[gamepsys]

Just curious, are there any regulations on housing you agree with? There tends to be belief that housing regulations exist to limit supply. Let's not forget that many of these encourage safety and are cost effective ways to increase the quality of life of the residents. If we take deregulation and cheap housing to the extreme we end up with shanty towns.

[mperham]

None of the things he mentioned have anything to do with safety.

[gamepsys]

Environmental review, community review, and MFH standards all have something to do with safety. It's not like root comment is arguing against fire hydrants or carbon monoxide detectors. I'm just arguing not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[mperham]

We have zoning and internationally recognized building safety codes already.

Our current housing emergency happening everywhere is a pretty good indicator that we should be much more aggressive about trimming back the regulatory state which has ossified our cities.

[eru]

Zoning is already pretty bad (at least in the US), and doesn't really have anything to do with safety.

In the sense that even without zoning laws, there were already public nuisance laws that wouldn't have allowed you to open a coal fired power plant next to a Kindergarten.

[gamepsys]

Zoning laws have a lot to do with safety & public health. Industrial zoning is far away from residential because factories produce pollution.

Edit: Some parts of zoning law has to do with safety/health. Some parts don't. Some parts are about more than one thing.

When I was growing up there was a chemical fire in a factory in town. People were evacuated. Luckily, very few homes were evacuated because zoning laws kept homes far away from the factory. The residential area that was evacuated was low density.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is some value in some of these rules.

[epistasis]

Pollution laws protect against industrial operations polluting other areas, not zoning.

The real "pollution" they zoning was invented to solve was the "pollution" of residents of apartments living close to wealthier people. Seriously! Check out how the original Supreme Court decision phrased its motivation:

> “very often the apartment house is a mere parasite, constructed to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district …. interfering by their height and bulk with the free circulation of air and monopolizing the rays of the sun which otherwise would fall upon the smaller homes.”

Here's a more extensive analysis from an org purporting to represent real estate, the source of much historical support for this sort of exclusionary zoning:

https://cre.org/real-estate-issues/americas-sordid-history-o...

[tcmart14]

Usually when people discuss zoning it excludes things like industrial zoning and focuses on single family zoning vs multi-family zoning. In this case, yes, zoning needs to be deregulated. Zoning for housing should be zoning for housing and whether it is single or multi family shouldn't matter. But we should keep the industrial zoning from being put next to an Elementary school.

[eru]

Yes, there's some value in some of these rules.

However by and large, the value that would be provided by zoning is already provided (and used to be provided) by other rules not falling under the bucket of 'zoning'. Especially not 'Euclidean zoning'.

[lukas099]

Okay, what is the safety reason my barber can’t operate out of a room in his house?

[seanmcdirmid]

> Our current housing emergency happening everywhere is a pretty good indicator that we should be much more aggressive about trimming back the regulatory state which has ossified our cities.

That isn't true though. Our housing emergency is limited to places that are growing and thriving. There isn't a housing emergency in Detroit or much of the midwest for example, just not many are thrilled about moving to those places (or want to leave them as soon as possible).

[astrange]

Those places that don't have housing emergencies generally have just as bad regulations, and would have the same problems the instant they became appealing enough to move there. Eventually you run out of built out sprawl.

[seanmcdirmid]

> hose places that don't have housing emergencies generally have just as bad regulations, and would have the same problems the instant they became appealing enough to move there.

If American population was equalized across these other cities, there would be less pressure on the few hot places everyone wants to move now, since our population isn't growing so much these days.

> Eventually you run out of built out sprawl.

Manhattan is not a sprawl and a very desirable place to live, with super high rents to boot. Hong Kong, Seoul, Shanghai, and even Tokyo are the same, so I'm not sure what you are trying to claim here. Out of all those, only Tokyo does well, but that wasn't the case in the 80s and is on the basis of a moribund economy and a not growing national population (one wonders when Seoul and SH will follow). IF you want to solve your housing emergency, limit growth in some way (or at least, make sure residents don't have as much money to bid up housing).

[scythe]

>internationally recognized building safety codes

I mean, the "International Building Code" is a little bit like the "World Series"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Building_Code

>"Calling it 'international' keeps it from being called the 'U.S. Building Code.'" explains Bill Tangye, SBCCI Chief Executive Officer.

[greenthrow]

Your argument doesn't really make sense because the problem isn't lack of houses or apartments, there's plenty of places to put everyone. The problem is one of affordability. The costs of stuff that already exists and has existed for ages isn't really tied to the current cost to build, even if we buy the specious argument that all regulation raises costs and those costs are inevitably passed directly to tenants.

[bluGill]

supply and eemand sets rents. You you rent perfecly good existing houses cheap in rural areas. Nobody wants to like there.

There is no reason to think there is enourh room for everyone who wants to like in San Francisco, and statistics prove they heve not been building much. Mean while in other states we find areas of demand where housing is not expensive. Where I live you can rent one bedroom apartments for under $1000, mohe in won't be until spring as the building is still under construction. The owners are planning on starting the next building when this is done. That is what allosing building does.

[throwaway2037]

> Nobody wants to li[v]e there.

It would be better to say that rents are lower in rural areas because there is either more supply or lower median salary.

[wiml]

Supply, demand, and cartels like Realpage.

[greenthrow]

This is just factually not true. There is plenty of empty homes, apartments and condos to house everyone. There are many units kept empty rather than lower prices. It is a myth that supply and demand sets prices.

[loeg]

Setbacks, parking minimums and floor area ratios have nothing to do with safety. Community reviews have absolutely nothing to do with safety.

[sokoloff]

Side setbacks absolutely have an effect on fire safety (a greater distance gives less propensity to ignite the neighboring building and provides access with which to fight the original structure fire).

Front setbacks and lot area coverage ratios have a more minor version of this same effect from fires across the street. It takes a pretty good sized fire to ignite the building across a street, but as density increases and more of a lot's area is able to covered with structures, the chances to get a pretty good sized fire going do increase.

[ajmurmann]

> Side setbacks absolutely have an effect on fire safety

Sure, but is the benefit worth the cost? Manhattan and denser European cities without those haven't burned down since we fireproofed building materials

[Schiendelman]

And yet other areas let buildings be physically against each other if they're built not to spread fire. Just let everyone do that.

[seanmcdirmid]

Ya. My setback is 3 feet, definitely just a margin for fire safety. I wanted to put an awning in but couldn't because it would be too close to the fence of my property boundary (I live in a town home that abuses the 3 foot setback to maximize living space).

[fires10]

I have minimum lot size of 5 acres. Can't see the wisdom in that one. I also have a minimum square footage size. $20,000 impact fee just to build a house and I receive no utilities or city/ county services.

[gamepsys]

> Community review

Any feedback brought up in a community review is on official record. I have witnessed safety concerns being brought up in community review multiple times that caused changes to the building plan. In one situation it was a very serious concern about blocking fire truck access to an elementary school.

[bluGill]

why didn't the code catch that?

[gamepsys]

The code doesn't catch anything. People catch violations of the code. Community review is a place people can point out code violations. It's actually extremely embarrassing when this happens to a developer.

Buildings get built with infractions all the time. With the MFH buildings it's actually a point of law to see who gets stuck with the liability -- the person that built it or the person that bought it.

[jjulius]

Careful with those absolutes.

[u32480932048]

In practice, the <environmental stuff> has mostly been used by non-environmentalists to delay development they simply don't like. (This one has to do specifically with CA, but it's not the first time I've seen this complaint.)

"Projects designed to advance California’s environmental policy objectives are the most frequent targets of CEQA lawsuits: transit is the most frequently challenged type of infrastructure project (edging out challenges to both highways and local roadways); renewable energy is the most frequently challenged type of industrial/utility project; and housing (especially higher-density housing) is the most frequently challenged type of private-sector project."

"Our study found repeated examples of intentional efforts to cloak the identity of CEQA litigants behind environmental-sounding names of fake and even unlawful “associations.”"

https://www.planningreport.com/2015/12/21/new-ceqa-study-rev...

[nullc]

I'm clueless on the subject and don't intend to argue the point, but it struck me that the metric that article consistently uses is one that almost guarantees the results: It's not surprising to learn that the categories that have the greatest amount of activity by far are the ones with the most CEQA challenges.

The point would be much stronger if it was made in terms the rate of challenges for varrious project types rather then in terms of frequency of CEQA challenges being that kind of project.

The assumption I'd draw from that, being ignorant of the subject, is that the argument is unsupportable on that more reasonable basis.

[xvedejas]

From what I've seen of environmental review laws, they mostly just have to do with noise and construction nuisance. Whereas community review is mostly about aesthetics. I don't think these are the tools designed for safety.

[worik]

> None of the things he mentioned have anything to do with safety.

I quibble. Mentioned double stair

I thought of Grenfell Tower block

That was catastrophic partly because the one stairwell filled with smoke

[adaml_623]

Double stair Vs single stair is totally a safety issue

[alistairSH]

One that much of Europe has mitigated somehow.

[quickthrower2]

It is all about the scenario where you die in a single stair where the second stair would have saved you being probably non existent in c21. Especially as you will have fire doors.

I reckon single is safer: no decision to make as you exit.

[seanmcdirmid]

By building their buildings out of brick rather than wood. Though its probably overkill here in the states and canada.

[ksplicer]

Even our wood has so much fire safety chemicals baked in now that it's not nearly as flammable as it used to be. The safety standards should be reevaluated. Plus, I'm sure that there are some developers who would happily build the whole MFH out of concrete if it lets them only use a single stair.

[seanmcdirmid]

Concrete construction is expensive in the states, although I'm not sure why. 4+1s are common here in Seattle: first story is concrete and commercial, 4 stories on top of that are wooden (we also have the more liberal stair requirements, so I'm not sure what is really going on).

Concrete construction is the common way to build in China (and anywhere in Asia sans Japan), but the techniques they use require a bit of overbuilding and limit their towers to around 34 or so stories. Still, they have two stair cases side by side in those buildings (but I guess given the height, they need them by Chinese fire code standards).

[eru]

You already have shanty towns with all the regulation.

Making housing cheaper also means making higher quality housing cheaper.

[seanmcdirmid]

We don't really have shanty towns in the states. We definitely don't have a Kowloon Walled City, which is an example of what can happen when no regulations are involved (and somewhat remarkably not burn down and kind of thrive even if still a slum).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City

[kspacewalk2]

If only we can have something between a McMansion filled North American suburb and Kowloon Walled City.

[seanmcdirmid]

Hong Kong is super dense and super expensive, Shanghai is similar, but at Mainland Chinese prices. I'm all for density, but anyone who thinks that density alone solves affordability issues simply hasn't travel enough.

[eru]

Density is a way to deal with expensive housing. Not a cause of it.

[seanmcdirmid]

Density is a way to make cities more livable and attractive, and to scale up public transit investments.

After you've done all this, you'll find that your city is more expensive than the surrounding cities without, not less.

[eru]

> We don't really have shanty towns in the states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tent_cities_in_the_Uni...

[seanmcdirmid]

Tent cities != shanty towns. Shanty towns are like semi-permanent buildings, tents are just...tents you buy at REI and then set up at the park with your stuff. We had one nearby my house at the Seattle Ballard commons that lasted during COVID (and is gone now). I wouldn't have called it a shanty town like I saw in the Philippines.

[sroussey]

Go to skid row in LA. Going on 50 years or more.

[camgunz]

Eh, Skid Row is pretty famous, but if you're willing to broaden the definition a little the US has lots of slums [0].

[0]: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/more-am...

[ajmurmann]

Maybe it's OK if some housing is less perfect and closer to ashanty town. I'd rather live in a shanty town than a cardboard box under the freeway. If nobody wants to live in the "shanty town" nobody will move in and no investor will want to build another one. I sometimes think that the provocative way of putting all this is that we need more slum lords. They filled a need.

[brtkdotse]

> Making housing cheaper also means making higher quality housing cheaper.

Or, much more likely, builder profits higher.

[eru]

Nothing wrong with that.

Competition will sort that out.

[anon291]

> If we take deregulation and cheap housing to the extreme we end up with shanty towns.

That's possible, but, considering that all the most expensive places in this country were developed in the very way this article is advocating, I'm going to label it as improbable.

Many amongst my friends and family think I'm a bit crazy living in the inner city, but the truth is my equity has skyrocketed, and will continue to do so. Urban dwellings are in high demand. Given that many of these same urban dwellings are illegal to construct now / prohibitively expensive, we've handicapped the ability of the market to meet demand.

[gamepsys]

I use to look at buying a 60+ year old condo/coop on the west coast, until I looked at the earthquake statistics and safety standards of brick multistory buildings. Now I know why the newer steel buildings cost 2-6x the old brick buildings in the same neighborhood.

[Aeolun]

I’m doubtful they actually cost more to construct?

[mcculley]

> There tends to be belief that housing regulations exist to limit supply.

It is often more the case that limited supply is an unintended outcome. People just don’t think ahead.

[peteey]

>limited supply is an unintended outcome.

I have been to many city council meetings. Stymieing population growth is an explicit goal. The speakers tend to perceive harms from more people as opposed to pure misanthropes.

e.g. "More people creates more traffic so we should prevent housing to prevent people"

Although, I cannot see their true intents. It is possible the speakers do dislike people, which is not politically popular. Expressing their desire requires making up other tangential causes. Hidden agendas creates engineering confusion. If the goal was truly to manage traffic, an engineer would suggest better bus routes.

[mcculley]

The people who attend council meetings are not at all representative of the general myopia that results in so much regulation.

Yes, I have also attended such meetings and interact with NIMBYs. They are part of the problem. General myopia is the bigger problem.

[hackerlight]

Physical safety (structural integrity and fire safety), noise transmission and ventilation. I think regulations around these 3 aspects can help more than they hurt. Beyond these items, I would be skeptical.

[xnx]

> There tends to be belief that housing regulations exist to limit supply.

Also to enrich union tradespeople. See prohibitions against PEX plumbing and requirements for electrical conduit instead of Romex.