9 ms·

This is true in many, many places: as zoning, safety, access, and environmental rules evolve most older buildings become not buildable under current rules. Our

This is true in many, many places: as zoning, safety, access, and environmental rules evolve most older buildings become not buildable under current rules. Our national housing stock is FULL of places with narrow winding stairs, lead paint, full flow toilets and shower heads, untempered glass, single pane windows, uninsulated walls or ceilings, ungrounded outlets, undersized plumbing, sketchy chimneys, springy floors, etc. I'm surprised the number isn't closer to 80-90%, especially with the recent energy efficiency rules.

jdavis703 6y ago
This article specifically addresses buildings that are only illegal because of zoning. They aren’t including buildings that are unsafe due to building regulations like firecodes, ADA, etc.
- shados 6y ago
  You zone for what you want to build, not what is there already. The later wouldn't make any sense. The arguments generally given are to show that we're preventing building for density, pointing out NIMBYism, etc, but even if we were doing the polar opposite, the same would be true: If you have a town that's all single family, and zoning rules pass that any and all buildings MUST be 3+ stories, then all the existing houses wouldn't be allowed under current zoning laws. The fact that they're not allowed under current zoning rules is irrelevant. The question is only if the new zoning rules are good for what you want to see or not.
  - zzapplezz 6y ago
    Straw man - generally the idea of YIMBYism is to be more inclusionary, so that 3+ stories is allowed not required. In contrast, SFH-only zoning is exclusionary.
    - shados 6y ago
      Even if you allowed skyscrapers, most existing houses and buildings would be illegal because of code. The map on this particular page mentions it only looks at zoning, so it's still very valid. But my point is saying "X amount of homes would be illegal to build" is completely pointless and just meant to rile people up. OF COURSE most buildings are illegal to build today. We don't build like we use to for a variety of reasons. Even if you forget about building code, there's also rules around minimum amount of affordable units that older buildings didn't need to follow. Zoning is a specific one and yes, it's often problematic and regressive. Let's focus on that.
      - zip1234 6y ago
        The building code and fire code thing is not true. Building codes are actually very flexible. There are plenty of ways to build a building to look exactly like almost any old building and fully comply with all codes.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        shados 6y ago
        Look like old buildings? Sure. But actually be the same? No. Hell, the building I live in is less than 12 years old and the electric panel is no longer to code, the HVAC condensate line is no longer to code, the damn stairs are no longer to code, the freagin dryer vent is no longer to code. They were all to code when they were built.
        tshaddox 6y ago
        > But actually be the same? No. Where are we taking this conversation now? Yes, it would be impossible to use the same physical piece of lumber in two houses at the same time.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  Yeah, but let's be clear though: the problem is bad zoning, not zoning itself. The fact that SF prohibits apartments in 76% of the city, according to the article (which, I'm assuming, excludes places like Golden Gate Park) is an abomination in itself. Literally just allow more apartment buildings, let buildings get built higher, and make a couple other tweaks for higher density housing, and zoning becomes a non-problem. After that, all you have to deal with are the NIMBYs. Le sigh.
  - Animats 6y ago
    Why? After the current bubble collapses, this will no longer be a problem.
    - forgotmysn 6y ago
      thats what they said when the dotcoms busted in 02 though
    - Analemma_ 6y ago
      I've been reading about the "imminent" collapse of the SF housing bubble for essentially my entire adult life. Even the actual housing bubble implosion in '07 barely put a dent in it.
      - trimbo 6y ago
        People have been complaining about SF real estate prices since at least 1846. [1] [1] - https://books.google.com/books?id=GiAa8pLrSTIC&lpg=PA45&lr&pg=PA62#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=GiAa8pLrSTIC&lpg=PA45&lr&p...
        HPsquared 6y ago
        I guess the prices could collapse a fair bit and still be overpriced.
        6y ago
sandworm101 6y ago
Same is true of used cars, aircraft, boats and any number of regulated products. Change any tiny reg and all the previous stock "could not be built today". It doesn't mean much. Buildings last decades, centuries, far longer than any zoning board decision.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  Aircraft are a different case than the others above. Aircraft are built to a type certificate and once it's issued so long as that type certificate is not revoked, airplanes can (in fact, must) be built today in conformance with that type certificate. Modifications to that type certificate are permitted, but they do not require full conformance with current regulations. My 1997 airplane was built on a type certificate first issued in 1956 (under CAR-3 regulations) and amended to include my model in 1969. Many regulations changed between 1969 and 1997. Beechcraft could build one today under that type certificate, even though they couldn't get that exact type certificate newly issued today (CAR-3 has been replaced by Part 23 requirements).
  - sandworm101 6y ago
    Yes but the new aircraft would have to have things like modern electronics, not the pure original spec. The wings could be unchanged but the radio set would be to current standards, incorporating things like adsb transponders that didn't exist in the 50s.
    - p_l 6y ago
      The only avionics change since 1930s that would be required is radio with modern channel spacing, unless you want to fly in controlled airspace, then a transponder would be added (which would incorporate ads-b functionality, whether by integrated or add-on GPS)
- zip1234 6y ago
  Zoning has nothing to do with the safety of the constructed building. Isn't the article only talking about zoning?
throwaway8581 6y ago
One of the first things I do when moving into a new place is remove all the flow restrictors on the faucets and shower heads. And I replace at least some of the LED bulbs with beautiful, soft, full-spectrum incandescent bulbs. Two quick fixes to improve your quality of life.
- russellendicott 6y ago
  gasp /s I can totally understand the flow thing--less flow means longer, more annoying shower. I've found that the soft white LED bulbs are a tolerable replacement for full spectrum incandescent. I stick with LED because I'm lazy and I don't have to change them as frequently. However, when the LED bulbs DO go out they do the flickering thing which is maddening. I'd prefer incandescent's total failure to produce light over the flickering fail mode any day of the week.
  - toast0 6y ago
    Some LED bulbs are pretty ok. But man do they have way more failure/annoyance modes. I've got can lights in most of my house, and it's much nicer if you match a room up for color temperature, but also start latency, and dimmer compatibility. With incandescent as long as the wattage was the same/close and the color type was the same, you could mix and match different manufacturers; now if one bulb goes out, I might have to replace the whole room if I don't have any like for like spares, the model may have been updated so I can't get a new bulb like the old one.
- dannyw 6y ago
  Seriously. LED is great, but incandescent is absolutely beautiful. I don't go around replacing all my lightbulbs, but my bedroom and living room? Absolutely.
jws 6y ago
Our national housing stock is FULL of places with narrow winding stairs, lead paint, full flow toilets and shower heads, untempered glass, single pane windows, uninsulated walls or ceilings, ungrounded outlets, undersized plumbing, sketchy chimneys, springy floors, etc. My house from 1890 scored 10 for 10 on your list. I addressed about half of them over the decades, but the other half are just, "It's ok, we'd do it better if we did it over." The additions and any bits "touched" have to meet current code, but the old parts are allowed to be what they are. I don't feel it detracts from my living experience at all. (I did take care of the "this can kill you" part of the list as well as most of the single pane windows and uninsulated areas.) A couple of the code mandated changes are definitely negatives, as are a couple of "slightly off" construction problems which required space wasting and slightly dangerous constructs in the house instead of just accepting that the wall at the bottom of the stairs is 2 inches closer than code allows.
tjalfi 6y ago
> I'm surprised the number isn't closer to 80-90%, especially with the recent energy efficiency rules. Sommerville, Ma is a city of 80,000; 22 buildings meet the zoning code[0]. [0] https://cityobservatory.org/the-illegal-city-of-somerville/ https://cityobservatory.org/the-illegal-city-of-somerville/
Black101 6y ago
> I'm surprised the number isn't closer to 80-90%, especially with the recent energy efficiency rules. It probably is with all the work that was done without permits.

jdavis703 6y ago

This article specifically addresses buildings that are only illegal because of zoning. They aren’t including buildings that are unsafe due to building regulations like firecodes, ADA, etc.

shados 6y ago
You zone for what you want to build, not what is there already. The later wouldn't make any sense. The arguments generally given are to show that we're preventing building for density, pointing out NIMBYism, etc, but even if we were doing the polar opposite, the same would be true: If you have a town that's all single family, and zoning rules pass that any and all buildings MUST be 3+ stories, then all the existing houses wouldn't be allowed under current zoning laws. The fact that they're not allowed under current zoning rules is irrelevant. The question is only if the new zoning rules are good for what you want to see or not.
- zzapplezz 6y ago
  Straw man - generally the idea of YIMBYism is to be more inclusionary, so that 3+ stories is allowed not required. In contrast, SFH-only zoning is exclusionary.
  - shados 6y ago
    Even if you allowed skyscrapers, most existing houses and buildings would be illegal because of code. The map on this particular page mentions it only looks at zoning, so it's still very valid. But my point is saying "X amount of homes would be illegal to build" is completely pointless and just meant to rile people up. OF COURSE most buildings are illegal to build today. We don't build like we use to for a variety of reasons. Even if you forget about building code, there's also rules around minimum amount of affordable units that older buildings didn't need to follow. Zoning is a specific one and yes, it's often problematic and regressive. Let's focus on that.
    - zip1234 6y ago
      The building code and fire code thing is not true. Building codes are actually very flexible. There are plenty of ways to build a building to look exactly like almost any old building and fully comply with all codes.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - shados 6y ago
        Look like old buildings? Sure. But actually be the same? No. Hell, the building I live in is less than 12 years old and the electric panel is no longer to code, the HVAC condensate line is no longer to code, the damn stairs are no longer to code, the freagin dryer vent is no longer to code. They were all to code when they were built.
        tshaddox 6y ago
        > But actually be the same? No. Where are we taking this conversation now? Yes, it would be impossible to use the same physical piece of lumber in two houses at the same time.
pmiller2 6y ago
Yeah, but let's be clear though: the problem is bad zoning, not zoning itself. The fact that SF prohibits apartments in 76% of the city, according to the article (which, I'm assuming, excludes places like Golden Gate Park) is an abomination in itself. Literally just allow more apartment buildings, let buildings get built higher, and make a couple other tweaks for higher density housing, and zoning becomes a non-problem. After that, all you have to deal with are the NIMBYs. Le sigh.
- Animats 6y ago
  Why? After the current bubble collapses, this will no longer be a problem.
  - forgotmysn 6y ago
    thats what they said when the dotcoms busted in 02 though
  - Analemma_ 6y ago
    I've been reading about the "imminent" collapse of the SF housing bubble for essentially my entire adult life. Even the actual housing bubble implosion in '07 barely put a dent in it.
    - trimbo 6y ago
      People have been complaining about SF real estate prices since at least 1846. [1] [1] - https://books.google.com/books?id=GiAa8pLrSTIC&lpg=PA45&lr&pg=PA62#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=GiAa8pLrSTIC&lpg=PA45&lr&p...
      - HPsquared 6y ago
        I guess the prices could collapse a fair bit and still be overpriced.
        6y ago

sandworm101 6y ago

Same is true of used cars, aircraft, boats and any number of regulated products. Change any tiny reg and all the previous stock "could not be built today". It doesn't mean much. Buildings last decades, centuries, far longer than any zoning board decision.

sokoloff 6y ago
Aircraft are a different case than the others above. Aircraft are built to a type certificate and once it's issued so long as that type certificate is not revoked, airplanes can (in fact, must) be built today in conformance with that type certificate. Modifications to that type certificate are permitted, but they do not require full conformance with current regulations. My 1997 airplane was built on a type certificate first issued in 1956 (under CAR-3 regulations) and amended to include my model in 1969. Many regulations changed between 1969 and 1997. Beechcraft could build one today under that type certificate, even though they couldn't get that exact type certificate newly issued today (CAR-3 has been replaced by Part 23 requirements).
- sandworm101 6y ago
  Yes but the new aircraft would have to have things like modern electronics, not the pure original spec. The wings could be unchanged but the radio set would be to current standards, incorporating things like adsb transponders that didn't exist in the 50s.
  - p_l 6y ago
    The only avionics change since 1930s that would be required is radio with modern channel spacing, unless you want to fly in controlled airspace, then a transponder would be added (which would incorporate ads-b functionality, whether by integrated or add-on GPS)
zip1234 6y ago
Zoning has nothing to do with the safety of the constructed building. Isn't the article only talking about zoning?

throwaway8581 6y ago

One of the first things I do when moving into a new place is remove all the flow restrictors on the faucets and shower heads. And I replace at least some of the LED bulbs with beautiful, soft, full-spectrum incandescent bulbs. Two quick fixes to improve your quality of life.

russellendicott 6y ago
gasp /s I can totally understand the flow thing--less flow means longer, more annoying shower. I've found that the soft white LED bulbs are a tolerable replacement for full spectrum incandescent. I stick with LED because I'm lazy and I don't have to change them as frequently. However, when the LED bulbs DO go out they do the flickering thing which is maddening. I'd prefer incandescent's total failure to produce light over the flickering fail mode any day of the week.
- toast0 6y ago
  Some LED bulbs are pretty ok. But man do they have way more failure/annoyance modes. I've got can lights in most of my house, and it's much nicer if you match a room up for color temperature, but also start latency, and dimmer compatibility. With incandescent as long as the wattage was the same/close and the color type was the same, you could mix and match different manufacturers; now if one bulb goes out, I might have to replace the whole room if I don't have any like for like spares, the model may have been updated so I can't get a new bulb like the old one.
dannyw 6y ago
Seriously. LED is great, but incandescent is absolutely beautiful. I don't go around replacing all my lightbulbs, but my bedroom and living room? Absolutely.

jws 6y ago

Our national housing stock is FULL of places with narrow winding stairs, lead paint, full flow toilets and shower heads, untempered glass, single pane windows, uninsulated walls or ceilings, ungrounded outlets, undersized plumbing, sketchy chimneys, springy floors, etc. My house from 1890 scored 10 for 10 on your list. I addressed about half of them over the decades, but the other half are just, "It's ok, we'd do it better if we did it over." The additions and any bits "touched" have to meet current code, but the old parts are allowed to be what they are. I don't feel it detracts from my living experience at all. (I did take care of the "this can kill you" part of the list as well as most of the single pane windows and uninsulated areas.) A couple of the code mandated changes are definitely negatives, as are a couple of "slightly off" construction problems which required space wasting and slightly dangerous constructs in the house instead of just accepting that the wall at the bottom of the stairs is 2 inches closer than code allows.

tjalfi 6y ago

> I'm surprised the number isn't closer to 80-90%, especially with the recent energy efficiency rules. Sommerville, Ma is a city of 80,000; 22 buildings meet the zoning code[0]. [0] https://cityobservatory.org/the-illegal-city-of-somerville/ https://cityobservatory.org/the-illegal-city-of-somerville/

Black101 6y ago

> I'm surprised the number isn't closer to 80-90%, especially with the recent energy efficiency rules. It probably is with all the work that was done without permits.