Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you are pro-safety then you can tell me what regulations exist that could be eliminated without compromising safety. Do you think it really costs that much more to add a few more electrical outlets to prevent a fire? Or more insulation to keep the place warm so the occupants don't leave the oven on to stay warm and a kid sticks his/her hand in and gets a severe burn?
Do most building regulations pertain to safety? Without knowing the specific details, I can't discuss much further, and it would take more time than I wish to spend on the topic.
If you are pro-safety then you can tell me what regulations exist that could be eliminated without compromising safety. Do you think it really costs that much more to add a few more electrical outlets to prevent a fire? Or more insulation to keep the place warm so the occupants don't leave the oven on to stay warm and a kid sticks his/her hand in and gets a severe burn?
I am shocked at the degree to which some posters on this board side with the developers. They kvetch, kvetch kvetch, like everyone else, but is all that realistic?
I'm really tired of talking about parking, but over 90% of households have cars and that's not likely to change.
You have never stated just what problem you're trying to solve. If it's homelessness, that's a psycho-social problem that won't be solved by housing that is not up to code.
I come at this from a place where there isn't enough housing at all levels. Not enough luxury housing, not enough middle-class housing, not enough entry-level housing, not enough transitional housing. Every quartile, every quintile, every decile needs more housing here. So I'm responding to the problem of inadequate supply with options sensitive to context; the 20-something techie will, inevitably, have different needs than the 40-something family or the chronically homeless individual living in a tent.
You may be tired of talking about parking, but, because it is so expensive to provide, it will always come up when ever we're talking about competing land uses in constrained markets. It absolutely makes sense to talk about degrees of need for parking and whether that should be bundled in to the price of a unit of housing.
Look, if you want to go on and on tilting alone at the windmill of substandard housing while the rest of us are talking about novel variations on standard housing, go ahead. But I don't have to humor your argument by defending a position I'm not holding. I've already and repeatedly reiterated that we are in agreement about what housing should be, at minimum.
I'm NOT talking about cutting corners. I AM talking about making better use of space by pulling in lessons from the tiny house and micro unit movements. Pre-fab, pre-configured, furnished units, for example. They have HVAC, they have fire suppression systems, they have insulation and stoves and microwaves and shelves and a bed and a desk and and and. These units can be built to be ADA compliant, with wheelchair-width everything. Totally above-board. If that doesn't fit a person's preference and they have the option to say no, they can select out. It's great. It's democratic. Don't like it, don't choose it. But if we're building this for people who don't have a better option, this is a step up.
Look, if you want to go on and on tilting alone at the windmill of substandard housing while the rest of us are talking about novel variations on standard housing, go ahead. But I don't have to humor your argument by defending a position I'm not holding. I've already and repeatedly reiterated that we are in agreement about what housing should be, at minimum.
Your position of what you're arguing against isn't particularly clear; and then below it sound like you believe the minimum (whatever it is), is too low
Quote:
I'm NOT talking about cutting corners. I AM talking about making better use of space by pulling in lessons from the tiny house and micro unit movements. Pre-fab, pre-configured, furnished units, for example. They have HVAC, they have fire suppression systems, they have insulation and stoves and microwaves and shelves and a bed and a desk and and and. These units can be built to be ADA compliant, with wheelchair-width everything. Totally above-board. If that doesn't fit a person's preference and they have the option to say no, they can select out. It's great. It's democratic. Don't like it, don't choose it. But if we're building this for people who don't have a better option, this is a step up.
Say no to what? I'm a bit puzzled why you're listing furniture. The bolded sounds like you're allowing developers to cut corners. I doubt the extra cost of construction to comply with the building code is contributing much to high housing costs there. More likely, it's limited land available to develop on and/or limits of the density allowed to build on land resulting it too few units.
Quote:
I come at this from a place where there isn't enough housing at all levels. Not enough luxury housing, not enough middle-class housing, not enough entry-level housing, not enough transitional housing. Every quartile, every quintile, every decile needs more housing here. So I'm responding to the problem of inadequate supply with options sensitive to context; the 20-something techie will, inevitably, have different needs than the 40-something family or the chronically homeless individual living in a tent.
I'll add while a number of places in the country have had a big rise in housing costs; none are quite as extreme as the Bay Area; most not living there from there will that perspective. For 1/2-2/3rds of the country, there's no high housing cost issue at all.
Do most building regulations pertain to safety? Without knowing the specific details, I can't discuss much further, and it would take more time than I wish to spend on the topic.
IME, yes, safety and general good construction practices, e.g. insulation and such.
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist
Look, if you want to go on and on tilting alone at the windmill of substandard housing while the rest of us are talking about novel variations on standard housing, go ahead. But I don't have to humor your argument by defending a position I'm not holding. I've already and repeatedly reiterated that we are in agreement about what housing should be, at minimum.
Oh? Even before me I replied, there were some others who disagreed with you.
I'm NOT talking about cutting corners. I AM talking about making better use of space by in lessons from the tiny house and micro unit movements. Pre-fab, pre-configured, furnished units, for example. They have HVAC, they have fire suppression systems, they have insulation and stoves and microwaves and shelves and a bed and a desk and and and. These units can be built to be ADA compliant, with wheelchair-width everything. Totally above-board. If that doesn't fit a person's preference and they have the option to say no, they can select out. It's great. It's democratic. Don't like it, don't choose it. But if we're building this for people who don't have a better option, this is a step up.
Then please be specific about what you ARE talking about!
Since it was referenced earlier in this thread, here is a link to the International Residential Code: Table of Contents
I've never used this code, since my office doesn't do small scale residential. (I don't even know if it's applicable in my area) So, I'm not at all familiar with it. But, based on my experience with the International Building Code, (used for all other buildings/structures) I believe it's up to each governing body (whether at the state level, or at the local level) to choose to adopt this code as their own. And, even if they do adopt it, they can make changes to it. So, it's certainly not universal for all locations.
Again, I'm not familiar with this code. But, after reading through the table of contents, it seems apparent to me that it's about health and safety. It addresses things like: structure, heating and ventilation, plumbing, electrical, etc. No one is suggesting that corners are cut with these safety regulations.
What the IRC doesn't appear to address are things that can greatly affect cost, but have little to do with health and safety, such as: minimum lot sizes, minimum parking requirements, minimum dwelling square footage, minimum setbacks, etc. These are the things that are often included in local zoning ordinances that should be open for discussion.
I previously posted a link from HUD about minimum square feet. Mind you that is a bare minimum figure (135 sf per person).
Sure, and I believe micro apartments/tiny houses are still quite rare, over-all. Here is an old thread from the P&OC forum with a link to an article about San Francisco considering micro-apartments: http://www.city-data.com/forum/polit...s-tiniest.html The fact that it was considered newsworthy only 4 years ago tells me that it's still a new concept.
Quote:
Lots in California tend to be very small, smaller than here in Colorado.
Yes, and in many other places, lots are much larger.
Sure, and I believe micro apartments/tiny houses are still quite rare, over-all. Here is an old thread from the P&OC forum with a link to an article about San Francisco considering micro-apartments: http://www.city-data.com/forum/polit...s-tiniest.html The fact that it was considered newsworthy only 4 years ago tells me that it's still a new concept.
Yes, and in many other places, lots are much larger.
"Studio", aka efficiency apartments, have been around a long time. So have tenements.
I know lots are larger in many places, especially in the eastern US.
Yes, and in many other places, lots are much larger.
This. The situation here isn't like Colorado — or California. I suppose Katriana Witt is refering to darkeconomist's situation? Well old lots can be very small; new lots aren't. Some Massachusetts town have minimum lot size one acre or higher for new development. I suspect high max lot sizes have made Boston area home prices higher, as there's little land left to build on.
Quote:
I previously posted a link from HUD about minimum square feet. Mind you that is a bare minimum figure (135 sf per person).
That's a housing standard; but not a zoning standard, which varies depending on the city.
That's a housing standard; but not a zoning standard, which varies depending on the city.
I realize that. I posted that in response to a discussion about disease transmission in overcrowded housing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
