Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The 2-Year Apartment Rule

tadaima.bearblog.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 194 posts

Re: The 2-Year Apartment Rule

#171

Post by throwaway-blaze »

I'm going to get flamed for this, but I think this is one less-focused-on benefit of buying a single family home. You're responsible for the maintenance but if you want to or have to do a retrofit or big appliance replacement (hvac, kitchen appliances) you get to keep them for as long as you want.

Yeah, it sucks that I had to replace my furnace months after buying my home, but I got to pick the replacement. Yes, I chose to replace single-pane glass windows from the early 1900s in my home with newer double-pane and pay for it. But it was my choice and totally under my control to make the house the way I wanted it.

Commence flames about how not everyone can afford to do this, but my point is that SFH living can be superior since it's all in your control.

Re: The 2-Year Apartment Rule

#172

Post by bluebxrry »

tasuki wrote: post #9

> Things start off fine, but then mold starts growing in the bathroom, and a recurring leak springs up in the living room, and then roaches start appearing in the kitchen. When I started reading the article, I thought the whole point was gonna be that the author doesn't take care of the apartment. The recurring leak might not be the author's fault, but the mold in the bathroom and roaches in the kitchen definitely ar…

> The recurring leak might not be the author's fault, but the... roaches in the kitchen definitely are

"Definitely"? A unit can look clean after treatment while still being mid-cycle. Rent it during that window and the roaches come back through no fault of the tenant.

It wouldn't even be that crazy to postulate the life-cycle of a roach could track the 2-Year Apartment Rule (minus any residual effects of the extermination).

I don’t know how you get a moral judgement out of this article. That's misdirected blame. It pressures tenants into staying quiet or spraying their own units for a building-level problem.

edit:

From this article on the American Cockroach https://www.canr.msu.edu/resources/american-cockroach

> Development to adult averages about 15 months, varying between 9-1/2 to 20 months.

> Buildings with multiple dwellings usually require the treatment of each unit.

This pretty much contradicts blaming the tenant and the roach development aligns with the 2-Year Apartment Rule. It says apartments usually require each unit to be treated. That means no single tenant can do that. That makes it a building-level infestation by definition.

Re: The 2-Year Apartment Rule

#173

Post by EliRivers »

IshKebab wrote: post #152
GJim wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most mould is caused by buildings. An honourable mention to fitting Cavity Wall Insulation , heavily sold and encouraged by UK government energy saving schemes thorough the 1990's and 2000's. Except by stuffing the wall cavity, you provide a nice moisture bridge to outside whilst simultaneously stopping air circulating in the cavity and whipping away moisture; thus an explosion of mould. The policy was a disaster,…

Who has cavity wall insulation removed? The effect on your heating bill is going to be much worse than a small amount of mould, and I'm unconvinced that it makes it worse anyway - one of the main causes of mould in my experience is poor insulation! It makes the walls cold, which means you get condensation on them, and if you have poor ventilation in the rooms then you get mould. If you have this problem, then the onl…

Who has cavity wall insulation removed? The effect on your heating bill is going to be much worse than a small amount of mould

Some of these houses have been transformed into being unfit for human habitation due to the damp and mould. In some cases, the botched insulation has resulted in an increase in heating costs (along with the damp and mold). Some have suffered structural damage due to the botched insulation, costing tens of thousands to repair.

Re: The 2-Year Apartment Rule

#174

Post by bob1029 »

gib444 wrote: post #163
bob1029 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Am I just spending 150 watts to constantly dehumidify fresh air? Yes. And it's probably closer to 800-1000 watts if you have a reasonably large living space. Someone living in the UK is likely to find this extremely offensive, but it's quite common in Texas and Florida.

I had a feeling. The dehumidifier manufacturers (and their paid partner bloggers etc) insisting it takes weeks and weeks to start taking effect always struck me as odd - probably because even at full whack you're probably drying out the furniture etc at a very very very slow rate, because you're mostly in a losing battle drying out the fresh air. I wouldn't be surprised if energy companies were behind their popularit…

If it didn't work I wouldn't be paying to run it.

Re: The 2-Year Apartment Rule

#175

Post by sijourneyweezer »

throwaway-blaze wrote: post #171

I'm going to get flamed for this, but I think this is one less-focused-on benefit of buying a single family home. You're responsible for the maintenance but if you want to or have to do a retrofit or big appliance replacement (hvac, kitchen appliances) you get to keep them for as long as you want. Yeah, it sucks that I had to replace my furnace months after buying my home, but I got to pick the replacement. Yes, I ch…

1 hour later and no flames

Re: The 2-Year Apartment Rule

#176

Post by tasuki »

bluebxrry wrote: post #172
tasuki wrote: post #9

> Things start off fine, but then mold starts growing in the bathroom, and a recurring leak springs up in the living room, and then roaches start appearing in the kitchen. When I started reading the article, I thought the whole point was gonna be that the author doesn't take care of the apartment. The recurring leak might not be the author's fault, but the mold in the bathroom and roaches in the kitchen definitely ar…

> The recurring leak might not be the author's fault, but the... roaches in the kitchen definitely are "Definitely"? A unit can look clean after treatment while still being mid-cycle. Rent it during that window and the roaches come back through no fault of the tenant. It wouldn't even be that crazy to postulate the life-cycle of a roach could track the 2-Year Apartment Rule (minus any residual effects of the extermin…

> "Definitely"? A unit can look clean after treatment while still being mid-cycle. Rent it during that window and the roaches come back through no fault of the tenant.

"A unit" can, sure. But, "every apartment I've ever lived in"... come on! From TFA:

> I've noticed this myself with every apartment I've ever lived in. Things start off fine, but then mold starts growing in the bathroom, and a recurring leak springs up in the living room, and then roaches start appearing in the kitchen.

If this doesn't set off all the alarm bells, I don't know what does.

Re: The 2-Year Apartment Rule

#177

Post by a_t48 »

ElProlactin wrote: post #62
a_t48 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in Oakland, it's the landlord's responsibility to manage pest control. It needs to be done at a building level, or else the roaches will just get shuffled around.

Yeah a good landlord will do pest control but cockroaches are...cockroaches. If you do pest control but have tenants who are leaving food waste out, not disposing of trash properly, etc. it will be a game of whack-a-mole. As far as communities are concerned, the best places to live are the places where landlords/management and residents/tenants both do their parts to keep things clean and habitable. Teamwork makes th…

Definitely, it needs both sides.

Re: The 2-Year Apartment Rule

#178

Post by JuniperMesos »

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #140
haritha-j wrote: post #21

> The hell? Call me a wuss, but I don't want to worry about who I'm riding the elevator with, not when I'm paying as much rent as I am. Frankly, I wouldn't want to ride the elevator with the author either.

What I found amusingly about that paragraph is that the author laments encountering "the crackhead" while paying exorbitant rent. That implies the crackhead can also afford said rent. In which case, they have just as much right to be in the elevator as the author. Fuck off!

Many buildings in expensive urban areas have legal requirements to set aside a certain number of units as affordable housing. If that's how the building the OP lives in is regulated, then it's quite possible that the crackhead can't actually afford the rent, except by virtue of winning a government-run lottery to gain access to a government-mandated rent subsidy.

Re: The 2-Year Apartment Rule

#179

Post by IshKebab »

EliRivers wrote: post #173
IshKebab wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who has cavity wall insulation removed? The effect on your heating bill is going to be much worse than a small amount of mould, and I'm unconvinced that it makes it worse anyway - one of the main causes of mould in my experience is poor insulation! It makes the walls cold, which means you get condensation on them, and if you have poor ventilation in the rooms then you get mould. If you have this problem, then the onl…

Who has cavity wall insulation removed? The effect on your heating bill is going to be much worse than a small amount of mould Some of these houses have been transformed into being unfit for human habitation due to the damp and mould. In some cases, the botched insulation has resulted in an increase in heating costs (along with the damp and mold). Some have suffered structural damage due to the botched insulation, co…

How did they botch it? Definitely a [citation needed] here...

Re: The 2-Year Apartment Rule

#180

Post by quickthrowman »

esperent wrote: post #153
quickthrowman wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Split AC systems remove moisture from the air when they’re running too, that’s why there’s a condensate drain on the evaporator (and the condenser, but that is outside).

They remove a small amount of moisture, yes. It's nothing compared to what a dehumidifier removes though, even if they're in dry mode.

A condensate dehumidifier is just an air conditioner where the condenser is inside the same space as the evaporator. It uses vapor compression refrigeration.

Granted, the condenser and evaporator both condensing moisture inside of the space does remove more moisture so you’re correct about it being more effective, but an A/C unit does a pretty good job where I live, and cooler air holds less moisture.

I never deal with cold and damp conditions, a dehumidifier probably works well in the UK. I’ve lived in forced air and radiant heated buildings and they both dry out the air like crazy in the winter so dehumidification isn’t needed, humidification is.

Post reply on HN