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

Post by ineedasername » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 2:50 PM UTC

lcpriest wrote: post #176

ineedasername wrote: post #166

The whole time I was reading this I couldn't stop thinking, "Sure, we can get more usable space if we ignore modern fire safety precautions." And also "pushing apartment capacity a few % points isn't really going to move the needle much on the housing crisis in many areas."

I don’t think the goal is to increase the apartment capacity of existing multi-stair buildings. Allowing single stair buildings facilitates multi family dwellings to be built on much smaller lots - even those that currently contain single family homes. Changing that regulation is the basis for why cities like Paris can’t maintain New York level postulation density without many buildings greater than 6 floors.

Post by mrfusion » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 2:57 PM UTC

landemva wrote: post #127

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of regulations are designed to make new construction as expensive as possible and limit usable floor space as much as possible. No one should be surprised that fire safety laws are going to the extreme for safety at a large cost to floor space.

Municipalities in USA are adopting code for residential new construction to require sprinklers. Big cost that most people won't do anything to stop it because it is only for really big houses (for now). In fifteen years people will wonder why new housing is so expensive and every size house has sprinklers which the homeowner must hire someone to maintain. And pay for sprinkler inspection report prior to resale. On a…

Post by Sharlin » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 3:22 PM UTC

syshum wrote: post #249

Sharlin wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Post by petee » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 3:35 PM UTC

voisin wrote: post #63

petee wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> just because you wanted to milk 4 apts instead of 3 on a floor. You realize that this would mean the three residents would have to pay more for their unit, right? It isn’t just developers “milking” condo buyers or tenants. It has to do with efficiency.

Post by baybal2 » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 3:43 PM UTC

kube-system wrote: post #224

baybal2 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I still find it surreal that people in world's richest country live in wooden houses. People still die in scary numbers there no matter the regulations. Cars can't be made safer anymore. 60Mphs frontal collisions have single digit percentage survivability chance because physics. Homes can be made much safer by building them differently.

Wood tends to get a lot of criticism on the internet as a building material, but it has advantages as well. Cars can absolutely be made safer. They certainly haven’t stopped getting safer yet.