The case for single-stair multifamily • Hacker News Board

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#21

Post by nicole_express » Thu, Jan 18, 2024, 5:54 PM UTC

I'd like to see more discussion of the safety impact; I know the article makes the point that fire deaths per capita are lower in Europe, which lacks the requirement, but it also notes that US housing stock is also much more wooden and therefore at higher risk to begin with. (Wood construction is generally a good thing from a sustainability perspective)

Whenever I see this proposed my brain immediately goes to the Grenfell Tower fire in the UK. I guess that may just be an outlier due to the myriad of other causes, but it gives me pause.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#22

Post by jackson1442 » Thu, Jan 18, 2024, 5:54 PM UTC

hobs wrote: post #16

No mention of the ADA in the entire article - I guess people with mobility issues should go fly a kite.

you can have single-stair with elevators.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#23

Post by kevsim » Thu, Jan 18, 2024, 5:55 PM UTC

manuelmoreale wrote: post #9

hk__2 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain this for the non-US audience?

I suspect they're referring to this type of buildings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-decker_(house)

Yep, that's what tons of houses outside of the immediate city center of Boston look like.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#24

Post by erikaww » Thu, Jan 18, 2024, 5:55 PM UTC

ponector wrote: post #15

I have a great idea how to solve housing shortage in US: ban single family houses inside and near the city borders. Make 25-mile zone where new construction could be multi family only.

A more realistic solution is just to remove restrictions that discourage MFH in the first place (zoning height limits parking requirements lot size requirements height requirements regressive fees/taxes)

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#25

Post by ok_dad » Thu, Jan 18, 2024, 5:55 PM UTC

bequanna wrote: post #13

alexb_ wrote: post #3

Land Value Tax being the main method of taxation would encourage municipalities to adopt things like this.

I have yet to understand why people have made land value tax a thing. As I understand it, land value and improvements are already taxed but a land value tax would only tax land value. Can someone make this make sense? Why would this promote development?

The classic example is the lot that sits empty or has a parking structure on it in Manhattan. Today, you pay very little tax on the empty land or parking lot because you’re taxed on that total value of the land and improvements. This discourages building stuff sometimes. With land value tax, you’d be taxed on what someone would pay you for that land with improvements similar to surrounding, so it’s advantageous to build something there instead of nothing, since you’re paying the same tax as the sky scraper next door.

In other words, the taxable value of the land is what it would be if it had similar improvements to surrounding lands, rather than taxing it based on actual improvements.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#26

Post by explaininjs » Thu, Jan 18, 2024, 5:55 PM UTC

hobs wrote: post #16

No mention of the ADA in the entire article - I guess people with mobility issues should go fly a kite.

Living in boston with a broken leg certainly made me very proficient in the {carry crutches while hobbling up and down countless staircases using only the railing to lift my entire body up and down with one arm} waddle.

Anyone with anything more debilitating should steer clear.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#27

Post by fnimick » Thu, Jan 18, 2024, 5:56 PM UTC

ponector wrote: post #15

I have a great idea how to solve housing shortage in US: ban single family houses inside and near the city borders. Make 25-mile zone where new construction could be multi family only.

You don't even have to go that far, just ban single-family-only zoning. The economic pressure to add more units will take care of the rest.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#28

Post by piombisallow » Thu, Jan 18, 2024, 5:56 PM UTC

exabrial wrote: post #20

No. It’s not only fire that’s a hazard, but a personal safety thing. Most men here probably never experienced being stalked, or having to turn around when your path is through a group of shady characters. In the Midwest, brick/concrete fire stairwells have another benefit: tornado shelters. While a sufficient tornado would decimate any wooden structure, these stairwells provide essential protection from the main haza…

Safetyism will be the death of civilization.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#29

Post by renewiltord » Thu, Jan 18, 2024, 5:57 PM UTC

hobs wrote: post #16

No mention of the ADA in the entire article - I guess people with mobility issues should go fly a kite.

I imagine if one staircase doesn't do the trick, it's unlikely that the second on the other side of the building helps very much.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#30

Post by lokar » Thu, Jan 18, 2024, 5:57 PM UTC

nicole_express wrote: post #21

I'd like to see more discussion of the safety impact; I know the article makes the point that fire deaths per capita are lower in Europe, which lacks the requirement, but it also notes that US housing stock is also much more wooden and therefore at higher risk to begin with. (Wood construction is generally a good thing from a sustainability perspective) Whenever I see this proposed my brain immediately goes to the Gr…

A few cities (with wood framed construction) in NA have allowed this for decades with no apparent issues