6 ms·
Requiring noise insulation would drive the cost up. A better option would be to have optional noise mitigation measurements done in a cheap way so that buildin
by wtvanhest 7y ago
Requiring noise insulation would drive the cost up. A better option would be to have optional noise mitigation measurements done in a cheap way so that buildings could certify for a given level of noise transmission between units.
You would have each unit certified as either A, B or C. C being nearly no noise insulation, A being very quiet.
Let the market decide what they want to pay for.
- romwell 7y ago>Requiring noise insulation would drive the cost up As if construction costs were the primary factor in determining the cost of real estate in places with housing crisis problems (like the Bay Area).
- zamfi 7y agoConstruction costs are very high in the Bay Area, and it is one component that holds back the construction of ADUs (in-law units) wchi hostage requires cities to support. Of course, then you’d ask, well why are construction costs so high in the Bay Area? And you might hear something about earthquakes, insulation, whatever. But the real reason is that contractors and construction workers need to live here too, and living here is damn expensive!
- MisterBastahrd 7y agoRequiring noise insulation will drive down the cost of noise insulation.
- bradstewart 7y agoAssuming there's multiple, competitive producers of noise insulation.
- frosted-flakes 7y agoNoise insulation isn't a type of material, it's a construction method. Hanging drywall on resilient channel, staggering 2x4 studs on 2x6 bottom and top plates and weaving insulation between them, solid doors, and dual/triple pane windows are all examples of this.
- wishinghand 7y agoIt'd also mean the poor would never have peace and quiet.
- davidw 7y agoA roof over your head beats no roof at all, by a long shot. And for some people, it beats a 3 hour commute. People should be free to choose what they prefer as long as it's safe.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- fzeroracer 7y agoThe market has already decided that any noise insulation is too much of a cost. That's why there's a bunch of incredibly cheap apartment complexes springing up around Austin with the bare minimum of effort. And since housing is a zero sum game the market is already rigged in favor of landlords. People generally don't have as much choice where to live when you start considering school access, public transit, commute and so forth. Relying on the market to solve housing will simply result in miniature SFs popping up over the US, just like what's happening to Austin.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- HarryHirsch 7y agoWith no minimum standards there's a neverending race to the bottom. People need to sleep.
- nullc 7y ago> Let the market decide what they want to pay for. You're making an assumption that noise insulation is particularly subject to the market. Unfortunately noise 'insulation' like other insulation is extremely sensitive to competence in instiallation and maintenance. Because it isn't particularly easy to gauge when shopping I don't believe that it is... and in markets where there are more prospective renters than units, it especially isn't.
- wtvanhest 7y agoAgreed with everything you said... which is why I said we need a rating system based on the actual noise dampening, not on materials used.