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

181–190 of 562 posts

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#181

Post by nineplay »

cycomanic wrote: post #169
nineplay wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Many people in Europe do indeed identify as European. This has become more and more prevalent as people increasingly move around in Europe. I'd also argue that you are ignoring the cultural d…

> Many people in Europe do indeed identify as European

I'll admit my surprise. US has a lot of variety, still I'd have expected that residents of Anchorage and Manhattan have more more in common than residents of Iceland and Malta.

> We are talking about multi (>4) story, multi family apartment buildings, how are wildfires relevant?

> Again we are not talking about requirements for some cottage in the woods, these are city buildings. The whole argument is for buildings where you have space constraints.

> Again I don't see the relevance, we are talking about a national building code, but only a tiny fraction of US cities are earthquake zones. The article also asserts that most Asian countries (which presumably includes Japan) have only one stairwell requirements.

I think you are underestimating the population densities of US cities. I live in a major city and wildfires have burned homes a few miles from me. Residential areas are vast and fire departments are few. I'm also not sure how you can say few US cities are in earthquake zones - maybe if you squint at the numbers, but most if not all of the west coast, Alaska, and Hawaii are in earthquake zones. That's a pretty large chunk to hand-wave away.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#183

Post by anthonypasq »

estebank wrote: post #118
quickthrowman wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fire deaths per 100k in 2019: US .82 UK .38 https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fire-death-rates

you understand that 1/3 of the country lights on fire annually?

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#184

Post by Dylan16807 »

quickthrowman wrote: post #95
pjmorris wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, but there's a long tradition that suggests maybe it's necessary... "229 If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death." - Hammurabi's Code, ~1750 BC

This is why an architect and/or engineer(s) supervise a general contractor. A few things have changed in the construction industry over the last 3800 years. I’m not sure why I even bother reading HN threads about construction.

And if you don't supervise well enough, should it be legally fine to give you a defective house?

If yes, that's a horrible idea. If no, then I don't see how "things have changed" in a way that's relevant to the comment you replied to.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#185

Post by anthonypasq »

whartung wrote: post #33
hiAndrewQuinn wrote: post #2

The Boston triple decker should be the standard home of North America and nobody can tell me otherwise.

Many of the new town houses in Orange County/Irvine area are following this plan. They do not appeal to me, as I’m not fond of having to scale several flights of stairs, and the individual floors seem quite small, smaller than my first studio apartment. My first town house was essentially three stories. The garage level, main living level, and a loft. But the main living space was the majority of the square footage s…

boston triple deckers are not sliced vertically

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#186

Post by CydeWeys »

jlhawn wrote: post #74
bobthepanda wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The intention of the double stairwell requirement, is that you are not supposed to have your access point to the stairwell by an obstruction, and there should be a maximum access time to the stairwell. One notable requirement of single-stair buildings where they are legal in the US, is that 1. the height is generally determined by the height of the fire ladders available, providing a second means of egress 2. the sin…

also fire suppression system (sprinklers) and pressurized stairwells are mandated.

And fireproof walls between units. It takes a long time for a fire to penetrate two layers of drywall.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#187

Post by spanktheuser »

I’m curious whether this is really the issue in most US cities. In Chicago we achieve significant density with a two staircase requirement. If the goal is to unlock greater density in Manhattan I accept that single-stair multifamily may be necessary. However, it seems to me that the greater need is to bring more density to urban areas such as Houston, Dallas and Phoenix. All of which seem to have ample opportunity for increasing density in a manner that preserves multiple egress options.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#188

Post by rsync »

cycomanic wrote: post #174
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 regulation…

Please see my use of the words “our” and “we”.

I am one of those progressives.

I just haven’t flip-flopped on sprawl and open space and environmental review based on my current economic outlook.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#189

Post by BanjoBass »

spanktheuser wrote: post #187

I’m curious whether this is really the issue in most US cities. In Chicago we achieve significant density with a two staircase requirement. If the goal is to unlock greater density in Manhattan I accept that single-stair multifamily may be necessary. However, it seems to me that the greater need is to bring more density to urban areas such as Houston, Dallas and Phoenix. All of which seem to have ample opportunity fo…

New york has air rights. Many existing buildings cannot build taller, thus redevelopment removes leasable space instead of modernizing and/or bifurcating it.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#190

Post by tylermw »

mjmahone17 wrote: post #165
bluGill wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is generally understood that at 4 floors you need an elevator which is expensive. This is partially the ADA (which doesn't say this from what I can tell, but is generally understood to suggest it), and partially 4 floor is enough stairs few people would agree to walk up them.

Which ties into a second problem: the US especially requires elevators to be too large, which limits how many are built because they take up so much square footage, which drives up the cost to install. In Spain and France you’ll find single staircase, 4 story buildings that have one meter-by-meter sized elevator. Often even as retrofits in older buildings! In NY you’ll find these too, but they’re only in pre-war (193…

The word you’re looking for is “cheaper,” not “accessible.” Those 1x1m elevators certainly aren’t accessible for wheelchair users. ADA requirements require the following minimum dimensions for an elevator:

“The width of the elevator car is a minimum of 80 inches (2030 mm). The depth of the elevator car measured from the back wall to the elevator door is a minimum of 54 inches (1370 mm). The depth of the elevator car measured from the back wall to the control panel is a minimum of 51 inches (1291 mm).”

Post reply on HN