301–309 of 309 posts
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.
Yeah, but you have to weigh that against the annoyance of slowly choking on black smoke, while the temperature rises and cooks you alive.
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,…
Architecture and design, okay maybe, but art?
> They are not a part of the building
What does this mean?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where in the world are single-family homes typically made of steel or reinforced concrete? Note: not apartments. Houses.
Quite a lot in Russia, China, and Middle East from my personal experience.
Steel and concrete are ugly and cold. Wood is warm. Even brick and stone are more humane.
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.
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,…
> Architects (and society) should periodically question the layers of safety codes that define our art, architecture and design Architecture and design, okay maybe, but art ? > They are not a part of the building What does this mean?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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'…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 th…
This whole fire (and building) safety code problem is that it's driven by superstition instead of data. It mandates certain solutions instead of outcomes. (Eg. the railing spacings to prevent kids from being able to fall through.)
Many developed countries have similar outcomes without the same strictness of code, plus housing is so overregulated in so many ways it's no wonder that many people argue for shifting the set-point in these trade-offs in order to help more people to have housing.
Of course ideally society would address poverty so there trade-off between safety and other aspects would be just academic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? Lock one, go to the other, douse it with something flammable, light it. Anyway. Most of the world does not go up in flames regularly, despite having not having this regulation.
Why mitigate against fire at all? If the standard is that most of the world has to be burning for that to be practical, it'll never be practical.