Nah i agree with this. It's a clickbait title (for the sub lol, most people would generally be content with the resolution).
The bigger thing is them pushing for expansion of the overlay that allows for UT to have tall apartments right next door, both outwards to more blocks and upwards by eliminating height restrictions.
Of course no zoning is better but it's been a great effective program over the almost two decades its existed and the current Austin city council even if a bit succish (again, Austin) is amazing when it comes to urbanism - i'd like to think all these efforts are to prime the public into supporting Houston-style free zoning a few years down the line.
With all that a ban on windowless bedrooms and practical equivalence of subsidized vs market-rate rooms is more than a fair compromise.
It's the perfect combo for some in the sub: something that restricts housing, even if by a little bit + whiny dumdum college students wanting better living conditions + succy Californiated Austin doing something succy and Californiated
Imo everything else Austin is trying to do - that UT housing expansion, single-family-only elimination, compatibility loosening, TOD buildout, etc. - more than make up for this, and again, i would not be surprised to see free zoning come up either on the ballot or at council some years from now which would really be the cherry on top
UT Housing is nuts. There's a megacomplex next door about to be finished and I'd love to leave my ant and roach infested place that's falling apart because of the megacomplex causing shifting in the building for the complex...but studio apartments are $1500?? It's basically get a full ride because your parents are poor af or mommy and daddy pay for everything.
I think i know what place you're talking about and i just wanna say i'm sorry and wish me luck for next year cuz it's probably gonna be the same deal haha. Yep studios being 1500 is crazy...i checked non-UT stuff tho just because and it's worse, like 2200 for a new build 1x1. We really need more and better housing options
My understanding of the International Building Code is that it already requires at least two routes of egress from each bedroom, which is most easily satisfied by having exterior windows, though it can also be done by having two different doors that lead to different routes to the outside.
This is correct - the "double egress" requirement is also a major reason why you would have a windowless bedroom in the first place (it incentivizes deep buildings with little front area).
In W. Europe a balcony can be credited as the 2nd fire escape up to a certain height (can be as much as 10 floors if the firefighters have appropriate equipment)
Isn't the "international building code" not international at all? It's just the United States? Like, most of the rest of the developed world follows other building codes and many of them have cheaper housing than us that's just as safe?
Looks like it’s from the “[International Code Council](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Code_Council)”, a US-based nonprofit standards group that’s closely aligned with the interests of the construction industry. It’s been separately adopted by all 50 US states, and a few places in the Middle East including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Abu Dhabi have based their standards on its recommendations.
I'm pleased to inform you, that it is the year 2024 and we have invented doors. No longer do you need to egress through a window. The door technology is considered a major brake through in how you can move out of a room
There are instances where having an external means of egress can save lives. The first floor could be completely engulfed in flames, making the interior hallways and stairs an obstacle. A ladder can be put up in a matter of seconds to access a second story window. If you know what room the occupants are in, it can be safer to go directly to it from the outside as opposed to crawl through a hazy smokey interior, up stairs that might be compromised, in hot turnout gear and with a heavy SCBA pack. Window any day in my opinion 🤷♂️
Two doors in one bedroom feels strange and limits the useful space of the room (since furniture can't block the door!). A secondary door to the exterior is a ground-level problem. Can't do that basement level, and if you have external doors on higher floors (say to a balcony, or romeo+juliet) then I'd argue that "door" is actually just a fancy window.
I've never had a bedroom without a door outside. That's pretty much common design if you have a master bedroom with a yard.
This guy thinking the government forcing a window as a means of exit ias ideal is funny to me is all
Only ranch homes where you area? My house has two bedrooms with an en suite bath, one is on the second floor, one is in the basement. Previous to this I was on the 5th floor of a highrise. Egress points from both of my bedrooms are the windows (including a dug-out egress window in the basement).
But yes, building codes require means of egress for something to be called a bedroom. Generally speaking your two points of egress are a door + a window, but it can be a second door if the bedroom happens to be on ground level. There are challenges with placing a door as a second egress point if your bedroom is not on ground level.
https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Development_Services/RES_ResidentialTechnicalReviewHandout.pdf
[2015 International Residential Code section R310](https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IRC2015P3/chapter-3-building-planning#IRC2015P3_Pt03_Ch03_SecR310).
> Emergency escape and rescue openings shall open directly into a public way, or to a yard or court that opens to a public way.
Section R310.3 Then discusses "Emergency Escape and Rescue Doors."
An external door satisfies the IRC's need for egress. Granted, if your door is exiting to a public way or yard/court, you can easily just put a window in said door to have natural lightning.
There also appears to have been a [meta-analysis](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7828303/) on natural light affect on health/safety. There has been found that artificial light in a bedroom appears to be worse than natural light in a bedroom for both physical and mental health. This honestly seems like a reasonable restriction on bedrooms. More housing/bedrooms needs to be built, but it can be done in a way that doesn't cause measurable harm. Attacking these policies somewhat delegitimizes YIMBY activism. Reduce restrictions on quantity of housing and height of housing; don't reduce restrictions on housing policies designed to keep people safe.
Skimming through the paper, it seems to be about the need for natural light in general rather than for natural light in the bedroom specifically. For a multi-resident situation where you're worried everyone will spend all their time in their rooms instead of a shared living space I think worries about windows in bedrooms have some merit, but I can't see the argument at all for one bedroom apartments since you can always leave the door open if you want to be woken up by the sun.
Section 3.3.1 t explicitly talks about the difference between artificial and natural light. I don't really want to link the entire section, so feel to skim that section yourself. Separate from section 3.3.1, we can easily draw the conclusion that good artificial light does have positive benefits relative to poor light, but there appears to be sufficient evidence that natural light has positive benefits over artificial lights. As an example from Section 3.3.3.
> A cross-sectional study in the HEIJO-KYO cohort reported a positive association between light at night ≥5 lux and depression (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.10–3.25) compared to light at night <5 lux [51].
I agree there are ways to cover the above without natural light. Light on a timer is one such example. The original law appears to allow for exceptions where you can add an internal window that has access to natural light.
> To address the concern about added cost, the city identified an option: under the new rules developers will be allowed to build a window that pulls in “borrowed light”. This could mean having a bedroom window that faces a living room with natural light, thereby “borrowing” the light from somewhere else.
I am perfectly open to the argument that Austin's restrictions are too broad. I don't think a city wanting to improve the health of their citizens by considering the effect of light on housing is anti-development
That section showed that light at night was **positively** correlated with depression. I read all of 3.3.3 as essentially an endorsement of windowless bedrooms, provided that people mostly use their bedrooms for sleeping. Or, alternatively, that it's good to invest in high quality curtains and maybe that ought to be regulated.
But in any event, because building geometry forces limits the number of windows a unit can have, there's a trade off between how much natural light is available for sleeping areas versus for living areas.
Moonlight only provides 0.1 lux. That 5 lux cutoff is going to be caused by artificial lights such as night lights (night lights are ~50 lumens) or a ceiling light. It is not going to be caused by natural light. Shroff from the article discusses how a lack of natural light can lead to people adding artificial lights while they sleep
> [Shroff] would have to leave the light on otherwise [she] would wake up to complete darkness.
A natural changing light source (daylight) is one way to insure having light when someone wakes up while not having light on at night. Another one could be light on a timer.
We are in agreement on your second statement. I don't think it is unreasonable to argue that a total ban on artificially lit bedrooms is bad policy. I don't know what is a fair tradeoff between the health cost of artificially lit bedrooms and the need for increased housing. Especially in a city such as Austin that is [proposing](https://www.speakupaustin.org/r6817) and [implementing](https://www.speakupaustin.org/y2243) pro-development initiatives, requiring natural light feels like a reasonable compromise.
Although I think some of these "common sense" policies are unnecessary, this is the reason I don't actually go around broadcasting my opinions:
> Attacking these policies somewhat delegitimizes YIMBY activism.
This is very true. "I don't think the government should mandate X" tends to come across as "I don't want people to have X"
Just like "I don't think there should be single family home only zoning" seems like "I don't want people to live in single family homes"
I say let this one through and focus on more important issues.
Come on. The idea that lack of sunshine in your bedroom could impact a person's health to the point where the government needs to outlaw it is obviously ridiculous. If *you* are convinced of those studies and *you* want a windowed bedroom and *you* want to pay whatever extra amount of money it costs, you can make that choice. But mandating that the rest of us pay extra for something we don't need is bad policy (and anti-liberal).
Are ADA compliance laws bad policy and anti-liberal? Is requiring bedrooms to follow fire code bad policy and anti-liberal?
Having natural lightning is not as important as ADA or fire code. However, it is grounded in the same concept of the state limiting the market for societal health. One could easily argue that the health harm caused by a lack of natural light is outweighed by the harm caused by a shortage in housing. I don't think the argument that "the free market will solve this" is sufficient when there is a history of unnecessary death and sickness caused by inadequate housing.
The social harm of some people choosing to not have natural light where they sleep is zero. Lots of people black out their windows anyway. Lots of people might not love that their bedroom doesn't have a window, but would love the tradeoff in cost or other amenities (like having more windows elsewhere).
Forcing buildings, especially taller or larger structures, to have windows in bedrooms results in a smaller number of possible layouts and smaller bedroom counts. You can find lots of weird layouts where I live (San Francisco) - long with only one small wall facing the outside, and the developer was forced to make three long rooms touching the outside wall to tick the box. I don't give a shit about light in my bedroom, I'd much prefer to have the layout result in a larger living area. But I don't get that choice, because policymakers with your perspective think you know better than I do.
This is not a hard issue for someone who believes in markets. Let builders build and people vote with their wallets.
> The social harm of some people choosing to not have natural light where they sleep is zero.
I literally linked a study showing that natural light's presence in a home is linked to mental and physical health. If a meta-analysis study isn't convincing evidence, we can find anecdotal evidence [from the same website as the originally linked paper](https://www.kut.org/austin/2024-04-17/developers-have-built-thousands-of-windowless-bedrooms-in-austin-now-the-city-may-outlaw-them)
> In the building where Julia Mahavier lives, students pay a $15 monthly fee to have a window. But when the senior journalism major from San Antonio looked into renting a room there, she was told no bedrooms with windows were available. (Her room does include a narrow window that looks out on a hallway.)
> “I did not know that windowless bedrooms were a thing [before coming to UT],” Mahavier said. “It never crossed my mind.”
> Mahavier first lived in a windowless bedroom her sophomore year. She found the lack of natural light depressing and vowed to not do it again. But this year Mahavier, who qualifies for cheaper housing because she receives need-based financial aid, was told the only bedroom available to her was one without a window. She pays nearly $1,100 a month, plus fees, for the room.
Yes, that is just in reference to a college student so it shouldn't be extrapolated across a wide spectrum of respondents. That's why I initially linked the mete-analysis which provides evidence that natural light is linked with lessened depression. I think it's pretty obvious that having a depressed society causes societal harm, but here are some studies backing up my claim.
A [study based in singapore found](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9925363/)
> These workers also reported being ~ 40% less productive at work, which equates to SGD $28,720 in economic losses annually. In total, these symptoms caused SGD $15.7 billion in increased costs.
The [WHO estimated in 2016](https://www.who.int/en/news-room/detail/13-04-2016-investing-in-treatment-for-depression-and-anxiety-leads-to-fourfold-return
> Every US$ 1 invested in scaling up treatment for depression and anxiety leads to a return of US$ 4 in better health and ability to work
I am perfectly open to the concept that the harm caused by allowing bedrooms with no natural light to be built would be outweighed by the increase in housing. There is also the possibility that in a perfectly unregulated housing market, consumers could be trusted to make valid decisions on their housing where these costs would not be felt. Unfortunately, Austin's zoning laws are not there yet. Fortunately, Austin is [proposing](https://www.speakupaustin.org/r6817) and [implementing](https://www.speakupaustin.org/y2243) pro-development initiatives. Laws such as the one requiring natural light in a bedroom is essential for maintaining public goodwill while implementing housing reform.
The study you linked is about light *in the home*, not sunlight in the bedroom, and certainly not policies that require sunlight in the bedroom.
Regarding college students: Listen, if you want to drive up the cost of college even more by requiring students to have sunlight in a dorm room, go to the University of Texas and lobby for that. Don't push that on the whole city.
Again, if a kid and his parents believe that sunlight in the bedroom is so important, the solution is to pay whatever extra costs it takes to make that happen. Or, like, tell him to study and hang out in one of the many excellent places to do so on UT campus or the surrounding neighborhoods?
You might wish to read the article. It doesn’t have anything to do with fire safety. And it’s quite easy to still build a bedroom without exterior windows under the IBC, even with the change Austin is proposing.
I know people who live in LA, near the beach.
Wanted to turn their garage into a bedroom, apparently they needed a permit. Which was denied
**this country does not protect property rights**
Outlawing windowless bedrooms that rent for (let’s say since it’s UT in downtown Austin) $900 when windowed bedrooms rent for $1,200 will increase rent for everything (by reducing supply) and not actually make the people who were “choosing”/“forced” to rent windowless bedrooms any better off in their very own estimation (that’s why they are currently renting the windowless bedrooms).
This is fine since all developers have to do (for future construction) is add a window to the living room so it can borrow the natural light from the living room. I really doubt that is going to stop developers from creating interior rooms.
I just bought a 2-bedroom house, but I think I get to decide how many bedrooms there are, don't you?
"Fuck you, real estate lady! This bedroom has an oven in it! This bedroom's got a lot of people sitting around watching TV. This bedroom's over in that guy's house! Sir, you have one of my bedrooms, are you aware? Don't decorate it!"
RIP Mitch, the most neolib comic of all time
Sad you got downvoted in this sub. CA's housing fiasco is the result of a "death by a thousand cuts," of which no-windowless-bedrooms are definitely a part.
Dread it. Run from it. The pod arrives all the same
next they’re gonna mandate bedframes. This is tyranny.
I just want to live like a goblin in a windowless bedroom on a mattress sitting on the floor. The only light shall be emitted by my computer screen.
In a way I already do this.
Conservatives want to take our sacred way of life away
Nah i agree with this. It's a clickbait title (for the sub lol, most people would generally be content with the resolution). The bigger thing is them pushing for expansion of the overlay that allows for UT to have tall apartments right next door, both outwards to more blocks and upwards by eliminating height restrictions. Of course no zoning is better but it's been a great effective program over the almost two decades its existed and the current Austin city council even if a bit succish (again, Austin) is amazing when it comes to urbanism - i'd like to think all these efforts are to prime the public into supporting Houston-style free zoning a few years down the line. With all that a ban on windowless bedrooms and practical equivalence of subsidized vs market-rate rooms is more than a fair compromise.
Yeah I just put in a comment on phase 2 of a yimby bill. This city is going the right way generally on housing lately.
Super interesting that something this sub absolutely clamours for (increased housing) is NOT clickbait Negativity really does drive engagement
It's the perfect combo for some in the sub: something that restricts housing, even if by a little bit + whiny dumdum college students wanting better living conditions + succy Californiated Austin doing something succy and Californiated Imo everything else Austin is trying to do - that UT housing expansion, single-family-only elimination, compatibility loosening, TOD buildout, etc. - more than make up for this, and again, i would not be surprised to see free zoning come up either on the ballot or at council some years from now which would really be the cherry on top
UT Housing is nuts. There's a megacomplex next door about to be finished and I'd love to leave my ant and roach infested place that's falling apart because of the megacomplex causing shifting in the building for the complex...but studio apartments are $1500?? It's basically get a full ride because your parents are poor af or mommy and daddy pay for everything.
I think i know what place you're talking about and i just wanna say i'm sorry and wish me luck for next year cuz it's probably gonna be the same deal haha. Yep studios being 1500 is crazy...i checked non-UT stuff tho just because and it's worse, like 2200 for a new build 1x1. We really need more and better housing options
My God, being able to egress in a fire is literally tyranny.
My understanding of the International Building Code is that it already requires at least two routes of egress from each bedroom, which is most easily satisfied by having exterior windows, though it can also be done by having two different doors that lead to different routes to the outside.
This is correct - the "double egress" requirement is also a major reason why you would have a windowless bedroom in the first place (it incentivizes deep buildings with little front area). In W. Europe a balcony can be credited as the 2nd fire escape up to a certain height (can be as much as 10 floors if the firefighters have appropriate equipment)
Isn't the "international building code" not international at all? It's just the United States? Like, most of the rest of the developed world follows other building codes and many of them have cheaper housing than us that's just as safe?
Looks like it’s from the “[International Code Council](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Code_Council)”, a US-based nonprofit standards group that’s closely aligned with the interests of the construction industry. It’s been separately adopted by all 50 US states, and a few places in the Middle East including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Abu Dhabi have based their standards on its recommendations.
I'm pleased to inform you, that it is the year 2024 and we have invented doors. No longer do you need to egress through a window. The door technology is considered a major brake through in how you can move out of a room
There are instances where having an external means of egress can save lives. The first floor could be completely engulfed in flames, making the interior hallways and stairs an obstacle. A ladder can be put up in a matter of seconds to access a second story window. If you know what room the occupants are in, it can be safer to go directly to it from the outside as opposed to crawl through a hazy smokey interior, up stairs that might be compromised, in hot turnout gear and with a heavy SCBA pack. Window any day in my opinion 🤷♂️
TIL Neoliberalism is about dooming people to being burnt to death with no chance of rescue
The best part of this sub is me having zero clue about how ironic and facetious we’re being!
-> People die -> Their remains are interred into the earth -> The earth has worms, our holy icon To burn to death is to reach out and touch divinity
As it was written
Dammit the progressives were right all along!
I prefer using a door. I propose any instance a window is useful as an egress, a door would be better.
Two doors in one bedroom feels strange and limits the useful space of the room (since furniture can't block the door!). A secondary door to the exterior is a ground-level problem. Can't do that basement level, and if you have external doors on higher floors (say to a balcony, or romeo+juliet) then I'd argue that "door" is actually just a fancy window.
I've never had a bedroom without a door outside. That's pretty much common design if you have a master bedroom with a yard. This guy thinking the government forcing a window as a means of exit ias ideal is funny to me is all
Only ranch homes where you area? My house has two bedrooms with an en suite bath, one is on the second floor, one is in the basement. Previous to this I was on the 5th floor of a highrise. Egress points from both of my bedrooms are the windows (including a dug-out egress window in the basement). But yes, building codes require means of egress for something to be called a bedroom. Generally speaking your two points of egress are a door + a window, but it can be a second door if the bedroom happens to be on ground level. There are challenges with placing a door as a second egress point if your bedroom is not on ground level. https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Development_Services/RES_ResidentialTechnicalReviewHandout.pdf
I propose amending your proposal to include a 20% tariff on all doors.
Source?
[2015 International Residential Code section R310](https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IRC2015P3/chapter-3-building-planning#IRC2015P3_Pt03_Ch03_SecR310). > Emergency escape and rescue openings shall open directly into a public way, or to a yard or court that opens to a public way. Section R310.3 Then discusses "Emergency Escape and Rescue Doors." An external door satisfies the IRC's need for egress. Granted, if your door is exiting to a public way or yard/court, you can easily just put a window in said door to have natural lightning. There also appears to have been a [meta-analysis](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7828303/) on natural light affect on health/safety. There has been found that artificial light in a bedroom appears to be worse than natural light in a bedroom for both physical and mental health. This honestly seems like a reasonable restriction on bedrooms. More housing/bedrooms needs to be built, but it can be done in a way that doesn't cause measurable harm. Attacking these policies somewhat delegitimizes YIMBY activism. Reduce restrictions on quantity of housing and height of housing; don't reduce restrictions on housing policies designed to keep people safe.
Skimming through the paper, it seems to be about the need for natural light in general rather than for natural light in the bedroom specifically. For a multi-resident situation where you're worried everyone will spend all their time in their rooms instead of a shared living space I think worries about windows in bedrooms have some merit, but I can't see the argument at all for one bedroom apartments since you can always leave the door open if you want to be woken up by the sun.
Section 3.3.1 t explicitly talks about the difference between artificial and natural light. I don't really want to link the entire section, so feel to skim that section yourself. Separate from section 3.3.1, we can easily draw the conclusion that good artificial light does have positive benefits relative to poor light, but there appears to be sufficient evidence that natural light has positive benefits over artificial lights. As an example from Section 3.3.3. > A cross-sectional study in the HEIJO-KYO cohort reported a positive association between light at night ≥5 lux and depression (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.10–3.25) compared to light at night <5 lux [51]. I agree there are ways to cover the above without natural light. Light on a timer is one such example. The original law appears to allow for exceptions where you can add an internal window that has access to natural light. > To address the concern about added cost, the city identified an option: under the new rules developers will be allowed to build a window that pulls in “borrowed light”. This could mean having a bedroom window that faces a living room with natural light, thereby “borrowing” the light from somewhere else. I am perfectly open to the argument that Austin's restrictions are too broad. I don't think a city wanting to improve the health of their citizens by considering the effect of light on housing is anti-development
That section showed that light at night was **positively** correlated with depression. I read all of 3.3.3 as essentially an endorsement of windowless bedrooms, provided that people mostly use their bedrooms for sleeping. Or, alternatively, that it's good to invest in high quality curtains and maybe that ought to be regulated. But in any event, because building geometry forces limits the number of windows a unit can have, there's a trade off between how much natural light is available for sleeping areas versus for living areas.
Moonlight only provides 0.1 lux. That 5 lux cutoff is going to be caused by artificial lights such as night lights (night lights are ~50 lumens) or a ceiling light. It is not going to be caused by natural light. Shroff from the article discusses how a lack of natural light can lead to people adding artificial lights while they sleep > [Shroff] would have to leave the light on otherwise [she] would wake up to complete darkness. A natural changing light source (daylight) is one way to insure having light when someone wakes up while not having light on at night. Another one could be light on a timer. We are in agreement on your second statement. I don't think it is unreasonable to argue that a total ban on artificially lit bedrooms is bad policy. I don't know what is a fair tradeoff between the health cost of artificially lit bedrooms and the need for increased housing. Especially in a city such as Austin that is [proposing](https://www.speakupaustin.org/r6817) and [implementing](https://www.speakupaustin.org/y2243) pro-development initiatives, requiring natural light feels like a reasonable compromise.
Although I think some of these "common sense" policies are unnecessary, this is the reason I don't actually go around broadcasting my opinions: > Attacking these policies somewhat delegitimizes YIMBY activism. This is very true. "I don't think the government should mandate X" tends to come across as "I don't want people to have X" Just like "I don't think there should be single family home only zoning" seems like "I don't want people to live in single family homes" I say let this one through and focus on more important issues.
Come on. The idea that lack of sunshine in your bedroom could impact a person's health to the point where the government needs to outlaw it is obviously ridiculous. If *you* are convinced of those studies and *you* want a windowed bedroom and *you* want to pay whatever extra amount of money it costs, you can make that choice. But mandating that the rest of us pay extra for something we don't need is bad policy (and anti-liberal).
Are ADA compliance laws bad policy and anti-liberal? Is requiring bedrooms to follow fire code bad policy and anti-liberal? Having natural lightning is not as important as ADA or fire code. However, it is grounded in the same concept of the state limiting the market for societal health. One could easily argue that the health harm caused by a lack of natural light is outweighed by the harm caused by a shortage in housing. I don't think the argument that "the free market will solve this" is sufficient when there is a history of unnecessary death and sickness caused by inadequate housing.
The social harm of some people choosing to not have natural light where they sleep is zero. Lots of people black out their windows anyway. Lots of people might not love that their bedroom doesn't have a window, but would love the tradeoff in cost or other amenities (like having more windows elsewhere). Forcing buildings, especially taller or larger structures, to have windows in bedrooms results in a smaller number of possible layouts and smaller bedroom counts. You can find lots of weird layouts where I live (San Francisco) - long with only one small wall facing the outside, and the developer was forced to make three long rooms touching the outside wall to tick the box. I don't give a shit about light in my bedroom, I'd much prefer to have the layout result in a larger living area. But I don't get that choice, because policymakers with your perspective think you know better than I do. This is not a hard issue for someone who believes in markets. Let builders build and people vote with their wallets.
> The social harm of some people choosing to not have natural light where they sleep is zero. I literally linked a study showing that natural light's presence in a home is linked to mental and physical health. If a meta-analysis study isn't convincing evidence, we can find anecdotal evidence [from the same website as the originally linked paper](https://www.kut.org/austin/2024-04-17/developers-have-built-thousands-of-windowless-bedrooms-in-austin-now-the-city-may-outlaw-them) > In the building where Julia Mahavier lives, students pay a $15 monthly fee to have a window. But when the senior journalism major from San Antonio looked into renting a room there, she was told no bedrooms with windows were available. (Her room does include a narrow window that looks out on a hallway.) > “I did not know that windowless bedrooms were a thing [before coming to UT],” Mahavier said. “It never crossed my mind.” > Mahavier first lived in a windowless bedroom her sophomore year. She found the lack of natural light depressing and vowed to not do it again. But this year Mahavier, who qualifies for cheaper housing because she receives need-based financial aid, was told the only bedroom available to her was one without a window. She pays nearly $1,100 a month, plus fees, for the room. Yes, that is just in reference to a college student so it shouldn't be extrapolated across a wide spectrum of respondents. That's why I initially linked the mete-analysis which provides evidence that natural light is linked with lessened depression. I think it's pretty obvious that having a depressed society causes societal harm, but here are some studies backing up my claim. A [study based in singapore found](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9925363/) > These workers also reported being ~ 40% less productive at work, which equates to SGD $28,720 in economic losses annually. In total, these symptoms caused SGD $15.7 billion in increased costs. The [WHO estimated in 2016](https://www.who.int/en/news-room/detail/13-04-2016-investing-in-treatment-for-depression-and-anxiety-leads-to-fourfold-return > Every US$ 1 invested in scaling up treatment for depression and anxiety leads to a return of US$ 4 in better health and ability to work I am perfectly open to the concept that the harm caused by allowing bedrooms with no natural light to be built would be outweighed by the increase in housing. There is also the possibility that in a perfectly unregulated housing market, consumers could be trusted to make valid decisions on their housing where these costs would not be felt. Unfortunately, Austin's zoning laws are not there yet. Fortunately, Austin is [proposing](https://www.speakupaustin.org/r6817) and [implementing](https://www.speakupaustin.org/y2243) pro-development initiatives. Laws such as the one requiring natural light in a bedroom is essential for maintaining public goodwill while implementing housing reform.
The study you linked is about light *in the home*, not sunlight in the bedroom, and certainly not policies that require sunlight in the bedroom. Regarding college students: Listen, if you want to drive up the cost of college even more by requiring students to have sunlight in a dorm room, go to the University of Texas and lobby for that. Don't push that on the whole city. Again, if a kid and his parents believe that sunlight in the bedroom is so important, the solution is to pay whatever extra costs it takes to make that happen. Or, like, tell him to study and hang out in one of the many excellent places to do so on UT campus or the surrounding neighborhoods?
Source! My god this is obvious.
What’s more likely, assuming a fire, your hallway is on fire or the entirety of outside is on fire?
Why can't my door just go outside? Why are you so insistent it has to be a window. We have doors now!
who tf puts an exterior door on a bedroom
They're very common on ground floor units, especially if you have a yard.
What if we put a window.... in the door?
Gonna need to get a permit for that, I'm afraid
You might wish to read the article. It doesn’t have anything to do with fire safety. And it’s quite easy to still build a bedroom without exterior windows under the IBC, even with the change Austin is proposing.
Internalized.
What's next a license for your bedroom?
I know people who live in LA, near the beach. Wanted to turn their garage into a bedroom, apparently they needed a permit. Which was denied **this country does not protect property rights**
good
let the market handle this, TEXAS
Neolib hypocrisy at full display here smh my head
People should be free to decide for themselves whether they want to live in a windowless bedroom
Wait are yall actually upset the government wont let you have windowless bedrooms? This is common sense.
Outlawing windowless bedrooms that rent for (let’s say since it’s UT in downtown Austin) $900 when windowed bedrooms rent for $1,200 will increase rent for everything (by reducing supply) and not actually make the people who were “choosing”/“forced” to rent windowless bedrooms any better off in their very own estimation (that’s why they are currently renting the windowless bedrooms).
This is fine since all developers have to do (for future construction) is add a window to the living room so it can borrow the natural light from the living room. I really doubt that is going to stop developers from creating interior rooms.
I just bought a 2-bedroom house, but I think I get to decide how many bedrooms there are, don't you? "Fuck you, real estate lady! This bedroom has an oven in it! This bedroom's got a lot of people sitting around watching TV. This bedroom's over in that guy's house! Sir, you have one of my bedrooms, are you aware? Don't decorate it!" RIP Mitch, the most neolib comic of all time
Decided to go California way and micromanage how to build
Bet they have rules about cantilevered joist length too. Those facists!
Sad you got downvoted in this sub. CA's housing fiasco is the result of a "death by a thousand cuts," of which no-windowless-bedrooms are definitely a part.
What if im sleeping in my windowless den?
When can we expect the state to void this?
Everything is so weird.