3 ms·

> If you can't build the design, then someone will have to design something else that can be built. Again. This literally has nothing to do with cookie cutter

by troupo 3y ago

> If you can't build the design, then someone will have to design something else that can be built. Again. This literally has nothing to do with cookie cutter designs. If something cannot be built in the area because there's some local wildlife, there are exactly two choices: - no building is permitted, period, so you build in a different place (or don't build) - you can build, so you chose the cookie cutter design for the type of construction permitted. E.g. you can't build on the ground, but can build a bridge? You literally take "bridge cookie cutter design N" out of 3 cookie cutter designs for a bridge station (or out of the 15 combinations for a modular station because that's what cookie cutter designs are). > If people aren't already using cookie cutter designs, there is a reason for that. It's not. It's the US' insistence on how special and unique they are. > As mentioned, most of the world doesn't apply US standards and laws. US is not as special as you make it out to be. The world also has "Red Spotted Scuttlers" and different pollution considerations based on locations, etc.

roenxi 3y ago
There is a 3rd option - do a custom design that considers site-specific issues. Say there is a project with an unusual requirement. Taking one from my experience, a height limit so that a certain area still gets an appropriate amount of sun. The options are "go", "redesign to be more squat" or "no-go". What I'm giving you is a sketch at how advanced environmental laws actually conflict with the idea of using cookie cutter designs. The ideas are at odds with each other. > The world also has "Red Spotted Scuttlers" Not after a typical infrastructure project. Usually a bunch of habitat gets killed off and it isn't unusual to lose a population of something exotic.
- troupo 3y ago
  > There is a 3rd option - do a custom design that considers site-specific issues. And this option is extremely rare. > What I'm giving you is a sketch at how advanced environmental laws actually conflict with the idea of using cookie cutter designs. No. What you're giving me is a lie that these are applicable everywhere all the time. You're also trying to sell a lie that the US is so distinct and special and unique that it can't have cookie cutter designs (unlike other countries) because only in the US this applies everywhere all the time. > Not after a typical infrastructure project. Usually a bunch of habitat gets killed off and it isn't unusual to lose a population of something exotic. That is, of course, not as true and not as common as you make it out to be. BTW. I live in Stockholm, in a country obsessed with ecology and pollution etc. Most stations are cookie cutter designs (of course). There's exactly one subway station that never got built precisely because there was endangered wildlife in the area.
  - mercutio2 3y ago
    You are really aggressively arguing that you understand US law while demonstrating repeatedly that you don’t. Why? The core of the argument roenxi is making is that the legal system in the US is *very very different* from that which adheres in Sweden. roenxi at no point argues that the legal system in play in the US is good, or better. They are just saying that because of legal barriers, what you seem to imply is incompetence at the planning level is, in fact, evidence of a poorly designed legal system.
    - troupo 3y ago
      No, what roenxi, and now you are arguing, quite literally, that somehow cookie cutter designs for infrastructure are impossible because somehow laws are so extremely different and impossible to go around for every single one of the infastructure projects that for every single one you will need a bespoke design because environmental protection or something. Which is absolutely blatantly false. BTW, as far as environment protection goes, there's a sibling comment addressing the same: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39511375 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39511375 Infrastructure always relies on cookie-cutter designs and/or modular designs, and there's nothing special about the US in this regard except its insistence that it is somehow excluded from common sense.
      - mercutio2 3y ago
        I agree that that comment summarizes what appears to be your argument “you can build infrastructure cheaper even with restrictive environmental protections”. The response from rayiner explains why this argument misses the point. It’s not about terminal goals being more or less virtuous in the US. It’s about the *process* for building in the US having many points of potential legal interaction that lead to delays and redesign requirements. And that legal system is quite different from how large projects are able to be executed in the rest of the developed world. The US used to build large projects this way, but there was a large populist movement that pushed to add more local veto opportunities. Those vetoes are extremely expensive at the macro level.

by troupo 3y ago

roenxi 3y ago

There is a 3rd option - do a custom design that considers site-specific issues. Say there is a project with an unusual requirement. Taking one from my experience, a height limit so that a certain area still gets an appropriate amount of sun. The options are "go", "redesign to be more squat" or "no-go". What I'm giving you is a sketch at how advanced environmental laws actually conflict with the idea of using cookie cutter designs. The ideas are at odds with each other. > The world also has "Red Spotted Scuttlers" Not after a typical infrastructure project. Usually a bunch of habitat gets killed off and it isn't unusual to lose a population of something exotic.

troupo 3y ago
> There is a 3rd option - do a custom design that considers site-specific issues. And this option is extremely rare. > What I'm giving you is a sketch at how advanced environmental laws actually conflict with the idea of using cookie cutter designs. No. What you're giving me is a lie that these are applicable everywhere all the time. You're also trying to sell a lie that the US is so distinct and special and unique that it can't have cookie cutter designs (unlike other countries) because only in the US this applies everywhere all the time. > Not after a typical infrastructure project. Usually a bunch of habitat gets killed off and it isn't unusual to lose a population of something exotic. That is, of course, not as true and not as common as you make it out to be. BTW. I live in Stockholm, in a country obsessed with ecology and pollution etc. Most stations are cookie cutter designs (of course). There's exactly one subway station that never got built precisely because there was endangered wildlife in the area.
- mercutio2 3y ago
  You are really aggressively arguing that you understand US law while demonstrating repeatedly that you don’t. Why? The core of the argument roenxi is making is that the legal system in the US is *very very different* from that which adheres in Sweden. roenxi at no point argues that the legal system in play in the US is good, or better. They are just saying that because of legal barriers, what you seem to imply is incompetence at the planning level is, in fact, evidence of a poorly designed legal system.
  - troupo 3y ago
    No, what roenxi, and now you are arguing, quite literally, that somehow cookie cutter designs for infrastructure are impossible because somehow laws are so extremely different and impossible to go around for every single one of the infastructure projects that for every single one you will need a bespoke design because environmental protection or something. Which is absolutely blatantly false. BTW, as far as environment protection goes, there's a sibling comment addressing the same: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39511375 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39511375 Infrastructure always relies on cookie-cutter designs and/or modular designs, and there's nothing special about the US in this regard except its insistence that it is somehow excluded from common sense.
    - mercutio2 3y ago
      I agree that that comment summarizes what appears to be your argument “you can build infrastructure cheaper even with restrictive environmental protections”. The response from rayiner explains why this argument misses the point. It’s not about terminal goals being more or less virtuous in the US. It’s about the *process* for building in the US having many points of potential legal interaction that lead to delays and redesign requirements. And that legal system is quite different from how large projects are able to be executed in the rest of the developed world. The US used to build large projects this way, but there was a large populist movement that pushed to add more local veto opportunities. Those vetoes are extremely expensive at the macro level.