18 ms·

I'm not arguing against the progression of housing. I'm arguing to be able to build a house I can afford on land I own. Building codes serve to lock property

I'm not arguing against the progression of housing. I'm arguing to be able to build a house I can afford on land I own. Building codes serve to lock property owners out of the means to actually live on their own property. And even if these high rises become more legalized, it's a long time from that happening and institutional investors and large construction and architecture firms executing and them finally being sold, in the meantime I have to live somewhere. It's also worth noting condos are a depreciating asset, unlike land, and you are beholden to the covenants and agreements of the condo including maintenance and other mandatory assessments. I know some guy in Manhattan is going to tell me "but it cost 0.5M for a 1000 sq ft plot here, and only 0.4M for a condo" Which may be correct, but for the many of us living in lower density cities that still have tons of jobs like Kansas City, Dallas, or Omaha there's still a huge delta between the value of a small plot of land + 10k to build yurt/cabin and the price of a condo. That reflects the economic efficiency of the owner built small structure vs the condo in these areas. Living out in the sticks has the same economic problem as you either have to be rich, retired, or score a very rare lucrative job to come out ahead. The economic cost is as high or higher than the new high-rise condo, it's just hidden behind opportunity cost. I really challenge you to find the percent of population living in an area where raw land enough for a small structure is more expensive than a condo. It's a very small percent.

sokoloff 5y ago
> Building codes serve to lock property owners out of the means to actually live on their own property. Building codes, or zoning requirements? Building codes typically cover things like fire protection, means of egress, ventilation, sanitary plumbing requirements, etc. While the requirement for indoor plumbing adds a small amount of cost to a dwelling, the zoning requirements (min, max square footage, setbacks, parking requirements, etc) are a substantially larger impact I think. I'm pretty far on the personal liberty scale, but I don't think it's reasonable to allow outhouses or permanent portajohns in a high population density area.
- quantumBerry 5y ago
  The negative impact of zoning requirements don't negate the negative impact of building codes, they just add more fuel to the fire. However zoning requirements are far less egregious; you wouldn't put a daycare next to a massive toxic waste handling plant. Comparing that to me building a tin shack isn't even in the same ballpark, and I think pretty disingenuous. >Building codes typically cover things like fire protection, means of egress, ventilation, sanitary plumbing requirements, etc. Yes these things are all should be tossed out. If I'm a 60 pound midget I don't need the same means of egress as you; if I haul in water I may not need plumbing at all and maybe I only clean out the cat litter box with the water that is plumbed in . Maybe I don't cook inside the house; that reduces the risk of fire by half so maybe my risk of fire looks as good or better than my up to code neighbor who has a standard up to code house but cooks with grease all day, falls asleep with a cigarette in their mouth, and leaves their lighters out for their toddler to play with. These are all neat requirements "in the name of safety" that could of course save lives, but at the expense of massive loss of life for people working years (lost life) and possible homelessness to avoid the insane requirements. If my option is to absolutely slave away for 7 years to buy a house to code, or build my own shack in one year, then the opportunity cost is about 1/12th of a life lost to build the house. Is there a 1/12 chance somebody is gonna die in my tin shack? Remember I'm still criminally negligible if they do, there isn't some gotcha that you get to do something that kills someone else because the code doesn't mention it. Outhouses and portajohns are what appear when the alternative is public urination/defecation. If the poor are zoned and coded out of a home, they're going to be urinating and deficating in your park rather than in an outhouse, sound better? Visit San Francisco to see the excellent results! By the way, the city has installed long term portajohns in a number of high density cities. I've seen them in Minneapolis and Seattle, as well as absolutely permanent ones in a certain city in Ohio.

sokoloff 5y ago

> Building codes serve to lock property owners out of the means to actually live on their own property. Building codes, or zoning requirements? Building codes typically cover things like fire protection, means of egress, ventilation, sanitary plumbing requirements, etc. While the requirement for indoor plumbing adds a small amount of cost to a dwelling, the zoning requirements (min, max square footage, setbacks, parking requirements, etc) are a substantially larger impact I think. I'm pretty far on the personal liberty scale, but I don't think it's reasonable to allow outhouses or permanent portajohns in a high population density area.

quantumBerry 5y ago
The negative impact of zoning requirements don't negate the negative impact of building codes, they just add more fuel to the fire. However zoning requirements are far less egregious; you wouldn't put a daycare next to a massive toxic waste handling plant. Comparing that to me building a tin shack isn't even in the same ballpark, and I think pretty disingenuous. >Building codes typically cover things like fire protection, means of egress, ventilation, sanitary plumbing requirements, etc. Yes these things are all should be tossed out. If I'm a 60 pound midget I don't need the same means of egress as you; if I haul in water I may not need plumbing at all and maybe I only clean out the cat litter box with the water that is plumbed in . Maybe I don't cook inside the house; that reduces the risk of fire by half so maybe my risk of fire looks as good or better than my up to code neighbor who has a standard up to code house but cooks with grease all day, falls asleep with a cigarette in their mouth, and leaves their lighters out for their toddler to play with. These are all neat requirements "in the name of safety" that could of course save lives, but at the expense of massive loss of life for people working years (lost life) and possible homelessness to avoid the insane requirements. If my option is to absolutely slave away for 7 years to buy a house to code, or build my own shack in one year, then the opportunity cost is about 1/12th of a life lost to build the house. Is there a 1/12 chance somebody is gonna die in my tin shack? Remember I'm still criminally negligible if they do, there isn't some gotcha that you get to do something that kills someone else because the code doesn't mention it. Outhouses and portajohns are what appear when the alternative is public urination/defecation. If the poor are zoned and coded out of a home, they're going to be urinating and deficating in your park rather than in an outhouse, sound better? Visit San Francisco to see the excellent results! By the way, the city has installed long term portajohns in a number of high density cities. I've seen them in Minneapolis and Seattle, as well as absolutely permanent ones in a certain city in Ohio.