3 ms·

That seems like a huge waste of space for the 99% of time it's not being used?

taeric 3y ago
In a very real sense, you just described housing, as well. And, really, many functional specs for anything. Your car, for example, has a ton of money and engineering put into it solely for the case of a crash. Heck, if you own a car, period, you spend far more time out of it than you do in.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > In a very real sense, you just described housing, as well. But as a result of land use regulations. Historically it has been common for a family-owned business to have a shop on the first floor and living space for the family on the second. Then you, one, don't have to commute, and two, don't have to duplicate things like parking, kitchen/lunchroom, bathrooms, etc. But then we prohibit this through land use and make everything worse.
  - taeric 3y ago
    I wasn't intending my comment as anti-housing. More pointing out that "unused for most of the time" is a somewhat useless metric. Though, I am curious on your claim. I agree that feels like a common thing that almost certainly has happened. I am curious on how common it truly was? Yes, we have some overly restrictive rules nowadays. I agree with that. I am less open to believing that large percentages of families lived the way you are describing. Do you have numbers on it?
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      Numbers only mean something in a context. Doing that is more efficient, but at the cost that if you change jobs you also have to move. So it tends not to happen unless either real estate costs are high (i.e. towns/cities) or employees are pressured into it for the efficiency benefit of a large employer (company towns). But the problem we have right now is that real estate costs are high, so many people would be willing to take the trade off if it was available. And in doing so would help to alleviate the high costs even for the people who don't, by reducing duplication and effectively increasing supply. "Unused most of the time" isn't a useless metric. It's possible to make higher use, and prohibiting that use is foolish when demand outstrips supply. Other times the cost of the inefficiency is worth it, but that doesn't mean it's irrelevant or indistinguishable, it's just a trade off against something else. And even then there is no justification to prohibit it, because there is no need to prohibit someone from doing something they wouldn't have chosen to do anyway.
      - taeric 3y ago
        You are loading the discussion, though? I never made an appeal to efficiency. I only pointed out that "unused most of the time" is pointless. Heck, for schools it is especially pointless, as they are specifically only designed for daytime use during school hours. Would be akin to worrying about how much space you have to set aside to support a stadium for sports. Similarly kept empty the vast majority of the time. And this is all begging the question that real estate costs are the reason for the child care costs. Per another thread, 70% of costs in child care goes to staffing. Already this calls into heavy question whether or not real estate rules are the main problem. As I don't think I've said it in this thread, I want to be clear that this is all very appealing to my sensibilities. I want to think a reliance on cars is a huge problem in our towns. I want to think that we can do better. I'm not sold by the case that is being made here, though. And it makes me sad to see shoddy reasoning used to prop up things I want to be the case. Edit: And I'd still want to see numbers on how often people "lived upstairs" of their job. Unless you count "their job" as making their own clothing, which was rather common, I don't think the numbers work for it. Yes, you had some specific jobs that this happened for, smithing and the like; but many jobs have been service oriented for a long time. Such that this just wasn't a "common" as in "most people do it." It was "common" in "most people that owned a shop lived there." This can feel the same, but it is very different; as most people did not own a shop.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > Heck, for schools it is especially pointless, as they are specifically only designed for daytime use during school hours. That's how they're used, but that doesn't mean that's optimal or that doing otherwise is "pointless". For example, a high school campus is typically suitable for any kind of school, and using the same building to hold college night classes would hardly be pointless. > Per another thread, 70% of costs in child care goes to staffing. Already this calls into heavy question whether or not real estate rules are the main problem. Only if those costs are unrelated. You could lower staffing costs significantly by, for example, offering on-site living quarters for staff, but not if that's prohibited. Likewise, land use rules can constrain where you can put the facility, which in turn affects how much you have to pay staff, who may then have a longer commute and refuse the job unless you pay more. > many jobs have been service oriented for a long time. It's not obvious what that has to do with it. A nail salon, barber shop, veterinarian, etc. are all service jobs, but they're also all small business where the owner/family could benefit from living on the same property as the business.

In a very real sense, you just described housing, as well. And, really, many functional specs for anything. Your car, for example, has a ton of money and engineering put into it solely for the case of a crash. Heck, if you own a car, period, you spend far more time out of it than you do in.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> In a very real sense, you just described housing, as well. But as a result of land use regulations. Historically it has been common for a family-owned business to have a shop on the first floor and living space for the family on the second. Then you, one, don't have to commute, and two, don't have to duplicate things like parking, kitchen/lunchroom, bathrooms, etc. But then we prohibit this through land use and make everything worse.
- taeric 3y ago
  I wasn't intending my comment as anti-housing. More pointing out that "unused for most of the time" is a somewhat useless metric. Though, I am curious on your claim. I agree that feels like a common thing that almost certainly has happened. I am curious on how common it truly was? Yes, we have some overly restrictive rules nowadays. I agree with that. I am less open to believing that large percentages of families lived the way you are describing. Do you have numbers on it?
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    Numbers only mean something in a context. Doing that is more efficient, but at the cost that if you change jobs you also have to move. So it tends not to happen unless either real estate costs are high (i.e. towns/cities) or employees are pressured into it for the efficiency benefit of a large employer (company towns). But the problem we have right now is that real estate costs are high, so many people would be willing to take the trade off if it was available. And in doing so would help to alleviate the high costs even for the people who don't, by reducing duplication and effectively increasing supply. "Unused most of the time" isn't a useless metric. It's possible to make higher use, and prohibiting that use is foolish when demand outstrips supply. Other times the cost of the inefficiency is worth it, but that doesn't mean it's irrelevant or indistinguishable, it's just a trade off against something else. And even then there is no justification to prohibit it, because there is no need to prohibit someone from doing something they wouldn't have chosen to do anyway.
    - taeric 3y ago
      You are loading the discussion, though? I never made an appeal to efficiency. I only pointed out that "unused most of the time" is pointless. Heck, for schools it is especially pointless, as they are specifically only designed for daytime use during school hours. Would be akin to worrying about how much space you have to set aside to support a stadium for sports. Similarly kept empty the vast majority of the time. And this is all begging the question that real estate costs are the reason for the child care costs. Per another thread, 70% of costs in child care goes to staffing. Already this calls into heavy question whether or not real estate rules are the main problem. As I don't think I've said it in this thread, I want to be clear that this is all very appealing to my sensibilities. I want to think a reliance on cars is a huge problem in our towns. I want to think that we can do better. I'm not sold by the case that is being made here, though. And it makes me sad to see shoddy reasoning used to prop up things I want to be the case. Edit: And I'd still want to see numbers on how often people "lived upstairs" of their job. Unless you count "their job" as making their own clothing, which was rather common, I don't think the numbers work for it. Yes, you had some specific jobs that this happened for, smithing and the like; but many jobs have been service oriented for a long time. Such that this just wasn't a "common" as in "most people do it." It was "common" in "most people that owned a shop lived there." This can feel the same, but it is very different; as most people did not own a shop.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > Heck, for schools it is especially pointless, as they are specifically only designed for daytime use during school hours. That's how they're used, but that doesn't mean that's optimal or that doing otherwise is "pointless". For example, a high school campus is typically suitable for any kind of school, and using the same building to hold college night classes would hardly be pointless. > Per another thread, 70% of costs in child care goes to staffing. Already this calls into heavy question whether or not real estate rules are the main problem. Only if those costs are unrelated. You could lower staffing costs significantly by, for example, offering on-site living quarters for staff, but not if that's prohibited. Likewise, land use rules can constrain where you can put the facility, which in turn affects how much you have to pay staff, who may then have a longer commute and refuse the job unless you pay more. > many jobs have been service oriented for a long time. It's not obvious what that has to do with it. A nail salon, barber shop, veterinarian, etc. are all service jobs, but they're also all small business where the owner/family could benefit from living on the same property as the business.