[HN Gopher] Alright, amigo, let's build some affordable housing
___________________________________________________________________
Alright, amigo, let's build some affordable housing
Author : rmason
Score : 109 points
Date : 2022-04-02 20:01 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| gsk22 wrote:
| The thing I don't understand in conversations around affordable
| housing is why does it have to be new construction?
|
| Of course new construction is going to be expensive and full of
| bureaucracy. Many US cities have large stocks of older housing in
| moderate condition -- sure, it'd take some money to get them up
| to snuff, but nothing near what new construction would cost.
| jefftk wrote:
| At least around here (Boston), the old housing in poor
| condition _is_ the affordable housing. This often gets called
| "naturally occurring affordable housing".
|
| But it's not enough, which is why even housing in poor
| condition is so expensive.
| seibelj wrote:
| This is why luxury housing and condos is actually helpful for
| lower-income housing - the luxury housing of 60 years ago
| becomes the affordable housing as the top of the market
| continues moving into better places.
|
| Basically all housing whatsoever is helpful. But the optics of
| it makes it difficult to understand.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Please, I've never seen this in my day to day personal
| experience. Do you have examples of this. It sounds very
| suspicious to me.
| digisign wrote:
| Just drive to the nearest new luxury condo and count how
| many low-income folks just moved in.
|
| If you don't build these things, you'll have to compete in
| a bidding war with rich people to rent an old, renovated
| shitbox. Guess who will win?
| dylan604 wrote:
| I think might have misunderstood. I know low income
| people are not moving into fancy new condos. I'm just not
| familiar with older fancy condos being opened up to low
| income residents. They just stay high rent, but with
| "charm" since they are older.
| digisign wrote:
| That's because extreme scarcity distorts the market to
| the point that old housing never gets to its natural
| cheap point. If they stopped building but only a few
| cars, a pimped out Datsun 240Z from the 70s would still
| look a lot better than walking, and fetch a lot better
| that 70s prices.
|
| Didn't something similar happen in Cuba?
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| Somewhat. A lot of that old housing goes to rentals.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| The luxury housing around here goes to high earners from
| cities that are far away, and then wealthy people's adult
| children from all over the world move into the homes in the
| city after they leave. Housing here and in the cities has
| only gotten more expensive.
| dv_dt wrote:
| Unless of course the luxury housing gets periodically torn
| down and rebuilt or remodeled making it even higher end
| housing. If the core neighborhood is already high-rent and or
| desirable real estate, why would high cost real estate
| buildings somehow allow themselves become low rent?
| seibelj wrote:
| If you don't build new luxury housing, then the top end
| goes to the next best thing, and the next to the next best,
| and so on. Building more helps increase total supply which
| alleviates pressure everywhere.
| dv_dt wrote:
| That step down doesn't necessarily happen at all - old
| luxury housing may get upgraded in place, or upgraded to
| higher luxury housing which then becomes less efficient
| at serving many. The total supply may shrink from serving
| the luxury market.
| seibelj wrote:
| My larger point is that knee-jerk opposition to luxury
| housing isn't helpful, and actually damaging to the cause
| of increased affordable housing. In the OP you can see
| how uneconomic building affordable housing is - so build
| luxury if that's all that can be done.
| crooked-v wrote:
| How is that "shrinking"? If new luxury housing gets built
| now and refurbed later, the additional unit count is
| still there.
| newsclues wrote:
| In reality older housing gets bought renovated and marketed
| as luxury housing, so the affordable housing is lost to the
| higher profit market.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| Right, you don't _build_ affordable housing, and you don 't
| even _reserve_ housing as "affordable" (that's gratuitously
| inviting corruption via basically giving away underpriced
| housing as a 'gift' to cronies and associates). You build as
| much new housing as _you_ can afford to, and let _older_
| housing filter down to "affordable" levels.
| wan23 wrote:
| There are two problems with this idea. The first is that the
| existing housing stock is already occupied, and the people
| who occupy it don't have much incentive to go anywhere. If we
| could build a massive amount of new, high quality housing
| then in theory the demand for the older homes might decrease
| but in many places we're in such a deep supply hole that the
| necessary amount of new construction just isn't going to
| happen given the political environment. The second problem is
| that filtering takes time, but people need homes today.
| There's an argument to be made that it's in the public
| interest to allow for at least some units to be made
| available that are affordable to someone on a teacher's
| salary. Also, building homes at any price point is a good
| idea.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| > There's an argument to be made that it's in the public
| interest to allow for at least some units to be made
| available that are affordable to someone on a teacher's
| salary.
|
| There's an easy way to do that - raise teachers' salaries,
| and let them choose whatever housing they want, not what
| you've arbitrarily designated as "affordable" (via a
| political process). This raises _observable_ costs, but has
| plenty of less obviohs benefits.
| HarryHirsch wrote:
| _let older housing filter down to "affordable" levels_
|
| That's the theory. The practice is that much of the "older
| housing" is by now 50 or 60 years old, twice the design life,
| and at some point renovation is just not economical any
| longer, you are looking at a teardown and rebuild.
|
| That meme tells more about the profession of economics as
| taught in schools and universities. It doesn't tell you how
| the world works, but it provides support for the way things
| are. There's that old cartoon with a royal and a priest, and
| the royal turns to the priest saying "you keep them stupid, I
| keep them poor." That's applied economics.
| digisign wrote:
| The reality, here at least. As housing was kept scarce,
| older housing never got a chance to fulfill its purpose. So
| we have swanky 60s shitbox apartments on their third
| remodel for $2k+ a month. Googie architecture, I think its
| called.
| Consultant32452 wrote:
| I agree with you. I'd rather people live under overpasses
| than in housing that's a little older than most people
| want.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| Not sure what your point is. If it turns out you have built
| lots and lots of the highest-density housing and there's
| nothing affordable in sight even after that, then guess
| what - you're basically in Manhattan. There are _far_ worse
| problems to have when it comes to urban development!
| dylan604 wrote:
| >let older housing filter down to "affordable" levels.
|
| you're forgetting the part where it is the older housing that
| is currently affordable that is getting demolished so that
| this new construction can use that land instead.
| cplusplusfellow wrote:
| Do you have much experience with construction? I own a
| construction company ($10m-20m annual revenue) as my side
| hustle.
|
| It's generally speaking not cheaper to refurbish something once
| you consider all of the factors. I'm on mobile so I can't
| enumerate those but I'll try to return on desktop where I can
| properly type and give an overview.
| qeternity wrote:
| > as my side hustle.
|
| If you don't mind my asking, what is your main hustle?
| severine wrote:
| C++?
| giantg2 wrote:
| Probably because it doesn't meet the preferences of
| renters/owners. It seems preferences drive housing cost in
| general. There certainly don't seem to be many (any?) new
| Craftsman 800 sqft houses today. Although this article seems to
| be more about high density apt/condos, the resource utilization
| of the dominate preference (larger, fancier, sfh) can affect
| the overall housing system (material, local labor costs).
|
| Edit: why downvote with no reply? It seems this topic must be
| highly political with all the unexplained downvoting with no
| debate.
| KoftaBob wrote:
| > Many US cities have large stocks of older housing in moderate
| condition
|
| and which is already occupied. In order for housing supply to
| keep up with demand, it needs to increase, hence new
| construction.
| crooked-v wrote:
| Many US cities have a massive shortage in needed housing, and
| none of it will ever be affordable unless quite a lot gets
| built quickly.
|
| It's particularly striking in California, where they ended up
| passing multiple state law to outright override local zoning.
| (It will be interesting see what happens with San Francisco by
| 2025, when their inability to meet housing approval mandates
| will turn into developers getting free reign from the state to
| build dense housing anywhere in the city.)
| mjevans wrote:
| Maybe if California finally begins to fix it's housing issues
| the overflow to other west coast areas (E.G. Seattle,
| Portland (Oregon), maybe even Vancouver BC) as well as surely
| all the other cities will feel a tiny bit of relief. Though
| most of these places have their own similar issues (E.G.
| urban growth boundaries or just lack of practical space
| without increasing density near cities; and also see a recent
| comment in my history about 'dense' housing not built to
| quality of life levels that make it desirable to live in.) *
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30823426#30825978
| bobkazamakis wrote:
| the very cool systems integration between Federal and State
| in practice seems to mean that California problems are
| California problems? Similar to the legalization of
| marijuana by the states, it seems like problems are pushed
| under the rug until the rug is a few inches off the ground,
| at which point it finally gets addressed. By nature, this
| disproportionately impacts anyone who isn't able to simply
| travel to another state where their a particular issue is
| not a problem (abortion laws, various tourism, etc).
|
| It sounds great for all the states to solve their problems
| individually, but where do you draw the line and have the
| government step in to prevent problems from getting bigger
| in the first place?
| digisign wrote:
| You touch on the fact that it is a nation-wide problem.
| However the implication is that it would let more people
| move to California instead of other places isn't a
| sustainable solution.
| adamsvystun wrote:
| The key quote is this:
|
| > 300-500k in upfront costs.
|
| So before building anything just the application process will
| cost you up to half a million, that's an enormous hurdle.
| mtoddsmith wrote:
| "they're concerned about indigenous moths"
|
| Love thy neighbor?
| jmyeet wrote:
| I find it odd that you almost never hear about the car's role in
| the housing crisis. And in the US it has been a massive factor
| since WWII.
|
| First, it allowed the building of suburbs, which just wasn't
| feasible before. This in turn led people to push zoning laws such
| that building anything other than a SFH became illegal.
|
| Second, it contributed to the dismantling of street cars and
| other forms of public transportation.
|
| Third, all these cars new housing developments needed roads and
| this typically led to the destruction of poorer and usually more
| ethnic neighbours.
|
| Fourth, driving everywhere is like living in an insulated bubble.
| You don't have to deal with your fellow man. Things like Skid Row
| (LA) or the Tenderloin (SF) don't touch you because you can just
| drive around them in an airconditioned bubble. I honestly think
| this contributed to making people care less about the plight of
| their fellow man.
|
| Fifth, voters routinely complain about the cost and taxes of
| public transportation but think nothing of all the subsidies
| governments provide for driving (eg building roads, having gas
| stations, building so much parking, having cheap or free street
| parking even in densely populated cities with good public
| transportation like NYC). Yes there are fuel taxes. No they don't
| pay all these costs.
|
| Lastly, we seem to be comoletely comfortable with the cost in
| death and crime of car ownership because of the personal
| convenience. Tens of thousands die in motor vehicle accidents
| every year. There are crimes like being a serial killer or
| kidnapping that almost require having a car. Do we really wonder
| why such things exploded post-WWII?
|
| The affordable housing crisis is depressing because it's another
| stark reminder of just how little a fuck people give to people
| who aren't in their tribe. The many barriers erected are simply
| aimed at making poor people go away. That's it.
|
| And the problems are at every level of government.
| pas wrote:
| Not to mention that cities subsidize suburbs in many ways:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/urbanplanning/comments/qrn9i7/in_wh...
| nomaxx117 wrote:
| I've also noticed that attitudes towards the homeless are
| completely different between those who walk and those who
| drive. I'm personally willing to pay whatever it takes in extra
| taxes to get them shelter and deal with the current crisis in
| my city, but I've noticed that people who drive are often far
| less willing to support action here.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| Cars were a fine replacement for horse-drawn carts. They will
| largely be replaced and/or supplemented by electrically-boosted
| bikes and scooters in the densest urban environments, now that
| these have become feasible.
| lr4444lr wrote:
| Not for nothing, but, if you're a private developer looking to
| get the public's money to build something that you're going to
| sell and profit from either directly or through special tax
| breaks that the rest of us have to are up for, usually in special
| variance of zoning that the rest of us have to abide by, you
| SHOULD have to jump through a lot of hurdles to prove you aren't
| a grifter.
| MrStonedOne wrote:
| crate_barre wrote:
| Ok I feel you, what if I own a sports team and promise promise
| promise that that stadium you are going to pay for is going to
| improve the community? Is that enough proof?
|
| How about an Amazon warehouse?
|
| But yeah, to your point, building more housing in a supply
| constricted market requires like way more proof.
| dylan604 wrote:
| My favorite are the developers that promise a certain
| percentage of affordable housing in their high dollar
| developments, but never ever come close to that and never get
| penalized later.
| hammock wrote:
| What makes you feel that it's easier to build a stadium than
| subsidized housing? How many people, man-hours and money do
| you believe is spent on the efforts to get a ballpark or
| Amazon campus approved? Really believe it's less than a
| multifamily development?
| mistermann wrote:
| > you SHOULD have to jump through a lot of hurdles to prove you
| aren't a grifter.
|
| Agreed, but I wonder if the hurdles that are currently in place
| are even remotely optimal.
|
| Would it be funny if they were not, and no one really cared?
| ceeplusplus wrote:
| The end result of that is that low income housing doesn't get
| built and market rate housing that doesn't have unnecessary and
| burdensome regulatory requirements gets built instead.
|
| > usually in special variance of zoning that the rest of us
| have to abide by
|
| The solution is to remove the zoning in the first place, not
| add more requirements to get an exception to it.
| foolfoolz wrote:
| i think you just have to phrase this differently: newly built
| housing is not cost effective to sell to low income people
| f7ebc20c97 wrote:
| There is zero technical reason why housing can't be cheap
| as hell in this day and age. It's all due to government
| restrictions. And I'm not talking about shanty towns either
| - that's what you get when _legal_ housing is too expensive
| to build!
| goodluckchuck wrote:
| One way or another, we all live and die by the market.
| f7ebc20c97 wrote:
| Regulations such as zoning are enormous social experiments.
|
| Experiments should have control groups! Where are the control
| group cities?
|
| Why do experimental social regulations have to be
| _universal_? Would life without them be great? Would it be
| terrible? I doubt that mankind evolved to require so much
| micromanagement in all aspects of life.
| breckenedge wrote:
| Houston Texas has no zoning laws. Cant really say they do
| any better or worse than comprable cities with zoning laws.
| civilized wrote:
| No, you should have to jump through _enough_ hurdles to prove
| you aren 't a grifter.
|
| Whether "enough" means "a lot" or "each and every hurdle that
| is already in place" is precisely what's at issue here. But I
| suppose it's convenient to take the side of maximum
| administrative burden if your goal is to minimize the amount of
| housing that is built.
| panic wrote:
| How about we let the grifters build the housing and then take
| it from them afterward if they turn out to be grifters?
| thereticent wrote:
| Sounds like a way to end up with shoddy, dangerous housing or
| incomplete or impossible to complete projects.
| b3morales wrote:
| It's been my experience that the farther you let an
| undesirable process proceed, the higher the chance that it
| will reach its undesirable conclusion. The enforcers will
| make decisions based on sunk costs; there will be more
| loopholes for the grifters to exploit; the time demands of
| due process will let them manipulate to their benefit; and
| there will be higher consequences for disrupting the status
| quo (e.g. there will be people actual living in the buildings
| already).
| HarryHirsch wrote:
| Here's an even better suggestion: withdraw federal and state
| funding for roads, schools, water and sewage &c if housing
| targets are not met. The local NIMBYS will come around once
| the potholes become too bad and the school's roof starts
| leaking.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I wonder what is actually looked at or calculated for number of
| bedrooms and services offered. In my opinion, people's
| preferences for more stuff/room/services are what drives housing
| prices in general, especially location.
|
| It seems racist to call people who are concerned about the
| project racists. Some of them may be, but some of those people
| concerned about traffic may have legitimate concerns. I've seen
| it for fancy developments too.
|
| Edit: why downvote?
| lr4444lr wrote:
| You have a point, but it may be a bit obtuse to call racist
| accusations themselves racist. Those call outs may or may not
| be correct, ignorant, or even a calculated dirty way to
| discredit someone, but how are they _themselves_ racist?
| giantg2 wrote:
| Pretty much why I worded it the way I did - to bring
| attention to they potential hypocrisy or lack of standards
| around calling people racist based on a concern (traffic, or
| claiming racism) that does not display racism. So yeah, my
| calling the accusation racist is only as founded as the
| author's, which is essentially based on stereotypes and
| supposition. In my case, that supposition is that the person
| making the accusation must be relying on the race of the
| person raising the traffic issues in calling them racist.
| anamax wrote:
| It's poor form to point out that a racism accusation is one of
| the most effective political attacks/responses. Said
| effectiveness is not that dependent on the "truth" of said
| accusation. (The sneer quotes are because "you're a racist" is
| somewhat ill-defined, vague, etc.)
| 6510 wrote:
| He is referring to racist racists.
| chihuahua wrote:
| we should always be careful to distinguish between real
| racists and true racists.
| giantg2 wrote:
| As opposed to...?
| 6510 wrote:
| As opposed to people who are concerned about the project
| for other perhaps more palatable reasons.
| rubyist5eva wrote:
| Governments want affordable housing to be built but the number
| one enemy to affordable housing is the government.
| alexklark wrote:
| Governments only want other people money (so called
| taxes/donations), and, sometimes, be elected. Thinking that
| governments can not provide themselves affordable and usually
| free housing is somehow contradict reality.
| poorbutdebtfree wrote:
| Affordable housing is such a loaded term that means different
| things to different socioeconomic groups. Are we talking about
| project based housing? Section 8? New construction for
| applicants with x% of the the median income? In any event
| almost no one working a full time job will qualify.
| newsclues wrote:
| Not always. In the past governments built large amounts of
| housing.
|
| In Canada the CMHC used to get affordable housing built on a
| massive scale, but now it's mainly just mortgage backing for
| banks.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Mortgage_and_Housing_...
| [deleted]
| KerrAvon wrote:
| With statements like this, it's important to define
| "government" -- for example, the specifics in the Twitter
| thread are hugely helpful in identifying the actual
| bottlenecks.
| crate_barre wrote:
| Landlords despise tenant protection laws. They'd rather just
| treat the place as an investment than deal with tenants that
| have rights.
| ceeplusplus wrote:
| Tenant protection laws seem like failures to me. They don't
| prevent landlords from being bad actors (by neglecting
| maintenance and not giving a shit about the quality of the
| property) and they don't protect landlords from bad
| tenants. All they do is allow a few people to get evicted 6
| months and thousands of dollars in legal fees later instead
| of in a week.
| imgabe wrote:
| Perhaps we should just keep building unaffordable housing until
| there's so much of it that it becomes affordable
| crate_barre wrote:
| I feel like one thing that is often not said enough is that
| solving housing solves a lot of things for fucking everyone. When
| everyone isn't dying to rent or get a house, then you get more
| sane prices and inventory everywhere. This literally the most
| important issue in America because it is simply the largest cost
| for every single American across all classes.
| panic wrote:
| There is also a _ton_ of abuse that can only continue because
| the people being harmed can't afford to move out.
| [deleted]
| doingtheiroming wrote:
| Horrifying. So much human ingenuity and energy burned in a
| process seemingly designed to prevent the thing it is supposed to
| encourage.
| [deleted]
| YATA0 wrote:
| This Twitter thread hits the nail on the head. Imagine this
| process in California, where just working with PG&E to get
| utilities to the site may be a six figure adventure, then another
| $40-60k for an electrician to wire the house. That could be close
| to $200k _for electrical alone_. This could be for a 1,000 square
| foot shed in Oakland, not somewhere around Malibu.
|
| Add on the planning costs that the Twitter author goes on about,
| and your "affordable housing" is now near a million dollars. Is
| that really affordable?
| vbezhenar wrote:
| I can build the entire house with everything included. And not
| from those pesky woodsticks, but from a real concrete and
| bricks. For around $40k. Something in US is seriously wrong. I
| understand that labour cost difference is huge, but it can't be
| the only factor.
| cplusplusfellow wrote:
| Can you elaborate what kind of house this is for 40k?
|
| What is your location?
| newsclues wrote:
| Building code regulations are expensive.
| YATA0 wrote:
| Where do you live? $40k in concrete will get you your
| concrete driveway in California.
| zip1234 wrote:
| $4000 for the concrete and $36000 for everything else.
| cagenut wrote:
| for single family detached, no
|
| but that was never actually an economically viable product, so
| it makes sense to simply not expect it to work.
|
| for four to sixteen units that seems like it could be fine?
| YATA0 wrote:
| >but that was never actually an economically viable product
|
| It is the most economically viable product, which is why they
| dominate.
|
| >for four to sixteen units that seems like it could be fine?
|
| Those costs have also skyrocketed because now you have
| additional requirements like fire, egress, additional
| structural when going over two stories, etc.
|
| It's why most new apartments are "luxury" apartments. The
| costs have grown so out of control that the only way to break
| even is to make them outrageously priced.
| occz wrote:
| >It is the most economically viable product, which is why
| they dominate.
|
| Only because they are the only thing that most zoning codes
| in the U.S permit to build. With U.S zoning being what it
| is, there's literally no honest discussion to be made on
| what type of housing is most economically viable.
| nemo44x wrote:
| I think it's quite viable if we look back to when it
| started. Back then hones we're 800sq feet. Even 100 years
| ago an average home was about there. Today they are 2400
| so feet on average.
|
| So if we go back to smaller places it's viable. The only
| reason it's not viable in places like Europe is because
| there are so many people in a small space. In the USA we
| could get adequate population density with 1200 sq foot
| homes and 1/8 acre plots.
| virtualwhys wrote:
| > $40-60k for an electrician to wire the house.
|
| Think I'm in the wrong profession, what on earth does a
| Californian electrician make per year? At that rate I'd guess
| 500K+
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| Not the electrician. The company owner.
| sgc wrote:
| Around here they make about $150 an hour if they are
| contractors and work for themselves. So I would guess 80-100
| for an electrician with 5+ years experience. About the same
| as most other semi-specialized trades.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Many of the trades can make good money. Especially in areas
| that forbid owners to work on their own homes, even to
| replace an existing water heater (like NYC).
| vasco wrote:
| How would they know?
| hedora wrote:
| It takes an absurd number of hours to wire a house in
| California because the code is insane. That multiplies with
| high labor costs.
|
| Wiring a simple / small home, it takes well over four
| electrician months, minimum.
|
| Also, they have to pay licensing fees to the state, insurance
| premiums, etc, etc.
|
| Of course, the $40-60K also includes materials, which are a
| small percentage of the cost, but non-zero.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| I'm a little skeptical. California code is not that
| dissimilar to the national code in terms of labor and
| materials. I've had extensive work done to my California
| house by electricians for a (fully-permitted) remodel and
| it's been pricey but not that slow or pricey.
| bushbaba wrote:
| In California it Cost me 3k to upgrade an electric panel
| from 120 to 200amp service. Was a one day job with a
| single electrician.
| YATA0 wrote:
| That's probably the cheapest upgrade in the history of
| the state. PG&E claims the average service upgrade in
| California is costing somewhere between $8k to $25k.
| [deleted]
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| _Wiring a simple / small home, it takes well over four
| electrician months, minimum._
|
| It's hard to take these numbers seriously - they don't pass
| the sniff test for anyone who has had it done. Wiring a
| 1000sq ft home is a job that is measured in days, not
| months. While I only have experience of the UK, it is
| difficult to see any possible regulation which would mean
| installation being quite literally an order of magnitude
| slower.
|
| But let's use some Fermi estimation. California builds
| around 100,000 new houses a year, give or take. This
| suggests we'd need an absolute minimum of 400,000
| electrician-months a year. The Bureau of Labor Statistics
| thinks there are 70,000 electricians in California in
| total. Assuming they have an availability of 90%, then we
| could say that California has about 750,000 available
| electrician-months a year in total.
|
| This would mean that over half of all available electrician
| time in California would be spent wiring new-build houses,
| if we assumed they were all small properties. It seems
| clear this can't be a credible result.
|
| I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but it's hard to
| swallow without some idea of what possible thing could
| cause this betone vague hints about "code being insane"
| sokoloff wrote:
| I'm a slow as hell perfectionist DIYer and I can't see any
| way I could take even 2 months of full-time work to wire a
| small, simple new construction house. How can it take a pro
| 4 months? (Or 2 months solo and 1 month with a journeyman
| electrician?)
|
| My parents place was new, custom construction (not small,
| but only 3BR/3Ba) and there were 2 sparkies there for 1 day
| to set the temporary power, 4 or 5 days to rough the house
| in and, after drywall, they were back for 3 or 4 days to
| trim everything out.
| whartung wrote:
| I watched my house being built. We'd visit the site
| pretty much once a week or every other week.
|
| One day we showed up, and all of the electrical had been
| done. Power, internet, pre-wired home alarm, panels, the
| whole kit. Plumbing was the same way. One day, plumbing.
| (It uses that flexible plastic tubing internally, that
| has to go up fast.)
|
| Did I see it being done? No. For all I know 50 folks
| showed up and wired it in a day. "2 man months". But, I'm
| guessing that's not what happened.
|
| The most interesting anecdote from this is that I
| actually met one of the guys that did the work. He did,
| at least part of, the internet wiring.
|
| Know how I met him? He was driving a dump truck
| delivering landscaping material. He liked the work
| better, I guess his family owned the hauling business.
|
| I don't know what he was getting paid to route CAT 6
| cable, but, apparently, all told, driving a dump truck is
| better.
| catmanjan wrote:
| This is very surprising, in Australia I understand we have
| strict codes and I have never heard of it taking this long
|
| What exactly does the electrician spend all that time doing
| in California?
| antattack wrote:
| Some state codes require use of galvanized steel piping
| (called EMT) for electrical conduit.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-02 23:00 UTC)