To add to that, construction is heavily regulated (which is by the way, probably a window of opportunity for some startups that will aim at finding innovative ways of working around regulations to build cheaper without breaking the law), and heavily unionised too. Most attempts to seriously innovate in it will be shot down quickly as it will threaten jobs and union power.
It honestly feels weird to hear people talk in generalities about “regulation” and “innovation” in the wake of the whole Titan submersible thing. Like, didn’t we just have an object lesson in why certain industries need to be more tightly regulated than others?
I would not want to live in a house whose builders took an “innovative” approach to dealing with “regulation”. Building codes are often written in blood.
>> I would not want to live in a house whose builders took an “innovative” approach to dealing with “regulation”. Building codes are often written in blood.
Not everyone is so rich. People should have the choice about whether or not they want an unnecessarily expensive house. Regulations assume one size fits all and that everyone wants the same thing This isn't true. and trying to outlaw poverty doesn't work, it just makes things worse.
I wouldn't want to live in a house that was unnecessarily complicated to point of doubling it's cost just because of endless regulations forced vast increases in costs. You should see one of the links shared above: it talks a great deal about what's driving the increased costs in housing and it's all to do with increased building complexity, much driven by regulation.
Some building codes are written in blood; others, they are not so much about safety. For example, the federal minimum SEER rating for air conditioners where I live is now 15 SEER, as of this year. It's a good bit more expensive than the lower SEER units and there is a perception that they're more complicated and therefore easier to break and harder to maintain over time.
Similarly, the 2021 IRC now requires a surge protective device at the service entrance. This doesn't protect anyone's life, and may protect your TV or cable modem if you live in a lightning-prone area. Its cost-effectiveness decreases in areas that don't get lightning strikes.
I think it's OK for the government to establish a floor on the quality of things, as long as they do it with the understanding that nothing happens for free, everything is a tradeoff, and better things cost more. So it's generally preferable when the legal floor is mostly focused on safety (where the tradeoff to something cheaper could be someone's life or limb), but more questionable when it's for things that don't relate to safety, where it would be better to let the individual make the tradeoff for themselves.
>>Not everyone is so rich. People should have the choice about whether or not they want an unnecessarily expensive house.
what you saying is that it's cheaper to put lead pipes instead of copper, right? or not do proper wall ventilation / insulation and let whole thing rot and mold within a year or two? etc, etc. I don't know bro. I'd rather have regulations.
some building codes are written in the blood of people who were injured or hurt, some are to stop people from building slum and becoming slumlords.
Regulations don't assume one size fit all, rather they tell you the minimum standard you must meet to participate in this, at least in our society.
If you think egress requirements and insulation requirements are too restrictive for you, then you don't belong in an industry that builds where you live and work.
The Titan submersible didn't violate "regulations", though, it violated industry standards. Standards that are updated more often than regulations. In so doing, it it was denied a certification. Since it operated in international waters only, there were no applicable regulations to evade.
Regulatory bodies which are poorly funded may write overly restrictive rules because they don't have the resources to do a more comprehensive assessment. In particular, many HUD rules are split into "single-family houses" and "everything else", with little consideration for small apartment buildings, townhouses and other "missing middle". The requirements for houses are much less strict than for apartments, and construction costs per square foot are correspondingly lower for detached single-family homes.
If you live in a detached SFH built after 1970, it's arguable that you already live in a structure where the builders took an "innovative" approach to dealing with regulations, because it was built to the lower house standards and not the stricter apartment standards. And if it was built before the 1970s, the regulations were probably very lax.
Nonetheless, I think the solution must be to reexamine the regulations, rather than evade them. But this "written in blood" is a thought-terminating cliche that prevents progress.
