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

131–140 of 562 posts

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#131

Post by slyall »

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…

Unfortunately people from the US (including those who have never lived in an apartment or thought about fire regulations before) instinctively get really worried about this whole idea and assume people are just going to get killed.

Happens in this thread and whenever it is brought up in social media. The original article talks about statistics, various extra measures to ensure safety and limiting to buildings 6 stores or less.

But US commentators have trouble getting past their initial reaction. They also do the usual US thing of discounting anything from overseas as "not applicable to US conditions".

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#132

Post by crazygringo »

paulddraper wrote: post #114
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…

Fire escapes are still a thing, right??

Fire escapes haven't been a thing in a long, long time. Not in new construction.

Older buildings only.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#133

Post by ajuc »

bluGill wrote: post #61
masklinn wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the article argues, at length, the "most of the USA" with this requirement does worse than NYC which does not have it, and significantly worse than Europe which does not have it but even more.

When I look closer, the newer the building the better it tends to do in general. And as the article itself points out, Europe doesn't use nearly as much wood which changes things (not always for the good - Europe tends to have terrible insulation and their construction materials are not helping - though newer buildings do well here)

European houses in climates where it matters have better insulation that American houses.

You can check it's true by looking at the energy use per capita.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#134

Post by Tiktaalik »

quickthrowman wrote: post #102
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.

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

Yes it is money. More staircases remarkably increase the costs of buildings. Single stairway, cheaper buildings, more profitable to do other sorts of buildings, more variety of buildings etc.

(see also no parking mandates)

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#135

Post by toast0 »

ok_dad wrote: post #68
toast0 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I don’t know why they name stuff what they do, but it’s dumb to simply read the name of something and then make assumptions based on no further information about that thing. Maybe you should have read the Wikipedia about it before assuming stuff?

Well, that doesn't really help, because Wikipedia says

> A land value tax (LVT) is a levy on the value of land without regard to buildings, personal property and other improvements upon it.

In my mind, the value of the land without regard to buildings, etc, is what you would pay for an empty lot. But you said the value is what you would pay for the lot with improvements. Theoretically, real estate property taxes I've paid have been divided into the land value and the improvements value (although it's mostly conjecture; the total value is all that matters and that generally approximates market value of the lot with the improvements, at least in CA and WA, where I've paid property taxes; although CA has Prop 13 that distorts assessments over time). Washington even states the land portion is assessed based on the best use, not the current use, unless it's in some special categories like farm, forestry, and open space.

Now I'm even more confused. Which speaks to the GP's confusion.

> I have yet to understand why people have made land value tax a thing.

If the whole concept is so confusing, starting with the name, it's no wonder advocacy isn't effective.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#136

Post by crazygringo »

chris-orgmenta wrote: post #91
cal5k wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you think we feel about cookie notices?

That ain't us.... kind of. That's the websites deciding to follow the letter of the law (or a spiteful, capitalist interpretation, taking it right to the line) instead of the spirit of the law. OK, unintended consequences of legislation. But those cookie banners are not mandated, exactly. They don't need to be there. It's the companies deciding to do it that way, so they can keep gobbling data. It's like if the build…

No, that's entirely Europe. The outcome of the legislation was easy for anyone to see. As you say, it was blinkered and short-sighted. And I still have to click 20 popups away on mobile every day.

If only a few websites had the banner, then maybe I'd blame those websites. But when they virtually all do, I blame the law.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#137

Post by InCityDreams »

logifail wrote: post #71

Mostly OT, but related to emergency staircases. We visited Glasgow (Scotland) last summer and the hotel fire alarm went off the middle of the night (for whatever reason we seem to attract fire alarms while on family holidays) After getting the kids dressed(ish) we exited the rooms, totally missing that there was one emergency staircase immediately opposite. There was a sign at ceiling height, at 90 degrees to us, whi…

>(for whatever reason we seem to attract fire alarms while on family holidays)

Took a while to learn to "check your exit routes", then? Or, ignoring any snark, you've learned a lot since "Glasgow (Scotland) last [S]ummer"?

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#138

Post by crazygringo »

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.

Why would you choose to write something here with a snarky attitude like that?

There's a reasoned discussion to be had around fire safety regulations, but when you instantly make it about cultures and don't even try to understand, you're not being part of the solution -- you're part of the problem.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#139

Post by mjmahone17 »

Retric wrote: post #115
r00fus wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a strong correlation between construction costs and housing stock.

Not in locations where there’s a housing shortage. Outside of skyscrapers building housing is cheap, it’s land and permission that’s the issue.

Double loaded corridors fundamentally change the composition of buildings. If you look at example floorplans, single staircase buildings typically feature 2-3 bedroom apartments, because giving every bedroom a window is easier, while double loaded corridors end up mostly with deep studios and 1-beds.

Building new housing in the US is not cheap, and reducing the leasable or buyable square footage by 10% can move projects from being profitable to build to not. Especially when the quality of the remaining square footage goes down (as it does when you have 30’ deep units with only one wall with windows).

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#140

Post by estebank »

ghaff wrote: post #85
sonic45132 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does mention buildings can be a single stair with an elevator. 2 stairwells vs 1 stairwell doesn't need affect ADA compliance.

It does mean disabled residents are sort of screwed if there's a fire alarm and the elevators are shutoff--as a friend told me recently--unless the neighbors can help. But that's sort of ignored given lack of realistic options.

Isn't that the same situation whether there's a single staircase, staircase + fire escape or two staircases?
Post reply on HN