The process of building new structures is filled with so much regulatory friction that it is impossible for the average person to even consider building their own home.
Which regulations would you relax? Surely there is some unnecessary red tape, but it's not as if building regulations have been developed for fun, it's largely in response to safety issues and so on.
Cosmetic stuff, square footage requirements, height requirements, parking requirements. Basic structural engineering, fire safety, etc. requirements of course would stay but if local code is more stringent than national you might take a look at it (e.g. things like a local code requiring copper pipes when PVC is acceptable and much cheaper).
Unless there's a need to build to a higher standard with longer maintenance periods, so that housing stock can have a longer life. Houses exist for decades, better to build for that without needing maintenance but perhaps costing more initially.
Developers will always attempt to skimp on quality to save/make more money. Even people building their own home will sometimes try to avoid compliance. That's why the regulations are there.
GP obviously meant PEX, which is another plastic. (For people not familiar with modern plumbing: PEX is used for supply; PVC is used for drainage to the sewer.)
Maybe that’s what they meant, but PVC is also used for water distribution, cold water supply, and sprinkler piping (obviously all cold water but still pressurized supply applications), so it’s not at all clear that when they said PVC they meant PEX. CPVC is rated for domestic hot water supply, so they could have meant that as well. I’d say PEX was an underdog rather than the obvious alternative meaning.
Quite a lot of regulations have nothing to do with safety. Minimum set-backs, minimum parking requirements, maximum building heights, etc. All of these add cost and reduce density.
Single-family zoning is another local government policy that is absolutely intended to constrain development, not improve safety.
Well as someone who lives in a fairly regulated housing market (Berlin) I'm happy about all the regulations you've mentioned as they prevent negative externalities which would benefit real-estate developers at the cost of everyone else. Imo targeting a specific population density is within the mandate of local government, as too-high density causes all sorts of issues from traffic to health and everything in between. If you want to unchain developers on density, I invite you to take a 10km drive in Delhi or Bangkok and tell me if the cost generated on a daily basis in terms of time and stress is worth it.
I am in favor of finding ways to encourage more housing, but what you're calling for is essentially to invite favela housing in the developed world.
Seriously? Berlin's tower blocks are the favelas of the developed world.
Also, the reason why Berlin hasn't had the same pressure is because it is one of the few cities in the developed world that has actually shrunk over a multi-decade period. It is very easy to limit population density when there is no pressure on housing. And, ofc, the historical division of the city meant that it had to develop more than one centre. These factors aside, afaik, the development of Berlin hasn't been exceptional...they built suburbs when there was pressure on housing in the early 20th century, built public transport, those suburbs eventually integrated into the city...very few cities have grown through greater intensity in the centre because cost is prohibitive, regardless of regulations.
Nothing to do with regulations, everything to do with historical circumstance (also, the guy you replying to is quite correct...if you actually look at housing regulations in the US, they have been a tool for racial/economic segregation...being real, that is why the limit on multi-family housing exists, the US has very low population density, saying they will become Delhi if they reduce regulations is hysterical).
You've proven my point exactly. Many of the the Plattenbauten (GDR-era block housing) could not be built in Berlin today because of current regulations. Berlin is targeting a moderate population density with mixed-use neighbourhood, which is the recommendation of subject-matter experts and makes it in general a very nice place to live. There's a huge desire by developers to increase density within Berlin and I have no doubt it would increase massively if there was no check against this.
Nobody is arguing that the entire US would become like Delhi, but can you seriously hold the opinion that housing deregulation would not result in mass production of low-quality housing near major population centers?
There are problems with extremes on both ends. For instance the NIMBY-driven housing policy in SF is not what is needed to create sustainable housing. But is a somewhat unique case, and it doesn't mean an extreme swing in the other direction towards deregulation would lead to a good outcome. Sensible housing regulation is undoubtedly a requirement for sustainable urbanization.
Surely you can grasp that "and so on" implies other reasons than the one explicitly stated. Negative externalities are another example of a valid target of regulation.
It's not about safety, it's also about amenity and suitability and sustainability. In some areas, density is important given the population, in others its not.
Parking requirements are about local traffic management as well. Set backs are about ensuring natural light. Some local regulation is about NIMBYism or HOAism, that sort of thing is where reform might be better addressed.
Lack of set-back rules do not prevent building houses with set-back. Lack of parking law does not prevent building parking. Developers will not build density if it isn't a profitable use of the land -- i.e., important given the population. Rezoning to permit density does not immediately replace all existing structures.
Mandating these things is some of that "local regulation tied into NIMBYism" you mention.
Profitability isn't the only important metric here. It might be profitable for developers to increase density well beyond the point where it causes measurable negative externalities towards everyone occupying an over-crowded place.
Because there's a societal need to ensure that the housing stock is safe and effective. We invest (or should) a lot of our taxes into local amenities to ensure that housing is provided the best environment. Transport, schooling, roads, etc.
That housing should also be up to a similar standard in terms of its externalities like pollution and energy efficiency etc.
We have regulations for air travel, for car emissions and efficiency, why should housing be any different?
We have regulations for air travel, and that raises the price for air travel, which means some people can't afford air travel.
We have regulations for car emissions, and that raises the price for cars, which means some people can't afford cars.
We have regulations for housing, and that raises the price for housing, which means some people can't afford housing.
How many people should not be able to afford housing? Is the number of people who currently can't afford housing too low, or too high? Should we increase regulations for housing, or decrease them? Are we making the right trade-offs?
> Because there's a societal need to ensure that the housing stock is safe and effective.
And this is accomplished via building codes, which are rigorous and applied almost uniformly in the U.S.
> We invest (or should) a lot of our taxes into local amenities to ensure that housing is provided the best environment. Transport, schooling, roads, etc.
And this is the model that has made blue cities unaffordable for the poor. They're not environmentally friendly either, their schools are awful, amenities poor, and transportation lacking. It would be hard to find one single issue where there is even parity of centrally planned quality-of-life concerns in blue cities vs red cities.
The question is not "regulations" persay. There is no magical regulation slider bar that can be adjusted to optimal result. It's what those regulations seek to accomplish. In many U.S. urban metros, those regulations are targeted to what city policy thinks the owners should do with their property, and not what they want to do with it. It's not clear those regulations have had their intended effect.
The process of building new structures is filled with so much regulatory friction that it is impossible for the average person to even consider building their own home.