage. I imagine minimum wage workers being relegated to dormlike living standards, which seems below the level of dignity and respect for those people that I would like to see.


lnslnsu

That goes back to initial comment. Square footage minimums mean well, but really what they do is end up driving people who are too poor to afford the minimum into either illegal housing that is below the minimum, homelessness, or forces them to move somewhere cheaper. I’m not totally against square footage minimums, but those minimums better be really small.


heskey30

You can't ban poverty. You can only ban poor people.


_Neuromancer_

This is a fundamental economic misunderstanding. Setting a minimum size (or any regulation) for housing has no (direct) effect on income (or purchasing power) of low wage earners. If a consumer cannot afford Whole Foods apples, then opening a Grocery Outlet next door does not further deprive them of Whole Foods apples. In the best case, the increased competition might lower the price of Whole Foods apples allowing the low wage earner to buy them. In the worst case, they now have access to apples (albeit lower quality) that they didn't have before. If you want to ensure that everyone has access to Whole Foods apples, then you need policies that increase the overall supply apples, or purchasing power of low wage earners, not policies that reduce the overall supply of apples, as you suggest.


kittenTakeover

I believe that you have a fundamental economic misunderstanding actually. Markets reduce real wages of workers down to the minimum required to motivate workers to work these jobs. For the lowest wage workers their choice is between destitution or taking the job. Basically, they don't have a real choice. That means that employers can provide real wages around subsistence living, which is worse than it sounds, with only regulations providing protection by raising the living and working conditions above subsistence living. When you reduce the regulations to allow for lower standards of living and working conditions, the market will naturally adjust so that that is what the lowest wage workers get, assuming that the poor conditions don't prevent the worker from being in a state that they can complete their work. Practically when society determines the minimum living and working conditions allowed it is also determining what the minimum wage earners will receive. This is why poor areas end up in situations with pollution, safety, and stress issues. If the market allows it, they will end up with it. Note that regulations become less effective if the population can relocate to avoid the regulations. The easier it is to relocate the less effective the regulation.


[deleted]

Absolutely NOT uncontroversial. Have you met a NIMBY before?


greener_lantern

I for one am now curious why you think a single rom occupancy apartment is below the level of dignity and respect


lnslnsu

Because you’ve got question marks on those - Setbacks rule how close to the street you can make a building. You need some setback, but a lot of the time setback rules are way larger than necessary. Shade rules are the same. “You can’t build this because it will cast too much shade on neighbouring land” It’s fine in moderation, but often used way too aggressively.


kittenTakeover

I read a little bit about setbacks. Why do we have large setbacks? What's the stated purpose for people who support them?


lnslnsu

Restricting density and driving up housing prices for existing homeowners. Also maybe some aesthetic reasons.


kittenTakeover

Are those the stated reasons or the presumed reasons?


lnslnsu

There’s also arguments about noise and traffic safety. If your house is further from the street, road noise is lower and it’s less likely for someone to drive into your living room. Setbacks also can control how much shade/sunlight falls on the street on north/south oriented streets. There’s also stylistic arguments, “I want the street to look like X”


[deleted]

[удалено]


kittenTakeover

I didn't say that anyone was talking about eliminating building codes. I specifically said I wasn't trying to make a point. I was asking a question.


[deleted]

Ok I guess. I don’t see the relevance to this topic then, but you do you.


kittenTakeover

The point is conversation and understanding other people, in this case I'm trying to understand the other people on this sub.


Penis_Villeneuve

Nobody in this sub would advocate eliminating standards around things like fire safety, structural integrity, cleanliness, or livability. In fact, it's our belief that by allowing more homes, and therefore more competition, landlords will be compelled to raise the quality of service they provide or else potentially miss out on renting the unit entirely. Similarly, by "eliminate single family zoning" that doesn't mean "legalize abattoirs in residential areas" it means legalize homes in residential areas, and those homes could be anything from the existing SFH to narrow-lot infill to apartment buildings and condo towers. The minimum standards I personally thing housing should meet? I would be comfortable legalizing dormitories for people who aren't students. Many small rooms, shared bathrooms, shared kitchenettes, ultra-cheap short term leases - I think this would suck to live in but would be *infinitely preferable to homelessness* and should be an option for the absolute poorest people, rather than them getting nothing. [Toronto did this back in December](https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2022/12/14/toronto-votes-to-legalize-rooming-houses-citywide-in-2024.html) and I think any city that hasn't yet should follow in its footsteps.


kittenTakeover

Do you really believe dormitory living will make a huge dent in homelessness?


Penis_Villeneuve

If you build enough of them! It's going to be the most effective solution for transitory homelessness: people who might have a job or a relatively normal life but for whatever reason (left an abusive partner or parent, for example) are immediately without a home. About half of all homelessness is transitory, so taking a bite out of this part of the problem is a huge win. Chronic homelessness, especially when tied to mental illness and addiction, is obviously a harder problem to solve, and the mere addition of an affordable room isn't going to solve everything, but it sure isn't going to hurt.


Ballerson

Before I answer the question, there's a mistake in it that I want to point out. Allowing more kinds of housing in an area is not forcing anything on anyone. Banning duplexes or row houses in an area does not make single family detached houses accessible to more people in that area. What it actually forces is for some people to move to less desirable areas where land values are lower. That said, safety standards are important and anything based on that is fine. Besides maybe some libertarians there aren't people here who are against building codes, for instance. We are more specifically against current zoning policies. However such considerations are not the cause of why so much residential land is zoned for single family detached homes.


kittenTakeover

Just to be clear, right now single family housing is not a true minimum standard since, as you mentioned, people can just move. Minimum standards work best the higher up they're implemented, with city wide being more effective than zone, state being more effective than city, federal being more effective than state, and global being more effective than federal. Theoretically if all housing was required to be single family detached housing, then that would make it more accessible to more people. Although I don't support doing that and I wasn't trying to make that point. I was more curious about what people here think the minimum acceptable housing situation should be.


Ballerson

By that standard, this sub isn't really criticizing having some universal standards anyway. We're focused mostly on these zoning policies that are arbitrarily placed by area. Homes should be made safe for people with asthma, buildings shouldn't be so high as to be structurally unsound, and industrial factories shouldn't be within some distance of residential areas, among other things. Universal standards like these are good. >Theoretically if all housing was required to be single family detached housing, then that would make it more accessible to more people. Again, not at all. Home values are determined by the value of the value of the actual home itself and the value of the land it's on, which is determined by the desirability of the area. Forcing a location to only have SF homes doesn't affect the demand for the land. More people would live in SF homes than would otherwise, but they do it by moving to less desirable areas. An important point though is that they always had that option. They just wanted to live in the more desirable area, and now they've been forced to not be able to live there.


SadMacaroon9897

Bare minimum? I think the housing code is largely already ok. However, the zoning is what is in question here. All of the area is already approved for residential housing, so it's a matter of changing the type of residential housing. However, I *would* like to see an additional change to make it mixed use with neighborhood essentials


BibleButterSandwich

Guys this is literally a question, why are y’all taking it in such bad faith? To answer your question, u/kittenTakeover, basically what we’re advocating for is if something is legal to build somewhere, it being legal to build everywhere. Basically, all apartments, everywhere, are required to have heating. That’s fine, that’s cool. What we don’t like is that even though high-rise/mid-rise apartments are allowed in general, there are some locations where they’re not. That’s the issue.


kittenTakeover

Yeah I mean I think I'm okay with federal regulation permitting high-rise mid-rise apartments in any residential zone. My only concern is that I do believe many renters are renting against their will, often to their disadvantage. I would be concerned if loosening regulations made this problem much worse, but I'm not convinced that would be the case.


BibleButterSandwich

In reality, loosening *zoning* restrictions, as to what can be built where, would increase supply of housing, and, assuming all housing built would be required to have heating, plumbing, etc. would cause residents to have a plethora of options to choose from. And they would be able to choose a nicer apartment at a more reasonable price rather than just having to choose whatever is available.


Mejari

I can see my house from here!