Should building codes be less restrictive to allow for more and cheaper low income housing?

[Axulus]

I'm thinking of the following types of restrictions:

Relax the minimum amount of square feet of living space per occupant requirements (but not to the point of overcrowding to where it becomes dangerous in case of a fire).
Allow for dorm style housing (shared bathrooms among more than one unit, maybe shared kitchens)
Relax building height restrictions
Relax aesthetic requirements and landscaping requirements on new construction, elimination of lengthy and costly design reviews
Relax parking space requirements

Among others.

Now before you say something stupid like "how dare you think all the poors should be crammed into a tiny space.", I just want to point out that this is a straw-man argument. If they don't want such cramming, they will choose to live in the places they currently live that are less crammed. However, did you ever for a moment consider the possibility that they have other priorities than you? That having a smaller amount of living space with shared toilets for a much lower price, allowing them to keep their precious few dollars for something more worthwhile, is a much higher priority for them than it is of you?

One of the biggest contributors to rising income inequality is the cost of housing - the cost of housing and rents has outpaced inflation, making the earnings of low income individuals especially buy less in real terms when housing is included. Truly making housing much more affordable is one of the pillars of reducing income inequality and increasing standard of living for low income.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

As long as each unit has its own jacuzzi, having a shared bathroom isn't a big deal. You don't want to be forcing people to share a jacuzzi with their weird neighbours just because they're poor - that would be racist.

I lived in a place like that during university and it was fine. If someone wants to live in a downtown core and doesn't need a lot of space or amenities, then this type of option should be available to them.

 

[Derec]

I can only imagine what her opinion of this proposal would be.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Should building codes be less restrictive to allow for more and cheaper low income housing?

Short answer: No.

 

[Axulus]

Should building codes be less restrictive to allow for more and cheaper low income housing?

Short answer: No.

So poor individuals should have the choice between expensive housing or really expensive housing, and then we should have band-aid government programs such as minimum wage and EITC so that they can better afford this expensive housing (which assumes they are not on the really low end of the SES scale and are at least able to find and hold onto a full time job)?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm thinking of the following types of restrictions:

Relax the minimum amount of square feet of living space per occupant requirements (but not to the point of overcrowding to where it becomes dangerous in case of a fire).
Allow for dorm style housing (shared bathrooms among more than one unit, maybe shared kitchens)
Relax building height restrictions
Relax aesthetic requirements and landscaping requirements on new construction, elimination of lengthy and costly design reviews
Relax parking space requirements

How does fewer bathrooms make things cheaper? You'd replace the bathroom with a different type of room.

Now before you say something stupid like "how dare you think all the poors should be crammed into a tiny space.", I just want to point out that this is a straw-man argument. If they don't want such cramming, they will choose to live in the places they currently live that are less crammed. However, did you ever for a moment consider the possibility that they have other priorities than you? That having a smaller amount of living space with shared toilets for a much lower price, allowing them to keep their precious few dollars for something more worthwhile, is a much higher priority for them than it is of you?

I think the better question is how much is any of this affecting the cost of a living space.

You know what is also more expensive? Air flight. We should cut back on the design codes for the planes to make it more affordable.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Should building codes be less restrictive to allow for more and cheaper low income housing?

Short answer: No.

What's the long answer? Which of those options is a bad one and why?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Should building codes be less restrictive to allow for more and cheaper low income housing?

Short answer: No.

So housing should be kept expensive for poor individuals, and then we should have band-aid government programs such as minimum wage and EITC so that they can better afford this expensive housing?

Alright, so your OP says to keep off the strawman arguments... and you reply to a reasonable criticism with a strawman?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Should building codes be less restrictive to allow for more and cheaper low income housing?

Short answer: No.

So poor individuals should have the choice between expensive housing or really expensive housing, and then we should have band-aid government programs such as minimum wage and EITC so that they can better afford this expensive housing?

False dichotomy.

What exactly are you advocating in this thread? The return of Cabrini Green?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Should building codes be less restrictive to allow for more and cheaper low income housing?

Short answer: No.

What's the long answer? Which of those options is a bad one and why?

Well, the OP didn't actually show how any of those increase the price of rent.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

would these restriction just be loosened for construction of poor people's housing or everyone's housing?

 

[Axulus]

How does fewer bathrooms make things cheaper? You'd replace the bathroom with a different type of room.

The individual units for rent would be cheaper if each unit doesn't have the requirement to have it's own bathroom

You know what is also more expensive? Air flight. We should cut back on the design codes for the planes to make it more affordable.

Would that be a safety issue? None of my proposals are safety issues, so your proposal is nothing more than a straw man.

- - - Updated - - -

So poor individuals should have the choice between expensive housing or really expensive housing, and then we should have band-aid government programs such as minimum wage and EITC so that they can better afford this expensive housing?

False dichotomy.

What exactly are you advocating in this thread? The return of Cabrini Green?

Did you miss the part where I said "I'm thinking of the following types of restrictions:"? Perhaps you should re-read the OP.

It is not a false dichotomy because if you support code restrictions such as those you guarantee that the cheapest housing available will be much more expensive.

- - - Updated - - -

would these restriction just be loosened for construction of poor people's housing or everyone's housing?

Middle income people (or anyone else) should be allowed to rent (or buy, if they are made available for sale) these units as well if they want to save on housing costs and have more money available for other things. There should be areas in the city with the restrictions I propose loosened based on demand for such units.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What's the long answer? Which of those options is a bad one and why?

Well, the OP didn't actually show how any of those increase the price of rent.

I don't get it. In university, I once lived in a building where each floor had three little rooms with a kitchenette and then there was one bathroom on each of the floors that we shared. Only paying for the room and part of the cost of the bathroom was cheaper than paying for an entire apartment. I don't get how saying that just having a room would be cheaper than having a whole apartment is some kind of logical leap.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Should building codes be less restrictive to allow for more and cheaper low income housing?

Short answer: No.

What's the long answer? Which of those options is a bad one and why?

Well, the long answer is that many of these types of arrangements are allowed and I'm not sure the point of some of these like the height restrictions. Quite frankly I am not sure the OP understands building codes and how urban planning affects behaviors. All of this sounds like the failed 1950-80s solution to put low income people in giant storage containers.

 

[Axulus]

What's the long answer? Which of those options is a bad one and why?

Well, the OP didn't actually show how any of those increase the price of rent.

You've clearly never been involved in a construction development project, where things like parking, aesthetic and landscaping requirements, and larger units (which includes the bathroom requirement for every unit) makes the construction cost per unit much more expensive.

Is it really rocket science to think that those items I list affect the development cost per unit? Try using your head on this one.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Relax parking space requirements

Because the poor have no cars?
But then, those with more money due to lower rents will get cars. OR at least some of them will. And with no limit on the building's height, even more apartments will be created for a given footprint, so there will be another increase in cars for the neighborhood.
And it's been an observed problem that in neighborhoods where there is far more residency than parking, whether it's poor residency or more expensive, the crowding makes it impossible for any local commerce, as no one can find a parking space to shop in that neighborhood.

 

[Axulus]

So housing should be kept expensive for poor individuals, and then we should have band-aid government programs such as minimum wage and EITC so that they can better afford this expensive housing?

Alright, so your OP says to keep off the strawman arguments... and you reply to a reasonable criticism with a strawman?

I didn't see any proposals to reduce the cost per housing unit to make housing more affordable, and how that can be done without loosing building codes, but I'm all ears.

- - - Updated - - -

Relax parking space requirements

Because the poor have no cars?
But then, those with more money due to lower rents will get cars. OR at least some of them will. And with no limit on the building's height, even more apartments will be created for a given footprint, so there will be another increase in cars for the neighborhood.
And it's been an observed problem that in neighborhoods where there is far more residency than parking, whether it's poor residency or more expensive, the crowding makes it impossible for any local commerce, as no one can find a parking space to shop in that neighborhood.

Parking should be priced accordingly - there are lots and garages where monthly pricing is available, and such parking lots will be developed based on demand and not on some code requirement. For those that can't afford that, I'm fine with strengthening mass transit options. People's car habits shouldn't be forced on everyone else through building code requirements, as not everyone needs to own a vehicle, especially in denser urban areas. People who want to own a car in such areas should pay for all the costs of that car themselves, including parking.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The individual units for rent would be cheaper if each unit doesn't have the requirement to have it's own bathroom

Why? Presumably removing enough bathrooms would open up maybe another apartment. But that apartment still needs flooring, walls, electric, is still taking up acreage. Just how much are you actually saving in the price to build? And certainly, the number of people using a communal bathroom would increase wear and tear and now that it is communal, the apartment owner is the one responsible for keeping it clean.

You know what is also more expensive? Air flight. We should cut back on the design codes for the planes to make it more affordable.

Would that be a safety issue? None of my proposals are safety issues, so your proposal is nothing more than a straw man.

I suppose. Your proposal has yet to show any cost savings though.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Alright, so your OP says to keep off the strawman arguments... and you reply to a reasonable criticism with a strawman?

I didn't see any proposals to reduce the cost per housing unit to make housing more affordable, and how that can be done without loosing building codes, but I'm all ears.

- - - Updated - - -

Relax parking space requirements

Because the poor have no cars?
But then, those with more money due to lower rents will get cars. OR at least some of them will. And with no limit on the building's height, even more apartments will be created for a given footprint, so there will be another increase in cars for the neighborhood.
And it's been an observed problem that in neighborhoods where there is far more residency than parking, whether it's poor residency or more expensive, the crowding makes it impossible for any local commerce, as no one can find a parking space to shop in that neighborhood.

Parking should be priced accordingly - there are lots and garages where monthly pricing is available. For those that can't afford that, I'm fine with strengthening mass transit options.

What city are you currently developing projects in?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Alright, so your OP says to keep off the strawman arguments... and you reply to a reasonable criticism with a strawman?

I didn't see any proposals to reduce the cost per housing unit to make housing more affordable, and how that can be done without loosing building codes, but I'm all ears.

Well, at least you admit your proposal to lower rent costs isn't actually going to make housing affordable.

Relax parking space requirements

Because the poor have no cars?
But then, those with more money due to lower rents will get cars. OR at least some of them will. And with no limit on the building's height, even more apartments will be created for a given footprint, so there will be another increase in cars for the neighborhood.
And it's been an observed problem that in neighborhoods where there is far more residency than parking, whether it's poor residency or more expensive, the crowding makes it impossible for any local commerce, as no one can find a parking space to shop in that neighborhood.

Parking should be priced accordingly - there are lots and garages where monthly pricing is available. For those that can't afford that, I'm fine with strengthening mass transit options.

Strengthening mass transit options?! Shall we modify the gravitational constant to lessen loads to make housing cheaper to construct if we are going to ponder substantial transportation infrastructure changes as part of your plan?