Hacker News Reader

Comment by rudyfink | Hacker News Reader

I have no idea if it is true, but, in Egypt, my guide (who I will say was wonderfully knowledgeable on historic matters), stated that the reason many properties had rebar extending upwards (e.g., it looked like there were more stories to be added) was related to tax policy. I forget the full detail of her explanation, but there was some different kind of tax treatment if the building was "finished," so there were a number of approaches to not "finish" a building.

Edit: From some subsequent Googling, it appears this tax explanation was, at least, historically true in Egypt. There are reports that this policy may have changed in the early 2010's.

View on HN

In India lots of buildings leave rebar open on the top floor/roof because they expect the government to allow them to add a floor in the future.

The government often obliges.

Youtube has real estate virtual tour walk-throughs from around the world. Sorry, I don't know how to search for them. A few days ago, I saw this one[1] from Bangladesh.

A concrete slab multi-story. IIRC, first floor was occupied residential - here are some hesitant people, their stuff, a shrine room. Second floor was bare slab with construction detritus. No walls, interior or exterior - "can customize". Third floor was also bare, no walls, no roof, forest of rebar. Very roughly, IIRC.

Meta: Wished I could copy a list of yt links from browser history, and get a page of thumbnails for a fast visual search. A little script later, found it.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3R6Fagr8yBM .

I think it's more that people don't have the capital to make a second floor as they're building the first floor. I'm sure regulatory hurdles occur as well. It's common to eventually add a floor or two for rental income. Sometimes, the owner will move to the upper floors for better light, a breeze, and a newer home.

Same in Spain. Paperwork surrounding a newly build house costs a lot, up to 25% of the whole project, so in many instances people decide to build illegally. Nobody touches them as it would be a massive political uproar if any ruling political party tried to clean the situation up. Also, if no neighbors 'denounce' an illegal building, it becomes legal after 4 years or so.

Hem, not... this is not how it works in Spain. Maybe a local exception, but not the rule. The law is very clear about it.

https://www.spanishestate.com/resources/tips/1/ otherwise known as Certificado de fuero de ordenación or Certificado de asimilado a fuera de ordenación

We are not in 70's anymore. I would strongly recommend foreigners planning to buy a house in Spain not to take this for granted and to consult the current law first in https://www.boe.es.

You "can build in the middle of a dry riverbed" (if nobody is watching) is not the same as "you will be allowed to repair" when your house will be flooded six years later. (And it will happen, because this place was called 'las ramblas' for something).

The real state promoter wants your money, not your friendship, so using the services of a professional consultant can save you a lot of future headaches.

If you know some locals who own apartments in the metropolitan areas, many will be open about their different modifications they have done without proper permits, because it's so damn hard to actually get the permits.

Yes, the law is very clear about a lot of things, but what happens in reality is often not so clear always.

Building a new house is a different situation than closing your terrace or building a pool and involves much more permits. You will not be allowed to contract tap water, electricity ot a telephone line to have internet without those.

Permits for modifications in extant buildings can be also hard to obtain if the area is historical and buildings are singular, old or protected for some reason. Specially if you want to mess with the load that the structure must stand. Out of this areas there is often a 'permit free' period in Abril-May for doing small repairs and repainting.

My wife has mentioned this is common in Serbia as well. The idea was that you might actually extend the building upwards eventually, but... Not sure if it happens as often as the initial practice is done.

I've traveled extensively through the Balkans and when people ask what it's like, one of the things I say is that everything is old, brand new, and under construction all at the same time.

Croatia too.

I believe it has (had) more to do with unavailability of financing. So you save enough money to build the ground floor, the leave it unfinished until you have enough money to build the upper floor, the wait again until you have enough to clad it, etc.

I've seen and heard of this in Mexico and Latin America as well.

A lot of US housing styles, such as saltbox and narrow townhouses, are also attempts to game older versions of the tax code

Years ago I read the same about places in the US as well. And of assessors being really intrusive. People being butthurt because they feel they are being punished for keeping their house up.

I've heard California used to base assessments on comparative values so that people don't try and game the system with crummy substandard construction and materials.

Well it's natural that people feel it's unfair to tax them more just because they make their house nicer. It's just a very unfair tax.

Think about it. You spend money and work a lot of hours to refurbish your kitchen and then you're informed you have to pay more because of it. I am surprised people don't rebel against this policy.

They do and they did. But there taxes are used to buy bullys and guns and put that rebellion down.

Another reason to avoid getting permits for remodels.

At least in recent Mexico it's not because of taxes.

People don't have enough money to finish it and they leave it for later which usually never happens. Also they leave the possibility that next generation can add a new floor.

I live in Mexico and can vouch for this answer.

Especially the never happens part.

Yeah, it was common when I visited Peru 20 years ago.

The tax code wasn't only reason for unfinished buildings. In poorer communities, which couldn't get access to loans, it was common to just buy supplies and do construction bit by bit as funds and time were available.

Homes might start off with as little as bamboo poles in corners and PVC sheets tied between them. I swear I saw some that didn't even have roofs. When they had enough funds, they would buy some bricks and just stack them as walls, throw some roofing iron on top or even PVC sheet as a roof

When they had enough bricks, they would buy cement and construct a solid brick wall. Then maybe some concrete for the floor.

Even in middle-class neighbourhoods, it was still common to construct floor-by-floor.

This is common across the developing world.

Not a lot of people out of our close to 8 billion can afford such a huge expense in one go.

Even in the US this is the case.

Government regulation has outlawed people building incrementally in most cases, so people who can't afford to buy a house generally have to rent forever.

Building a house is usually more expensive than buying a similar house, due to building codes, permitting costs, and costs of utility build-out.

Unless you build it yourself.

If you find a house for sale built by the general contractor for themselves, it's probably very well built. In a lot of ways that wouldn't be obvious to the vast majority of people.

I would imagine that purchasing the land is at least as much a hurdle in most places. I suspect the land my house sits on is worth some small multiple of what the structure is worth.

Mansard roofs, also.

That's true. When I was staying at a 5-star hotel in Egypt, top floors' some sides were left unfinished intentionally. There was also a lot of buildings without exterior primer and paint (bare bricks). Locals have said that it's for avoiding higher taxes in buildings.

Egypt is/was a strange country when I last visited it.

This would never be possible in the UK.

Rainwater and sea spray would corrode any exposed rebar away within a few years.

In fact, I wonder whether it is such a good idea to build on rebar that has been exposed to the environment for an extended period of time.

You can wrap it in plastic and this is a non issue

My experience living on a Florida key gives me the intuition that that is false, unless by wrap you mean seal

I was unaware of how incredibly destructive the combination of daily, continuous, direct sunlight, humidity, and salt water was until my parents moved to Florida. It's really incredible. A few years and literally every material is mottled and crispy.

The entire state of Florida should be a nature preserve, maybe it already is.

Plastic doesn't hold up well to sunlight.

Luckily this isn’t an issue in the UK.

Spray it with truck bed liner, job done.

But if there is never good intention to actually "finish" the construction, then it wouldn't matter much.

True, but still, moisture can creep in where rebar exits the concrete, and lead to rebar corrosion inside the structure. Less of a problem in Egypt than in the UK or similar climates.

One could always paint the exposed rebar to protect it.

The point of sealant is that it won’t come off easily. But rebar with painted-on sealant is most likely less able to properly attach to concrete. Therefore, it might be difficult to use properly sealed rebar for further construction?

Grind it off or use some kind of paint remover.

Worst case I guess you could use paint stripper on it before use?

But I expect rebar-sealer exists for exactly this use...

Rebar sealant would only help if the entire rebar is sealed, not just the exposed bit, since moisture will creep in where the rebar exits the concrete. And even then, moisture inside the concrete wall may well cause other problems in the long term.

Or just use non metallic rebar (basalt)

Not a good idea. Paint on the rebar will severely weaken the concrete adhesion in just a few years.

Construction codes in a number of countries prohibit that.

sea spray? Britain isn't a narrow coastal strip.

when people actually care about protecting the starter bars (exposed rebar to star the next floor), you can cast a very weak concrete (1-2 MPa crushing strength) around them. When construction continues, you just chip out the weak concrete, clean the bars with a wire brush and carry on.

Same in Greece (tax rules) apparently, and there you’ll also see lots and lots of unfinished buildings.

But how people can live in such buildings then?

I understand about poorer countries with lack of regulations, but have not thought that's possible in Europe. Government should not allow anyone to live or operate in such buildings if they're not up to code and are not finished.

How people can get mortgages for such things, or how business can register their offices if building is permanently "under construction"?

It's is common to remodel buildings, you kick out people near the work but on the other side they can still be there. So you need to convince the inspector and bank that the used part is done and the rest can be done later.

Europe is very diverse. From "what are we going to do with all this oil money" Norway to "there are shacks with people in them" Bulgaria.

>"there are shacks with people in them" Bulgaria.

The what now?

I'm guessing he means https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wattle_and_daub or chipboard houses. Super cheap construction (wattle and daub being older houses, usually 100+ year old houses built by very poor people; chipboard being used for sheds and even some rooms, but generally with some extra insulation layers and obviously painted/protected against humidity).

I've only been a tourist in Greece, so definitely not an expert, but....

Take your house. Now add some scaffolding for a new floor on top of it. Does it alter the ability or even quality of living in it?

It might also help hide the pool, which is also taxed.

"Up to code" isn't the same as a safe house. That's just such an american way of looking at issues. All that does is make the legal liability clear. It doesn't make anything safer or nicer.

It's like arguing that a 'stop sign' makes an intersection safer. It doesn't. Real proper pedestrian and cycling infrastructure does. Traffic calming. A stop sign just tells you who gets bankrupted when another person is killed yet again.

Your asking the question 'if it's unclear who can be sued how can people be safe' but these things are completely unrelated. As any statistic would tell you.

> That's just such an american way of looking at issues.

You could not be any more wrong and your rant at then end was irrelevant on what I've asked.

Having worked construction in the US, "up to code" does at minimum mean a safe structure. While different municipalities may have extended code to allow for unnecessary regulations- much of the actual core safety stuff is much more strict than what you may see in many developing countries.

People often don't get mortgages for such things, they're frequently working illegally or working legally for minimum wage and being paid cash the rest. Businesses can definitely do the same. If anything, these buildings are frequently built up slowly over years or decades, on paper being built by friends and family, so there's no need for a pesky bank loan to build the thing, just finance it from savings.

And regarding lack of regulations, I can assure you that about 50% of Europe isn't too keen on regulation, either.

Plus, few people are that stupid. This isn't actually dangerous. They generally leave some "decorative" rebar sticking out somewhere over 2m or so in the air, or on the actual roof of the building. Nobody can really get hurt, not more than you'd bump into the chimney :-)

If the regulatory compliance situation is such that people aren't finishing structures in order to game it I would be very, very surprised if adding more government to prevent people from using technically unfinished structures fixes it.

In India, due to lack of space, many urban homes are more than one level and leaving the rebar open or partly covered helps to extend the home to another level when financially possible is the explanation I have often seen and heard.

Barbados as well, and a local said it was a mix of tax rules on buildings with roofs and a contract enforcement issue where it's an island community, so local builders have been known to demand a fee from foreigners to "finish" the property.

Seems around the world corruption has an architectural style. Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_tax

Don't know if it's true, but I was told the same when in Egypt.

But this one is defnitely true and the reason why you see so many bricked windows in London: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_tax

I was told by a Bajan that something similar holds in Barbados, viz., the reason you see so many unpainted houses in Barbados is because it classifies them as unfinished for tax purposes. However, I read somewhere that the tax deduction is actually quite small, so take that for what it’s worth.

It's very common in Morocco also. Rebar sticking out of the roof of many regional buildings.

Same situation in the Philippines

Saw lots of this in southern Italy / Calabria

Likewise in Larnaca, Cyprus when when I was there 16 months ago.

Pardon my ignorance, but wouldn't leaving rebar exposed like that lead to corrosion and a weaker structure? Seems like leaving rebar out in the open - literally the top of the building with no shielding - make the foundation for the new floors dangerous?

Why does the integrity of the future floors worry you when the intent was never to add future floors? The intent was simply to make it appear as there was a plan of future floors.

Some commenters mentioned these building owners really do add extra floors in the future. But also, I assume the corrosion would travel down the rebar as well?

Same in Peru, really unfortunate outcome

It is a tradition everywhere in the Middle East. Same here in Cyprus.

Same in parts of Italy - its a very common tax dodge

Reply on news.ycombinator.com