4 ms·

If building codes took externalities into account, housing prices would go down. Boarding houses filled a need, but modern safety codes say every bedroom needs

If building codes took externalities into account, housing prices would go down. Boarding houses filled a need, but modern safety codes say every bedroom needs a window. I bet people would rather have a roof over their heads, without a window, than sleep outdoors. Want to do work on your house in Seattle? Touch the roofline and you'll need obscene amounts of rework and basically a band new roof. There is a serious shortage of space, so let's make increasing the # of bedrooms in the city as expensive as possible! We need regulation, but regulations need to be created balancing out real world needs.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
You need tort reform first to remove liability from builders, owners, and governments once a fire kills a few people in a building with rooms that have no egress and lawsuits start flying.
- 2fast4you 5y ago
  If people die in a fire because they can't exit the building quickly and safely, that's a problem and someone should be liable for their negligence. People not dying should be the priority.
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    >"People not dying should be the priority." It already is, but like all things the costs and benefits must be weighed. You can prevent 100% of electrical fires by prohibiting buildings from having power.
    - 2fast4you 5y ago
      You can prevent people from dying in a house fire by just not having any homes either. Relaxing safety requirements is not the solution to housing crisis. At best it will just increase the divide. We're going to be packing people like sardines into the cheapest (and consequently most dangerous) "housing" we could build, while people who can afford the luxury live in homes built to modern safety standards. These regulations aren't created just for fun, they're created because people died. Let's not take a step backwards.
      - com2kid 5y ago
        Right now shelters are so unsafe many people choose to sleep on the streets instead. I'm not saying roll building codes back 100 years. I am saying that cities are experiencing an extraordinary problem and we may need to start rethinking some of our fundamentals and sacred cows if we are going to solve these problems.
      - hackerfromthefu 5y ago
        You can also prevent people from dying in a house by making the house too expensive that it's unaffordable for them.
      - BitwiseFool 5y ago
        >"These regulations aren't created just for fun, they're created because people died. Let's not take a step backwards." Of course, and I realize that, I think we all do. The question, though, is at what point is a regulation more expensive than it is practical? It sounds heartless but some regulations don't seem worth the expense of how many lives it is designed to save. One of the reasons why the 4 prong outlet is required for dryers is because someone was changing the inner light bulb in the dryer and killed themselves because they didn't shut off power to the circuit. The regulation is meant to help prevent this in the future, but one has to wonder just how many people are actually being saved by this update. Especially when you personally have to shell out something like $750 to update your three prong outlet.
vkou 5y ago
Safety codes aren't the reason housing is expensive. Land use is. NIMBY policies that ban multi-family tenancies are. Lack of SROs is. Lawn and parking requirements are. The kind of housing we need can be built to code. But it can't be built when political stakeholders actively work against it.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  A number of places, including my state, have made blanket changes to zoning that allow multifamily housing where it was previously not allowed. In a short time we should have the answer.
  - gscott 5y ago
    California has an accessory dwelling unit law that if fully realized could take single family homes built on a big lot and give them the ability to have multiple adu units on them... https://additionalhomes.com/adu-law-regulations/ https://additionalhomes.com/adu-law-regulations/
  - com2kid 5y ago
    Here's another idea: Mandate only ADA accessibility for the first floor of a residential building. Before someone says that is a terrible idea, I'd like to point out the majority of housing stock in Manhattan is just that.
- AmericanChopper 5y ago
  I largely agree with you, but it does tend to be a little bit more complicated than that. Highly restrictive zoning laws are a tremendous problem, but if you want to change them you typically have to address infrastructure as well. If you wanted to do some urban intensification in an area, you’d likely have to build more water, power, waste water and telephony infrastructure first. If you wanted your new higher density urban environment to provide a decent quality of life, you’d then likely have to address increased demand for roads, public transport, schools, hospitals, etc…
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
2fast4you 5y ago
I'm sorry but every bedroom DOES need a window. Packing people into as many small artificially lit rooms as we can fit on a lot is not a great idea. I think we need to be very careful about relaxing safety guidelines.
- anonymoushn 5y ago
  It's important to keep people homeless to save them from not having windows.
  - vorpalhex 5y ago
    Well it's the burning to death with no means of egress that is mostly the concern. Homelessness is probably better than being burnt alive in a fire that removes your escape avenue.
    - plandis 5y ago
      It’s a relative trade off though. People living in tents will still die to fires but also are going to be exposed to other risks that are likely way less prevalent in a windowless home.
      - anonymoushn 5y ago
        The risk under consideration must be minimized at any cost, including costs much greater than the maximum possible benefit.
    - shuckles 5y ago
      Modern fire codes are good enough that I’d be shocked if a code compliant new building with no windows is less safe than a pre-1960s building with windows.
    - com2kid 5y ago
      Modern fire safety standards are worlds above what they used to be when the requirement for windows went into building codes. I'm not saying it is nice, but I am saying that flop houses and boarding houses filled a need in society that, for many people, is currently being met by living outdoors in tents instead.
mjevans 5y ago
Is it a 'window' or an independent egress route? I am 100% for building code requiring the literal safety feature. Though I kind of like the idea of my sleeping room deep inside of a cave of solitude. Possibly with one uncommonly used route that has to be entirely lined with non-flammable materials only.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

You need tort reform first to remove liability from builders, owners, and governments once a fire kills a few people in a building with rooms that have no egress and lawsuits start flying.

2fast4you 5y ago
If people die in a fire because they can't exit the building quickly and safely, that's a problem and someone should be liable for their negligence. People not dying should be the priority.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  >"People not dying should be the priority." It already is, but like all things the costs and benefits must be weighed. You can prevent 100% of electrical fires by prohibiting buildings from having power.
  - 2fast4you 5y ago
    You can prevent people from dying in a house fire by just not having any homes either. Relaxing safety requirements is not the solution to housing crisis. At best it will just increase the divide. We're going to be packing people like sardines into the cheapest (and consequently most dangerous) "housing" we could build, while people who can afford the luxury live in homes built to modern safety standards. These regulations aren't created just for fun, they're created because people died. Let's not take a step backwards.
    - com2kid 5y ago
      Right now shelters are so unsafe many people choose to sleep on the streets instead. I'm not saying roll building codes back 100 years. I am saying that cities are experiencing an extraordinary problem and we may need to start rethinking some of our fundamentals and sacred cows if we are going to solve these problems.
    - hackerfromthefu 5y ago
      You can also prevent people from dying in a house by making the house too expensive that it's unaffordable for them.
    - BitwiseFool 5y ago
      >"These regulations aren't created just for fun, they're created because people died. Let's not take a step backwards." Of course, and I realize that, I think we all do. The question, though, is at what point is a regulation more expensive than it is practical? It sounds heartless but some regulations don't seem worth the expense of how many lives it is designed to save. One of the reasons why the 4 prong outlet is required for dryers is because someone was changing the inner light bulb in the dryer and killed themselves because they didn't shut off power to the circuit. The regulation is meant to help prevent this in the future, but one has to wonder just how many people are actually being saved by this update. Especially when you personally have to shell out something like $750 to update your three prong outlet.

vkou 5y ago

Safety codes aren't the reason housing is expensive. Land use is. NIMBY policies that ban multi-family tenancies are. Lack of SROs is. Lawn and parking requirements are. The kind of housing we need can be built to code. But it can't be built when political stakeholders actively work against it.

rootusrootus 5y ago
A number of places, including my state, have made blanket changes to zoning that allow multifamily housing where it was previously not allowed. In a short time we should have the answer.
- gscott 5y ago
  California has an accessory dwelling unit law that if fully realized could take single family homes built on a big lot and give them the ability to have multiple adu units on them... https://additionalhomes.com/adu-law-regulations/ https://additionalhomes.com/adu-law-regulations/
- com2kid 5y ago
  Here's another idea: Mandate only ADA accessibility for the first floor of a residential building. Before someone says that is a terrible idea, I'd like to point out the majority of housing stock in Manhattan is just that.
AmericanChopper 5y ago
I largely agree with you, but it does tend to be a little bit more complicated than that. Highly restrictive zoning laws are a tremendous problem, but if you want to change them you typically have to address infrastructure as well. If you wanted to do some urban intensification in an area, you’d likely have to build more water, power, waste water and telephony infrastructure first. If you wanted your new higher density urban environment to provide a decent quality of life, you’d then likely have to address increased demand for roads, public transport, schools, hospitals, etc…
BitwiseFool 5y ago

2fast4you 5y ago

I'm sorry but every bedroom DOES need a window. Packing people into as many small artificially lit rooms as we can fit on a lot is not a great idea. I think we need to be very careful about relaxing safety guidelines.

anonymoushn 5y ago
It's important to keep people homeless to save them from not having windows.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  Well it's the burning to death with no means of egress that is mostly the concern. Homelessness is probably better than being burnt alive in a fire that removes your escape avenue.
  - plandis 5y ago
    It’s a relative trade off though. People living in tents will still die to fires but also are going to be exposed to other risks that are likely way less prevalent in a windowless home.
    - anonymoushn 5y ago
      The risk under consideration must be minimized at any cost, including costs much greater than the maximum possible benefit.
  - shuckles 5y ago
    Modern fire codes are good enough that I’d be shocked if a code compliant new building with no windows is less safe than a pre-1960s building with windows.
  - com2kid 5y ago
    Modern fire safety standards are worlds above what they used to be when the requirement for windows went into building codes. I'm not saying it is nice, but I am saying that flop houses and boarding houses filled a need in society that, for many people, is currently being met by living outdoors in tents instead.

mjevans 5y ago

Is it a 'window' or an independent egress route? I am 100% for building code requiring the literal safety feature. Though I kind of like the idea of my sleeping room deep inside of a cave of solitude. Possibly with one uncommonly used route that has to be entirely lined with non-flammable materials only.