Comment by lol768 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lol768 | Hacker News Reader

Points #3 and #4 seem to be arguing that regulation is the problem here.

In the UK, developers aren't allowed to build a new development (of >5 [some areas] or >10 dwellings [everywhere]) without providing sufficient affordable housing. This is usually a mixture of shared ownership properties and affordable rent properties (which must be no more than 80% of market rent, incl charges) which must be built alongside the other dwellings.

Is this a thing in the United States? If not, why not?

> there is no epidemic of fire deaths in older buildings that are not equipped with state-of-the-art sprinkler systems

For someone from the UK, where we experienced the Grenfell tower tragedy just a few years ago - and where experts have testified that sprinklers would've absolutely helped to prevent fire deaths (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41230521), this argument comes across as so short-sighted and stupid it's not even funny. Skimping on fire safety measures is not the answer.

> Is this a thing in the United States? If not, why not?

So local entities govern building in the USA. I know that where I live, Boulder, has a requirement for affordable housing to be built in any new development, but also allows for the developer to pay cash in lieu of building the affordable housing. The cash is then used by other entities (non-profits, the city) to build affordable housing.

More here: https://bouldercolorado.gov/unit-cash-lieu-calculator

I don't know what other cities/local governments require, though.

Is there any appetite for something at the federal level, or would this be seen as an unwelcome intervention for something that should be devolved to state level?

It's great that one city in Colorado has done something (and I'm sure it's not the only locality), but I can't help think that this sort of governance must lead to a ton of fragmentation in regulations.

Note that that example is for the city of Boulder.

Trying to do this at large levels ignores a bit of the differences in housing density and cost of housing in the area.

Would it be possible to build luxury housing in San Francisco and then some affordable housing in a different city or state?

While there is going to be fragmentation of regulations, a developer working in Boulder is working in Boulder. Building luxury housing there and then building housing in... Federal Heights or Alamosa doesn't help the affordable housing issue in Boulder.

Handling this at the city level (rather than state or federal) is likely the right spot.

It's ironic that I know someone who lives in a building where sprinklers have been retro-fit in the most incompetant and chaotic manner you could imagine.

The problems within the UK construction industry go far, far beyond the implementation of obvious saftey measures.

The Grenfell disater would never have happened if works had been carried out in accordance with regulations at the time, sprinklers or no sprinklers.

The UK is well known for unaffordable, poor-quality housing. I'm not sure why you're holding it up as a good example.

London is well known for unaffordable housing, is the UK as a whole? As for the quality, same as in France and other countries with similar profiles, old housing is of ( comparatively for today) poor quality, but it's getting progressively upgraded and replaced.

Having lived in neither, going off reports I'll take the UK, even with Grenfell, than the US(where the Florida collapse compensates for Grenfell).

Outside of council housing, it's similar to the US now: either it's expensive where there are jobs or cheap where jobs aren't available.

London MSA is 1/7 of the population, so it's pretty relevant.

> I'm not sure why you're holding it up as a good example.

Because it has the regulatory requirements I detailed in my post for housing developers.

> The UK is well known for unaffordable, poor-quality housing

And houses in the states aren't poor quality? Do builders over there even know what bricks are?

Freeholds in some areas have a reputation for being unaffordable, sure. I'm not so sure that the shared ownership and affordable rent properties I refer to have this reputation, but it is clear that there's not nearly enough housing stock for demand.

Quality is definitely variable across all housing stock, but I'm not sure I'd say all new builds are of a poor quality.

> Because it has the regulatory requirements I detailed in my post for housing developers.

And they don't work to make housing affordable, so not achieving the end goal.

> And houses in the states aren't poor quality? Do builders over there even know what bricks are?

More than a third of Britons cannot afford to heat their home to a comfortable level: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/0...

My wood home is insulated, dry, and affordable to heat.

>Do builders over there even know what bricks are?

Builders over here in earthquake country are constrained by earthquake and fire mitigation materials. Plus masonry isn't energy-efficient.

BTW, I highly recommend the PBS series "Home Diagnosis" for modern home building strategies and testing of insulation and airflow.

Experts say that helmets will improve crash outcomes in passenger cars. Do you advocate for mandatory helmeting in passenger cars?

Do you wear a seatbelt?

Exactly my point. We mandate seatbelts but not helmets. Why?

And for what it's worth, I ride. So helmet and gear but no belt on that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com