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

171–180 of 562 posts

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#171

Post by baq »

nineplay wrote: post #117
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.

I'm often surprised when posters identify themselves as "European" which encompasses such a broad range of cultures, biotypes, and ecosystems that it makes any comparison of the US way vs the European way virtually impossible. That said, when looking at the reasons for fire safety in the U.S., there are many factors to consider which may or may not apply in parts of Europe -- Frequency of wildfires. They are not unco…

The point was that Europe has all of these but no double staircases.

Don’t want to comment on missing emergency services in densely built areas but hope it isn’t the case it’s so bad you need an extra flight of stairs.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#172

Post by cycomanic »

crazygringo wrote: post #136
chris-orgmenta wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Actually the legislation is fine, much better than before. It's the enforcement that's lacking.

I'd say >90% of cookie banners break the law. It's just that enforcement is only slowly catching up. We have already seen a couple of cases and I expect that as soon as there have been more rulings banners will start to dissappear or become much simpler.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#173

Post by throwbadubadu »

quickthrowman wrote: post #107
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.

That was due to missing stairs? And there is a difference between skyscrapers and 3-6 story multi-apartment buildings where in the worst case you can even exit fine with fire truck ladders or assisted jumps, but the article says even required for those, which would really feel ridiculous for those kind of buildings here. No need to be salty, we find each other alien on many levels :D

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#174

Post by cycomanic »

rsync wrote: post #96

I knew this was coming. Affordability problems in desirable locales already caused progressives to jettison anti-sprawl initiatives and environmental reviews. It was only a matter of time before our gaze shifted to building codes and life safety provisions as cost-adds that "we" should all work against. It does not gratify me in any way to have foreseen this.

> I knew this was coming.

> Affordability problems in desirable locales already caused progressives to jettison anti-sprawl initiatives and environmental reviews.

> It was only a matter of time before our gaze shifted to building codes and life safety provisions as cost-adds that "we" should all work against.

So if your safety provisions yield worse outcomes than other places is it not time to review those regulations? Do you actually care about safety or just about your confirmation bias that "progressives are doing something bad"?

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#175

Post by crazygringo »

cycomanic wrote: post #172
crazygringo wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Actually the legislation is fine, much better than before. It's the enforcement that's lacking. I'd say >90% of cookie banners break the law. It's just that enforcement is only slowly catching up. We have already seen a couple of cases and I expect that as soon as there have been more rulings banners will start to dissappear or become much simpler.

What basis do you have for saying they would disappear?

I've never heard anyone suggest that.

(And them becoming "simpler" is irrelevant. As far as unwanted interruptions go, a popup is a popup.)

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#176

Post by baq »

ajuc wrote: post #35
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…

It's fucked up that you have problem with society and you think the way to solve it is building code.

Who would’ve thought that the way you house citizens has an impact on their interactions.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#177

Post by alwa »

nineplay wrote: post #117
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.

I'm often surprised when posters identify themselves as "European" which encompasses such a broad range of cultures, biotypes, and ecosystems that it makes any comparison of the US way vs the European way virtually impossible. That said, when looking at the reasons for fire safety in the U.S., there are many factors to consider which may or may not apply in parts of Europe -- Frequency of wildfires. They are not unco…

Of course, as you allude, the US is a large and diverse country too, where those features may or may not apply in a given locality.

I suspect, though, that on both continents, when we’re talking about these problems with the dual staircase requirement in this context, we’re talking mainly about relatively high-density developments in space-constrained urban settings.

If, as the article claims, we’ve arrived at comparable fire fatality rates under the two policy regimes, it does seem like their prevailing standards neatly capture a tradeoff: it seems like you can add safety either by socializing a fire response infrastructure capable of quicker response, or you can privatize that extra margin of safety by imposing these second staircase costs on individual developments. I’d be curious how the total costs add up, I’m almost inclined to donate to the guy’s nonprofit just to get the answer to that.

I’d be curious how these changes would affect the economics of apartment blocks on huge greenfield suburban tracts, where parking requirements rather than staircase requirements seem to be the limiting factor space-wise. I’m thinking of the kind where space is cheap enough that they do surface lots rather than building parking decks into the structure. It seems like they tack exterior staircases on the edges of the building at not too much extra cost in those situations, but I suppose the floor plan implications must still come to bear.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#178

Post by cycomanic »

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)

> When I look closer, the newer the building the better it tends to do in general.

Which should be in favour of the US, which has much younger housing stock. So likely the statistics are even worse (from a US standpoint) if we consider building age.

>And as the article itself points out, Europe doesn't use nearly as much wood which changes things

Actually many new large buildings in Germany, Scandinavia... are build using timber constructions.

>(not always for the good - Europe tends to have terrible insulation and their construction materials are not helping - though newer buildings do well here)

You are joking right? When was the last time you have been to a northern European building? From my experience they tend to be much better insulated than most US houses (likely also because energy/heating costs tend to be higher). The passive house standards originated in Germany.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#179

Post by Steltek »

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)

A little trolling going on in that Wikipedia page. It captions the Cambridge photo as "Three-decker", where locals would call it a triple-decker. It then captions the Worcester photo as "triple-decker", where locals would call it three-decker.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#180

Post by kilotaras »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #142
kilotaras wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone buys a property: +-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+ | Type | Land Value | Cover Value | Total Value | +-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+ | Parking Lot | 100 | 0 | 100 | | Dump | 100 | -20 | 80 | | Skyscrapper | 100 | 100 | 200 | +-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+ Land increases in price and buyer sells it: +-------------+------------+----------…

When money is growing on trees, pick it . If you have an undeveloped piece of land worth X, and it becomes worth Y if you put a skyscraper on it, then you do it as long as the cost of construction is less than Y-X. Sure, you can make money by doing nothing, if the price of land is going up. But you can make that money plus the money you make by building the skyscraper by, you know, building the skyscraper. If you're…

> Developers develop because they make money doing it

Not all property is owned by developers. I would go even further and say that most properties are owned by non-developers.

Some people use land as store of value. We as a society would be better off if they used, e.g. gold instead.

Post reply on HN