"Light And Air Are Not Life Safety Issues"
Apartments for tardigrades and the lower classes
Links are at the end, suffocating in the dark.
“[Builders] argue that operable windows may simply be a matter of personal preference, and that some people, particularly those who don’t have much money, won’t mind forgoing them if that is what they can afford.”
The poor do not feel as do you and I; their sensitivities are blunted and not attuned to finer things, like fresh air and natural light.1
This is in Honolulu. Affordable rentals here are aimed at households with incomes at or below 80% of the annual area median income (AMI), which for a family of four around here translates to about $80,000; buyers qualify with incomes at or below 120% of the AMI, or about $120,000.
As in many cities, developers here get tax breaks and other incentives for sprinkling allegedly affordable housing units among their more profitable offerings. The nothing-natural-added proposal is aimed first at redeveloping fallow office space for residential use, and then for new construction fulfilling the developer’s affordable housing commitments.
It’s a beautiful thing when low incomes, high profits and personal preference all come together in a literal box with no connection to the outdoors—in Hawai’i, in an era when 24/7 air conditioning could be seen as a tad irresponsible..
Housing experts on the mainland who reviewed the proposed legislation called the concept “a terrible idea,” “almost inhumane,” and “a disaster and a recipe for creating buildings that are unfit for human habitation.”
[. . .]
“It is clear that people like windows in buildings, especially in homes, and if you don’t have windows, there is evidence that it is really disturbing to people,” said environmental psychologist Judith Heerwagen, an associate professor of architecture at the University of Washington. She said depriving people of light has a punitive effect similar to being imprisoned.“They can survive but they don’t thrive,” she said.
Of course we’re not, strictly speaking, talking about people, per se, in an unclassified sense; we’re talking about people who can’t afford to live anywhere else. “Say, Ms. Realtor, do you have anything in our price range with no windows? Windows are a deal breaker.”
Alas.
The story mentions the University of Michigan’s windowless dormitories, which were designed by and came with a $150 million donation from Charlie Munger, Warren Buffett’s now-99 year old partner in crime, and which have accrued decidedly mixed reviews.2
(The linked New Yorker story notes that Munger’s own house has lots of windows.)
Munger gave the University of Santa Barbara, which has a lovely campus in a lovely setting, an even larger donation, again contingent on building his nightmare dorm. That project isn’t going so well.3
Munger Hall — proposed by billionaire Charlie Munger, who offered $250 million for the residence hall’s development in exchange for the right to design it — was initially planned to be a 11-story, 4,500-bed, mostly windowless dorm hall to accommodate as many students as possible. In response to community uproar and national scorn and ridicule, the campus agreed to lop two stories off the top and reduce the maximum capacity down to 3,500.
Recent redesign recommendations include reducing the mass and population density of the building further; introducing more ventilation into the building, especially in shared kitchen areas; and adding more operable windows, according to Nathan Brostrom, UC Office of the President’s executive vice president and chief financial officer.
Munger, one University of California regent said, is “adamant about getting this project approved and under construction as soon as possible;” as are the regents adamant about doing so before Munger kicks and leaves his money to some other institution.
You never want to wish somebody all the way ill, but a lot of people will be happy if the thing never gets built.
Munger. ‘Mungry. The social engineering idea behind the windowless dorms is that it will force students out of their rooms and into the more attractive common areas, where they will meet other victims and thrive socially. At least there’s that, which can’t be said of the open conspiracy to deprive renters of windows.
Developers hold a lot of sway here. The window-free construction measure originated with a former industry lobbyist who now sits on the city council, and the planning appointees of our current mayor, a wealthy, market-loving, get ‘er done style businessman, are lined up behind it.
One office-to-residence conversion project already received an exemption from the operable windows mandate.
According to the developer’s website, these units have a window in the living room but a completely enclosed bedroom that consists of a closet, two blank walls and an opaque sliding glass door that permits entry of some of the light from the living room. These one-bedroom units rent for $2,500 a month; one bedrooms with more windows rent for $3,000.
$500 a month for a fucking window would indicate that developers are well aware of how important natural light is to potential renters.
Chef’s kiss to the formulation melding indifference to windows and fresh air with lack of resources. Mwah.
Chef’s kiss to the grotesque.
“Light and air are not life safety issues,” wrote Janice Li, studio director for Hawaii for Lowney Architecture. “I recognize that we enjoy unparalleled temperate climate in Hawaii and buildings should be naturally ventilated as much as possible for human comfort and for long term sustainability to our environment. However, there is more than one way to design environmentally responsive buildings and alternative methods should be allowed to achieve the same goals.”
Music
These two groups are both good, in completely distinct manners. Mamalarky especially has a sound all their own.
Mamalarky, “Pocket Fantasy;”4 Vivian Girls, "Memory."5
That, Comrades, is all there is
Enjoy your windows. If you like the writing here, please share it around, and consider subscribing if you’ve not—it’s free unless you want to pay.
Take care, be well.
In my last comment, I think I came off as being rude and sarcastic to the host of the blog rather than - well, rude and sarcastic to other people I don't know. I think I'll just put down the sarcasm for now and walk away quietly. Apologies all around. (In an insult war, I would fold like an antique linen napkin, believe me.)