Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The case for single-stair multifamily

thesisdriven.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 562 posts

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#101

Post by alexb_ »

pomian wrote: post #46
alexb_ wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue with regard to single stair buildings are for things taller than 3 stories. IIRC in America 3 stories is the most common limit by far, and in Canada it's even worse with most regulations having 2 stories as the limit for a single stair complex.

We need two exits in Canada. Because a snow drift can easily block one exit. That's why there are exits on each side of a structure, not two, on the same side.

Two exits do not require two stairwells - in any case, this is a very weak argument for denying people the ability to buy housing. Especially in Canada, where there is an absurdly large housing crisis due to an extremely small supply.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#102

Post by quickthrowman »

SkeuomorphicBee wrote: post #97

Looking from the outside I would guess this is one of the big reasons for the "missing middle" [1] (lack of medium-density housing) in most North American cities. It is simply not economically feasible to build a small to medium size multi-unit building if you need to include two stairwells, so all buildings are either single family houses or huge mega projects. In my country the simple and cheap four-story walk-up c…

The reason five over ones are popular in the US has nothing to do with staircase requirements. The reason is money, like always.

You can stick build residential buildings up to five stories and it’s way, way cheaper than reinforced concrete and steel. They are mega complexes because the financial stakeholders want to maximize the available land and rents.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#103

Post by munchler »

deadbabe wrote: post #70
munchler wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard disagree. With WFH, cities now have beautiful but empty office buildings near public transportation. Those should be turned into housing first.

Why? They could be used as really cheap offices eventually as demand falls.

With WFH, you’ll have unused offices no matter how cheap the rent. There are simply more offices than workers to occupy them. At some point it becomes immoral not to let people live there instead.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#104

Post by RandomLensman »

ok_dad wrote: post #77
RandomLensman wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if the most valuable use is luxury apartments and stores that would be what everything needs to converge to? Feels like a tax always looking towards the most valuable use could actually be very regressive and push anything but the richest out of economically attractive cities. Maybe I am missing something?

I mean, it might be that there’s an empty lot outside your own home that could use some houses built on it but no one does because it’s easier to pay a pittance for taxes and leave it sit until it’s worth more. There are many cases where land could be put to better use but it’s not. A few people might get priced out of an area, but they’ll be able to sell their land and buy something elsewhere easily. The downside is…

Maybe. I'd like to see something like that run as a simulation over a city to see effects for varying high value uses.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#105

Post by from-nibly »

quickthrowman wrote: post #86
from-nibly wrote: post #79

We just need to make builders more liable for issues caused by their own building. Building codes are just a way to say, you won't get in trouble for bad things that happen, in return you have to follow these rules every time you build a house. Instead if we just say, if you build a house that kills someone, you are now a murderer, then yeah I think the markets can figure out how to not get people killed. But that's…

The builder doesn’t design a building, they’re given a set of engineered plans and told to build it. If it meets code and passes inspection, why are design problems the builder’s fault? That’s a rhetorical question, by the way.

I guess I should clarify often in the US the "builder" and "designer" are the same entity. By "builder" I mean the people responsible for designing unsafe designs, and the people responsible for poorly executing good designs.

Find root cause, and make that entity liable

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#107

Post by quickthrowman »

baq wrote: post #17

European here. I can't even put to words my embafflement upon having learnt that you US folks need two staircases.

American here.

I can't even put to words my embafflement upon learning that 72 people died in the Grenfell Tower fire in Europe in 2017.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#108

Post by rconti »

baq wrote: post #17

European here. I can't even put to words my embafflement upon having learnt that you US folks need two staircases.

Yes, our insanely burdensome health and safety regulations in the US often baffle the devil-may-care freewheeling folks over in Europe.

/s

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#109

Post by mandibles »

cal5k wrote: post #39
baq wrote: post #17

European here. I can't even put to words my embafflement upon having learnt that you US folks need two staircases.

How do you think we feel about cookie notices?

The year is 3157. Each time you access a new resource on the shared data substrate, you are required to accept something called a "Cookie." You have no idea what they are or why. Your crewmates say it has something to do with the homeworld, but you just shrug and prepare for the hyperspace jump.
Post reply on HN