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

[NobleSavage]

Building standards and zoning laws are used all the time to keep the hoi polloi out of the area. Other than obvious fire hazards and basic structural engineering, sure.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Parking should be priced accordingly - there are lots and garages where monthly pricing is available.

There are? Always?
Are you going to require this before someone builds a really cheap apartment building, to make sure there's sufficient parking before they do?

For those that can't afford that, I'm fine with strengthening mass transit options.

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

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 should pay for all the costs of that car themselves, including parking.

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.
Even aside from whether or not they can afford to pay for parking, it's a matter of capacity.

 

[Axulus]

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.

In denser areas, real estate is a far bigger cost per square foot. Allowing taller buildings allows that fixed real estate cost to be spread over more units.

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.

No one is putting anyone anywhere. People put themselves where they think they get the best value for their money and their situation.

Please explain to me how making housing more affordable at lower income levels (and overall, as more affordable housing at the lower levels will reduce the demand for other levels of housing, decreasing rents somewhat for everyone), is a less worthy goal than those other urban planning things you mention. What benefits are derived from restrictions like that, and are those benefits in excess of the cost of more expensive housing and exasperating income inequality (as housing is usually the single most expensive item on people's budgets)?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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.

That's not really the information I am looking for. For example, Would the looser restrictions just apply to Compton (a poor neighborhood) and not to Beverly Hills (a rich neighborhood)?

 

[NobleSavage]

Building standards and zoning laws are used all the time to keep the hoi polloi out of the area. Other than obvious fire hazards and basic structural engineering, sure.

I just thought of two examples: Boulder, CO a good while back decreed that you could no longer build anything higher than 3 stories. The wealthy people of that beautiful area didn't want it getting run over by new (read poor) people. Where I live now was an unincorporated part of the county. The city was formed by the more well-off residents for the sole purpose of keeping developers out of the area who wanted to build gobs of cheap suburban housing.

 

[Axulus]

There are? Always?
Are you going to require this before someone builds a really cheap apartment building, to make sure there's sufficient parking before they do?

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.

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.

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.

Even aside from whether or not they can afford to pay for parking, it's a matter of capacity.

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.

 

[Axulus]

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?

My business partner's family is developing commercial real estate in my current home city.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, remove restrictions from builders, and leave city planners with no authority, and put everything on the shoulders of the consumers... Who have shown a bang-up capacity for thinking things through, like status-symbols such as car ownership vs. the commerce of people around them.

Brillig.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

In denser areas, real estate is a far bigger cost per square foot. Allowing taller buildings allows that fixed real estate cost to be spread over more units.

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.

And developers seem to still show up to do these projects even with these building codes. I'm not seeing any shortage of them lining up.

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.

No one is putting anyone anywhere. People put themselves where they think they get the best value for their money and their situation.

And no, people don't put themselves where they think they get the best value for their money and their situation. If that were the case I'd be living in a lower-cost neighborhood without pedal pubs and the people down the block who pay $2K per month in rent would be screaming to get into my building. (Aesthetics plays a big part here.)

- - - Updated - - -

What city are you currently developing projects in?

My business partner's family is developing commercial real estate in my current home city.

Are you porn spam now? What city?

NM I am going assume Bellingham.

 

[Axulus]

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.

That's not really the information I am looking for. For example, Would the looser restrictions just apply to Compton (a poor neighborhood) and not to Beverly Hills (a rich neighborhood)?

I'm not sure on that one. What do you think? I'm interested in hearing the pros/cons for various possibilities. Personally, I see no reason why there shouldn't be more affordable housing options in Beverly Hills and why people with less income shouldn't have more affordable options to live there if they want.

 

[Toni]

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

Actually, bathrooms and kitchens tend to be the most expensive rooms to add or renovate. Plumbing is one major issue. Electrical is another.

 

[Bronzeage]

The cost of housing is the product of the cost of building, the cost of maintenance and competition between renters. The problem of low cost housing is producing a living space that is habitable at a cost that allows an affordable rent that allows for maintenance. The fate of apartment complexes in areas where occupancy is low and rents are forced down is well documented. Maintenance is the first sacrifice and the place slowly becomes uninhabitable, until at some point the government steps in and condemns the place.



Kowloon, the walled city of Hong Kong. There were no building codes and no government. Apartments were built on top of apartments until the streets became tunnels cut off from natural light. When a building collapsed from the weight, a new building was constructed on the rubble. When China took control of the city, one of their first projects was to move everyone out and level the place.

 

[Axulus]

So, remove restrictions from builders, and leave city planners with no authority, and put everything on the shoulders of the consumers... Who have shown a bang-up capacity for thinking things through, like status-symbols such as car ownership vs. the commerce of people around them.

Brillig.

I didn't say all restrictions. I created a list of some of the ones that make the most sense, and am open to other ideas.

So far I haven't heard any other proposals to reduce the development cost per housing unit. What are your proposals?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

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

Actually, bathrooms and kitchens tend to be the most expensive rooms to add or renovate. Plumbing is one major issue. Electrical is another.

But economies of scale can keep costs lower.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Actually, bathrooms and kitchens tend to be the most expensive rooms to add or renovate. Plumbing is one major issue. Electrical is another.

But economies of scale can keep costs lower.

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

 

[Axulus]

The cost of housing is the product of the cost of building, the cost of maintenance and competition between renters. The problem of low cost housing is producing a living space that is habitable at a cost that allows an affordable rent that allows for maintenance. The fate of apartment complexes in areas where occupancy is low and rents are forced down is well documented. Maintenance is the first sacrifice and the place slowly becomes uninhabitable, until at some point the government steps in and condemns the place.



Kowloon, the walled city of Hong Kong. There were no building codes and no government. Apartments were built on top of apartments until the streets became tunnels cut off from natural light. When a building collapsed from the weight, a new building was constructed on the rubble. When China took control of the city, one of their first projects was to move everyone out and level the place.
View attachment 3131

Strawman - I never said "no codes".

The only places where rents are "forced down" is in places with rent ceilings like in New York City. And you are correct, when government forces the rents down, the buildings are much more likely to fall into disrepair (renters aren't as picky about maintenance when there are no other options available at that price).

 

[Nice Squirrel]

So, remove restrictions from builders, and leave city planners with no authority, and put everything on the shoulders of the consumers... Who have shown a bang-up capacity for thinking things through, like status-symbols such as car ownership vs. the commerce of people around them.

Brillig.

I didn't say all restrictions. I created a list of some of the ones that make the most sense, and am open to other ideas.

So far I haven't heard any proposals to reduce the development cost per housing unit. Almost is a critic (without really offering any sound reasoning) but offers no solutions of their own.

Without some real numbers or examples to back it up we cannot really know what you are talking about.

 

[Sarpedon]

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.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

But economies of scale can keep costs lower.

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.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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.

That's not really the information I am looking for. For example, Would the looser restrictions just apply to Compton (a poor neighborhood) and not to Beverly Hills (a rich neighborhood)?

I'm not sure on that one. What do you think? I'm interested in hearing the pros/cons for various possibilities. Personally, I see no reason why there shouldn't be more affordable housing options in Beverly Hills and why people with less income shouldn't have more affordable options to live there if they want.

I think making one set of laws for the rich and one set for the poor may be a good starter, but will always wind up a bad sticker. I tend to be against the practice