3 ms·

> Laws that require fire sprinklers, escape routes, and floors that don't collapse aren't the issue -- the issue lies with laws that mandate a certain amount of

> Laws that require fire sprinklers, escape routes, and floors that don't collapse aren't the issue -- the issue lies with laws that mandate a certain amount of luxury (like minimum square-footage requirements, occupancy limits, and restrictions on roommates who aren't family). If you believe that enabling unsanitary 3rd world hellholes, just because you assume that would make housing a tiny bit less expensive, represents any type of progress... Perhaps you should rethink your priorities.

linkregister 10y ago
I think you are mischaracterizing the parent poster's statement. You're imagining that they're referencing 3rd-world hell holes, but they're not. Look again. > a dry room big enough for a bed and with a door that locks (for which one has the only key) is serviceable housing. What they're referring to is a boarding house with common lavatories and eating areas, which was deemed sufficient for most U.S. congressmen staying in Washington for the nation's first 80 years. The case isn't being made that this is a good permanent solution. However, boarding houses are much better than the streets, which is the next lowest rung from long-term motels.
ThrustVectoring 10y ago
If building a bedroom breaks even at $1000/mo in rent, and there's folks who can only afford to pay $250/mo in rent, there's two options: either they shack up four to a room, or they go on the streets. How is four people living in a room more of an unsanitary 3rd world hellhole than four people sleeping in the streets?
- candiodari 10y ago
  Well, easy: for a lot of people, they will improve their situation until they have a basic minimal luxury available to them. So by rising that minimum level of luxury they want, you're making them work harder. The result is that the ratios are out of whack. By creating 2% homeless instead of 0.2%, you're massively increasing average luxury, and therefore making sure 20% don't live in shared housing with it's problems (e.g. everything gets stolen, especially from the weak, and of course women have some extra issues). Your argument assumes that by lowering standards you can fix things. You can, but only by creating other problems (sanitation standards going down by a lot, for one thing, which WILL result in consequences). It's pretty hard to see this until you've lived in both situations. If you want to avoid this: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/17/asia/china-beijing-rat-tribe/ http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/17/asia/china-beijing-rat-tri... then you need to accept that you're also creating homeless in the process. Better solution is to ease up on the limits on expanding supply. It's not like it's construction costs preventing new buildings from going down.
zkms 10y ago
> If you believe that enabling unsanitary 3rd world hellholes The unsanitary hellhole is the US, given how many people are forced to live on the street due to land use / zoning laws that prohibit building cheap high-density housing and a simultaneous lack of social housing. There is nothing "unsanitary" about high-density housing if it's built with proper structural/electrical/fire safety/plumbing standards. Japan is no "unsanitary hellhole" despite the fact that it allows very-high-density housing options that would make NIMBYs shit bricks -- like manga cafés (sleeping in the cubicles tends to be allowed) and capsule hotels. With properly installed fire sprinklers, fire-resistant materials, and working fire alarm systems, there's not much fire safety risk. Anyway, the "single family homes" that US housing policy loves (to the exclusion of everything else) never have fire sprinklers and they go up like Zippos once a fire takes hold.

linkregister 10y ago

I think you are mischaracterizing the parent poster's statement. You're imagining that they're referencing 3rd-world hell holes, but they're not. Look again. > a dry room big enough for a bed and with a door that locks (for which one has the only key) is serviceable housing. What they're referring to is a boarding house with common lavatories and eating areas, which was deemed sufficient for most U.S. congressmen staying in Washington for the nation's first 80 years. The case isn't being made that this is a good permanent solution. However, boarding houses are much better than the streets, which is the next lowest rung from long-term motels.

ThrustVectoring 10y ago

If building a bedroom breaks even at $1000/mo in rent, and there's folks who can only afford to pay $250/mo in rent, there's two options: either they shack up four to a room, or they go on the streets. How is four people living in a room more of an unsanitary 3rd world hellhole than four people sleeping in the streets?

candiodari 10y ago
Well, easy: for a lot of people, they will improve their situation until they have a basic minimal luxury available to them. So by rising that minimum level of luxury they want, you're making them work harder. The result is that the ratios are out of whack. By creating 2% homeless instead of 0.2%, you're massively increasing average luxury, and therefore making sure 20% don't live in shared housing with it's problems (e.g. everything gets stolen, especially from the weak, and of course women have some extra issues). Your argument assumes that by lowering standards you can fix things. You can, but only by creating other problems (sanitation standards going down by a lot, for one thing, which WILL result in consequences). It's pretty hard to see this until you've lived in both situations. If you want to avoid this: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/17/asia/china-beijing-rat-tribe/ http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/17/asia/china-beijing-rat-tri... then you need to accept that you're also creating homeless in the process. Better solution is to ease up on the limits on expanding supply. It's not like it's construction costs preventing new buildings from going down.

zkms 10y ago

> If you believe that enabling unsanitary 3rd world hellholes The unsanitary hellhole is the US, given how many people are forced to live on the street due to land use / zoning laws that prohibit building cheap high-density housing and a simultaneous lack of social housing. There is nothing "unsanitary" about high-density housing if it's built with proper structural/electrical/fire safety/plumbing standards. Japan is no "unsanitary hellhole" despite the fact that it allows very-high-density housing options that would make NIMBYs shit bricks -- like manga cafés (sleeping in the cubicles tends to be allowed) and capsule hotels. With properly installed fire sprinklers, fire-resistant materials, and working fire alarm systems, there's not much fire safety risk. Anyway, the "single family homes" that US housing policy loves (to the exclusion of everything else) never have fire sprinklers and they go up like Zippos once a fire takes hold.