8 ms·

> The Terner Center study on the cost to build low-income housing found that projects paying union-level wages to construction workers could cost $50,000 more p

• pclmulqdq 4y ago
  They don't want to address the real cost: the building codes being ridiculous. That would require reducing the amount of regulation. These codes have real cost and they don't necessarily add a lot of quality-of-life for the occupants. Edit - it was pointed out in another thread that affordable housing has to go through the same ridiculous permitting and environmental bureaucracy as other housing. That also costs a ton, probably more than the crazy building codes.
  • idiotsecant 4y ago
    No, building codes are fine. Building codes exist for a reason, and just because you don't know that reason doesn't make them less valid. If you have a particular code example that you think is ridiculous i'd invite discussion on it, you may be surprised how many experts on the subject are floating around.
    • spullara 4y ago
      There are many, but this is an example in CA: All new tenants and new occupancies hereafter constructed, which exceeds 3,600 square feet shall have an approved automatic fire sprinkler system installed throughout.
      • idiotsecant 4y ago
        fire sprinklers are the hill you're going to die on here?
        • mikeg8 4y ago
          Great response to someone who answered your invitation for a specific example. But I'll die on this hill. I can totally understand requiring them in multi-family or town-homes where there are shared walls - but not in single family homes. A residential fire suppression system for a ~2,500 Sqft home can cost anywhere from $10-25k to include on a new build in northern CA (I know from recent bids). That isn't a negligible cost and mandating them for smaller dwellings (in my county it's anything over 1,000 sqft) is a fine example of regulation that has "great" intentions but is making affordable housing un-afforable.
          • 8note 4y ago
            Are single family homes what's being considered affordable housing?
          • mlyle 4y ago
            It's also questionable if they save lives in single family dwellings, and also questionable whether the property damage they prevent from fires is larger than the property damage they cause through inadvertent activation/leaks/etc.
            • m0llusk 4y ago
              Actually, the statistics are rather stark. Without sprinklers people may be seriously injured or killed by fire. With sprinklers present and functioning risk of injury or death from fire becomes negligible.
              • pclmulqdq 4y ago
                Is this true in single family dwellings or only in apartment complexes? I would believe that sprinklers have a lot of value in apartment complexes but less value in single family homes. Not to mention that people who buy single family homes are a lot more likely to have more expensive furniture that would be ruined by a flood.
    • epistasis 4y ago
      It's more the zoning than the codes. Though there are some that make apartments more expensive, like requiring two staircases. This also significantly reduces the pleasantness of the resulting apartments, and typically means that you can't open windows on both sides of the building and get cross flow.
    • asdfadsfgfdda 4y ago
      There are many in CA that are ridiculous. Most are not related to safety, but likely due to lobbying from some industry. Fire sprinklers are required in single family homes. The very small incremental safety benefit is far outweighed by the initial cost, maintenance cost, and potential failures (more plumbing to leak). If you really wanted to improve fire safety, make it cheaper to replace 1950s-era houses with new construction! Solar panels are required for new homes, which ironically adds a small amount of fire risk (like all electrical devices). This is required in areas with cloudy conditions, or houses that are shaded by trees. The cost per watt is ridiculous compared to how cost-efficient utility scale solar has become. Not to mention the safety risk to solar workers on a second-story house. Just in plumbing code, there are several ridiculous restrictions. Some jurisdictions allow air admittance valves, others do not at all. ABS pipe is illegal for commercial buildings, but just fine for residential. IPC allows 1.5" vents for toilets, but UPC requires 2".
      • andbberger 4y ago
        sprinklers are not an incremental safety benefit. they're probably the single most effective bit of fire safety mandated by codes. mandates to install them in single family homes is overkill though. sprinklers are so effective that single means of egress + sprinklers should be the new building standard
        • sokoloff 4y ago
          > probably the single most effective bit of fire safety mandated by codes. Surely smoke alarms are more effective? (Obviously so on a per-dollar basis, but I’d wager on a per-unit basis as well. If you gave me a choice of a smoke alarm xor a sprinkler, I’ll take the smoke alarms every time.)
          • andbberger 4y ago
            silly contrived comparison you're always going to have both. knowing there's a fire doesn't do much for you if it flashes over before you can leave. sprinklers are ridiculously effective.
    • enragedcacti 4y ago
      As just one example, Most of the USA's building codes mandate double staircases in buildings over 3 stories for outdated fire concerns which increases cost per unit mainly by reducing the number of units that fit in a given site and the arrangement of those units. https://www.treehugger.com/single-stair-buildings-united-states-5197036 https://www.treehugger.com/single-stair-buildings-united-sta... https://twitter.com/holz_bau/status/1384670822351048707?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/holz_bau/status/1384670822351048707?ref_...
      • 8note 4y ago
        The Grenfell fire comes to mind for the benefits of multiple stair cases
  • majormajor 4y ago
    This article is Northern California, not Southern, but are the building codes so much more ridiculous that the construction cost is higher than you can pay to buy new-build townhouses or standalone houses in LA County? My other question would be: why are we building new instead of buying up old hotels, old office or condo buildings, etc, if building new costs so much?
    • danans 4y ago
      It may seem counterintuitive at first but renovating old buildings - especially non residential ones - for occupancy is often more expensive than building new. There are many reasons; new stuff is usually built on cheaper land, old buildings have lots of issues that make updating them very labor intensive. It's why most malls can't be easily converted into housing, and usually need to just be torn down completely, often just reusing foundations.
      • majormajor 4y ago
        Malls, office buildings are less realistic, sure. Prefering million-dollar-per-unit-construction to existing motels and apartments or condo buildings, on the other hand, appears to be perfect being the enemy of the good. It's easy for committees of people who largely don't need affordable or last-resort housing to make it practically impossible to create it.
        • bobthepanda 4y ago
          I don’t think there are that many disused hotels or condos just lying around. Hotels are tricky. There’s rarely even a single kitchen available per floor, let alone per unit, and I would imagine a kitchen is required in the building codes. Ultimately, conversions have to be brought up to the same building codes as new construction, so you don’t actually get rid of the problem (codes making any construction hard to do.)
          • majormajor 4y ago
            It's not that hard to find boarded up apartment buildings in LA, at least. Motels were used for homeless housing during Covid, seemed like a good start. They're already housing-of-last resort options for people, and they're already constructed. Don't hold affordable housing to higher standards than low-end-of-the-market homes or apartments, or you're just going to leave the bottom of the market with even fewer options. Let market rate construction be the new construction - which has less red tape around qualifying for incentives and government funding, etc - and shore up the quality and quantity of the bottom end with government action. You'll be adding more units than you are today, which is the most important thing here.
  • hardtke 4y ago
    Some of the building codes are probably overkill, but part of the difference in California building costs compared to other states are energy efficiency requirements (like more expensive windows) that quickly pay for themselves in reduced costs to live in the unit and also reduce per capita energy usage. Unfortunately, neither the developer or landlord (if the unit is built for a rental) has incentive to build an energy efficient building as the tenant is going to eventually pay the energy costs. These requirements absolutely need government regulation because the "free market" leads to a non optimal outcome.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • bpodgursky 4y ago
      How long do you think it takes to recoup an extra half million dollars in energy savings?
      • epistasis 4y ago
        Less than the term of the typical mortgage, i.e. these codes are only adopted when it lowers the cost of housing. With your $500k up front costs, how many units are you spreading that over?
      • renewiltord 4y ago
        -
        • peter422 4y ago
          This is a straw man to begin with because the building codes are not the issue… the permitting apparatus is. However, your analysis is simplistic and assumes: 1. The house uses no natural gas (most do) 2. The cost of electricity never goes up (it will in the short term at least) 3. CO2 emissions from wasted energy have no cost (they do) 4. Building energy efficient buildings is way more expensive than the alternatives for new construction (it isn’t)
  • throwawaymaths 4y ago
    This is literally what the article states midway through.
• mwint 4y ago
  5% and 1.7%.
  • SilverBirch 4y ago
    Bah
• idiotsecant 4y ago
  Particularly egregious given that they ignore the Terner Center Study's main finding, which is that the #1 predictor of the cost efficiency of housing is density. If you want cheaper housing, build it more densely. Whether it's union construction or not is a rounding error. This reads to me to be either deliberately anti-labor or someone who didn't want to make the obvious but hard to fix point in favor or making a divisive and clickbaity one.
  • klipt 4y ago
    > If you want cheaper housing, build it more densely. NIMBYs hate this one weird trick for cheaper housing!
    • atoav 4y ago
      I think globally it is quite known how to build cheaply while keeping the quality up. The issue is that there are not many incentives to build 20 cheap housing units where you could build 5 high prized ones. Especially if you already have high prized ones nearby and you don't want to "stain" them with the existence of "these people". Something that works well in Vienna/Austria (and elsewhere) is state/municipiality-owned housing and laws that dedicate a certain percentage of the municipial area to cheap housing. This way (if I recall correctly), whenever a high prized thing is built, they have to negotiate with the city where the cheap housing goes. Into the same spot? A different, less valuable, but bigger lot? The unexpected benefit of this is that you mix different social classes of people which is ultimately good for society. Many issues between the social classes today stem from a lack of visibility and shared living spaces.
      • ZeroGravitas 4y ago
        This is what the progressive areas in the US are trying to do as well and are being attacked with an incoherent right wing response about how that obvious and simple solution is actually an elitist, counterproductive, authoritarian blah blah blah, because they represent the people who dont want to live near poor people.
• _Parfait_ 4y ago
  Did you not read the entire article.. They say one of the largest drivers is trying to navigate the bureaucracy and red tape... --- A 2018 study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that 14% of the price tag for California’s affordable housing projects was made up of consulting fees and other administrative costs — the highest in the country and more than developers spend on land. ---
  • onphonenow 4y ago
    I work adjacent to affordable housing. TONS of tax credits and other funding (relatively) HOWEVER I wouldn't wish these projects on an enemy. The funding is a million strings attached / crazy opinions. So you have to be EXPERT to apply and manage the intersection of all the credits and funding. You are still subject to all the zoning / environmental red tape (even if it helps that there is affordable). If you are building luxary units easier to absorb this all, otherwise, again a nightmare. The places with affordable housing money tend to be wickedly expense. If San Francisco took their affordable housing money, and built out at the ends of BART they could build some multiple number of units. To get 100 affordable units into San Francisco is very very expensive. Outside of these crazy subsidizes, most other regulatory rules / delays etc argue against building "cheap" housing. So we house and feed folks in high need in some of the absolutely most expensive places in the US and world. And some of the units (which prioritize families) are relative massive 3 bedroom places. If you go to chinatown in SF, the density is so so much higher (private market) though likely illegal in many cases. If you spent the $1B/year even in California in one or two of the cheaper areas to live in you'd get so many multiples for it that it would blow your mind. Or if you were allowed to build chinatown levels of density.
    • basedgod 4y ago
      BART (and all subways in the US) costs $2 billion per mile to build a few years ago (somebody posted a while back BART + other subways recent construction costs), probably close to $4 billion per mile now due to inflation and higher materials costs I don't think spending $100s of billions on subway into the suburbs will even make a dent on housing prices
• NackerHughes 4y ago
  Warts on the rhino? That's an idiom I've never heard before!