391–400 of 562 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Concrete is probably not a great thing in much of the US for lower-rise buildings. Definitely not here in Oregon. And the fire suppression stuff is mandatory in multifamily housing anyway.
Why is concrete bad in Oregon? Autoclaved, aerated concrete is common in Germany which has a slightly harsher version of our Oregon climate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's a hypothetical for a two-stairwell building: two couches. We can avoid this dangerous scenario with a three-stairwell minimum requirement.
Good point. Why do we even bother with two-lane roads and a double yellow line? Such a waste of space. Very contrived to presume there is always a car coming the other way
Happy to hear evidence-based arguments.
This is a fantastic article. Burdensome regulations on housing construction have caused costs to skyrocket. Minimum lot sizes, setback requirements, square footage minimums, floor-area ratio restrictions, overzealous height restrictions, parking requirements, abuse of environmental reviews, historic designations, community reviews, overzealous MFH requirements (like double-stair), below-market mandates, all have work…
How is double stair MFH overzealous? I can’t control if my neighbor blocks the stairwell with a couch that gets stuck while he’s moving in and now I have no egress if my other neighbor starts a fire. I’m in favor of greater freedoms, and the freedom to choose a single stair MFH if I want. But I don’t want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is double stair MFH overzealous? I can’t control if my neighbor blocks the stairwell with a couch that gets stuck while he’s moving in and now I have no egress if my other neighbor starts a fire. I’m in favor of greater freedoms, and the freedom to choose a single stair MFH if I want. But I don’t want.
A couch and a fire and that couch can't be pushed over or jumped over... That's quite a contrived scenario. I suspect that most of the improvements in the fire safety record of apartment buildings have to do with other factors like materials used, fireproof stair doors, etc etc. The reason I think the two stairs don't do much is that first world countries exist outside North America, they don't have this rule, and th…
You’re 85.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 $1…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's a hypothetical for a two-stairwell building: two couches. We can avoid this dangerous scenario with a three-stairwell minimum requirement.
Good point. Why do we even bother with two-lane roads and a double yellow line? Such a waste of space. Very contrived to presume there is always a car coming the other way
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The two stairways result in double-loaded hallways which also negatively impact unit sizes and make it impossible to have windows on more than one wall in most rooms. It's a total disaster
The fire escape can count as a separate staircase too and it can go over windows.
Fire in the only stairwell or a collapse, guess you just die or hope the fire department saves you before you suffocate.
Maybe the biggest problem with regulations is that even if they're very positive when enacted, there is usually no mechanism to reevaluate them during the following decades. And so the effects of a fire 164 years ago screws up housing across the US today.
Imagine multifamily housing where each lot is the same as a single family lot. You can have varied types right next to each other (one building could house several seniors in small apartments, another could house several young people in smaller apartments, another could be the owner in a two floor "house" on the top to floors with rentals below, another could be a building comprised of entire floor flats that are each owner-occupied).
They can be redeveloped so much more easily or repurposed. When an entire block is a huge multifamily building, it's pretty much impossible to change anything about it.
But, we really need to also change how we finance these buildings. A big reason everything is the same these days is because the finance system underwrites them. The system is there for these other types of smaller buildings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 $1…
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.