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?

#141

Post by bruce511 » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 6:22 AM UTC

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.

Eh? More legroom? Leg room is determined by the airline, not the plane.

If there were fewer doors there would me more seats, and the weight of the seat, passenger, and luggage would far outweigh the weight saving on the door.

And no, you ain't getting more legroom.

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

#142

Post by bobthepanda » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 6:24 AM UTC

coryrc wrote: post #88

cardiffspaceman wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2001 when the Twin Towers came down, people were trying to desert the building. Is there an analysis that shows they would have been just as safe in their offices?

Did the second staircase help?

Actually, yes. (Well, the third one did.)

The South Tower had one remaining stairwell survive impact and 18 people were actually able to evacuate from above the impact zone, which is actually pretty impressive when you consider that the impact was on floors 77-85, and the people who called emergency services were told to stay in place. One of the survivors was actually only 20 feet (6 m) from the left wing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Praimnath

That being said, a lot of fire codes and related legislation had to be updated in the wake of 9/11. Among the many other dumb things:

* the stairwells were all extremely close to each other. In the North Tower they were 70 ft (21 m) apart and in the South Tower they were 200 ft (60 m) apart, which is probably why one stairwell survived in the South Tower and none did in the North.

* stairwells were only surrounded by drywall instead of concrete, which is another contributing factor to why so many of them were rendered inoperable. If you're not familiar with drywall, you can literally punch a hole through it with your arm.

* stairwells were built with a 44 inch width because it was assumed that the average person had a shoulder to shoulder width of 22 inches (55 cm). This slowed down evacuation a lot.

* the fire code was incorrect. the building was only half full but took much longer to partially empty than a full evacuation of the full occupancy tower was projected to take. so codes were revised.

* there were not enough stairwells according to code. but how might this be? well, the owner and constructor, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, is a federally created entity, and so is not actually subject to local fire codes. (This last point wasn't actually addressed; they're still not actually required to follow NYC fire codes, but they did at least do so for the new iteration of the towers.)

* In a previous attack on the WTC, people were evacuated from the roof, but since that incident the roof doors were locked to prevent base jumpers from gaining access.

https://www.history.com/news/world-trade-center-stairwell-de...

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

#143

Post by will4274 » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 6:26 AM UTC

somewhereoutth wrote: post #35

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.

Unless you're speaking to a specialized audience, probably better not to. Language is about being understood, not being right. If you use a phrase that is commonly used incorrectly, and you use it correctly, and your audience misunderstands you - you are communicating badly. Better to simply use phrases that aren't as commonly used incorrectly.

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

#144

Post by lazide » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 6:28 AM UTC

unethical_ban wrote: post #112

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,…

A lot of People have died over the years from that kind of design - which is why it isn’t used any more. It can quickly turn a first floor smoldering fire into a whole building conflagration.

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

#145

Post by jcims » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 6:30 AM UTC

ghotli wrote: post #136

jcims wrote: post #39

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.

Hey what tool did you use to design the floorplan? Pen and paper?

This was 2007 and I did it out of necessity because we couldn’t find a floorplan we liked.

I did most of my thinking on paper and used sketchup to visualize, check measurements, etc. We were dead-set with sticking to a budget and I think it really allowed us to maximize the utility per square foot.

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

#146

Post by dapids » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 6:31 AM UTC

bdowling wrote: post #124

dapids wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

An airplane with four doors instead of eight would weigh less so the plane may fly a little faster. Legroom shouldn't affect the speed.

So will an airplane with 5% less luggage or fuel. Go figure.

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

#147

Post by kube-system » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 6:34 AM UTC

bdowling wrote: post #124

dapids wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

An airplane with four doors instead of eight would weigh less so the plane may fly a little faster. Legroom shouldn't affect the speed.

I don’t think weight affects cruise speeds a whole lot, as I understand.

At least, not enough to make your flight measurably shorter.

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/47369/how-is-th...

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

#148

Post by dapids » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 6:35 AM UTC

lazide wrote: post #139

dapids wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It does in most places - concrete stairwells (typical) don’t exactly love fire. Sheetrock similar.

If an accelerant is used that is continuously burned until exhausted , then I'm not sure it matters where or what materials are present. If there is a fire at an exit that persists and is difficult to extinguish, said arsonist can then move to the next exit, and perform the same action. Thus blocking multiple exits while acting as a single individual. That's my point.

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

#149

Post by kube-system » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 6:50 AM UTC

handmodel wrote: post #78

alphabettsy wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Battery powered smoke detectors as we now know them came out in the 70s.

I guess my larger point is if risk of death by fire gets cut in half because of variables other than extra staircases - then the benefit of adding extra staircases gets cut in half while the cost remains the same (or even increases).

Assuming that they are independent factors. In many instances, a life may be saved by the interaction of two variables. Signaling and egress often contribute in complementary functions.

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

#150

Post by emodendroket » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 6:52 AM UTC

dapids wrote: post #118

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.

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

People might start to notice something amiss while you're setting fire to the first staircase.