6 ms·

I think it's very important to be able to let people make these decisions. It's inefficient to add a water line if it's never going to be used. You might believ

by fiter 10y ago

I think it's very important to be able to let people make these decisions. It's inefficient to add a water line if it's never going to be used. You might believe I'm going to use it, but I might know I'm not going to use it. Maybe you're right, but I am the one paying the bill to tear off finishings to run water lines in the walls.

brudgers 10y ago
Before sanitary sewer regulations, people got cholera and such: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/15chol.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/15chol.html
LordKano 10y ago
In principle, I agree with you but in practice, I so loathe the stink of waterless urinals that on the inside, I'm glad they did that.
- jlg23 10y ago
  In principle, I agree with you, but in practice: Don't use my urinal if you don't like it. Liberalism goes both ways.
  - andrewflnr 10y ago
    In practice, your urinal is often bundled with things I don't have much choice in, like a university or employer. I'm not going to transfer to a new school because i don't like the urinals.
  - LordKano 10y ago
    In principle, I agree with that but in practice; when you've got to go, you've got to go. I have been nauseated every time I entered a public lavatory where waterless urinals were installed. I have certainly avoided those lavatories in the future but once I'm nauseated, the damage is done.
RangerScience 10y ago
Kiiiinnnnda. People make bad decisions, and the only architecture that matters is the one that lets you change. It's like the dig-once fiber policy for roadways, and is all part of the "don't build to peak value" idea; it's also like a usual problem with user interface design: if you only ever built user tools to do what you imagined, users (or later owners / tenants) are limited to your imagination. I go to a gym in an office building; there are showers. Do you think the floor was built with anyone thinking: "Oh, one day there might be showers here!"? I worked at a company with a (big) 3d printer - we had to rinse part afterwards, and kinda managed to wedge the rinser into the (extra extra large) handicapped stall in the men's bathroom. Don't just build to what YOU can imagine, give people rope to make more things. Running unused water lines [while it's cheap to do so] sounds like a good plan. On the other hand, future proofing, and enough rope to hang yourself.
- djrogers 10y ago
  > Kiiiinnnnda. People make bad decisions You can't outlaw bad decisions - but it seems that some people will never get tired of trying...
  - marcosdumay 10y ago
    Construction codes are all about outlawing bad decisions. Of course, those are "bad" decisions that save a few penny from the builders, and stay hidden until they surprise the building owner with a huge unpredictable cost. No water lines to urinals fits that descriptions nicely.
    - brudgers 10y ago
      As they say: Built to code == the worst construction that is legal
    - btschaegg 10y ago
      > Of course, those are "bad" decisions that save a few penny from the builders, and stay hidden until they surprise the building owner with a huge unpredictable cost. Another case in point: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0UG0H720160102 http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0UG0H720160102
gingerbread-man 10y ago
The problem is that cities don't want buildings torn down every 10 years because it's cheaper for the buyer to just rebuild from the ground up than to fight what essentially amounts to a heap of technical debt. Well-constructed buildings can last centuries: future-proofing is a pretty big deal.
- jonknee 10y ago
  Why would a city care? That's just more permitting money and local jobs.
  - Anderkent 10y ago
    Are you familiar with the concept of opportunity cost? Effort spend redoing things all the time instead of improving and building new things is not making a city better.
  - hinkley 10y ago
    You're replying to a story about a guy who wants to replace tower cranes because two of them fell over and killed people in the same year. That's why the city cares. Every time one goes up or comes down there's a risk involved.
  - aljones 10y ago
    If a city had the narrow concerns of a business then that might make sense.
  - namlem 10y ago
    Because construction sites are ugly and noisy.
paulmd 10y ago
We do this in lots of places. For example, it's against building code in most places to build a house without power grid feeds, running water, or septic/sewer access. Sometimes there are exceptions for "tiny houses" but other times not. You yourself might want to go totally off the grid and/or rustic, but the reality is that you are likely not going to be the last person who ever lives in that house. Maybe you don't pay your taxes and the township ends up owning a lien on your house. They don't want to have to spend fifty grand installing electricity or running water before they can sell the house. Depending on how big the technical deficit is here, it may not even be cost effective to retrofit after the fact (after all it still needs to meet code). And knocking down a house because the previous owner was a weirdo is terribly wasteful.
- fiter 10y ago
  I suppose I didn't make it explicit, but my point is that these regulations can be costly and/or stifling for a future benefit that may never come. Costly in the original example would be that waterless urinals are installed for the life of the building. Stifling in your example would be because much land will never be used because it's infeasible to bring power, water, and septic. Someone could have a home, but nothing will happen instead due to the regulation. Just to meet your last point: - Is today's weirdo tomorrow's visionary? - Is a weirdo not allowed to create what he wants if he's not hurting anyone?
  - rtpg 10y ago
    There aren't that many building regulations in the middle of the countryside. Building busted stuff in the middle of NYC hurts everyone, because there's limited space. Visionaries can build where other people don't want to be, or convince the people around them that what they want to do is a good idea.
    - fiter 10y ago
      You'd be surprised at the prevalence of regulations! ("You have one flush toilet. U.S. regulations require every legally habitable dwelling to have at least one flush toilet connected to an approved sewer or septic system." -- So a composting-toilet-only house seems to be illegal everywhere in the US.) Someone could buy an incredibly valuable vacant lot and fence it and never use it. As far as I know, that's not illegal but would cause the same problem you've pointed out. I don't think the utility hookup regulations are based on such "waste of space" reasoning.
aaron695 10y ago
Do you think it should be code that toilets have to be installed? You could shit in a box? Personally this is not tooooo far off that. Ensuring toilets always work.

by fiter 10y ago

brudgers 10y ago

Before sanitary sewer regulations, people got cholera and such: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/15chol.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/15chol.html

LordKano 10y ago

In principle, I agree with you but in practice, I so loathe the stink of waterless urinals that on the inside, I'm glad they did that.

jlg23 10y ago
In principle, I agree with you, but in practice: Don't use my urinal if you don't like it. Liberalism goes both ways.
- andrewflnr 10y ago
  In practice, your urinal is often bundled with things I don't have much choice in, like a university or employer. I'm not going to transfer to a new school because i don't like the urinals.
- LordKano 10y ago
  In principle, I agree with that but in practice; when you've got to go, you've got to go. I have been nauseated every time I entered a public lavatory where waterless urinals were installed. I have certainly avoided those lavatories in the future but once I'm nauseated, the damage is done.

RangerScience 10y ago

Kiiiinnnnda. People make bad decisions, and the only architecture that matters is the one that lets you change. It's like the dig-once fiber policy for roadways, and is all part of the "don't build to peak value" idea; it's also like a usual problem with user interface design: if you only ever built user tools to do what you imagined, users (or later owners / tenants) are limited to your imagination. I go to a gym in an office building; there are showers. Do you think the floor was built with anyone thinking: "Oh, one day there might be showers here!"? I worked at a company with a (big) 3d printer - we had to rinse part afterwards, and kinda managed to wedge the rinser into the (extra extra large) handicapped stall in the men's bathroom. Don't just build to what YOU can imagine, give people rope to make more things. Running unused water lines [while it's cheap to do so] sounds like a good plan. On the other hand, future proofing, and enough rope to hang yourself.

djrogers 10y ago
> Kiiiinnnnda. People make bad decisions You can't outlaw bad decisions - but it seems that some people will never get tired of trying...
- marcosdumay 10y ago
  Construction codes are all about outlawing bad decisions. Of course, those are "bad" decisions that save a few penny from the builders, and stay hidden until they surprise the building owner with a huge unpredictable cost. No water lines to urinals fits that descriptions nicely.
  - brudgers 10y ago
    As they say: Built to code == the worst construction that is legal
  - btschaegg 10y ago
    > Of course, those are "bad" decisions that save a few penny from the builders, and stay hidden until they surprise the building owner with a huge unpredictable cost. Another case in point: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0UG0H720160102 http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0UG0H720160102

gingerbread-man 10y ago

The problem is that cities don't want buildings torn down every 10 years because it's cheaper for the buyer to just rebuild from the ground up than to fight what essentially amounts to a heap of technical debt. Well-constructed buildings can last centuries: future-proofing is a pretty big deal.

jonknee 10y ago
Why would a city care? That's just more permitting money and local jobs.
- Anderkent 10y ago
  Are you familiar with the concept of opportunity cost? Effort spend redoing things all the time instead of improving and building new things is not making a city better.
- hinkley 10y ago
  You're replying to a story about a guy who wants to replace tower cranes because two of them fell over and killed people in the same year. That's why the city cares. Every time one goes up or comes down there's a risk involved.
- aljones 10y ago
  If a city had the narrow concerns of a business then that might make sense.
- namlem 10y ago
  Because construction sites are ugly and noisy.

paulmd 10y ago

We do this in lots of places. For example, it's against building code in most places to build a house without power grid feeds, running water, or septic/sewer access. Sometimes there are exceptions for "tiny houses" but other times not. You yourself might want to go totally off the grid and/or rustic, but the reality is that you are likely not going to be the last person who ever lives in that house. Maybe you don't pay your taxes and the township ends up owning a lien on your house. They don't want to have to spend fifty grand installing electricity or running water before they can sell the house. Depending on how big the technical deficit is here, it may not even be cost effective to retrofit after the fact (after all it still needs to meet code). And knocking down a house because the previous owner was a weirdo is terribly wasteful.

fiter 10y ago
I suppose I didn't make it explicit, but my point is that these regulations can be costly and/or stifling for a future benefit that may never come. Costly in the original example would be that waterless urinals are installed for the life of the building. Stifling in your example would be because much land will never be used because it's infeasible to bring power, water, and septic. Someone could have a home, but nothing will happen instead due to the regulation. Just to meet your last point: - Is today's weirdo tomorrow's visionary? - Is a weirdo not allowed to create what he wants if he's not hurting anyone?
- rtpg 10y ago
  There aren't that many building regulations in the middle of the countryside. Building busted stuff in the middle of NYC hurts everyone, because there's limited space. Visionaries can build where other people don't want to be, or convince the people around them that what they want to do is a good idea.
  - fiter 10y ago
    You'd be surprised at the prevalence of regulations! ("You have one flush toilet. U.S. regulations require every legally habitable dwelling to have at least one flush toilet connected to an approved sewer or septic system." -- So a composting-toilet-only house seems to be illegal everywhere in the US.) Someone could buy an incredibly valuable vacant lot and fence it and never use it. As far as I know, that's not illegal but would cause the same problem you've pointed out. I don't think the utility hookup regulations are based on such "waste of space" reasoning.

aaron695 10y ago

Do you think it should be code that toilets have to be installed? You could shit in a box? Personally this is not tooooo far off that. Ensuring toilets always work.