Ask HN: Why Can't We Make Approved Building Plans Reusable?
7 pointsby silexia3 days ago4 comments
  • appreciatorBus3 days ago
    Because city planners and Nimby homeowners do not want it to be easy to build new building buildings. Every extra dollar you can force a proponent to spend, increases the odds that the project will no longer be economic to build, and simply not be built. For those most active in city politics, this is a win.

    It goes way beyond design.

    Early housing reformers in the 1920s, explicitly called for punitive fire regulations for multifamily buildings to make them on economical while admitting that they would not ask for any fire regulations for single-family buildings whatsoever.

    [1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0194436920897553...

    • silexia3 days ago
      How can we fight back against the special interests in every portion of society putting themselves ahead of everyone else?
      • bigyabai2 days ago
        Move to an anarchist commune?
        • appreciatorBusa day ago
          The fastest way to turn an anarchist into a Central Planner is to propose a building whose aesthetics they dislike.
  • 3 days ago
    undefined
  • baubino3 days ago
    It’s a liability issue. The approval is granted to the architect or engineer who stamps/signs the building plans. The plan itself demonstrates that the structure meets all legal and safety requirements. If something goes wrong, whoever signed that plan is personally liable.
    • silexia3 days ago
      The liability can simply be on the builder if they choose to use a separately approved plan. The builder has liability anyways.
      • baubino3 days ago
        In most places (in the US at least), all building plans over a certain size require a stamp from an architect or engineer. Builders get their plans stamped by an architect or engineer too. No builder will willingly take on liability that they currently don’t have, especially since it will cost them more money (in insurance premiums).

        The exception is smaller buildings (usually less than 2000 sq ft) and in some places, all single family is exempt from needing a stamp.

        edit: I should add that I’m not against the idea of reusable plans. But the liability issue would need to be solved somehow. Who is going to be responsible if something goes wrong?

        • yorwba3 days ago
          I don't see why the person who assumes liability for the plans for one building couldn't also assume liability for n exact copies built using the same plans. Of course that goes against OP's wish of not having to pay for the plans, but if you're willing to pay, liability is not an issue.
          • baubinoa day ago
            I imagine that would raise the price of the plans significantly because, again, no one wants to take on more liability than they already have, and definitely won’t do so without additional compensation. At the very least, liability insurance would increase (if it even allows it).
  • jamesgill3 days ago
    TL;DR: liability.