Immigration levels

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

A) Reductio ad absurdum. Too little regulation is just as problematic as too much (which we haven't even come close to arriving at yet).
B) Temporary housing is supposed to be temporary, but ends up permanent.
C) So you think the prefabs the province just approved aren't up to the province's code? Interesting...

Whether we have too much or not is not a yes or no question. The fact of the matter is that we continue to add more and more housing regulations which continue to increase the cost of construction. I'm not sure why you're talking about temporary housing or what point you're trying to make here. You can't disagree with the fact that if regulation got out of the way of modular housing, we could build housing faster and cheaper.

That single-stairs deregulation applies to only four apartments per floor on six-floor buildings (or shorter), and only as a trial run due to tighter rules in other parts of the building code making it apparently safe enough. At this point in time, with the limited information we have, doing the same for a highrise would be a decent case for future charges of criminal negligence.

So you admit that you're okay with removing a safety regulation. The fact there are other rules is irrelevant; Apartments would have more fire safety on top of the other rules if multiple egress points were required, so only having one reduces fire safety.

Frankly, we have plenty of information that it's okay for highrises. We don't see Germans or Koreans dying en masses in building fires.

The more people we can house for the least energy wastage, the better. BC'll need Sites D, E, F and G at the rate we're going.

And I'll take the side of more people housed over less energy wastage. Perfect is the enemy of good.

The leaky condos needed years of renovations in order to stop leaking. The Sahotas were allowed to keep their roach motels for decades. The government has opted to get rid of many of their old brick buildings instead of retrofitting them. Their continued existence speaks more to their indispensability (or the legality of reappropriating them) than their "acceptable" quality or safety standards.

Okay cool. Refer to my previous message if you want to make a point about older building standards being clearly good enough today.