Why Can't Walnut Creek Build 3 Bedroom Apartments with a Playground? • Hacker News Board

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

#21

Post by sokoloff » Wed, Jun 17, 2026, 10:22 PM UTC

idle_zealot wrote: post #15

nilsbunger wrote: post #7

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 a…

Who gets to be the builder who is allowed to be one of the minority to not have to put an elevator into a building where only a majority must have it?

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

#22

Post by Animats » Wed, Jun 17, 2026, 10:23 PM UTC

jawns wrote: post #10

Definitely a tech entrepreneur's take. It's a juxtaposition of optimistic futurism (in 5-10 years, most people will just rely on robocars and robotaxis) and anti-regulatory sentiment (critical of the requirement that elevators accommodate stretchers). Some of the more difficult problems are hand-waved away as, "We could solve this if we just put our engineering hats on." That said, I don't want to throw the baby out…

It's the single escape stairway thing again.

Is there a paid lobby behind this?

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

#23

Post by jedberg » Wed, Jun 17, 2026, 10:23 PM UTC

idle_zealot wrote: post #15

nilsbunger wrote: post #7

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 a…

> Elevator laws make sense

It's not the elevator requirement that is the problem, it's that they have to be very big. Can't use the small elevators that fit inside a stairwell for example.

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

#24

Post by fhdkweig » Wed, Jun 17, 2026, 10:23 PM UTC

mikelitoris wrote: post #14

fhdkweig wrote: post #13

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.

Thank you for the direct quote. I can envision large parking lots with two sections, one for tighter spaces and one for larger spaces. Even now you can find parking spaces labeled "compact only". It would be a way of slowly phasing out human driven/parking cars. The 2012 Ford Focus could self-parallel park.

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

#25

Post by spankalee » Wed, Jun 17, 2026, 10:24 PM UTC

jawns wrote: post #10

Definitely a tech entrepreneur's take. It's a juxtaposition of optimistic futurism (in 5-10 years, most people will just rely on robocars and robotaxis) and anti-regulatory sentiment (critical of the requirement that elevators accommodate stretchers). Some of the more difficult problems are hand-waved away as, "We could solve this if we just put our engineering hats on." That said, I don't want to throw the baby out…

Being against bad housing regulations is not "anti-regulatory sentiment". Some regulations just aren't good. We shouldn't valorize rules for the sake of rules.

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

#26

Post by stefan_ » Wed, Jun 17, 2026, 10:24 PM UTC

fhdkweig wrote: post #13

mikelitoris wrote: post #4

“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.

Well, it's gonna be 2027!

> Maybe this building in 2026 can't assume robots are parking the cars. But we could change the city's rules now and maybe a building a year from now will be able to dedicate less space to parking.

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

#27

Post by milkytron » Wed, Jun 17, 2026, 10:24 PM UTC

jawns wrote: post #10

Definitely a tech entrepreneur's take. It's a juxtaposition of optimistic futurism (in 5-10 years, most people will just rely on robocars and robotaxis) and anti-regulatory sentiment (critical of the requirement that elevators accommodate stretchers). Some of the more difficult problems are hand-waved away as, "We could solve this if we just put our engineering hats on." That said, I don't want to throw the baby out…

Exactly my thought.

People have been saying that robotaxis and self driving cars will take over in a couple years for at least a decade.

It hasn't happened, and not only that, but if the companies making them want to be profitable, they will price out a huge percent of consumers.

My guess is that humans will remain the majority operators of vehicles for at least 20 more years, maybe more.

That isn't to say we need parking requirements though. We should still get rid of them and let the market determine how much parking we need.

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

#28

Post by spankalee » Wed, Jun 17, 2026, 10:24 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #22

jawns wrote: post #10

Definitely a tech entrepreneur's take. It's a juxtaposition of optimistic futurism (in 5-10 years, most people will just rely on robocars and robotaxis) and anti-regulatory sentiment (critical of the requirement that elevators accommodate stretchers). Some of the more difficult problems are hand-waved away as, "We could solve this if we just put our engineering hats on." That said, I don't want to throw the baby out…

It's the single escape stairway thing again. Is there a paid lobby behind this?

No, there are people who look at the better and cheaper housing the rest of world has and who want that for us too.

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

#29

Post by Gigachad » Wed, Jun 17, 2026, 10:25 PM UTC

soperj wrote: post #8

mikelitoris wrote: post #4

“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…

pretty sure I saw this quote from Elon in like 2015.

I remember what feels like forever ago hearing that truck driving is basically solved and there won't be any human truck drivers soon. Yet now more than 10 years later trucks are still driven by humans.

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

#30

Post by qurren » Wed, Jun 17, 2026, 10:25 PM UTC

dgeiser13 wrote: post #5

qurren wrote: post #2

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

In the US the nuclear family is usually two parents and two children. The parents share one bedroom and each child gets one. In Asia I would guess families make room for their older relatives which would mean an extra bedroom is needed. Immigrants to the US typically do that but I think it's uncommon among the rank and file Americans.

I think in the US a home office and a guest room is also usually needed, so 4-5 bedrooms makes total sense.

In fact 4-5 bedroom single family houses in the US are extremely common. What I don't understand is why apartments always seem to stop at 2b or 3b.