The smoke and flames from burning contents will kill you just as fast as the smoke and flames from a burning structure.
I would suggest reading through the IRC if you'd like to know what's involved.
One thing we should remember is that developers != landlords; there are some that are integrated, but many just build, sell, and move on. Regardless, with the hollowing out of government capacity, I don't think you're going to get any new buildings sans a developer anytime soon. The overall idea is to make the rules for building easier, so that building isn't restricted to your megadeveloper.
Second, the argument was never about "high-end" development only. You're conflating issues. There are two things: 1) many developers today only focus on the higher end, because piecemeal rules and development means that only high-end places pencil out for making any money; they're not going to build at a loss, and 2) major metro areas often have people that can afford market rate in the first place - housing has a filtering effect - people with greater means move into the newer places with more amenities, leaving older, naturally affordable units for others (after all, people can really only live in one home).
There are some links in this post: http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=thread...-and-not-enough-housing.2615467/post-41092630
(this is a summary of the Blocksandlots PDF: https://www.fanniemae.com/research-and-insights/do-new-housing-units-next-door-raise-your-rents)New Construction Has Mixed Short-Term Effect on Rents in Immediate Vicinity
A working paper from scholars at the University of Minnesota’s Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, “Build Baby Build?: Housing Submarkets and the Effects of New Construction on Existing Rents” finds that new market-rate construction has varying impacts on the rents of nearby homes. Within the...nlihc.org
And here is one on filtering effects: https://www.planetizen.com/news/202...ilters-naturally-occurring-affordable-housing
I'm not sure why you think I'm talking about not installing smoke detectors when what I'm talking about is not doing this:
View attachment 87536
I saw my first one of those being built on one of my rounds during work, I was like, holy fucking dumb batman. I read about the technology letting them build 4 and 5 over ones for larger buildings and I was like, jesus christ, it's a fucking matchbox with more people in it.
But mandating 10% affordable housing is totally fair, and if you are strict about it, you think these developers are not going to still want the profits of the 90% units at high market rate. If you want to claim you are a liberal with empathy, you can work within the constraints of supply and demand and a measly 10% affordable housing mandate. You can make rules that help mitigate it for small-time developers. This is not rocket science.
To dismiss any affordable housing mandate is not based in reality of how it affects people, and simply lacks any empathy for people.
You could also do mass timber, which takes advantage of our greater wood resources relative to Europe, and is still pretty flame resistant.I'm in the camp of switching over to concrete for these but letting them have fewer entire building active life safety systems which would not be needed since the whole structure isn't gonna burn without them. This is basically what happens in most of Europe.
I'm fine with 10%, if the project is over a certain size to support that subsidy by the other buyers or tenants, but we need to be careful, because those cutoffs can lead to people only building up to the cutoff limit instead.I actually work in the industry. I know developers that do a few homes at a time, and others that do midrise projects, and I am familiar with the ones that do skyscrapers. Everything newly built is luxury this and luxury that. Because there is such a shortage of housing they can cater towards only the high end and not worry about a lack of demand. You can look at Jersey City - in the last 10 years has built a ton of units per capita. Yet somehow all of it has been at the top end of the market. Whether they knock down a single family and put up two condos, whether they knock down a few houses and put up a mid-rise building, whether they build a six or ten unit building, or whether they build a 500 unit building. That's all it is. All top rate market value units. Rents have soared across the board, so have condo prices. People are getting displaced left and right because that is driving up all the rents, plus a huge chunk of landlords prefer to renovate when the lease is up and cash in on the top rents. Middle and lower class people are all pushed out. I've been part of deals that do that. This is for over ten years now, and you're going to tell me nobody is getting displaced or priced out? I've lived through it.
The fact is I have acknowledge a million times supply and demand is the big issue, and zoning laws are terribly restrictive, and I am all for building tons more housing. That has never changed. I don't need a lecture on supply and demand, it's all I talk about in regards to housing when I speak to NIMBY's.
But mandating 10% affordable housing is totally fair, and if you are strict about it, you think these developers are not going to still want the profits of the 90% units at high market rate. If you want to claim you are a liberal with empathy, you can work within the constraints of supply and demand and a measly 10% affordable housing mandate. You can make rules that help mitigate it for small-time developers. This is not rocket science.
To dismiss any affordable housing mandate is not based in reality of how it affects people, and simply lacks any empathy for people.
Seems like a problem that detached housing would also face, and not something strictly applicable to multifamily dwellings.The smoke and flames from burning contents will kill you just as fast as the smoke and flames from a burning structure.
I would suggest reading through the IRC if you'd like to know what's involved.
I mean you a rock for a brain so I am not sure why would be opposed to an iron couch.I'm pretty sure I don't want an iron couch or asbestos carpet.
I'm fine with 10%, if the project is over a certain size to support that subsidy by the other buyers or tenants, but we need to be careful, because those cutoffs can lead to people only building up to the cutoff limit instead.
As for luxury this and that - if you work on the industry, you should know that it is a completely BS term that simply means "new".
My point is in an area that has grown more units per capita than probably most of the country in over 10 years, rents have only gone up dramatically, prices have only gone up dramatically, diversity has gone down, and lots of people get displaced.
Yeah, what he's saying is the opposite of reality. NYC has had very low housing build rates and they look to be getting even worse.
Yeah, what he's saying is the opposite of reality. NYC has had very low housing build rates and they look to be getting even worse.
And again, the idea that housing construction causes prices to increase on net is insane. If it were actually true then that is essentially an unlimited money cheat code from a video game. If every house I build makes that house and all the others more valuable the answer would be to build unlimited houses.
I wonder if NYC could just not tax sqft over the 50th floor or whatever is reasonable. Bet that'd get some apartments built.And if you build up instead of out, you can put more houses on the same patch of land, reducing the price via increased density.
I think that's a big part of it. There are several construction projects going on 4th ave of big apartment buildings and people in my neighborhood say exactly that - that there's tons of construction going on. They really don't get the scale of NYC and how much construction we ACTUALLY need, and how low our per capita housing builds really are.I think the issue is perceptual. If you go to certain parts of the city and metro there is a lot of construction happening in relatively small areas that are zoned for it or where you can get a variance. If you are standing in say Jersey City or LIC and looking at all the towers going up there is some inclination to think that there must be a lot of supply.
I never said NYC, I said Jersey City.
except I specifically said Jersey City.Yeah, what he's saying is the opposite of reality. NYC has had very low housing build rates and they look to be getting even worse.
And again, the idea that housing construction causes prices to increase on net is insane. If it were actually true then that is essentially an unlimited money cheat code from a video game. If every house I build makes that house and all the others more valuable the answer would be to build unlimited houses.
of course it's based on the metro area market.NYC market rents are probably much more to blame for displacement in JC than new development which in many cases has gone on vacant or former commercial/industrial land. JC is not NYC but it is part of it's housing market for sure.
of course it's based on the metro area market.
but since we can't count on every surrounding city and locality doing their share, JC should protect its residents a little bit. Again, with nothing unreasonable because we need to build a ton, but 10% IZ makes sense within that model. I fail to see how developers won't still get filthy rich, but you keep a more diverse community and don't kick everyone out. LIke I said, one yacht instead of two. To me, if you are saying any IZ is bad, then well, you are for that second yacht at the expense of a better society.
It's not just where there are lots and rezoning from commercial to residential, this is also happening in parts of the city that rely on knockdowns and new builds, not usually skyscrapers, but definitely mid-rise buildings are in there.
Sure if you can get everybody onboard with taking away lots of zoning barriers, But that's not happening. Hochul just tried but it failed spectacularly by the I got mine fuck you NIMBY crowd. So it's happening in pockets, like in JC and a few other cities. You just let market rate housing go up fast it's still going to take a long time to get to a supply and demand equilibrium. And by then you will have created such wealth disparate neighborhoods and cities it would be bad for anybody who isn't more well off.I don't think a certain level of IZ is inherently bad but it is a trade off. I'd much prefer for there to be so much supply that it is not needed.
Detached housing has egress from every bedroom, plus the front and often a back door. Even jumping out of a second story window is easily survivable, that becomes iffy on the third floor, and will almost certainly cause massive trauma from the forth.Seems like a problem that detached housing would also face, and not something strictly applicable to multifamily dwellings.