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?

#241

Post by pessimizer » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 2:29 PM UTC

sgtnoodle wrote: post #169

kube-system wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The premium that you pay extra for the safety equipment in your car is likely more than 33%. We would have many new cars for 4-digit prices if not for the large number of safety systems required on cars.

Cars are designed to intentionally accelerate you to speeds that easily kill you, though, and carry along a vast amount of stored energy. Buildings are designed to stand still and generally not be flammable. The expected value calculations are seemingly quite a bit different.

> Cars are designed to intentionally accelerate you to speeds that easily kill you

It's not the speed that kills you, it's the impact. Multifloor buildings are designed to help you live and work at a height that can kill you, and to prevent air entering and escaping which can kill you.

If you can assume that the risk of fire or collapse isn't worth mitigating against, why not assume that a car will never hit anything?

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

#242

Post by pipeline_peak » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 2:31 PM UTC

Sharlin wrote: post #234

pipeline_peak wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fatality rates sure, but what about injuries? People getting trampled over, falling downstairs.

Anecdotal, but I've never heard of an apartment building fire where people get trampled trying to escape. This in Europe where many if not most countries do not mandate a second escape route for midrise buildings. It's simply not a problem. You're supposed to shelter in your apartment anyway, which almost always is much safer than the hallway in case of a fire.

“ Overcrowding during emergency evacuation can cause crowd stampede and trampling that will lead to serious injuries or fatalities. ”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09600...

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

#243

Post by LeifCarrotson » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 2:31 PM UTC

maximus-decimus wrote: post #239

yes_really wrote: post #182

For people commenting that it is worth to sacrifice living space for a little bit of security: do you live in the suburbs (in order to have more space) or do you live in a smaller apartment in the city (in order to have a shorter commute)? The risk you avoid by reducing driving is much, much higher than the risk you avoid by having a second staircase in your building. People choose money/comfort over security all the…

Is it really? Based on micromort stats in the U.S., walking and biking places is way way more deadly than driving a car per km. unless you drive everywhere while living downtown (which sounds unlikely), there is gonna be some sweet spot where you need to drive but don't live too far from where you need to go.

Per kilometer, yes.

But people living in the city in apartments within walking distance of their workplace go far fewer kilometers per day.

I spent a couple unfortunate years commuting some 160 km per day (by car). No one walks or bikes that far every day.

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

#244

Post by chongli » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 2:33 PM UTC

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #208

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…

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Osaka_building_fire Good point. But to be fair, you should consider the injuries and deaths caused by elderly falling off stairs - 1M injuries, 12,000 deaths in the US alone. [0] Compared that with 3,700 deaths and 16,600 injuries for ALL fires, not just fires in buildings [1]. My view would be that stairs KILL, and that new buildings should avoid stairs (at least, within a single…

Stairs can be made a lot safer for elderly people. One way is to put in landings every 3-4 stairs and change the direction 90 degrees each time. This way if you fall it’s not very far. You can also have very firm, easy to grasp handrails and thick padded carpet on the stairs and landings to soften them. Finally, for very frail elderly people you can install a chair lift so they can ride up and down instead of climbing the stairs.

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

#245

Post by pessimizer » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 2:33 PM UTC

julianapostate wrote: post #123

lazyasciiart wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation needed.

Government agencies dont allow authoritative sources to remark on their incompetence. See the last 2 years as a citation of that.

You were allowed to remark on it here, you just didn't.

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

#246

Post by fivea » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 2:36 PM UTC

Sharlin wrote: post #228

fivea wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When you have someone deliberately setting fires and blocking the escape routes with a knife, you have bigger problems than just one stairwell. The software world is well versed in the concept of a single point of failure, and the importance of eliminating it and mitigating any chance. And yet here we are downplaying a critical design problem because it was a single point of failure?

As always, you have to balance the risk of a crazy trap-setting knifeman attack with the (opportunity) cost of building additional escape routes.

> As always, you have to balance the risk of a crazy trap-setting knifeman attack with the (opportunity) cost of building additional escape routes.

A "crazy trap-setting knifeman attack" is not the only scenario that results in a blocked exit trapping people inside the building in a life-threatening situation. Think about it for a second. Imagine, for instance, that a fire breaks out for any reason. Is this unthinkable? And how do you factor in emergency response personnel trying to go up the same stairs that are the only way out of people trapped in the building?

We should not forget past lessons for no reason.

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

#247

Post by pessimizer » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 2:38 PM UTC

sofixa wrote: post #200

chrisseaton wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apartment doors, walls and floors can withstand many hours of continuous burn. 24 stories of Grenfell were engulfed in an hour - the fire bypassed the doors, walls and floors, by going up the outside. > The building would never be on fire The entire building was on fire. 72 people died. > The problem with Grenfell was that building regulations had been violated, at which point, all bets about safety are off. Mistak…

> 24 stories of Grenfell were engulfed in an hour - the fire bypassed the doors, walls and floors, by going up the outside Because the exterior was flammable, which isn't the norm and is actually criminal.

It's so not criminal that plenty of hi-rises in the UK still have flammable cladding. If it were criminal, the people who put it on there would be in prison.

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

#248

Post by ineedasername » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 2:44 PM UTC

Sharlin wrote: post #233

ineedasername wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The building solidity may deal with the fire itself, but what about the smoke? How do you keep that from asphyxiating you?

That's exactly why you're not supposed to go to the stairwell. That's where the deathly smoke is. Apartment doors are spec'd to keep fire and smoke out. Plus apartment windows must be openable. Ventilation systems are designed not to circulate air between apartments.

Seems like smart design, though two stairwells still seems useful too? But if the strategy is huddle in place and smoke-sealed doors, maybe not.

But I have A question from your PoV as a resident if London w/ more "on the ground knowledge" outside of normal media reports: What happened with Grenfell tower to go so wrong?

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

#249

Post by syshum » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 2:45 PM UTC

Sharlin wrote: post #229

syshum wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

As the article states, there are lots of Western countries (including mine) that do not require a second stairwell for midrise apartment buildings. It's not a theoretical question. In a properly compartmentalized apartment building, you should not exit your apartment unless it's the one that's on fire.

Well I am never convinced by an argument of "well others do it", that is never a valid justification IMO. The US has always done things different than the EU, and IMO that is a good thing.

As to fire, that is but one of many other safety concerns, I personally will never live in a place that only has 1 escape vector, even if fire concerns were mitigated

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

#250

Post by pessimizer » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 2:46 PM UTC

pas wrote: post #218

8bitsrule wrote: post #125

The first person I ever saw laid out on the ground during a fire had been sleeping in an apartment building which had only one exit, at one end of the building. The fire-escape stairs on the other end was missing, and the door bolted so it would not open. The fire was raging near the only stairway. It was the only access firemen had. The young kid was dead. "Seattle-based architect Michael Eliason" is a complete idio…

Ah. An anecdote and an ad hominem. The perfectly balanced reasoning cocktail known to mankind. The best way to make policy universally. Anyhow, funny story regarding dead people after a fire. He jumped out of a balcony. The fire was in his apartment. The firefighters were already at the door. It turns out the dude was off his meds. (Or never on them.) Because no one gives a shit about mental health. But maybe let's m…

That's not an ad hominem. Calling someone an idiot because of what they say and do is not an ad hominem, it's literally the only reason to call someone an idiot. Calling what somebody said wrong because they are an idiot is an ad hominem.