3 ms·

I don't disagree with you but I think there is a sort of difference that makes the comparison to software developers[1] a bit false. The cost for software deve

by munk-a 4y ago

I don't disagree with you but I think there is a sort of difference that makes the comparison to software developers[1] a bit false. The cost for software developers[1] to fix things after the fact is generally lower than the cost of developing it again from scratch - the cost for contractors to fix an existing fully constructed building that didn't have rebar put in is... tear it all down (expensive), dispose of all that waste (expensive), probably double check the site to make sure things in the ground didn't shift during the construction and destruction (expensive) and rebuild the building from scratch. Personally I'm against amnesty for contractors - if a building was poorly constructed the people responsible for that decision should be treated harshly... but I think there is a reasonable discussion to have around amnesty for the buildings themselves. 1. (Was originally just "developers" edited to "software developers" for clarity)

valarauko 4y ago
> The cost for developers to fix things after the fact is generally lower than the cost of developing it again from scratch I don't follow - could you expand on why this would be the case? What's the distinction here between the developer and the contractor when it comes to costs?
- munk-a 4y ago
  Sorry, the terminology is kind of terrible here - by developer I meant software developer. That's pretty egregiously confusing so I've edited the comment. I'm actually uncertain now if the parent I was replying to was talking about software or real estate developers so my response might be a bit of a miss.
  - valarauko 4y ago
    Ah, I suspected that might be the case. My reading of the parent did suggest "real estate developer" to me, for what it's worth.
gameman144 4y ago
Yeah, based on my understanding, I think I agree with you across the board. Saying "this building already exists, so we'll let it slide" and doing retrofits as able seems like a reasonable compromise. If you allow new construction to bypass safety regulations though, it's unreasonable to then punish contractors for bypassing safety regulations. Regulators should never have granted exemptions for such projects, and it should be their feet to the fire on this one.
- TylerE 4y ago
  Which is basically how building codes work in the US. You gotta meet the ones in force at time of building, but modifications have to be built up to code.

by munk-a 4y ago

valarauko 4y ago

> The cost for developers to fix things after the fact is generally lower than the cost of developing it again from scratch I don't follow - could you expand on why this would be the case? What's the distinction here between the developer and the contractor when it comes to costs?

munk-a 4y ago
Sorry, the terminology is kind of terrible here - by developer I meant software developer. That's pretty egregiously confusing so I've edited the comment. I'm actually uncertain now if the parent I was replying to was talking about software or real estate developers so my response might be a bit of a miss.
- valarauko 4y ago
  Ah, I suspected that might be the case. My reading of the parent did suggest "real estate developer" to me, for what it's worth.

gameman144 4y ago

Yeah, based on my understanding, I think I agree with you across the board. Saying "this building already exists, so we'll let it slide" and doing retrofits as able seems like a reasonable compromise. If you allow new construction to bypass safety regulations though, it's unreasonable to then punish contractors for bypassing safety regulations. Regulators should never have granted exemptions for such projects, and it should be their feet to the fire on this one.

TylerE 4y ago
Which is basically how building codes work in the US. You gotta meet the ones in force at time of building, but modifications have to be built up to code.