3 ms·

Is it a problem? Or is it awesome that they were able to raise the bar for newly constructed residences? I've lived in newer homes over the last couple of dec

Is it a problem? Or is it awesome that they were able to raise the bar for newly constructed residences? I've lived in newer homes over the last couple of decades. It's awesome to have smoke detectors in every room, grounded outlets, GFCI outlets, well-insulated windows and exterior walls, firewalls, plenum-rated cables, safe and easy-to-maintain plumbing. The market would've only demanded a subset of these improvements. And the least expensive builders would've just built residences without them.

kazen44 6y ago
Also, because land is scarce and people need a place to live, houses will sell, regardless of their regulatory condition. Also, newer homes are amazing in terms of heath retention and isolation. Having lived in buildings from before the war with either none of very little isolation.or even worse, i once lived in a home with a split in the wall thanks to a WW2 bmobin raid. The crack was not an issue in regards to the structural integrity, but it made isolation mood.
mikeyouse 6y ago
This isn't talking about lacking safety features that make the properties "illegal" to build -- they are referring to the minimum parking requirements, minimum lot setbacks, maximum height limits and other zoning restrictions that effectively legalized single family homes at the expense of all other varieties of housing. None of those things are connected to safety, only to NIMBYish ideals.
jedberg 6y ago
The article is about land use restrictions, not safety ordinances. Safety is great, but doesn't cause housing shortages.
Ericson2314 6y ago
No one is saying housing and building regulation is always bad; those are good! It's just regulation promoting low density is bad. Libertarians love this example to troll the statist left that the state can't be trusted to control things wisely, but I'm just happy to hope undoing these things can be bipartisan, because the real estate lobby is so strong it's needed.

kazen44 6y ago

Also, because land is scarce and people need a place to live, houses will sell, regardless of their regulatory condition. Also, newer homes are amazing in terms of heath retention and isolation. Having lived in buildings from before the war with either none of very little isolation.or even worse, i once lived in a home with a split in the wall thanks to a WW2 bmobin raid. The crack was not an issue in regards to the structural integrity, but it made isolation mood.

mikeyouse 6y ago

This isn't talking about lacking safety features that make the properties "illegal" to build -- they are referring to the minimum parking requirements, minimum lot setbacks, maximum height limits and other zoning restrictions that effectively legalized single family homes at the expense of all other varieties of housing. None of those things are connected to safety, only to NIMBYish ideals.

jedberg 6y ago

The article is about land use restrictions, not safety ordinances. Safety is great, but doesn't cause housing shortages.

Ericson2314 6y ago

No one is saying housing and building regulation is always bad; those are good! It's just regulation promoting low density is bad. Libertarians love this example to troll the statist left that the state can't be trusted to control things wisely, but I'm just happy to hope undoing these things can be bipartisan, because the real estate lobby is so strong it's needed.