5 ms·

Congratulations. I've been saying for years that regulation is written for the wealthy. Someone who will never be able to afford a home doesn't give a fuck if

by throwaway22032 2y ago

Congratulations. I've been saying for years that regulation is written for the wealthy. Someone who will never be able to afford a home doesn't give a fuck if their wiring has an 0.1% chance of going wrong or if their bedroom has a window or whatever. It's better than a tent or a shitty landlord, and it's how most people lived only a couple of generations ago.

dangus 2y ago
This sort of thinking really brushes aside a lot of building disasters that definitely didn’t just affect the wealthy. The Iroquois Theater Fire…The Chicago Fire…the list goes on and on.
- gottorf 2y ago
  The OP addressed it: > result in untold deaths and exposure, or money lost that could have been spent on healthcare, education, or healthy foods This type of policy often get so entrenched precised because its benefits are visible and wildly publicized in such cases of disaster, whereas its downsides are hidden (by all the people who lose out on having a home of any kind because they cannot afford the higher costs of code-burdened construction). It's the political equivalent of "privatize the profits, socialize the losses". The real minimum standard of housing is not what is mandated by code; it's sleeping on the street.
  - dangus 2y ago
    Perhaps I should have brought up the Kowloon Walled City then. We have real world case studies of situations where building code didn't exist and the outcome wasn't a magical utopia for lower income housing. There are plenty of ways to increase housing supply and lower costs that don't compromise on building code, safety, livability, etc. The government as a whole has many levers it can, should, and does pull: zoning and planning reform, tax breaks for affordable developments, supporting/subsidizing more people getting into trade jobs, etc. But those levers should not include letting people build sketchy shacks piled up on top of each other.
    - gottorf 2y ago
      > the Kowloon Walled City Where would the people who lived in Kowloon Walled City have lived instead, had it not existed? That's the question. Four drafty walls and a roof that sometimes leaks is better than none. > building code didn't exist and the outcome wasn't a magical utopia for lower income housing Well, yes, a magical utopia isn't going to exist no matter what we do. > those levers should not include letting people build sketchy shacks piled up on top of each other In the US, building codes mandates a floor in building quality (and therefore the price) that goes far, far beyond "sketchy shacks", and zoning in large parts of the country simply forbids high-density (and therefore more cost-effective) residences. As a concrete example of the former, the 2020 National Electrical Code mandated that outdoor HVAC units (e.g. the condenser that sits outside of the house) be protected by ground-fault circuit interrupters. This turned out to hopelessly front-run market reality, because existing GFCI breakers caused nuisance trips all the time when applied to HVAC equipment; so much so that the NFPA walked it back and issued an exemption to this rule until late 2026, when hopefully better breakers can be on the market. But in the meantime, this caused additional expense, delays, and uncertainty in homebuilding. This is just one minor example out of countless additions to the various building codes in recent years. Of course, the people who write such codes like to say that "every line is written in blood". But remember, making something safe, like anything else, doesn't come without a cost. There is no free lunch, and everything is a tradeoff. We can build an amazingly well-insulated, net-zero house that is very comfortable to live in, has no VOCs, will never cause an electric shock to an occupant, will not catch fire, etc. for $5,000 a square foot; but approximately nobody will be able to afford such a house. > The government as a whole has many levers it can, should, and does pull Often times they're not levers, they're ratchets ;-)
- throwaway22032 2y ago
  I'd rather occasionally have my house burn down than live in a tent. You might not have that issue, and if so, that's great. And yes, I'd also rather live in Kowloon than on the street. There is no magical utopia being referenced here. Just cheaper housing for people who have lower standards.
adolph 2y ago
https://dreamsongs.com/RiseOfWorseIsBetter.html https://dreamsongs.com/RiseOfWorseIsBetter.html 1. regulation specifications beyond minimal health/safety, service interfaces 2. regulatory reporting enforcement burden
bluGill 2y ago
If you live in the US you are wealthy by world standards. Most people reading this live in a country where they can say the same. if "their wiring has an 0.1% chance of going wrong" implies you have wiring in the first place - which is not a given. If you have wiring you should make it safe, it doesn't cost much more to do it right. "if their bedroom has a window" - if you live where the climate is tropical you care.
- throwaway22032 2y ago
  You say this but it's death by a thousand cuts, tons of building code is crap like "a kitchen has to have an extractor fan" because you know, opening a window like Grandma did isn't good enough, wealthy people care about air pollution because they can afford to. Then there's zoning. Buying some tools, using some common sense and building a structure on a plot of land is accessible. Once you do everything "by the book" and allow no room for gradual upgrades (it all has to be there from day 1) it's now a profession and is essentially out of reach of the average person. I'm not in the US but I can afford to buy multiple homes now as a result of aggressively pursuing wealth when I was younger. Not everyone is in that position, most people are bus drivers or nurses or whatever and struggle to make rent.

dangus 2y ago

This sort of thinking really brushes aside a lot of building disasters that definitely didn’t just affect the wealthy. The Iroquois Theater Fire…The Chicago Fire…the list goes on and on.

gottorf 2y ago
The OP addressed it: > result in untold deaths and exposure, or money lost that could have been spent on healthcare, education, or healthy foods This type of policy often get so entrenched precised because its benefits are visible and wildly publicized in such cases of disaster, whereas its downsides are hidden (by all the people who lose out on having a home of any kind because they cannot afford the higher costs of code-burdened construction). It's the political equivalent of "privatize the profits, socialize the losses". The real minimum standard of housing is not what is mandated by code; it's sleeping on the street.
- dangus 2y ago
  Perhaps I should have brought up the Kowloon Walled City then. We have real world case studies of situations where building code didn't exist and the outcome wasn't a magical utopia for lower income housing. There are plenty of ways to increase housing supply and lower costs that don't compromise on building code, safety, livability, etc. The government as a whole has many levers it can, should, and does pull: zoning and planning reform, tax breaks for affordable developments, supporting/subsidizing more people getting into trade jobs, etc. But those levers should not include letting people build sketchy shacks piled up on top of each other.
  - gottorf 2y ago
    > the Kowloon Walled City Where would the people who lived in Kowloon Walled City have lived instead, had it not existed? That's the question. Four drafty walls and a roof that sometimes leaks is better than none. > building code didn't exist and the outcome wasn't a magical utopia for lower income housing Well, yes, a magical utopia isn't going to exist no matter what we do. > those levers should not include letting people build sketchy shacks piled up on top of each other In the US, building codes mandates a floor in building quality (and therefore the price) that goes far, far beyond "sketchy shacks", and zoning in large parts of the country simply forbids high-density (and therefore more cost-effective) residences. As a concrete example of the former, the 2020 National Electrical Code mandated that outdoor HVAC units (e.g. the condenser that sits outside of the house) be protected by ground-fault circuit interrupters. This turned out to hopelessly front-run market reality, because existing GFCI breakers caused nuisance trips all the time when applied to HVAC equipment; so much so that the NFPA walked it back and issued an exemption to this rule until late 2026, when hopefully better breakers can be on the market. But in the meantime, this caused additional expense, delays, and uncertainty in homebuilding. This is just one minor example out of countless additions to the various building codes in recent years. Of course, the people who write such codes like to say that "every line is written in blood". But remember, making something safe, like anything else, doesn't come without a cost. There is no free lunch, and everything is a tradeoff. We can build an amazingly well-insulated, net-zero house that is very comfortable to live in, has no VOCs, will never cause an electric shock to an occupant, will not catch fire, etc. for $5,000 a square foot; but approximately nobody will be able to afford such a house. > The government as a whole has many levers it can, should, and does pull Often times they're not levers, they're ratchets ;-)
throwaway22032 2y ago
I'd rather occasionally have my house burn down than live in a tent. You might not have that issue, and if so, that's great. And yes, I'd also rather live in Kowloon than on the street. There is no magical utopia being referenced here. Just cheaper housing for people who have lower standards.

adolph 2y ago

https://dreamsongs.com/RiseOfWorseIsBetter.html https://dreamsongs.com/RiseOfWorseIsBetter.html 1. regulation specifications beyond minimal health/safety, service interfaces 2. regulatory reporting enforcement burden

bluGill 2y ago

If you live in the US you are wealthy by world standards. Most people reading this live in a country where they can say the same. if "their wiring has an 0.1% chance of going wrong" implies you have wiring in the first place - which is not a given. If you have wiring you should make it safe, it doesn't cost much more to do it right. "if their bedroom has a window" - if you live where the climate is tropical you care.

throwaway22032 2y ago
You say this but it's death by a thousand cuts, tons of building code is crap like "a kitchen has to have an extractor fan" because you know, opening a window like Grandma did isn't good enough, wealthy people care about air pollution because they can afford to. Then there's zoning. Buying some tools, using some common sense and building a structure on a plot of land is accessible. Once you do everything "by the book" and allow no room for gradual upgrades (it all has to be there from day 1) it's now a profession and is essentially out of reach of the average person. I'm not in the US but I can afford to buy multiple homes now as a result of aggressively pursuing wealth when I was younger. Not everyone is in that position, most people are bus drivers or nurses or whatever and struggle to make rent.