4 ms·

> I would happily pay a few hundred less because of a lack of window. Windows are emergency fire escapes, which is a big part of why they are required. How mu

by Kalium 5y ago

> I would happily pay a few hundred less because of a lack of window. Windows are emergency fire escapes, which is a big part of why they are required. How much are you willing to pay to live in a literal deathtrap? How many dear friends struggling to afford to live in the city they love should live in deathtraps with poor fire safety? Has the Bay not learned its lesson about fire codes yet? > If SF applied Rent Control to Condos, we might see more apartments being built? Can you help me understand why you think extending rent control would increase construction? Maybe step me through the math of it? I genuinely and sincerely do not follow your logic. To my mind, condos get built in SF because it's possible to come out in the black. Building rent controlled apartments and coming out in the black would seem to be impossible given how high costs are in SF. How would rent controlling condos change this?

sampo 5y ago
> > If SF applied Rent Control to Condos, we might see more apartments being built? > Can you help me understand why you think extending rent control would increase construction? If SF applied rent control to both condos and rental apartments, it might change the balance so that relatively more rental apartments would be build, and less condos. If the numbers now were 80 (condos) and 20 (rental apartments), the new numbers might be 40 and 40.
- Kalium 5y ago
  If the problem is that apartments are difficult to turn a profit on and condos are comparatively easy, is there a reason to think we'd get 40 and 40 instead of 20 and 20? Or worse, maybe just the 20 apartments that were already going to be built? None of which are rent controlled at all, mind you. If this seems counterintuitive - and it did to me at first - consider that the money being spent to develop that housing has plenty of alternatives. Not all of which are SF housing. SF isn't guaranteed some level of privately-funded construction each year, after all. Trying to shift the mix runs the risk of adjusting the size of the mixture too, exactly as your suggested model does.
evancox100 5y ago
A window on a 1000 ft tall building is definitively not a fire escape. Large buildings like this, whether residential or commercial, have purpose built interior fire escape paths. I couldn't say whether the commercial version of this is 1:1 substitutable for the residential one, but come on, the fire plan for any modern building over ~10 floors does not rely on windows. Edit: Also, the fact that a non-operable window, or even a window too small for a person to fit through, will usually suffice to meet the bedroom/window requirement gives the lie to this "fire escape" idea. Edit 2: Correcting myself here, for residences without automatic sprinkler systems, two means of egress (could be a window or doorway to the outside, could be a doorway to another part of house) is a requirement for a bedroom in the International Residential Code. There is a separate requirement for certain levels of light (natural or artificial) that can be satisfied by an inoperable/small window, which is what I was thinking about. In any case, all the commercial buildings in question would have automatic sprinkler systems, these fire escape requirements just wouldn't apply.
HWR_14 5y ago
I'm not the original poster, but I can give it a shot: > Can you help me understand why you think extending rent control would increase construction? Maybe step me through the math of it? If rent control just means a maximum rent, and not a maximum increase, it would make builders prioritize maximizing units per building. This means more, although smaller and cheaper, apartments.
- Kalium 5y ago
  We're discussing San Francisco, where rent control policy works primarily by capping the yearly increases. It's always lower than inflation, too. Shrinking units is an great thought! That's such a plausible mechanism that SF has gone ahead and done the thing its politics centers on - making building that form of housing difficult too. Parking minimums, density restrictions, and so on all affect the wonderful idea that is micro-apartments. And attempts to cut costs with pre-fab units assembled off-site ran directly into political conflicts as well. It's impossible to read about the politics of housing in SF without arriving at the understanding that SF just really doesn't want to allow any new housing.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    I don't actually think shrinking units is good in general - I just tried to explain how more strict rent controls could result in more units. I think it's perfectly fine for SF to say "we want a bunch of single occupancy housing, not high rises". Certainly, that's not great for everyone who wants to move there, but it's perfectly fine for a city to decide they don't want to grow anymore. And putting minimum restrictions with regard to density and parking is a great idea. If you aren't going to invest in public transit, you need people to have parking spaces. If you want to live in uber-packed urban areas, you can move to NYC instead. There are a lot of options!
    - Kalium 5y ago
      I think it's fine, so long as people are willing to accept the sky-high cost of living that comes with their policy choices.

by Kalium 5y ago

sampo 5y ago

> > If SF applied Rent Control to Condos, we might see more apartments being built? > Can you help me understand why you think extending rent control would increase construction? If SF applied rent control to both condos and rental apartments, it might change the balance so that relatively more rental apartments would be build, and less condos. If the numbers now were 80 (condos) and 20 (rental apartments), the new numbers might be 40 and 40.

Kalium 5y ago
If the problem is that apartments are difficult to turn a profit on and condos are comparatively easy, is there a reason to think we'd get 40 and 40 instead of 20 and 20? Or worse, maybe just the 20 apartments that were already going to be built? None of which are rent controlled at all, mind you. If this seems counterintuitive - and it did to me at first - consider that the money being spent to develop that housing has plenty of alternatives. Not all of which are SF housing. SF isn't guaranteed some level of privately-funded construction each year, after all. Trying to shift the mix runs the risk of adjusting the size of the mixture too, exactly as your suggested model does.

evancox100 5y ago

A window on a 1000 ft tall building is definitively not a fire escape. Large buildings like this, whether residential or commercial, have purpose built interior fire escape paths. I couldn't say whether the commercial version of this is 1:1 substitutable for the residential one, but come on, the fire plan for any modern building over ~10 floors does not rely on windows. Edit: Also, the fact that a non-operable window, or even a window too small for a person to fit through, will usually suffice to meet the bedroom/window requirement gives the lie to this "fire escape" idea. Edit 2: Correcting myself here, for residences without automatic sprinkler systems, two means of egress (could be a window or doorway to the outside, could be a doorway to another part of house) is a requirement for a bedroom in the International Residential Code. There is a separate requirement for certain levels of light (natural or artificial) that can be satisfied by an inoperable/small window, which is what I was thinking about. In any case, all the commercial buildings in question would have automatic sprinkler systems, these fire escape requirements just wouldn't apply.

HWR_14 5y ago

I'm not the original poster, but I can give it a shot: > Can you help me understand why you think extending rent control would increase construction? Maybe step me through the math of it? If rent control just means a maximum rent, and not a maximum increase, it would make builders prioritize maximizing units per building. This means more, although smaller and cheaper, apartments.

Kalium 5y ago
We're discussing San Francisco, where rent control policy works primarily by capping the yearly increases. It's always lower than inflation, too. Shrinking units is an great thought! That's such a plausible mechanism that SF has gone ahead and done the thing its politics centers on - making building that form of housing difficult too. Parking minimums, density restrictions, and so on all affect the wonderful idea that is micro-apartments. And attempts to cut costs with pre-fab units assembled off-site ran directly into political conflicts as well. It's impossible to read about the politics of housing in SF without arriving at the understanding that SF just really doesn't want to allow any new housing.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  I don't actually think shrinking units is good in general - I just tried to explain how more strict rent controls could result in more units. I think it's perfectly fine for SF to say "we want a bunch of single occupancy housing, not high rises". Certainly, that's not great for everyone who wants to move there, but it's perfectly fine for a city to decide they don't want to grow anymore. And putting minimum restrictions with regard to density and parking is a great idea. If you aren't going to invest in public transit, you need people to have parking spaces. If you want to live in uber-packed urban areas, you can move to NYC instead. There are a lot of options!
  - Kalium 5y ago
    I think it's fine, so long as people are willing to accept the sky-high cost of living that comes with their policy choices.