Comment by rootsudo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rootsudo | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

As someone that lives in Cap Hill:

Yes. Houses aren't works of art. They are meant to house people.

The city isn't the same a decade ago, or a century ago or when Capital Hill was called Renton Hill.

It is depressing that only new construction/condo to purchase in Capital hill costs 450k+ (e.g. 750 on the hill as an example.) because SFH are 750k+. IF they go for sale, and then there's a race of people who actively overpay for a property.

Also, I can walk to downtown in <30 mins, taking a bus is a pain, and the Link station is kinda convenient but not so convient (e.g. nothing near Volunteer Park because everything there is $1,000,000+)

Just because it's old doesn't mean it's good and whomever owns the property should feel fit to change it from SFH to MFH and the city should encourage MFH developments otherwise you have small houses on oversized lots and a poor use of space.

Give people that want to sell and people that want to buy the ability to rezone and allow construction - and density will solve itself.

Otherwise you're going to have people in decades old apartment buildings fight to fill it in, while the owner has no real incentive to upkeep property because they believe it's valuable and know it's a rotating door.

Density is solving itself. If you live on the hill then you must have noticed the incredible explosion of massive apartment buildings and condos going up across the city. Note how it's concentrated in centers of commerce, and that's totally great. It reduces your (burdensome? I guess?) 30 minute walk, makes housing cheaper, and doesn't impede on those with the means to afford a century old work of art; they absolutely can be and to deny so is delusional, go walk east of Volunteer Park and see for yourself.

A diverse spectrum of zoning is important, but we also have a diverse free market that doesn't all want high-rise condos and apartments absolutely everywhere. Some people want a beautiful neighborhood, lots of space, privacy, proximity to the city, and have the means to get that, so that's what they will pursue. You should be okay with that because it's part of the same system that allows high-rise condos along the city's arteries.

My only point of contention against the apartments/condos themselves is the incredibly cheap materials and trendy designs that will look terrible in a decade's time. Look back on other periods of housing like the 70's Brady Bunch-style ranch houses to see how other trendy houses have aged.

> Capital Hill

With an "o", not an "a".

> A diverse spectrum of zoning is important, but we also have a diverse free market that doesn't all want high-rise condos and apartments absolutely everywhere.

If you're using zoning to accomplish that, you don't have a free market.

Having limited SFH zones does not prohibit a person from pursuing any number of housing option that works best for them.

Actually, yes, it does. That's exactly what it does.

Zoning explicitly allows you to have undervalued property. A sfh in the center of an economically bustling city is substantially more valuable than you suggest. You should expect to pay the price of housing multiple people, because that's the potential value of the property.

Density isn't solving itself! People worked for years to get those commercial centers upzoned. And there's still plenty of million dollar houses sitting two blocks from Broadway and John, which are definitely impeding on those who want to live near that light rail station and walk.

And those century old houses would be a lot safer if they could be turned into multiple units, which can be done without demolition. The smaller old houses get knocked down to build a huge new house, which is made of the same materials and designs as those condos and apartments.

Houses absolutely can be a work of art - and some should be preserved.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com