3 ms·

I don't see anything odd about the claim. There is no "minimum air conditioning" requirement where I live, but pretty much every building I walk into has it. M

I don't see anything odd about the claim. There is no "minimum air conditioning" requirement where I live, but pretty much every building I walk into has it. My apartment, like most apartments I've seen, also has it. Turns out that people don't need the government to tell them what they want. People like AC, so most buildings have AC. Not particularly remarkable, but most apartments in my area also come with refrigerators, stoves, ovens, sinks, showers, and dishwashers, all sans-minimum-appliance requirement. To me, a minimum parking requirement seems as weirdly dystopian as requiring ACs or dishwashers. Most people like those things, so most buildings will have them, but it shouldn't be illegal to decide you don't need an AC or dishwasher.

gamblor956 7y ago
AC/heating are actually required by law in most of the US. For example, in the Northeast, heaters have been required for all residential construction for many decades. Residences without heaters are legally considered not habitable. In most of the Southwest like Arizona and Nevada, new residential construction must have ACs (in CA, it's not a universal requirement and window units meet the requirement). Few residential apartments come with washers. Generally, those would be apartments classified as "luxury" or better (where luxury is a rental term of art referring to amenities, not the actual quality of the building...)
- jaredklewis 7y ago
  I didn't know that about other parts of the US. I can see how it might make sense in Arizona. In California, mandating ACs would be enormously stupid. For one thing, it would needlessly inhibit use of the many other methods that exist for cooling buildings (a la Apple Campus). But also, the California climate is temperate enough that it is very much possible to live without AC. I have an AC but have not used it in more than a year. I see no reason why we should require everyone to have one. I of course have no objection that buildings must be habitable. A building with dirty water, structural issues, or lacking heat in a cold place is obviously not serving any market segment. Parking seems to me be fundamentally different than those issues though. I know many people that happily live without a car in LA. Why should it be illegal for developers to cater to them?

gamblor956 7y ago

AC/heating are actually required by law in most of the US. For example, in the Northeast, heaters have been required for all residential construction for many decades. Residences without heaters are legally considered not habitable. In most of the Southwest like Arizona and Nevada, new residential construction must have ACs (in CA, it's not a universal requirement and window units meet the requirement). Few residential apartments come with washers. Generally, those would be apartments classified as "luxury" or better (where luxury is a rental term of art referring to amenities, not the actual quality of the building...)

jaredklewis 7y ago
I didn't know that about other parts of the US. I can see how it might make sense in Arizona. In California, mandating ACs would be enormously stupid. For one thing, it would needlessly inhibit use of the many other methods that exist for cooling buildings (a la Apple Campus). But also, the California climate is temperate enough that it is very much possible to live without AC. I have an AC but have not used it in more than a year. I see no reason why we should require everyone to have one. I of course have no objection that buildings must be habitable. A building with dirty water, structural issues, or lacking heat in a cold place is obviously not serving any market segment. Parking seems to me be fundamentally different than those issues though. I know many people that happily live without a car in LA. Why should it be illegal for developers to cater to them?