9 ms·

None of the things he mentioned have anything to do with safety.

gamepsys 3y ago
Environmental review, community review, and MFH standards all have something to do with safety. It's not like root comment is arguing against fire hydrants or carbon monoxide detectors. I'm just arguing not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
- loeg 3y ago
  Setbacks, parking minimums and floor area ratios have nothing to do with safety. Community reviews have absolutely nothing to do with safety.
  - gamepsys 3y ago
    > Community review Any feedback brought up in a community review is on official record. I have witnessed safety concerns being brought up in community review multiple times that caused changes to the building plan. In one situation it was a very serious concern about blocking fire truck access to an elementary school.
    - bluGill 3y ago
      why didn't the code catch that?
      - gamepsys 3y ago
        The code doesn't catch anything. People catch violations of the code. Community review is a place people can point out code violations. It's actually extremely embarrassing when this happens to a developer. Buildings get built with infractions all the time. With the MFH buildings it's actually a point of law to see who gets stuck with the liability -- the person that built it or the person that bought it.
  - jjulius 3y ago
    Careful with those absolutes.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    Side setbacks absolutely have an effect on fire safety (a greater distance gives less propensity to ignite the neighboring building and provides access with which to fight the original structure fire). Front setbacks and lot area coverage ratios have a more minor version of this same effect from fires across the street. It takes a pretty good sized fire to ignite the building across a street, but as density increases and more of a lot's area is able to covered with structures, the chances to get a pretty good sized fire going do increase.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      Ya. My setback is 3 feet, definitely just a margin for fire safety. I wanted to put an awning in but couldn't because it would be too close to the fence of my property boundary (I live in a town home that abuses the 3 foot setback to maximize living space).
      - fires10 3y ago
        I have minimum lot size of 5 acres. Can't see the wisdom in that one. I also have a minimum square footage size. $20,000 impact fee just to build a house and I receive no utilities or city/ county services.
        Spivak 3y ago
        I wish more than anything we could legislate the fee structures backwards. If the government wants an environmental impact study then the government is footing the bill for it. Putting it on the builder is stupid and just a way of hiding the budget item in other people's wallets.
        seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        Ok, the government will fund your environmental impact study so you can build, but...oh...given their budget they will have it done sometime in 2100.
    - ajmurmann 3y ago
- mperham 3y ago
  We have zoning and internationally recognized building safety codes already. Our current housing emergency happening everywhere is a pretty good indicator that we should be much more aggressive about trimming back the regulatory state which has ossified our cities.
  - greenthrow 3y ago
    Your argument doesn't really make sense because the problem isn't lack of houses or apartments, there's plenty of places to put everyone. The problem is one of affordability. The costs of stuff that already exists and has existed for ages isn't really tied to the current cost to build, even if we buy the specious argument that all regulation raises costs and those costs are inevitably passed directly to tenants.
    - bluGill 3y ago
      supply and eemand sets rents. You you rent perfecly good existing houses cheap in rural areas. Nobody wants to like there. There is no reason to think there is enourh room for everyone who wants to like in San Francisco, and statistics prove they heve not been building much. Mean while in other states we find areas of demand where housing is not expensive. Where I live you can rent one bedroom apartments for under $1000, mohe in won't be until spring as the building is still under construction. The owners are planning on starting the next building when this is done. That is what allosing building does.
      - wiml 3y ago
        Supply, demand, and cartels like Realpage.
        eru 3y ago
        Cartel's can't just magically set prices. They can withhold supply, and that might have an effect on market prices.
- xvedejas 3y ago
  From what I've seen of environmental review laws, they mostly just have to do with noise and construction nuisance. Whereas community review is mostly about aesthetics. I don't think these are the tools designed for safety.
- u32480932048 3y ago
  In practice, the <environmental stuff> has mostly been used by non-environmentalists to delay development they simply don't like. (This one has to do specifically with CA, but it's not the first time I've seen this complaint.) "Projects designed to advance California’s environmental policy objectives are the most frequent targets of CEQA lawsuits: transit is the most frequently challenged type of infrastructure project (edging out challenges to both highways and local roadways); renewable energy is the most frequently challenged type of industrial/utility project; and housing (especially higher-density housing) is the most frequently challenged type of private-sector project." "Our study found repeated examples of intentional efforts to cloak the identity of CEQA litigants behind environmental-sounding names of fake and even unlawful “associations.”" https://www.planningreport.com/2015/12/21/new-ceqa-study-reveals-widespread-abuse-legal-process-non-environmentalists https://www.planningreport.com/2015/12/21/new-ceqa-study-rev...
  - nullc 3y ago
    I'm clueless on the subject and don't intend to argue the point, but it struck me that the metric that article consistently uses is one that almost guarantees the results: It's not surprising to learn that the categories that have the greatest amount of activity by far are the ones with the most CEQA challenges. The point would be much stronger if it was made in terms the rate of challenges for varrious project types rather then in terms of frequency of CEQA challenges being that kind of project. The assumption I'd draw from that, being ignorant of the subject, is that the argument is unsupportable on that more reasonable basis.
adaml_623 3y ago
Double stair Vs single stair is totally a safety issue
- alistairSH 3y ago
  One that much of Europe has mitigated somehow.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    By building their buildings out of brick rather than wood. Though its probably overkill here in the states and canada.
    - ksplicer 3y ago
      Even our wood has so much fire safety chemicals baked in now that it's not nearly as flammable as it used to be. The safety standards should be reevaluated. Plus, I'm sure that there are some developers who would happily build the whole MFH out of concrete if it lets them only use a single stair.
      - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        Concrete construction is expensive in the states, although I'm not sure why. 4+1s are common here in Seattle: first story is concrete and commercial, 4 stories on top of that are wooden (we also have the more liberal stair requirements, so I'm not sure what is really going on). Concrete construction is the common way to build in China (and anywhere in Asia sans Japan), but the techniques they use require a bit of overbuilding and limit their towers to around 34 or so stories. Still, they have two stair cases side by side in those buildings (but I guess given the height, they need them by Chinese fire code standards).
        shiroiuma 3y ago
        >Concrete construction is the common way to build in China (and anywhere in Asia sans Japan) Concrete-reinforced steel is absolutely common here in Japan. Wood is used for single-family homes, though, but anything larger is generally concrete+steel. >but the techniques they use require a bit of overbuilding and limit their towers to around 34 or so stories. Modern condo towers around me here in Tokyo are frequently 50 stories AFAICT. And that's with extremely strict building codes for earthquake protection. I can't tell you about the stairs though, as I don't live in one.
worik 3y ago
> None of the things he mentioned have anything to do with safety. I quibble. Mentioned double stair I thought of Grenfell Tower block That was catastrophic partly because the one stairwell filled with smoke

Environmental review, community review, and MFH standards all have something to do with safety. It's not like root comment is arguing against fire hydrants or carbon monoxide detectors. I'm just arguing not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

loeg 3y ago
Setbacks, parking minimums and floor area ratios have nothing to do with safety. Community reviews have absolutely nothing to do with safety.
- gamepsys 3y ago
  > Community review Any feedback brought up in a community review is on official record. I have witnessed safety concerns being brought up in community review multiple times that caused changes to the building plan. In one situation it was a very serious concern about blocking fire truck access to an elementary school.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    why didn't the code catch that?
    - gamepsys 3y ago
      The code doesn't catch anything. People catch violations of the code. Community review is a place people can point out code violations. It's actually extremely embarrassing when this happens to a developer. Buildings get built with infractions all the time. With the MFH buildings it's actually a point of law to see who gets stuck with the liability -- the person that built it or the person that bought it.
- jjulius 3y ago
  Careful with those absolutes.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  Side setbacks absolutely have an effect on fire safety (a greater distance gives less propensity to ignite the neighboring building and provides access with which to fight the original structure fire). Front setbacks and lot area coverage ratios have a more minor version of this same effect from fires across the street. It takes a pretty good sized fire to ignite the building across a street, but as density increases and more of a lot's area is able to covered with structures, the chances to get a pretty good sized fire going do increase.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    Ya. My setback is 3 feet, definitely just a margin for fire safety. I wanted to put an awning in but couldn't because it would be too close to the fence of my property boundary (I live in a town home that abuses the 3 foot setback to maximize living space).
    - fires10 3y ago
      I have minimum lot size of 5 acres. Can't see the wisdom in that one. I also have a minimum square footage size. $20,000 impact fee just to build a house and I receive no utilities or city/ county services.
      - Spivak 3y ago
        I wish more than anything we could legislate the fee structures backwards. If the government wants an environmental impact study then the government is footing the bill for it. Putting it on the builder is stupid and just a way of hiding the budget item in other people's wallets.
        seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        Ok, the government will fund your environmental impact study so you can build, but...oh...given their budget they will have it done sometime in 2100.
  - ajmurmann 3y ago
mperham 3y ago
We have zoning and internationally recognized building safety codes already. Our current housing emergency happening everywhere is a pretty good indicator that we should be much more aggressive about trimming back the regulatory state which has ossified our cities.
- greenthrow 3y ago
  Your argument doesn't really make sense because the problem isn't lack of houses or apartments, there's plenty of places to put everyone. The problem is one of affordability. The costs of stuff that already exists and has existed for ages isn't really tied to the current cost to build, even if we buy the specious argument that all regulation raises costs and those costs are inevitably passed directly to tenants.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    supply and eemand sets rents. You you rent perfecly good existing houses cheap in rural areas. Nobody wants to like there. There is no reason to think there is enourh room for everyone who wants to like in San Francisco, and statistics prove they heve not been building much. Mean while in other states we find areas of demand where housing is not expensive. Where I live you can rent one bedroom apartments for under $1000, mohe in won't be until spring as the building is still under construction. The owners are planning on starting the next building when this is done. That is what allosing building does.
    - wiml 3y ago
      Supply, demand, and cartels like Realpage.
      - eru 3y ago
        Cartel's can't just magically set prices. They can withhold supply, and that might have an effect on market prices.
xvedejas 3y ago
From what I've seen of environmental review laws, they mostly just have to do with noise and construction nuisance. Whereas community review is mostly about aesthetics. I don't think these are the tools designed for safety.
u32480932048 3y ago
In practice, the <environmental stuff> has mostly been used by non-environmentalists to delay development they simply don't like. (This one has to do specifically with CA, but it's not the first time I've seen this complaint.) "Projects designed to advance California’s environmental policy objectives are the most frequent targets of CEQA lawsuits: transit is the most frequently challenged type of infrastructure project (edging out challenges to both highways and local roadways); renewable energy is the most frequently challenged type of industrial/utility project; and housing (especially higher-density housing) is the most frequently challenged type of private-sector project." "Our study found repeated examples of intentional efforts to cloak the identity of CEQA litigants behind environmental-sounding names of fake and even unlawful “associations.”" https://www.planningreport.com/2015/12/21/new-ceqa-study-reveals-widespread-abuse-legal-process-non-environmentalists https://www.planningreport.com/2015/12/21/new-ceqa-study-rev...
- nullc 3y ago
  I'm clueless on the subject and don't intend to argue the point, but it struck me that the metric that article consistently uses is one that almost guarantees the results: It's not surprising to learn that the categories that have the greatest amount of activity by far are the ones with the most CEQA challenges. The point would be much stronger if it was made in terms the rate of challenges for varrious project types rather then in terms of frequency of CEQA challenges being that kind of project. The assumption I'd draw from that, being ignorant of the subject, is that the argument is unsupportable on that more reasonable basis.

adaml_623 3y ago

Double stair Vs single stair is totally a safety issue

alistairSH 3y ago
One that much of Europe has mitigated somehow.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  By building their buildings out of brick rather than wood. Though its probably overkill here in the states and canada.
  - ksplicer 3y ago
    Even our wood has so much fire safety chemicals baked in now that it's not nearly as flammable as it used to be. The safety standards should be reevaluated. Plus, I'm sure that there are some developers who would happily build the whole MFH out of concrete if it lets them only use a single stair.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      Concrete construction is expensive in the states, although I'm not sure why. 4+1s are common here in Seattle: first story is concrete and commercial, 4 stories on top of that are wooden (we also have the more liberal stair requirements, so I'm not sure what is really going on). Concrete construction is the common way to build in China (and anywhere in Asia sans Japan), but the techniques they use require a bit of overbuilding and limit their towers to around 34 or so stories. Still, they have two stair cases side by side in those buildings (but I guess given the height, they need them by Chinese fire code standards).
      - shiroiuma 3y ago
        >Concrete construction is the common way to build in China (and anywhere in Asia sans Japan) Concrete-reinforced steel is absolutely common here in Japan. Wood is used for single-family homes, though, but anything larger is generally concrete+steel. >but the techniques they use require a bit of overbuilding and limit their towers to around 34 or so stories. Modern condo towers around me here in Tokyo are frequently 50 stories AFAICT. And that's with extremely strict building codes for earthquake protection. I can't tell you about the stairs though, as I don't live in one.

worik 3y ago

> None of the things he mentioned have anything to do with safety. I quibble. Mentioned double stair I thought of Grenfell Tower block That was catastrophic partly because the one stairwell filled with smoke