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

[Toni]

No - people can make their own decisions for themselves. If they don't like they lack of parking options, they don't have to move in. Or maybe they'll figure out a way to alter their lifestyle and drop the vehicle.

Many poor people don't have their own vehicles. This is not a very good option for rural poor, where there is no mass transit and nothing within walking distance. BTW, plenty of people living in rural areas are poor.

So, what, you'll replace parking restrictions with mass transit restrictions? That's something outside of the builder's control, isn't it?

I'm saying that cities have other ways to make transportation options available other than always building more roads and requiring more and more parking.

OK, what do you suggest? Are these options within the power of a builder to provide?

But even if they're paying for parking, if there isn't any parking available after the residents park their cars, you're still strangling access to the neighborhood for the purpose of commerce.

Businesses and real estate developers are free to allocate as much of their own space for parking as they desire. A loosened restriction doesn't mean that people can't or won't build more parking than the minimum required.

What? There are building codes which apply to commercial and retail spaces..

You may be surprised to find out that people don't need to be forced by the government to make parking available if it is in demand - it will increase the property value up to a certain point based on how much parking is in demand, and property owners can collect parking fees based on demand and will build it accordingly.

Actually, I would be quite surprised to learn that people-as in people who are 'developing' housing for poor residents do not need to be forced to provide whatever is deemed to be 'adequate parking.' The same thing for up to date electrical and plumbing, window size and placement, green space, energy efficiency, occupancy per unit and number of units per lot, and a host of aesthetics just off the top of my head. Because in my town, (some) people DO have to be FORCED by building codes and inspectors: i.e. the government to make such provisions. Generally those who are providing housing for students and for poor people. Because those people are less likely to have much choice or much expertise in understanding tenant rights. Or responsibilities. This does affect neighbors and neighborhoods.

 

[Toni]

Oh, of course. I was merely responding to Jimmy, not asserting that including decent bathrooms and kitchens should not be part of all apartments.

Placement of bathrooms and bathroom fixtures and placement of kitchens, appliances, etc. can also tremendously affect cost. For example, there is a reason that in many hospitals (and dorms and even apartment buildings) that bathrooms for one room or unit are behind the wall of a bathroom for the next room/unit: it's very cost effective.

 

[Axulus]

As an architect, I say with some authority, that for every item in the building code, there was some kind of tragedy, from a horrific fire that killed people because of lack of firestops or exits, to the everyday humiliation and isolation a disabled person had to face as they were de-facto excluded from the places where everyone else was.

Building regulations are among the most sensible laws on the books. Only one gripped by the insane mania of the right's passion for deregulation would lead someone to think they are 'too restrictive' and somehow discriminatory to the poor.

Here's a fact: Poor people don't own or build buildings. Rich people own and build buildings. Deregulating building would benefit rich people, not poor people.

Building codes exist to protect poor people, from the greed and viciousness of their landlords and employers. Deregulating buildings would lead to a return of the packed and unhygenic tenement blocks of the past, with disease, fires, collapses. It amazes me that someone would come on here one month after the Nepal earthquake and argue against building codes. Compare earthquake damage in Japan with those in Haiti or Nepal. That is what building codes are for. Have you any idea of what it was like before building codes? I do, I learned all about it in architecture school.

Why are rents high? Because people want to live in our cities. Why do people want to live in our cities? Because they are largely safe and hygenic. Why are they largely safe and hygenic? Building Codes!

How to make housing more affordable? Well, you might consider the fact that many cities and neighborhoods deliberately write their land-use laws to eliminate low income housing. That is what most housing advocates tend to target, rather than building codes.

Removing building codes would do one thing and one thing only: reduce the amount of time the developer has to wait to earn back his money on a given block of flats, increasing his profits. The idea that he'd pass this on to the renter is fatuous. Why does the government build low income housing anyway? Because developers don't. You don't make money building low income housing. That's why the government has to do it. I've worked on some government low income housing. The units are very modest. You'd take away their bathroom and kitchen? Now you want them to share a bathroom with their whole floor? Why don't you read a bit about the communes that existed in the USSR and China? That is the sort of living that you are suggesting. You can make poor people squat over a hole in the floor, but that won't make low income housing profitable.

This is just further manifestation of the right wing's hatred of the poor. Even when they pretend to advocate for the poor, they can't make it look like they aren't punishing them for being poor.

The answer is quite simple. Businesses and the wealthy benefit from having a pool of low income labor on hand. Therefore, either tax the businesses and wealthy to provide housing or transportation, or have a minimum wage suitable to pay for housing or transportation.

Ok, that's nice and all. But did you realize my OP had nothing to do with eliminating the building code all together? Are you arguing amongst that evil libertarian who exists somewhere on the internet (or maybe just in your head)?

If you can't figure out how lower development costs on a per unit and per occupant basis will lead to lower rents and make such projects profitable even when lower rents are charged, I don't think I can help you. All I can suggest is taking an introductory econ or finance class.

It is the kind of code regulations I describe that keep poor people out of certain areas in the city, requiring a minimum amount of rent not affordable to a segment of society since such regulations necessitate higher development costs.

And your idea of one bathroom per floor is about as laughable as the idea that people who propose the minimum wage should want it increased to $150/hr. Nothing more needs to be said about that.

 

[Toni]

And adding or renovating is a lot different than building from scratch.

Oh yes. I thought we were building in our OP. Renovating is a horse of a different color.

But same thing: building bathrooms or kitchens IS much more expensive than building a bedroom or a sitting room or a closet. Because of the plumbing and electrical which must be rated for being near water sources--more expensive than an outlet by the bedside. Add in ventilation and tile work and it's a big cost over the cost of a bedroom. Those items are NECESSARY for a safe space. Well, you could argue not tile but the electrical and plumbing? Ventilation? Oh, yes. Much more expensive and very necessary.

This is no argument against providing bathrooms for every apartment. It's just the truth: bathrooms cost more. Disagree? Try building a house with a builder. And kitchens cost more than bathrooms.

 

[NobleSavage]

I understand that. I've sat on zoning commissions and have worked rezoning dense areas of major US cities, but your solutions will not get the desired result. By building dense low income-only housing you are reverting to the failed designs of the 1950-80s. The more effective way of helping people out of poverty is to disperse them into the middle class areas in low density (ideally single family) housing where they can find hope and examples to change. Getting rid of aesthetics enforces one of the main problems with Cabrini Green: originally a decent place to live, with nothing to do, no contact with anyone else who isn't poor.

That is partially true. At one time I did a lot of work with Habitat for Humanity in St. Louis. I've been in plenty of board meetings where this has been discussed ad nauseam. Pruitt Igoe, the rubble of which is in St. Louis, is often used as a text book example of what not to do. I've seen the problems argued from MANY different angles. What they tried next was multi-income housing where non-poor people to live next to people in Section 8. I'd say the jury is still out on that.

 

[Toni]

As an architect, I say with some authority, that for every item in the building code, there was some kind of tragedy, from a horrific fire that killed people because of lack of firestops or exits, to the everyday humiliation and isolation a disabled person had to face as they were de-facto excluded from the places where everyone else was.

Building regulations are among the most sensible laws on the books. Only one gripped by the insane mania of the right's passion for deregulation would lead someone to think they are 'too restrictive' and somehow discriminatory to the poor.

Here's a fact: Poor people don't own or build buildings. Rich people own and build buildings. Deregulating building would benefit rich people, not poor people.

Building codes exist to protect poor people, from the greed and viciousness of their landlords and employers. Deregulating buildings would lead to a return of the packed and unhygenic tenement blocks of the past, with disease, fires, collapses. It amazes me that someone would come on here one month after the Nepal earthquake and argue against building codes. Compare earthquake damage in Japan with those in Haiti or Nepal. That is what building codes are for. Have you any idea of what it was like before building codes? I do, I learned all about it in architecture school.

Why are rents high? Because people want to live in our cities. Why do people want to live in our cities? Because they are largely safe and hygenic. Why are they largely safe and hygenic? Building Codes!

How to make housing more affordable? Well, you might consider the fact that many cities and neighborhoods deliberately write their land-use laws to eliminate low income housing. That is what most housing advocates tend to target, rather than building codes.

Removing building codes would do one thing and one thing only: reduce the amount of time the developer has to wait to earn back his money on a given block of flats, increasing his profits. The idea that he'd pass this on to the renter is fatuous. Why does the government build low income housing anyway? Because developers don't. You don't make money building low income housing. That's why the government has to do it. I've worked on some government low income housing. The units are very modest. You'd take away their bathroom and kitchen? Now you want them to share a bathroom with their whole floor? Why don't you read a bit about the communes that existed in the USSR and China? That is the sort of living that you are suggesting. You can make poor people squat over a hole in the floor, but that won't make low income housing profitable.

This is just further manifestation of the right wing's hatred of the poor. Even when they pretend to advocate for the poor, they can't make it look like they aren't punishing them for being poor.

The answer is quite simple. Businesses and the wealthy benefit from having a pool of low income labor on hand. Therefore, either tax the businesses and wealthy to provide housing or transportation, or have a minimum wage suitable to pay for housing or transportation.

Ok, that's nice and all. But did you realize my OP had nothing to do with eliminating the building code all together? Are you arguing amongst that evil libertarian who exists somewhere on the internet (or maybe just in your head)?

If you can't figure out how lower development costs on a per unit and per occupant basis will lead to lower rents and make such projects profitable even when lower rents are charged, I don't think I can help you. All I can suggest is taking an introductory econ or finance class.

It is the kind of code regulations I describe that keep poor people out of certain areas in the city, requiring a minimum amount of rent not affordable to a segment of society since such regulations necessitate higher development costs.

And your idea of one bathroom per floor is about as laughable as the idea that people who propose the minimum wage should want it increased to $150/hr. Nothing more needs to be said about that.

It's not 'nice and all.' It has to do with safety and well fare. Also with protecting property rights and values of neighboring properties.

From the OP:

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.

ALL of these have to do with safety and welfare. You could argue that landscaping and aesthetic requirements do not but you would be mistaken. Aesthetics do matter. Landscaping does matter.

 

[Sarpedon]

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

To itemize:
1. It's already there dude. Thousands of people have died in fires to get us to where we are. 2006 IBC: Table 1004.1.1: 200 square feet per occupant. That includes shared lobbies, staircases, corridors. What do you propose instead?
2. Already addressed.
3. Building height restrictions have to do with the ability of utilities to service the building. If you take it away, suddenly you have a 16 floor building dumping into a sewer designed for a 4 floor building. Republicans think public infrastructure is a magical thing that appears out of nothing when required, not something that you have to pay taxes and plan to get. They also protect other people's property from being infringed upon by others. If you double the height of your building you are potentially taking away light and air from someone else's property.
4. Two different things.
4a. Aesthetic rules are driven by developers and homeowners looking to enhance the property values of the buildings they build. They are only found in already affluent places. In other places, aesthetic issues are actually building footprint regulations. See 3 for reasons for building footprint regulations.
4b. Because of the many necessary safety restrictions for buildings, it takes a while for drawings to be reviewed. So what? The costs of review are tiny compared to the cost of the building. Eliminating review means eliminating regulations. This is a complete red herring.
5. Parking requirements exist so PUBLIC streets do not become clogged with PRIVATE parked cars. Landlords love making use of a public resource which they don't have to pay for, rather than going through the bother and expense of having the necessary facilities for their tenants. Again, it would be fine with me if the landlords were assessed an additional tax to pay for the on street parking or transportation, but that isn't what this is all about, is it?

 

[thebeave]

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.

I think this is a very reasonable thing to consider, but one of the main problems I see is that it creates a two tier system of housing. You have your rich/middle income style housing developments and then there's the lower income housing developments using the relaxed standards. Even if the new lower income housing development is perfectly safe and adequate for the needs of the residents, there's always going to be some people (the poorer people themselves with a little too much pride and the vocal SJW types) who are going to make a fuss that the poorer people should have every thing that middle/higher income people have and that it degrades them to have to live there. The Seinfeld muffin stump video is fictional, but illustrates this point.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Axulus has tasked us with the unenviable task of coming up with a solution to a problem he hasn't even tried to solve.

Want to make rents lower, tear down the shittiest parts of cities where property is worthless and build there. I think cities kind of already do that.

 

[Axulus]

Many poor people don't have their own vehicles. This is not a very good option for rural poor, where there is no mass transit and nothing within walking distance. BTW, plenty of people living in rural areas are poor.

Parking is almost never in issue in rural areas. Land is cheaper and parking is pretty much never a problem. You never see paid parking in rural areas because there is no demand for it. Everyone easily has parking for 2 vehicles day and night.

So, what, you'll replace parking restrictions with mass transit restrictions? That's something outside of the builder's control, isn't it?

I never said anything about mass transit "restrictions". I'm saying that there are other transportation options that a city can implement other than forcing a bunch of parking be built, which reduces land for other options (such as housing) and makes housing construction more expensive on a per unit basis.

OK, what do you suggest? Are these options within the power of a builder to provide?

There will be more bus ridership when parking is scarce, and the city can implement more convenient bus routes. Just one example.

People may also choose to drop the car and take the bus and also use Uber, as another example.

But even if they're paying for parking, if there isn't any parking available after the residents park their cars, you're still strangling access to the neighborhood for the purpose of commerce.

What? There are building codes which apply to commercial and retail spaces..

Developers don't need the government to force them to make parking. They'll do that on their own based on demand and cost to provide the parking. You do realize that the area being "strangled" makes it a less desirable place to live, and therefore fewer people wanting to live there and pay rent, and fewer businesses wanting to locate there. Developers will take that into account accordingly.

Actually, I would be quite surprised to learn that people-as in people who are 'developing' housing for poor residents do not need to be forced to provide whatever is deemed to be 'adequate parking.'

And who is better at deeming what "adequate parking" is - city planners or developers who perform analysis on demand for parking and whose pocket books are directly impacted by having too much or too little parking vs. demand?

The same thing for up to date electrical and plumbing, window size and placement, green space, energy efficiency, occupancy per unit and number of units per lot, and a host of aesthetics just off the top of my head. Because in my town, (some) people DO have to be FORCED by building codes and inspectors: i.e. the government to make such provisions. Generally those who are providing housing for students and for poor people. Because those people are less likely to have much choice or much expertise in understanding tenant rights. Or responsibilities. This does affect neighbors and neighborhoods.

Once again, I never said to eliminate all code restrictions.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And who is better at deeming what "adequate parking" is - city planners or developers who perform analysis on demand for parking and whose pocket books are directly impacted by having too much or too little parking vs. demand?

I'd say city planners. They can look at the area as a whole as opposed to the one individual building. You get areas like Atlanta where developers put up hundreds of units in areas with only a single, two lane road to access it and it takes you half an hour to get a mile from your apartment where you can turn onto a larger street. Completely full developments, by the way.

 

[Axulus]

Axulus has tasked us with the unenviable task of coming up with a solution to a problem he hasn't even tried to solve.

Want to make rents lower, tear down the shittiest parts of cities where property is worthless and build there. I think cities kind of already do that.

Doing that will not decrease the lowest available rents because there is a minimum development cost per unit. Every single restriction you put in place increases the minimum cost to build per unit and per occupant, which increases the minimum rents that must be charged to make the project worthwhile. Furthermore, why should lower income individuals only have options to live in areas where property is worthless? Wouldn't it be better if they had more affordable options in somewhat nicer areas.

Some of the restrictions make sense, such as safety, structural integrity, health and sanitation. I am not talking about eliminating those kind of restrictions.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Depends on what problem you are trying to address. I live in a city where there is plenty of available housing, but the costs just don't align with what people living in the area actually earn. Building a bunch of small, unappealing units in large, unappealing buildings might work as a short term fix, but I don't see why it wouldn't fall victim to the same pattern of price increases as other preciously affordable housing. You'd need regulations in place to protect that, but in that case I'd rather just have the regulations and skip the human-sized box collection.

If space really is an issue in a city, perhaps the proposal in the original post would make more sense.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

To itemize:
1. It's already there dude. Thousands of people have died in fires to get us to where we are. 2006 IBC: Table 1004.1.1: 200 square feet per occupant. That includes shared lobbies, staircases, corridors. What do you propose instead?
2. Already addressed.
3. Building height restrictions have to do with the ability of utilities to service the building. If you take it away, suddenly you have a 16 floor building dumping into a sewer designed for a 4 floor building. Republicans think public infrastructure is a magical thing that appears out of nothing when required, not something that you have to pay taxes and plan to get. They also protect other people's property from being infringed upon by others. If you double the height of your building you are potentially taking away light and air from someone else's property.

You know, your reply to point 3 is extremely perceptive. Sewer, water, electric, telephone... all of it would be put under strain if tall residential buildings could go up anywhere. People do seem to take utilities for granted and think they can do anything. Of course, they don't realize their poop also goes into rivers when it rains a little bit hard.

4b. Because of the many necessary safety restrictions for buildings, it takes a while for drawings to be reviewed. So what? The costs of review are tiny compared to the cost of the building. Eliminating review means eliminating regulations. This is a complete red herring.

Agreed. This whole "costly" thing is one of those made up statistics by some.

5. Parking requirements exist so PUBLIC streets do not become clogged with PRIVATE parked cars. Landlords love making use of a public resource which they don't have to pay for, rather than going through the bother and expense of having the necessary facilities for their tenants. Again, it would be fine with me if the landlords were assessed an additional tax to pay for the on street parking or transportation, but that isn't what this is all about, is it?

I remember dorming in NYC while interning and having to get home by about 6:00 or 6:30 PM if I wanted to find a parking space.

 

[ronburgundy]

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

Some of these are fine, but they need to be controlled in terms of where, when they are allowed and how many of them, such that they are spread out across neighborhoods and not concentrated. Concentrating poor people into packed, small unit high rises is a terrible, tried and failed idea that results in crime spikes. Allowing a modest size building (5-10 units) to have dorm style living is fine, so long as they are limited in number for an block. As for parking, that is a mixed bag. Cars have to be parked somewhere and it always costs someone. New massive buildings with no parking but with mostly tenants with cars ruin the property values of existing dwellings, cause "white-flight", more segregation, and ultimately decomposing neighborhoods. Simply eliminating parking requirements is destructive unless it is actually true that the tenants won't have cars). That is only true if the public transport system is good, which means it shouldn't be done without additional investment in public transport. Also, if actually true, as developers often claim, then the solution is simple: Prohibit tenants from owning a car. Designate such units as not being allowed to register a vehicle at that address in exchange for waiving the parking requirements which the developer can then pass on as savings of lower rent to tenants. IF their is any merit or honesty to the proposal, there should be no objection to that. Objection would reveal that the true motive is for developers to get more rich by fucking over communities and passing the inherent costs that come with automobiles and parking onto the neighboring residents.

Landscaping and other aesthetic issues are important. The more nearby public green space there is, the less green space would be critical for individual properties. Also, so long as only limited properties are given such exemptions in exchange for things like abiding by rent limits, then it is workable. Any objection to those conditions just reveals the dishonesty of the argument that the purpose is to create a context for more affordable housing.

 

[Axulus]

And who is better at deeming what "adequate parking" is - city planners or developers who perform analysis on demand for parking and whose pocket books are directly impacted by having too much or too little parking vs. demand?

I'd say city planners. They can look at the area as a whole as opposed to the one individual building. You get areas like Atlanta where developers put up hundreds of units in areas with only a single, two lane road to access it and it takes you half an hour to get a mile from your apartment where you can turn onto a larger street. Completely full developments, by the way.

What does two lane road access have anything to do with parking? Developers don't build roads (they may be required to make improvements) but they do build parking. Why do you think they don't adequately consider parking demand in their development plans?

If the city planners want to restrict density due to inadequate transportation infrastructure, that may make sense. In that case, you can simply have a restriction on the number of housing units and occupants that can be built in each city block and eliminate all the other restrictions I mention in my OP. However, by doing so, you effectively make such areas off limits to poor people by increasing costs as a result of the reduced supply.

Why should a poor person who doesn't own a car but takes the bus or maybe carpools with a friend be forced to pay for parking which gets passed along to them in the form of higher rents (since it increases development cost per unit)?

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

It would depend on the specific region. Where I live, there isn't a shortage of housing options; there is simply a disconnect between the cost of housing and what people actually earn. This wouldn't fix that problem; it would just create a bunch of small, unappealing units in large, unappealing buildings. If the prices were initially low, I'd think it would work as low income housing at first, but would eventually fall victim to the same rising price problems other properties had already faced.

If there is a combined space and price issue in a given city, then perhaps the proposed solution might make more sense.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Axulus has tasked us with the unenviable task of coming up with a solution to a problem he hasn't even tried to solve.

Want to make rents lower, tear down the shittiest parts of cities where property is worthless and build there. I think cities kind of already do that.

Doing that will not decrease the lowest available rents because there is a minimum development cost per unit.

Property value is extremely relevant to renting prices.

Every single restriction you put in place increases the minimum cost to build per unit and per occupant, which increases the minimum rents that must be charged to make the project worthwhile.

However, you've failed to even quantify this. I can also say that my breathing is reducing Oxygen in the air, beware!

Furthermore, why should lower income individuals only have options to live in areas where property is worthless?

Because these are the best areas for development. Developers pay less, a city starts rebuilding, housing is cheaper, it is a win-win-win.

Wouldn't it be better if they had more affordable options in somewhat nicer areas.

The point is to make that shitty place nicer, not act like it is Chernobyl.

Some of the restrictions make sense, such as safety, structural integrity, health and sanitation. I am not talking about eliminating those kind of restrictions.

Yes you are with the occupancy relaxation and dorm style bathrooms for families. You need to start quantifying these alleged savings from your proposed modifications anyways. All you seem to have proposed is requiring new water lines, reducing available on street parking for residents, and increasing the spread of disease to save poor people maybe a few bucks.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Long Answers based upon what I know now about the OP:

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).

This is done in many places. I believe NYC is doing this right now. Not sure how it would work for poor families. Although

Allow for dorm style housing (shared bathrooms among more than one unit, maybe shared kitchens)

Many places allow for this, but It would not attract renters. Dorm style housing serves more transient individuals. I'm really more worried about crime and conflict which would of course not be desirable.

Relax building height restrictions

I'm still confused by this. Correct me if I am wrong, but most building height restrictions (other than residential zoning considerations) are usually based upon materials. Wood structures are only able to reach about five stories before they become unstable. Steel framed buildings are not economical until they are much taller. This leaves a gap in the average building height. I suspect your business partner is not putting up steel framed buildings.

You are also in an earthquake zone, so their are probably other restrictions on rigid buildings.

Relax aesthetic requirements and landscaping requirements on new construction, elimination of lengthy and costly design reviews

You will still have costly design reviews. The aesthetics are important if you want your building to be desirable, but they serve other functions. Windows that face the street reduce crime. Landscaping provides a welcoming facade. A street of welcoming facades provides a pleasant place for commerce. This increases the value of the property and of course the tax base.

Relax parking space requirements

This of course really depends on location. Most likely there is a reason why cities have set the parking requirements at the levels they do. Monthly parking contracts in the dense areas of my city begin at $1500/year and you are required to vacate most ramps and lots before a sporting event.

There are also things called "variences" that will allow you to get a pass around some requirements.

Among others.

Please. let's examine these 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.

So if the point is to attract people into this new development, why would you think they would want to live in an overcrowded, aesthetically unpleasing building? You are trying to attract low-income people. I'm not sure how these changes will attract people rather than have these places be the last resort for the destitute. Which you can forget about collecting rent to turn a profit. Probably strip the copper out of the walls before you evict them.

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?

It also depends on a lot of other costs such as access (parking costs), job access, access to medical care, etc.

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.

I understand rent controls have worked in many cities.

 

[Axulus]

To answer a few other objections:

When I talk about "relaxing" the standards, I don't mean necessarily eliminating the standards all together, such as allowing people to cram so tightly together that they only have, say 50 square feet of living space per occupant.

I understand that having space too small per person can make the occupants more prone to spread of disease, mental health problems, crime becomes more of an issue, etc. It makes sense to have some sort of absolute limit based on these kind of criteria.

However, the 200 square feet cited earlier based on the international building code is lower than what most American cities allow. NYC has a minimum apartment size of 400 sq/ft, for example:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...ize-bloomberg-micro-apartments_n_1660396.html