Live data from Hacker News

Why Can't Walnut Creek Build 3 Bedroom Apartments with a Playground?

kevin.burke.dev

11–20 of 93 posts

Re: Why Can't Walnut Creek Build 3 Bedroom Apartments with a Playground?

#11
To me it's somehow emblematic of the situation that we can have an article that starts off talking seemingly reasonably about indoor corridors and building heights, and then halfway through pivots to arguments based on self-driving cars being an imminent game-changer.

They already don't have those parking requirements in Copenhagen, and it sure as heck ain't because they've got cars parking themselves with one inch of clearance.

Re: Why Can't Walnut Creek Build 3 Bedroom Apartments with a Playground?

#12
post #2

I wonder why 4b apartments are so rarely seen in the US. In Asia they are quite common.

>rarely seen in the US. In Asia they are quite common

Here's a recent story of what happens when Asian family sensibilities move into a typical American neighborhood

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/12/realestate/massive-home-a...

neighbors were upset about this addition, built to house aging parents

https://wjla.com/resources/media2/16x9/1280/986/center/90/fd...

Re: Why Can't Walnut Creek Build 3 Bedroom Apartments with a Playground?

#13

“Human driven cars are going to be around for about 5 years” is one of the most out of touch quotes I’ve seen this month. Also, all of this is about NIMBYism, which is about house prices being inflated to make up most of households’ wealth, which is not fixable without triggering a massive wealth redistribution. Most western societies are stuck in a very non-ideal Nash equilibrium and it is not going to be solved any…

I'm just doing a Ctrl+F through the document, but I can't find "5 years" or "Human driven". But if it does appear somewhere, taken out of context, it could mean "no more than 5 years" or "at least 5 years". A bit of ambiguity.

Re: Why Can't Walnut Creek Build 3 Bedroom Apartments with a Playground?

#14

“Human driven cars are going to be around for about 5 years” is one of the most out of touch quotes I’ve seen this month. Also, all of this is about NIMBYism, which is about house prices being inflated to make up most of households’ wealth, which is not fixable without triggering a massive wealth redistribution. Most western societies are stuck in a very non-ideal Nash equilibrium and it is not going to be solved any…

I'm just doing a Ctrl+F through the document, but I can't find "5 years" or "Human driven". But if it does appear somewhere, taken out of context, it could mean "no more than 5 years" or "at least 5 years". A bit of ambiguity.

“A self driven car cannot block anyone in. "Humans park their own cars" will be true for maybe five more years“ Ok “human parked”, apologies. Maybe not as out of touch but still pretty out of touch.

Re: Why Can't Walnut Creek Build 3 Bedroom Apartments with a Playground?

#15

This is why we can't have nice things. Huge additional costs and design constraints because of * 2-exit-stairwell requirement * elevator laws * parking laws Article contrasts with an apartment building in Denmark to show what could be possible.

2 exit stairs makes sense, so long as one of those can be a fire escape. I think a lot of places banned those though because they're "ugly".

Elevator laws make sense so long as they apply to general areas and not every single building. It would really suck for the majority of builders to decide to cost-skimp and skip elevators, effectively locking disabled people out of dense living.

Parking laws need to be removed and replaced with minimum transit requirements. Provided transit options are accommodating for disabled people (which is totally possible, all the buses around me do it) then the only thing hurt (read: no longer subsidized) by making parking optional are car manufacturers, dealers, and gas companies.

Re: Why Can't Walnut Creek Build 3 Bedroom Apartments with a Playground?

#16
You should be looking places other than California before asking this question. In my suburb of Iowa we have apartments that are very similar to this one as far as sizes but the rent is much cheaper. There are also a number of three bedroom apartments in those new buildings, for much more reasonable rent. These apartments have the large parking lots required in the U.S. They have the large elevators required in the U.S. They have the dual staircase required in the U.S. I guess they don't have windows that provide cross ventilation, but realistically in a modern building, insulation is so good you don't need those, and our climate is enough harsher than most of Europe that you will be using HVAC most of the year.

As soon as you look at comparisons like this that are also in the US but somehow managed to be much cheaper, you realize the problem isn't whatever this analysis is about. It's got to be something else.

Re: Why Can't Walnut Creek Build 3 Bedroom Apartments with a Playground?

#17
This seems like a specious argument:

"Most of the apartments have a window on just one side. The interior facing rooms on the lower floors are going to have a lot of trouble getting light in. With a window on only one side, you can't ventilate your apartment by opening windows on multiple sides. This increases the demand for HVAC, which increases the cost of living."

I doubt A/C costs are anything but negligible compared to the other design decisions.

Re: Why Can't Walnut Creek Build 3 Bedroom Apartments with a Playground?

#19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just doing a Ctrl+F through the document, but I can't find "5 years" or "Human driven". But if it does appear somewhere, taken out of context, it could mean "no more than 5 years" or "at least 5 years". A bit of ambiguity.

“A self driven car cannot block anyone in. "Humans park their own cars" will be true for maybe five more years“ Ok “human parked”, apologies. Maybe not as out of touch but still pretty out of touch.

[deleted]

Re: Why Can't Walnut Creek Build 3 Bedroom Apartments with a Playground?

#20
post #2

I wonder why 4b apartments are so rarely seen in the US. In Asia they are quite common.

The article mentions a lot of the reasons. Our building codes, especially the double stairway requirement, eliminate a lot of reasonable layouts and have downstream effects on the economics of apartment buildings. Another reason that isn't mentioned in the article is that there are different ideals for family housing, especially in suburban areas like Walnut Creek. Family apartments just aren't as desirable.

While building codes are different, those are not different enough to explain the difference. I've seen plenty of people try to propose layouts for apartment buildings that would meet the U.S. requirements and be much cheaper, but no one builds them, even though they should be legal.

The real problem is families in the US don't desire apartments and so no one builds apartments that families would desire to live in, thus perpetuating the problem.

Post reply on HN