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?

#261

Post by cesarb » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 3:51 PM UTC

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).

> Just think of how much smaller cars could be if we removed seatbelts and airbags!

I remember when cars had no airbags, and only lap belts on the front seats. Adding seatbelts and airbags didn't change the car size. The only difference I noticed in general was the loss or shrinking of the glove compartment (for the right airbag), and (for the left airbag) the horn button moving from the center of the steering wheel to somewhere else (usually one of the stalks).

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

#262

Post by petee » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 3:55 PM UTC

pas wrote: post #203

petee wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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

> research why is questioning a regulation that already lacks evidence for its efficacy requires research? it's plenty of research to point at the other parts of the world that is not in flames despite higher urban density and only one egress per unit.

The journalist was lazy. The only 'statistics' offered is a graphic from the lobby against 2nd exits...that website's home page says:

"This website is a tool to make sense of the wicked problem of the second egress in Canada and prepare a building code change."

It is super biased, and the bigger issue is that it is impossible record what-if situations like how many minor US fires could have been major tragedies if they had a single stair instead of two, and firefighters could tackle a fire from two sides.

Just looking at one of their sources even states that rapid smoke/fire in stairways and vertical opens is a significant portion blocked-escape deaths

-- https://cjr.ufv.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Murdoch-Univer...

Another for canada clearly says a majority of deaths are "trapped-by" -- http://nfidcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Fire-statist...

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

#263

Post by kube-system » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 3:57 PM UTC

baybal2 wrote: post #259

kube-system wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No amount of safety system will save you in a 60mph crash.

1. People survive crashes at highway speeds in the US literally every day, at 60mph and above.

2. 60mph is a speed not a force imparted on a vehicle. The way with which a vehicle’s momentum at 60mph is dissipated makes a critical difference to the crash energy imparted on the occupants. Road design has greatly improved this in recent decades.

3. Active crash prevention/mitigation systems can prevent 60mph accidents from happening or improve their outcomes.

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

#264

Post by KptMarchewa » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 4:05 PM UTC

Syonyk wrote: post #121

lazyasciiart wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”.

When the topic is "Why doesn't the US do stairwells like other countries?" and the answer is almost entirely "Fire codes prohibit it for the following list of mass-casualty fire deaths due to stairwell behaviors in fire," the rest of those things seem rather off topic.

Yet they seem hell bent on making houses from a cardboard and other extremely flammable materials.

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

#265

Post by dpark » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 4:10 PM UTC

sofixa wrote: post #201

dpark wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there’s more danger in hundreds of people fleeing in panic down stairs (whether that’s 1 stair case or 2) than staying inside. Is there? I’ve never seen people panic when a fire alarm goes off. Maybe if the fire alarm is going off as the building is filling with deadly smoke people would panic. But then that seems appropriate (or at least better than sitting and waiting to die of smoke inhalation). Pretty sure the…

The problem isn't only a potential panic. While the people are evacuating, how does the fire brigade get to where they need to combat the fire in the apartment?

This is sort of a comical response. The building is engulfed in flames and plan is to keep the stairwells clear.

If the concrete and fire doors are doing their supposed job, then the fire brigade can just wait. If the concrete and fire doors are not doing their job, then getting people out is far more important than getting the fire brigade in.

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

#266

Post by campl3r » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 4:14 PM UTC

rcthompson wrote: post #126

I live in an apartment with 2 staircases, an elevator, and a fire escape. Several months ago, there was a fire in a first floor apartment that blocked me from using ALL of them, via either unbreathable smoke or flames. I ended up just hiding in my room until the fire department dealt with it. I'm not sure whether this argues for more staircases or fewer. (In hindsight I did have other options, but this was my first f…

At least here in Germany that's the default. Fire and smoke will absolutely not spread between (fire-)units. Staying put is absolutely fine, obviously if you can get out that's encouraged but with a single set of stairs staying put isn't a death sentence at all.

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

#267

Post by baybal2 » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 4:36 PM UTC

kube-system wrote: post #263

baybal2 wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No amount of safety system will save you in a 60mph crash.

1. People survive crashes at highway speeds in the US literally every day, at 60mph and above. 2. 60mph is a speed not a force imparted on a vehicle. The way with which a vehicle’s momentum at 60mph is dissipated makes a critical difference to the crash energy imparted on the occupants. Road design has greatly improved this in recent decades. 3. Active crash prevention/mitigation systems can prevent 60mph accidents f…

> Active crash prevention/mitigation systems can prevent 60mph accidents from happening or improve their outcomes.

Yes, but that doesn't count as surviving the crash

> 60mph is a speed not a force imparted on a vehicle.

The force imparted on you in a 60mph crash by the seatbelt will be lethal no matter how much deceleration space you have. You got at 27 meters per second, and you only have at a maximum 1 meter to decelerate. And if you crash into a heavier, faster vehicle, it's even worse.

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

#268

Post by epistasis » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 5:10 PM UTC

brian-armstrong wrote: post #114

epistasis wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The price differential reflects the high cost of devoting space to parking, not of the demand for it.

A parking space require not only the square footage for the car, but also the lane to get to the parking space. A constructed parking space is equivalent to 1-2 bedrooms worth of living space, which is a huge difference in real estate prices.

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

#269

Post by jessaustin » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 5:21 PM UTC

sbierwagen wrote: post #152

Syonyk wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Shelter in place as deadly Similarly, the standard instruction for earthquakes is "stop drop and hold", since the advice has to be fully general, covering all people in all circumstances, including highrises where evacuation is not possible. But I live in the ground floor of a not particularly well-built four story apartment building; my desk is eight feet away from an outside door. If there's an earthquake, I'm lea…

The first time an earthquake woke me up, I was out of bed, down 14 flights, and out in the street within a couple of minutes. The stairs were open-air so maybe the building didn't qualify as "high-rise". I don't think I erred, although maybe my neighbors who took a half hour to reach the street did? I guess they were looking for shoes... ISTM "the standard instruction" would be useful in a very narrow set of circumstances. Obviously it would be useless if the building completely collapses killing everyone, whether immediately or after half an hour. It wouldn't be any better than any other procedure if the building remains intact. The only circumstance in which it would save lives would be when the building immediately collapses enough to kill people in stairwells but not in apartments, and safety crews can be counted on to extract people from the wreckage. That seems pretty minor compared to the obvious advantages of immediate evacuation.

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

#270

Post by maximus-decimus » Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 5:24 PM UTC

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #243

maximus-decimus wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

right, but my point is that driving 16kms to work is not any more dangerous than biking 1km to work. Based on the states, driving 160kms per day is not more deadly than biking 10kms, so living 80kms from work and driving is the same level of danger as living 5kms form work and biking. and that only accounting for deaths, I have to imagine getting in a non-deadly bike accident is more damaging than a non-deadly car accident, although I don't have data to support or deny that theory.