Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 309 posts

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

#111

Post by mlyle »

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

> I mean, think of all the wasted space and weight having 8 exit doors on a airplane; they don't crash often

And if we had all doors except one passenger seat, it might be even safer.

We neither optimize for absolute highest survival rate nor for absolute highest convenience/efficiency.

The question is-- how much does the second staircase improve survival? Is it the most economic way to get that survival difference?

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

#112

Post by unethical_ban »

Architects (and society) should periodically question the layers of safety codes that define our art, architecture and design. It didn't occur to me that staircases in these large apartments are /required/ to be shut off from the hallways, and have a permanent feel of "fire escape". They are not a part of the building, they are acoustically unpleasant, and all-around a bore.

Imagine an apartment building with curved, open staircases leading to each floor! Perhaps "Apartment Simulator 2022" will come out soon.

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

#113

Post by [deleted] »

kurthr wrote: post #85

I'm looking at Billionaires Row in Manhattan, and I don't think they have two staircases. At 1400ft tall and 60ft wide, I don't think they have room. Regulations are for little people. And since they're really financial instruments, the buildings are still only half full! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wehsz38P74g

[deleted]

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

#114

Post by brian-armstrong »

epistasis wrote: post #100
brian-armstrong wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Ideally these apartments could be rented to the many many many people that prefer to not have a car of their own. Especially in SF, there's a need for more apartments like that. To solve the parking problem, SF should require a dedicated parking spot be obtained before allowing a person to register a car with a San Francisco address. Alternatively, start charging reasonable rates for street parking, and have hugely i…

> Ideally these apartments could be rented to the many many many people that prefer to not have a car of their own. Especially in SF, there's a need for more apartments like that.

The significant price differential for SF real estate without parking suggests this is about 3 "many" too manys.

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

#115

Post by lazyasciiart »

Syonyk wrote: post #87
afirement wrote: post #52

I live in a London apartment building with a single staircase, which is standard here. The difference in principle seems to relate to “what happens when there’s a fire?”. Here, we don’t need to escape if there’s a fire in the building[1], because regulations demand walls, floors and doors that can withstand many hours of fire, which provides more than enough time for the fire service to attend and extinguish the fire…

In the USA, the Sept 11 WTC collapse was another one of those "Shelter in place as deadly" incidents when "something that couldn't happen" (skyscrapers collapsing from impact/fire/{conspiracy theories go here}) did. They were "designed to withstand an airplane crash" - and, previously, other buildings had [0]. "Stay in a building that's actively on fire, don't worry, people will come and take care of it!" sounds, to…

I’d probably choose unfenced home swimming pools, driving laws, pollution and guns to fix before building fire codes, if we’re looking at “things that seem to be insanity”.

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

#116

Post by aaron695 »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #77
emodendroket wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that they could have done this just as easily. One person can only guard one way.

Yeah but one person who is setting fires could torch a stairwell, effectively blocking it without being there.

People setting these fires are not experts.

Let's say a lot of them are garbage and you only hear about the rare occasions it works. Let's say 10% of the time the fire is good enough to kill.

Two stair wells means only 1% of the time you get a kill.

Lighting two fires is also harder, you need more planning and stuff. So that probably equals out a bit for the better fire lighters.

If it's Mossad doing it then sure it's possibly similar.

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

#117

Post by lazyasciiart »

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.

Owning a car (in order to drive it) is probably a bigger risk than ditching the second staircase.

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

#118

Post by dapids »

emodendroket wrote: post #71
xboxnolifes wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is, since it was deliberate, the person could almost as easily blocked both stairs. It's not comparable to an accidental fire that potentially impress a single staircase

I disagree that they could have done this just as easily. One person can only guard one way.

Seriously? We are talking about fire here. Set it and forget it, doesn't require constant attention ...

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

#119

Post by phendrenad2 »

epistasis wrote: post #105
phendrenad2 wrote: post #75

Just think of how much smaller cars could be if we removed seatbelts and airbags! There's no evidence that people who ride in cars are safer than people who ride in school buses (which have no seatbelts or airbags).

There's a lot of evidence that cars are made far safer with seatbelts and airbags. I don't think there's as much for school buses. The types of crashes, the skill of the drivers, the seats themselves, the size of the passengers versus the size of the seat backs, and the weight of school buses versus cars are quite different.

You mean comparing school buses without something and cars with something isn't fair? Just like comparing buildings in the US with something vs buildings in Europe without something isn't fair?

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

#120

Post by dapids »

bdowling wrote: post #91
petee wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> think of all the wasted space and weight having 8 exit doors on a airplane If we could choose to fly on the same plane with 4 doors that would give us more legroom and get us to our destination in less time, I believe a lot of us would make that choice.

Can you elaborate how having more legroom and less doors makes a aircraft go faster?
Post reply on HN