4 ms·

Adapt or die. I don't understand why the landed gentry thinks they're entitled to unlimited return on their investment without some effort.

by DanAtC 3y ago

google234123 3y ago
It’d be nice if the state didn’t get in the way. In certain 95% of the housing in NYC would be illegal to build today. When there’s 1000s of rules required to make housing don’t be surprised when very little gets done
- danaris 3y ago
  When most of those rules are along the lines of "don't build it so it will fall down in 3 months" and "don't build it out of asbestos and lead", I'll take the rules over the speed.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    And what about when the rules are about where the shadow of the building will fall or how many parking spaces must be included? The regulations on building in most cities in the US are far, far more comprehensive than just "don't poison occupants or let the building collapse on them".
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      > where the shadow of the building will fall or how many parking spaces must be included Those are valuable to the community, so the street isn't perpetually in shade and people can see the sky (there are lots of tall buildings), and so neighbors and retail customers can still find parking after your new 50-story skyscraper's tenants move in.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > Those are valuable to the community, so the street isn't perpetually in shade and people can see the sky (there are lots of tall buildings) If there is only one tall building in the area, its shadow will be cast in different places throughout the day, not overly burdening any of them. If there is a cluster of tall buildings, this is even better, because another tall building will be the thing most of the adjacent building's shadow is cast on, and high density buildings will have wide streets between them to carry the traffic anyway, which also allows in light and air. A sensible way to do this is to require larger offsets for taller buildings, which then allow wider streets and sidewalks in areas with many tall buildings. But that's typically not how the rules work when their true purpose is to limit construction; they just prohibit the taller building entirely. > so neighbors and retail customers can still find parking after your new 50-story skyscraper's tenants move in. They would have parking in their own building, if they paid the extra cost needed to provide that. Why should that be mandatory? Many people in a city may be content to not have a car.
        wolverine876 3y ago
        My impression is that neither of us knows much about these issues (correct me if I'm wrong). It would be interesting to see the rules for such buildings, and the reasonings behind them. Beyond that, at least I am not in a position to say what's sensible. IME such rules are born of a wide variety of interests that come together and work it out. Public parking is a commons; commons with high demand need rules to share them fairly.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > Public parking is a commons; commons with high demand need rules to share them fairly. Public parking in a rural or suburban area is a commons. You provide some free parking as a convenience because land isn't at a premium. Parking in a city is a market. If there isn't enough, the price goes up and then people build more because it's profitable. You can still have some street parking provided by the government (whether it's metered or not) but anybody objecting that there isn't enough parking is invited to take advantage of the high demand by building a parking garage. > IME such rules are born of a wide variety of interests that come together and work it out. The issue is that part of the "wide variety of interests" is the people who want to prevent development because scarcity increases the value of their existing property or the amount of rent they can charge. But this is an unsympathetic motive, so they find various pretexts to thwart construction and pass rules with a different underlying goal than the stated one.
  - AdrianB1 3y ago
    No, they are not. I find construction rules in USA to be weird in comparison to Europe, it looks like most rules exist to make new developments almost impossible unless you bribe a lot of the people in charge of regulations; they protect the shady revenues of local officials, not the people that will live in the buildings. At the same time, some standards are ridiculous, like low power electrical lines in homes and small offices are dangerous and obsolete. I am passioned about this particular domain and I am investing quite some time learning about differences between Europe and other places around the world, so I had the chance to reach to some conclusions.
    - otikik 3y ago
      I happen to have reached a similar conclusion through a totally different path (by watching many American home building YouTube channels and comparing them with how we build in Europe). If you ever put your thoughts out there, I would like to read them/watch them.
      - AdrianB1 3y ago
        I have considered the idea, but I don't see the practical value. USA will not change a bit, most of the good things from Europe cannot be reapplied (incompatible standards and equipment) and, to be very honest, there is no single European standard to follow; Germany has probably the best, but I saw some good stuff in UK that is quite incompatible (RCBO in TT), I dislike Italian sockets and I am not a fan of UK plugs (fuse in plugs? really?) and ring circuits (saving copper was real in 1950, but we are 70 years later). So it would just sound as bashing USA without providing any solutions. It would be even illegal to adopt most European technologies in a house in USA.
        otikik 3y ago
        Well maybe it will not make the US better, but it could perhaps help Europe not become worse (some people will think “if it’s American it must be better”). But thank you for sharing this anyway.
    - D13Fd 3y ago
  - antisthenes 3y ago
    > When most of those rules are along the lines of They aren't. The rules you mentioned can be fit on a single page. Zoning code is hundreds of pages, and that's just for what you can do with the land. It's more hundreds of pages for building out a simple interior (e.g. kitchen, power outlets, plumbing, bedroom)
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      In addition to that, many of the rules exist as a result of regulatory capture. For example, you have to both hire a licensed professional and have the city inspector sign off on the work. But isn't this redundant? Why couldn't you do the work yourself if the city inspector is still going to come and verify that it's up to code? It would be a lot more cost effective to consult a professional to ask how to do something up to code (consult an electrician in the same way as you might consult an attorney) rather than the equivalent of requiring the attorney to work in the factory and manufacture your widgets.
- macNchz 3y ago
  I have been absolutely blown away by the pace of housing construction in the recently-rezoned Gowanus neighborhood in Brooklyn. It's incredible how quickly the area has changed from empty lots and single-story warehouse buildings into mid/high-rise residential buildings, once the zoning restrictions were removed, and even with all of the general city codes and extra rules for that area around building on brownfields.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  It's repeated a lot, but I think it needs to be supported, especially in detail: Where do regulations have the highest impact on developers, and where are they most valuable to the tenants and community? Regulations that require decent, safe housing are important and valuable. In a very densely populated environment of millions of people, regulations are needed to make good, safe neighbors.
ta1243 3y ago
Because that's the way it's been for centuries.
sonotathrowaway 3y ago
They pay exorbitant rents to politicians to retain that privilege. It’s less of an argument more of an avalanche of money.
- ta1243 3y ago
  They really don't. Look at the "donation" they gave Jenrick [0] £12k to have a £45m return. A 0.03% cut. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/24/robert-jenrick-planning-row-the-key-questions-answered https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/24/robert-jenr...

Adapt or die. I don't understand why the landed gentry thinks they're entitled to unlimited return on their investment without some effort.

by DanAtC 3y ago

Adapt or die. I don't understand why the landed gentry thinks they're entitled to unlimited return on their investment without some effort.

google234123 3y ago

It’d be nice if the state didn’t get in the way. In certain 95% of the housing in NYC would be illegal to build today. When there’s 1000s of rules required to make housing don’t be surprised when very little gets done

danaris 3y ago
When most of those rules are along the lines of "don't build it so it will fall down in 3 months" and "don't build it out of asbestos and lead", I'll take the rules over the speed.
- thfuran 3y ago
  And what about when the rules are about where the shadow of the building will fall or how many parking spaces must be included? The regulations on building in most cities in the US are far, far more comprehensive than just "don't poison occupants or let the building collapse on them".
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > where the shadow of the building will fall or how many parking spaces must be included Those are valuable to the community, so the street isn't perpetually in shade and people can see the sky (there are lots of tall buildings), and so neighbors and retail customers can still find parking after your new 50-story skyscraper's tenants move in.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > Those are valuable to the community, so the street isn't perpetually in shade and people can see the sky (there are lots of tall buildings) If there is only one tall building in the area, its shadow will be cast in different places throughout the day, not overly burdening any of them. If there is a cluster of tall buildings, this is even better, because another tall building will be the thing most of the adjacent building's shadow is cast on, and high density buildings will have wide streets between them to carry the traffic anyway, which also allows in light and air. A sensible way to do this is to require larger offsets for taller buildings, which then allow wider streets and sidewalks in areas with many tall buildings. But that's typically not how the rules work when their true purpose is to limit construction; they just prohibit the taller building entirely. > so neighbors and retail customers can still find parking after your new 50-story skyscraper's tenants move in. They would have parking in their own building, if they paid the extra cost needed to provide that. Why should that be mandatory? Many people in a city may be content to not have a car.
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        My impression is that neither of us knows much about these issues (correct me if I'm wrong). It would be interesting to see the rules for such buildings, and the reasonings behind them. Beyond that, at least I am not in a position to say what's sensible. IME such rules are born of a wide variety of interests that come together and work it out. Public parking is a commons; commons with high demand need rules to share them fairly.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > Public parking is a commons; commons with high demand need rules to share them fairly. Public parking in a rural or suburban area is a commons. You provide some free parking as a convenience because land isn't at a premium. Parking in a city is a market. If there isn't enough, the price goes up and then people build more because it's profitable. You can still have some street parking provided by the government (whether it's metered or not) but anybody objecting that there isn't enough parking is invited to take advantage of the high demand by building a parking garage. > IME such rules are born of a wide variety of interests that come together and work it out. The issue is that part of the "wide variety of interests" is the people who want to prevent development because scarcity increases the value of their existing property or the amount of rent they can charge. But this is an unsympathetic motive, so they find various pretexts to thwart construction and pass rules with a different underlying goal than the stated one.
- AdrianB1 3y ago
  No, they are not. I find construction rules in USA to be weird in comparison to Europe, it looks like most rules exist to make new developments almost impossible unless you bribe a lot of the people in charge of regulations; they protect the shady revenues of local officials, not the people that will live in the buildings. At the same time, some standards are ridiculous, like low power electrical lines in homes and small offices are dangerous and obsolete. I am passioned about this particular domain and I am investing quite some time learning about differences between Europe and other places around the world, so I had the chance to reach to some conclusions.
  - otikik 3y ago
    I happen to have reached a similar conclusion through a totally different path (by watching many American home building YouTube channels and comparing them with how we build in Europe). If you ever put your thoughts out there, I would like to read them/watch them.
    - AdrianB1 3y ago
      I have considered the idea, but I don't see the practical value. USA will not change a bit, most of the good things from Europe cannot be reapplied (incompatible standards and equipment) and, to be very honest, there is no single European standard to follow; Germany has probably the best, but I saw some good stuff in UK that is quite incompatible (RCBO in TT), I dislike Italian sockets and I am not a fan of UK plugs (fuse in plugs? really?) and ring circuits (saving copper was real in 1950, but we are 70 years later). So it would just sound as bashing USA without providing any solutions. It would be even illegal to adopt most European technologies in a house in USA.
      - otikik 3y ago
        Well maybe it will not make the US better, but it could perhaps help Europe not become worse (some people will think “if it’s American it must be better”). But thank you for sharing this anyway.
  - D13Fd 3y ago
- antisthenes 3y ago
  > When most of those rules are along the lines of They aren't. The rules you mentioned can be fit on a single page. Zoning code is hundreds of pages, and that's just for what you can do with the land. It's more hundreds of pages for building out a simple interior (e.g. kitchen, power outlets, plumbing, bedroom)
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    In addition to that, many of the rules exist as a result of regulatory capture. For example, you have to both hire a licensed professional and have the city inspector sign off on the work. But isn't this redundant? Why couldn't you do the work yourself if the city inspector is still going to come and verify that it's up to code? It would be a lot more cost effective to consult a professional to ask how to do something up to code (consult an electrician in the same way as you might consult an attorney) rather than the equivalent of requiring the attorney to work in the factory and manufacture your widgets.
macNchz 3y ago
I have been absolutely blown away by the pace of housing construction in the recently-rezoned Gowanus neighborhood in Brooklyn. It's incredible how quickly the area has changed from empty lots and single-story warehouse buildings into mid/high-rise residential buildings, once the zoning restrictions were removed, and even with all of the general city codes and extra rules for that area around building on brownfields.
wolverine876 3y ago
It's repeated a lot, but I think it needs to be supported, especially in detail: Where do regulations have the highest impact on developers, and where are they most valuable to the tenants and community? Regulations that require decent, safe housing are important and valuable. In a very densely populated environment of millions of people, regulations are needed to make good, safe neighbors.

ta1243 3y ago

Because that's the way it's been for centuries.

sonotathrowaway 3y ago

They pay exorbitant rents to politicians to retain that privilege. It’s less of an argument more of an avalanche of money.

ta1243 3y ago
They really don't. Look at the "donation" they gave Jenrick [0] £12k to have a £45m return. A 0.03% cut. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/24/robert-jenrick-planning-row-the-key-questions-answered https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/24/robert-jenr...