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

[Tom Sawyer]

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)?

Parking demand is only one factor in car usage. If a developer wants to build in an area, then access to the area is as important as if they have somewhere to park when they get there. That's why city planners, who are focused on the area as a whole, are a better option for deciding these things than developers, who are only focused on their one little slice.

 

[Axulus]

Parking demand is only one factor in car usage. If a developer wants to build in an area, then access to the area is as important as if they have somewhere to park when they get there. That's why city planners, who are focused on the area as a whole, are a better option for deciding these things than developers, who are only focused on their one little slice.

Having extra parking available isn't the only way to have transportation access to a part of the city - there are many more options these days such as buses, Uber, walking, bicycling, etc.

If there is demand for parking for occupants of a particular building - whether it commercial or residential, it seems to make sense to allow them to choose how much to set aside for parking since this is about how much people will use cars for this particular slice. Larger concerns, such as transportation access to the block is best developed by city planners, but the city should be responsible for that access such as making sure there are adaquate roads and bus routes (or various other options), and the developers can determine what amount of parking is best for them based on the city's plans.

 

[Sarpedon]

Having extra parking available isn't the only way to have transportation access to a part of the city - there are many more options these days such as buses, Uber, walking, bicycling, etc

Very good. Are you in favor of taxing landlords and developers who's properties benefit from these services?

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

Correct. The IBC cites the 'practical' minimum, with the assumption that is the most people that would be in the building, so as to have the proper exiting facilities. No matter what a city might say, in low income housing the actual number of occupants will approach the maximum.

Again, cities try to keep housing prices up, to maximize revenue. If taxes happened differently, incentives would be different.

Of course, cities have the right to put whatever additional laws they like. Are you suggesting that the federal government overrule the ability of cities to put regulations in place specific to their conditions?
Oh, that pesky democracy!

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Parking demand is only one factor in car usage. If a developer wants to build in an area, then access to the area is as important as if they have somewhere to park when they get there. That's why city planners, who are focused on the area as a whole, are a better option for deciding these things than developers, who are only focused on their one little slice.

Having extra parking available isn't the only way to have transportation access to a part of the city - there are many more options these days such as buses, Uber, walking, bicycling, etc.

Yes, but you also need to be realistic to what people will actually take. For example, I could ditch my car and spend an extra hour to go the 10 miles to get to work.

 

[Axulus]

Having extra parking available isn't the only way to have transportation access to a part of the city - there are many more options these days such as buses, Uber, walking, bicycling, etc

Very good. Are you in favor of taxing landlords and developers who's properties benefit from these services?

Real estate taxes take care of that, plus requiring developers to implement some improvements makes sense at times (sidewalks, widening roads). Yes, I am fine with real estate taxes.

Developers will typically pay sales taxes or income taxes. I tend to prefer sales taxes (consumption taxes) and am fine with developers being required to pay those for the materials and labor they purchase to develop.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Very good. Are you in favor of taxing landlords and developers who's properties benefit from these services?

Real estate taxes take care of that, plus requiring developers to implement some improvements makes sense at times (sidewalks, widening roads). Yes, I am fine with real estate taxes.

But won't this decrease the footprint?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Parking demand is only one factor in car usage. If a developer wants to build in an area, then access to the area is as important as if they have somewhere to park when they get there. That's why city planners, who are focused on the area as a whole, are a better option for deciding these things than developers, who are only focused on their one little slice.

Having extra parking available isn't the only way to have transportation access to a part of the city - there are many more options these days such as buses, Uber, walking, bicycling, etc.

Yes, and how the developers' buildings fit into all those various types of access should conform to how the city planners want the area to be set out. It's a question for the region as a whole, not a question for individual buildings within the region. If residents need cars, then parking should be required and if they don't, then parking is less relevant. That should be a requirement which developers need to implement, though, not something they decide on their own.

 

[Axulus]

Having extra parking available isn't the only way to have transportation access to a part of the city - there are many more options these days such as buses, Uber, walking, bicycling, etc.

Yes, but you also need to be realistic to what people will actually take. For example, I could ditch my car and spend an extra hour to go the 10 miles to get to work.

Their life choices are influenced by things like parking availability. If parking is more limited and more expensive, they'll be more likely to try to adapt to other options, and city planners need to make other options more viable. Cities shouldn't too heavily subsidize car choices and instead increase the appeal of other alternatives as cars have a high cost in terms of the amount of real estate they require, the amount of congestion they cause, the effects they have on city air quality, and the amount of law enforcement required to enforce traffic laws for people who drive them.

 

[untermensche]

How about we not start a bunch of useless wars and use the money instead on a bunch of low income houses, built under present codes?

Why don't we use resources productively?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Yes, but you also need to be realistic to what people will actually take. For example, I could ditch my car and spend an extra hour to go the 10 miles to get to work.

Their life choices are influenced by things like parking availability.

Whoa, that's Agenda 21 Commmie thinking!
Yes life choices are, but are you forcing that decision on them or are they forced to adapt by not moving into your development? These are some of the things planners should take into account. In the denser central areas parking lot numbers are reduced as there are more options for transportation. We are lucky because our bicycle infrastructure was developed in the 1890s and adapts easily to current system. Although not entirely since some players (Canadians) refuse to grant right of ways to fully integrate the trail system between the two downtowns.

If parking is more limited and more expensive, they'll be more likely to try to adapt to other options, and city planners need to make other options more viable. Cities shouldn't too heavily subsidize car choices and instead increase the appeal of other alternatives as cars have a high cost in terms of the amount of real estate they require, the amount of congestion they cause, the effects they have on city air quality, and the amount of law enforcement required to enforce traffic laws for people who drive them.

True dat!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

How about we not start a bunch of useless wars and use the money instead on a bunch of low income houses, built under present codes?

Why don't we use resources productively?

Pfft. Maybe in Canada.

Starting useless wars is the US's thing. It's what you do. You may as well say to the French that they need to cut back on the wine and drink more fruit juices. Sure, it would be better for them but it goes against everything their culture is about.

 

[Toni]

Yes, but you also need to be realistic to what people will actually take. For example, I could ditch my car and spend an extra hour to go the 10 miles to get to work.

Their life choices are influenced by things like parking availability. If parking is more limited and more expensive, they'll be more likely to try to adapt to other options, and city planners need to make other options more viable. Cities shouldn't too heavily subsidize car choices and instead increase the appeal of other alternatives as cars have a high cost in terms of the amount of real estate they require, the amount of congestion they cause, the effects they have on city air quality, and the amount of law enforcement required to enforce traffic laws for people who drive them.

I am almost certain you are talking about housing in urban neighborhoods. In those neighborhoods, car ownership is significantly lower than in the suburbs. Walking and public transportation are very common, where they are available. But in some cities, public transportation options are very limited and not very convenient. If you are talking about suburban neighborhoods, most people have cars but there is little to zero public transportation.

In my neighborhood, which is near a university, for the past couple of decades, large older homes have been converted to student housing--so they go from housing a family of say: 5 or 6 to housing 8 or 10 or more unrelated 18-22 year olds. Each with his or her own automobile. Without increasing lot size or city services. Landlords are very reluctant to spend a penny they are not required to spend on any minor code issues such as having a proper egress window for bedrooms in each unit, modern plumbing and electrical. I've sat at a few board meetings as well. There was a massive rebellion at the idea of providing off street parking because it costs something to turn a yard into a parking lot and then you have to plow it 6 months of the year. In other words: it's an expense to the landlord.

Please note: from my neighborhood, it is an easy walk to campus, to stores, parks, post office. That does not stop students and their parents from feeling it is absolutely necessary for the little darlings to have their own personal automobile. They look at areas surrounding campus and see it as only useful for student housing. Reality: for many, many decades, that area has provided homes for permanent community members, from singles to young families to empty nesters and older retired people, who all coexist quite nicely. Students individually are very nice people, most of them, just as non-students are. But cramming too many of them into housing in neighborhoods which were not designed for such dense population simply encourages antisocial behavior that hurts everyone.

 

[ronburgundy]

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)?

Agreed. But why should other people in the area (including other poor peoiple) suffer the effects of them (and their developer) not paying for parking but then actually having cars? Allowing them to not have parking causes as much or more harm than it solves, unless it their are regulations that strictly tie the parking requirement to car ownership, such as prohibiting any person at such a residence from registering a car and from acquiring parking permits for the any permit restricted in the area.

Would you be in favor of these limitations? Would you be in favor of rent control restrictions on buildings given various exemptions you propose to ensure that they actually have the benefits you claim they would and that are neccessary to offset the negatives of granting such exemptions?

 

[Sarpedon]

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

)?

Agreed. But why should other people in the area (including other poor peoiple) suffer the effects of them (and their developer) not paying for parking but then actually having cars? Allowing them to not have parking causes as much or more harm than it solves, unless it their are regulations that strictly tie the parking requirement to car ownership, such as prohibiting any person at such a residence from registering a car and from acquiring parking permits for the any permit restricted in the area.

Would you be in favor of these limitations? Would you be in favor of rent control restrictions on buildings given various exemptions you propose to ensure that they actually have the benefits you claim they would and that are neccessary to offset the negatives of granting such exemptions?

This is why parking requirements are usually fractional. And most landlords charge more for a parking space, in my experience. Just because they are required to have them doesn't mean they can't charge for them.

 

[ronburgundy]

)?

Agreed. But why should other people in the area (including other poor peoiple) suffer the effects of them (and their developer) not paying for parking but then actually having cars? Allowing them to not have parking causes as much or more harm than it solves, unless it their are regulations that strictly tie the parking requirement to car ownership, such as prohibiting any person at such a residence from registering a car and from acquiring parking permits for the any permit restricted in the area.

Would you be in favor of these limitations? Would you be in favor of rent control restrictions on buildings given various exemptions you propose to ensure that they actually have the benefits you claim they would and that are neccessary to offset the negatives of granting such exemptions?

This is why parking requirements are usually fractional. And most landlords charge more for a parking space, in my experience. Just because they are required to have them doesn't mean they can't charge for them.

In many cases a multi-unit building won't be allowed to be built due to a lack of plausibly building a parking structure and already at-capacity street parking. Or its allowed based upon (often bullshit) claims by developers that few of the residents would have a car. If allowed (Axulus' solution) the tenants will often have cars and cause problems for existing residents. I suggested that the building simply be formally established as on where no one who lives there can register a car or acquire street parking permits.
IF the developer and those who support such regulatory relaxation are being honest, they would have zero objection to this stipulation.

 

[RavenSky]

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

Short answer: No.

^^^ That.

None of the suggestions in the OP would actually make apartments more affordable. Land, construction costs and finishes are what drive up the costs - not whether you are forced to share a toilet with the strangers next door.

This is nothing more than another "poor people shouldn't have refrigerators" game.

 

[arkirk]

There is a show on PBS that chronicles the building of a number of high rise buildings in NYC. It makes a point of the fact that some living and office spaces are over 1000 feet in the air and that the price of such space is astronomical. As one of the workers said, "I haven't a clue what millionaire will be leasing this space, and just think I get this lovely view for only working here." Oh joy! The extravagance of this bullshit is shocking in a country that also includes Detroit and Flint and the 9th Ward in New Orleans. Our goal should be fair housing policies. These buildings are the result of a lot of the capital flight from the middle class. Much of it is ably assisted by our hanky panky government.

No architect wants to work on quonset huts for the poor. They all want the glory of a red white and blue monument to wealth. Making housing for the less affluent cheaper is just another way of paying them less for their work. We have already seen the public housing projects of the past become nightmarish visions of human mass production pathos and seen very many of them torn down. I agree there needs to be far more effort at more sensible housing sizes along with the infrastructure to support healthy living in them, but no decrease in safety requirements in their construction.

This situation will not improve without a general effort at community planning involving the communities where lower cost housing is to be built. It needs to be environmentally sensitive and sustainable. The opportunity costs of sky scrapers is immense. They are as gross in power consumption as they are in capital consumption. It really is a matter of dissecting this industry and practically starting over from scratch.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

This I actually disagree with you on. Moving the poor to low density areas tends to increase their transportation costs, and usually making it impossible to get anywhere (to work) without a car. The better solution is density, but mixed use buildings throughout the urban core - not isolated blocks of low-income housing only.

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

This I completely agree with. And there is simply no reason to ignore aesthetics when building low-income housing. The choice to do so, in my opinion, goes back to the "poor people don't deserve it" mentality

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.

I agree that the OP doesn't demonstrate an understanding of building codes or urban planning, but I would not be so quick to reject recycled storage containers as housing Have you seen what they are doing with them now?

 

[RavenSky]

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.

Air traffic is also an important consideration. Developers here would love to build higher and higher (though not to benefit poor people) but our prime urban land is directly in the flight path of the international airport

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?

We actually have a couple of experiments on this issue here.

A couple of buildings located directly across the street from an under-used public parking garage were built with a long-term lease with the city already in place. Residents in the building have 1 parking space in the public garage included with their unit - the same as even the high end condominiums nearby. The only difference is getting wet if it is raining. This arrangement does provide parking for the residents, but it also has the effect of keeping prices/rents in the buildings lower because a lot of people in our car-centric city refuse to live in the buildings. On the flip side, the city still gains in property tax revenue because more of the two buildings are dedicated to residential units rather than parking spaces.

Another new development is trying to go without any parking provisions at all (more like what Axulus is talking about) but are providing Car2Go minutes to the residents to encourage no car ownership at all. The development is still under construction, so we will have to wait to see how the plan goes.

- - - Updated - - -

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...

Yep.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

Short answer: No.

^^^ That.

None of the suggestions in the OP would actually make apartments more affordable. Land, construction costs and finishes are what drive up the costs - not whether you are forced to share a toilet with the strangers next door.

This is nothing more than another "poor people shouldn't have refrigerators" game.

Good point. If apartments didn't have to shell out for fridges in every poor apartment, they could saves tens of thousands! Carpet? Who do you think you are, The Vanderbilts?! And who needs hot water? That'd also help keep them from reproducing so much. Those hundreds add up quickly!