Could housing be cheaper and better if we stop building so many staircases? • Hacker News Board

Re: Could housing be cheaper and better if we stop building so many staircases?

#31

Post by roywiggins » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 1:19 AM UTC

syshum wrote: post #15

rococode wrote: post #7

Here's something that happened one week ago, a perfect (and sad) example of what happens when you only have one set of stairs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Osaka_building_fire > The victims gasped for air and had difficulties escaping, as there was only one escape route, with the emergency stairs and elevators being located outside the clinic. > Experts were surprised by the fire's high death toll. The authorit…

Yea, every fire code I know how requires a minimum of 2 escape route for occupancy

You can satisfy that with a fire escape in a lot of cases, I would have thought?

Re: Could housing be cheaper and better if we stop building so many staircases?

#32

Post by als0 » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 1:20 AM UTC

brian-armstrong wrote: post #9

Apreche wrote: post #6

If you want to save space maybe eliminate the parking lot/garage before you eliminate the extra staircase.

Wouldn't that make parking pretty annoying? Anecdotally, at least in SF, lack of parking options set a home's value back pretty far.

Parking annoyance versus saving lives….I’d know what I’d pick…

Re: Could housing be cheaper and better if we stop building so many staircases?

#33

Post by petee » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 1:26 AM UTC

istinetz wrote: post #25

rococode wrote: post #7

Here's something that happened one week ago, a perfect (and sad) example of what happens when you only have one set of stairs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Osaka_building_fire > The victims gasped for air and had difficulties escaping, as there was only one escape route, with the emergency stairs and elevators being located outside the clinic. > Experts were surprised by the fire's high death toll. The authorit…

Everyone in the comments is raising the (valid) fire safety argument; however, I'd like to point out that this is a non-obvious trade-off. How many house fires are there? How many of them are in tall buildings? How many of them would block just one stair, and not two? Yes, there is a probability that an extra stair will save your life; however, this is a very tiny probability, against a certainty of extra living spac…

The problem is that you can't track how many disasters were prevented by having two means of egress, so I cant imagine there are real statistics on that

I hate the space argument because its a money argument, not a real quality of life issue - make the building 1 floor taller, or don't cram your residents just because you wanted to milk 4 apts instead of 3 on a floor.

Re: Could housing be cheaper and better if we stop building so many staircases?

#34

Post by ruined » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 1:28 AM UTC

handmodel wrote: post #28

The Slate article doesn't directly state this but does mention that many of the safety rules have been in place for decades - some since the 1940s. Presumably - construction materials + fire fighting methods have improved dramatically in that time so buildings are much safer now. I dont think its unreasonable to want very safe buildings but clear that by the rules staying the same means they are using a different ris…

i wouldn't really expect that to be the case. we've got a lot more plastic furnishing/building materials now and perhaps there's tradeoffs but it's still basically just condensed oil. think of your couch as candyfloss gasoline.

most residential structures are wood frame, even apartment buildings are often just a few wooden-frame stories on top of a single-story concrete podium.

internal firewalls are probably the most significant improvement. you still don't want to be trapped on the wrong side of one with no way down.

Re: Could housing be cheaper and better if we stop building so many staircases?

#35

Post by somewhereoutth » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 1:29 AM UTC

will4274 wrote: post #11

From the article: > there’s no evidence that Americans and Canadians are any safer from structure fires than our neighbors around the world Scott Alexander's recent article made me sensitive to the phrase "no evidence". https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-phrase-no-evidence... . Alexander writes: > Science communicators are using the same term - “no evidence” - to mean: > 1. This thing is super plausible, and h…

I use that phrase when attempting to shed some light on a topic - but I use it in the strictest sense, to assert that there is no evidence to support whatever hypothesis is being presented by the prior argument.

Burden of proof is a key idea I think - though sometimes it can be hard to ascertain where that should lie.

Re: Could housing be cheaper and better if we stop building so many staircases?

#36

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 1:30 AM UTC

[deleted]

Re: Could housing be cheaper and better if we stop building so many staircases?

#37

Post by petee » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 1:31 AM UTC

ruined wrote: post #29

brian-armstrong wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this basically subsidizing a slightly higher survival rate for a relatively few number of fires with a significant loss of space for everyone?

yeah. it is. but only in the same way that the prohibition of tetraethyl lead merely subsidized a slightly smaller amount of brain damage for relatively few children at the significant cost of the cheapest anti-knock agent known to mankind seriously, who is pushing this weird anti-fire-code agenda and why is it in slate

"Architects and developers", the people with a financial stake in recovering floor space, and sounds like they formed a lobby.

Why its in slate is confusing, especially since the article definitely has a pro stance, with little research to back it up

Re: Could housing be cheaper and better if we stop building so many staircases?

#38

Post by Syonyk » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 1:34 AM UTC

Falkon1313 wrote: post #20

Abroszka wrote: post #8

Is it because of the building materials used? I think wood is super common in the US and wood burns easily. If one flat catches fire, all of them do.

It's primarily because you can't easily foresee at the time you design the building where any/all future fires will occur. If the stairway's the only way out and that's where a fire happens, then the whole thing is a deathtrap.

It's not just "fire in the stairway" that's a problem.

A number of high-fatality fires in structures over the years have involved a fire in one part of the building using an open stairway as a chimney to both fan the flames and to spread between levels. That's part of why the US stairways generally have fire doors that will "fail closed" at any fire alarm - by having the doors all closed, and (often) a ventilation system that overpressures stairwells somewhat, you have a clear space to evacuate, and, at worst, doesn't actively help the fire.

The alternative is that as a fire progresses on a lower level, the hot gasses find an open stairwell and head up, quite rapidly. The air coming in to replace this is effectively a forced draft for the fresh fire, and the hot gasses going up rapidly end up hot enough to start igniting things on other levels, in addition to making the stairwell totally unusable for evacuation. If you're unlucky, a well placed stairwell with a skylight that rapidly breaks from heat can turn a first floor fire into, quite literally, a very effective furnace with exceedingly poor containment.

This effect, unfortunately, has been demonstrated at great loss of life in various school fires and such over the years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collinwood_school_fire is one such, but there have been quite a few others over the years as well.

As much as it may be architecturally unpopular, the stairwell requirements in US buildings are one of those "written in blood" regulations that have very good historical evidence for why they exist.

Re: Could housing be cheaper and better if we stop building so many staircases?

#39

Post by jcims » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 1:38 AM UTC

I live in a three bedroom ranch-style home and designed the floorplan myself. Every room save for my bathroom and my office has two egress routes and they all have windows.

I’m sure a statistical analysis could be constructed to justify the decision to eliminate two stairwells. I wouldn’t be interested in living there.

Re: Could housing be cheaper and better if we stop building so many staircases?

#40

Post by xyzzyz » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 1:41 AM UTC

petee wrote: post #27

brian-armstrong wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this basically subsidizing a slightly higher survival rate for a relatively few number of fires with a significant loss of space for everyone?

Im not sure if I am reading your comment right, but if you're offering a choice of less space or higher survival... I mean, think of all the wasted space and weight having 8 exit doors on a airplane; they don't crash often

Most residential detached multi story houses only have one staircase. If government forced me to give up one bedroom and build an extra staircase, so that I have a slightly higher chance of survival of a very unlikely event, I’d be fucking pissed.