[payne92]

This is true in many, many places: as zoning, safety, access, and environmental rules evolve most older buildings become not buildable under current rules.

Our national housing stock is FULL of places with narrow winding stairs, lead paint, full flow toilets and shower heads, untempered glass, single pane windows, uninsulated walls or ceilings, ungrounded outlets, undersized plumbing, sketchy chimneys, springy floors, etc.

I'm surprised the number isn't closer to 80-90%, especially with the recent energy efficiency rules.

[jdavis703]

This article specifically addresses buildings that are only illegal because of zoning. They aren’t including buildings that are unsafe due to building regulations like firecodes, ADA, etc.

[pmiller2]

Yeah, but let's be clear though: the problem is bad zoning, not zoning itself. The fact that SF prohibits apartments in 76% of the city, according to the article (which, I'm assuming, excludes places like Golden Gate Park) is an abomination in itself. Literally just allow more apartment buildings, let buildings get built higher, and make a couple other tweaks for higher density housing, and zoning becomes a non-problem.

After that, all you have to deal with are the NIMBYs. Le sigh.

[shados]

You zone for what you want to build, not what is there already. The later wouldn't make any sense.

The arguments generally given are to show that we're preventing building for density, pointing out NIMBYism, etc, but even if we were doing the polar opposite, the same would be true:

If you have a town that's all single family, and zoning rules pass that any and all buildings MUST be 3+ stories, then all the existing houses wouldn't be allowed under current zoning laws. The fact that they're not allowed under current zoning rules is irrelevant. The question is only if the new zoning rules are good for what you want to see or not.

[sandworm101]

Same is true of used cars, aircraft, boats and any number of regulated products. Change any tiny reg and all the previous stock "could not be built today". It doesn't mean much. Buildings last decades, centuries, far longer than any zoning board decision.

[sokoloff]

Aircraft are a different case than the others above. Aircraft are built to a type certificate and once it's issued so long as that type certificate is not revoked, airplanes can (in fact, must) be built today in conformance with that type certificate. Modifications to that type certificate are permitted, but they do not require full conformance with current regulations.

My 1997 airplane was built on a type certificate first issued in 1956 (under CAR-3 regulations) and amended to include my model in 1969. Many regulations changed between 1969 and 1997. Beechcraft could build one today under that type certificate, even though they couldn't get that exact type certificate newly issued today (CAR-3 has been replaced by Part 23 requirements).

[zip1234]

Zoning has nothing to do with the safety of the constructed building. Isn't the article only talking about zoning?

[tjalfi]

> I'm surprised the number isn't closer to 80-90%, especially with the recent energy efficiency rules.

Sommerville, Ma is a city of 80,000; 22 buildings meet the zoning code[0].

[0] https://cityobservatory.org/the-illegal-city-of-somerville/

[jws]

Our national housing stock is FULL of places with narrow winding stairs, lead paint, full flow toilets and shower heads, untempered glass, single pane windows, uninsulated walls or ceilings, ungrounded outlets, undersized plumbing, sketchy chimneys, springy floors, etc.

My house from 1890 scored 10 for 10 on your list. I addressed about half of them over the decades, but the other half are just, "It's ok, we'd do it better if we did it over." The additions and any bits "touched" have to meet current code, but the old parts are allowed to be what they are.

I don't feel it detracts from my living experience at all. (I did take care of the "this can kill you" part of the list as well as most of the single pane windows and uninsulated areas.)

A couple of the code mandated changes are definitely negatives, as are a couple of "slightly off" construction problems which required space wasting and slightly dangerous constructs in the house instead of just accepting that the wall at the bottom of the stairs is 2 inches closer than code allows.

[Black101]

> I'm surprised the number isn't closer to 80-90%, especially with the recent energy efficiency rules.

It probably is with all the work that was done without permits.

[throwaway8581]

One of the first things I do when moving into a new place is remove all the flow restrictors on the faucets and shower heads. And I replace at least some of the LED bulbs with beautiful, soft, full-spectrum incandescent bulbs. Two quick fixes to improve your quality of life.

[russellendicott]

gasp /s

I can totally understand the flow thing--less flow means longer, more annoying shower.

I've found that the soft white LED bulbs are a tolerable replacement for full spectrum incandescent. I stick with LED because I'm lazy and I don't have to change them as frequently.

However, when the LED bulbs DO go out they do the flickering thing which is maddening. I'd prefer incandescent's total failure to produce light over the flickering fail mode any day of the week.

[dannyw]

Seriously. LED is great, but incandescent is absolutely beautiful.

I don't go around replacing all my lightbulbs, but my bedroom and living room? Absolutely.