DE version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
50% Positive
Analyzed from 283 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#house#crap#years#zoning#laws#more#buy#standards#flat#roofs

Discussion (3 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
1: https://www.immobilienscout24.de/expose/169220882?referrer=H...
That's the other big problem with restrictive zoning laws (other than ugliness). It leads to unaffordable housing. By saying that a house must conform with X, Y, and Z you're essentially saying "anyone who doesn't have enough money to pay for X, Y, and Z can't buy a house".
Sometimes restrictions are necessary (e.g. safety rules). Other times they sound good on paper but just end up being elitist (e.g. house must have X number of parking spaces, Y minimum size for rooms, Z minimum outdoor space). Yes, those things are nice to have. But we shouldn't price out people who can't afford them. It's better that someone starting out in life be able to buy a house with smaller rooms, than not be able to buy anything at all. We've become so obsessed with raising standards across the board that we've forgotten that the people we exclude from those standards end up with worse standards.
Also, not everyone has the same priorities. Some people might like their bedroom to be huge. Others might just see it as a place to sleep and would rather spend their money on living in a good location, or some other priority. Restrictive zoning laws remove options by making buildings converge on a limited range of designs.
More than just looking crap in 30 years (agreed they do now) I worry, what about massive renovation required in 15 years?
And that is an insane cost for a small, ugly building.