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

The case for single-stair multifamily

thesisdriven.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 562 posts

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#521

Post by adameasterling »

wolverine876 wrote: post #436
adameasterling wrote: post #63

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…

> Burdensome regulations on housing construction have caused costs to skyrocket. How much have costs increased, and what tells us that it's regulations, not many other causes? Also, which regulations? Some are more valuable, some less, and inevitably some will misfire. I'm not just going to trust real estate developers, who have their own interests, to meet other needs. > below-market mandates I'm not sure we need mo…

Err, I just enumerated many regulations I have a problem with in the very post you quoted, and evidence is pretty strong that it's the combined effect of all of those regulations that results in higher costs. [1] I realized I left off overuse of exclusively single-family zoning, which is the worst offender. [2]

> I'm not sure we need more high-end development - those tenants have plenty of options.

Evidence is strong that market-rate construction causes richer residents to exchange their current unit for a higher-end unit, opening up supply at the lower end. [3]

The problem with BMR requirements is the increased costs borne by developers, who have to offset those increased costs by charging more for the market rate units. There's a limit to that market, so fewer units are constructed than otherwise would be. Middle class families are especially worse off, as they neither qualify for BMR lotteries, nor earn enough for the rapidly accelerating market-rate unit. [4]

Further, rents are lower in states that disallow BMR mandates (like Texas) than those that have BMR mandates (like California).

1. https://www.axios.com/2019/08/28/study-californias-land-use-... 2. https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/05/business/single-family-zoning... 3. https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/research/market-rate-development-... 4. https://escholarship.org/content/qt036599mr/qt036599mr_noSpl...

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#522

Post by u32480932048 »

gamepsys wrote: post #259
mperham wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

In practice, the 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...

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#523

Post by u32480932048 »

shiroiuma wrote: post #427
lukas099 wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's easy: your barber operating a business out of his house will result in customers coming to your neighborhood, and that might bring "those people" around, and we can't have that.

That's ridiculous. Those people can't get even get to the neighborhood because the residents have gone out of their way to eliminate public transit (which is for poors).

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#524

Post by robertlagrant »

squokko wrote: post #516
robertlagrant wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry I don't understand - why would they be selling units, but also deliberately pricing them too high?

It has to do with the company's balance sheet - their list of assets which they use to borrow money. If they have 1000 units that they say are worth $1 million each, they can borrow from banks as if they are sitting on $1 billion of assets. If they sell one of those units at $500K, they now look like they have $500 million, which not only impedes their future borrowing but can trigger obligations to their current len…

It would be surprising if they can just not sell things because they're too expensive, and then borrow based on that too expensive price. Why not just have a single one and price it at $1bn?

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#525

Post by ajmurmann »

Spivak wrote: post #493
ido wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only there was an article addressing exactly your concern!

The article doesn't address this at all. There's only a passing mention of external fire escapes but no argument at all about alternative means of escaping a building in the absence of a the primary one becoming unavailable.

The article claims that you don't need one because of the safety that comes from modern fireproofing in construction.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#526

Post by Ario5 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #273
nadermx wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has some very interesting requirements when building. In some cities, regardless of destiny, new buildings are required to have 1.x parking spots per unit or something of the sort as well. Which basically assures all buildings have to be designed for car centric life.

The requirement is because if you don't mandate a minimum amount of parking, developers won't create it. Then the neighbors of your fancy new building can no longer find parking near their own home because the new building tenants take it. So they justifiably get angry and start voting in politicians that will enforce minimum capacity for new development.

So the neighbors who where there first also don't have any parking in their buildings? Only the new residents should be required to park thier cars off street? I fail to see how that is justifiable.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#527

Post by akanet »

wolverine876 wrote: post #502
cheriot wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, which regulations? The entire article is on the prohibition of single stair multi-family residential. > I'm not sure we need more high-end development - those tenants have plenty of options. This is silly. When car makers couldn't make enough cars in 2021 and the price went up, was the solution to ban making new cars? Should we have prohibited making cars with fancy trim? Having enough housing for everyone is…

Cities have seen plenty of high-end housing built (afaik), and yet there is still a lack of affordable housing. Building more expensive homes doesn't seem to increase availability of affordable ones. The idea that it would seems to be another 'trickle-down economics' theory, the one from the 1980s that if we help the wealthy get wealthier, the benefits will 'trickle-down' (turns out, only the first step worked). Reas…

You are mistaken, modern housing construction in major cities is far below historical numbers

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#528

Post by wolverine876 »

akanet wrote: post #527
wolverine876 wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cities have seen plenty of high-end housing built (afaik), and yet there is still a lack of affordable housing. Building more expensive homes doesn't seem to increase availability of affordable ones. The idea that it would seems to be another 'trickle-down economics' theory, the one from the 1980s that if we help the wealthy get wealthier, the benefits will 'trickle-down' (turns out, only the first step worked). Reas…

You are mistaken, modern housing construction in major cities is far below historical numbers

I've seen plenty of high-end apartments and condos, etc., but that's a small market and therefore low overall quantity.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#529

Post by trealira »

mcmoor wrote: post #442
notatoad wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>that were put in place to save human lives There's an assumption here that the code was put in place to save lives. There's a whole lot of regulation that exists simply to make it difficult to build. Lots of people profit when housing is scarce (or unavailable to certain demographics), and want to keep it that way. It is always worth asking what the point of a regulation is, and whether it accomplishes the thing it…

Ah yes I also sometimes think that some people who champion more regulations and safety actually don't want the thing to exist. Like any discussion about traffic management for example. Or every "think of the children!!".

You sound sarcastic, but yeah, people don't always bring up "concerns" in good faith. "Think of the children" is a good example; it's been brought up by people who are against gay marriage, and in reality they just don't want homosexual couples in public.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#530

Post by z3ncyberpunk »

gabesullice wrote: post #451

I can speak to and endorse this kind of unit from personal experience. I was born, raised and lived most of my life in Denver, CO. Now, I live in France in a 'single-stair multifamily'. Growing up I mostly lived in single family homes, but in college my dad moved into a townhouse and I lived with him for a couple years. Before moving to France, my wife and I lived in single family homes and a '5-over-1' apartment. No…

enjoy your 15 minute prison city lol
Post reply on HN