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

201–210 of 562 posts

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#201

Post by baq »

crazygringo wrote: post #138
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.

Maybe I should say I’m from abroad instead? European seems to trigger something in some folks around here.

That aside, I fail to see any cultural or other reason to require twin staircases nowadays other than ‘that’s how we always did it here’. I admit it openly and state that I’m from somewhere where we don’t do that, and the world works just as well, except buildings have a higher useful to total area ratio.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#202

Post by estebank »

ghaff wrote: post #198
estebank wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes. Multi-stories are generally an issue with people with people in the case of fire.

That's a factor of how many units are serviced by a set of stairs. On the same surface area you can have one large building with two staircases and one long corridor that splits the building down the middle, or you can have two separate buildings with a single set of stairs each and a better layout for apartments with more than one bedroom. The peak egress traffic will the the same for each case.

But all of this is unrelated to

> 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.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#203

Post by bombcar »

twiddling wrote: post #152
adameasterling wrote: post #63

This is a fantastic article. Burdensome regulations on housing construction have caused costs to skyrocket. Minimum lot sizes, setback requirements, square footage minimums, floor-area ratio restrictions, overzealous height restrictions, parking requirements, abuse of environmental reviews, historic designations, community reviews, overzealous MFH requirements (like double-stair), below-market mandates, all have work…

Don't forget about street widths being determined by the ability to turn around fire equipment.

If it makes you feel any better the oldest streets around here are wider than newer ones, because they had to be able to turn a wagon with a team of horses.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#204

Post by bombcar »

throw0101d wrote: post #10

The province of British Columbia (BC) seems to be considering it: * https://morehousing.substack.com/p/bc-single-stair * https://morehousing.substack.com/p/single-stair See also: > Number of storeys permissible with single exit stair around the world. * https://www.coolearth.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/image-1.... * https://www.coolearth.ca/2022/03/16/building-code-change-to-... The diagram illustrates that the lon…

The ladder never goes straight up, so you need to check what its maximum “reach” is.

A building that is seven stories high is going to be big enough to have multiple stairways; probably multiple elevators.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#205

Post by ProfessorLayton »

jlhawn wrote: post #82
bequanna wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

it would increase the tax rate on land to be much higher. In the most extreme case, the annual tax on land value would so high that vacant land could be purchased for close to zero purchase price because the holding cost of the tax is high enough to capture all the value which is capitalized into a purchase price.

Correct, but that's the point really. In an extreme case, such as an empty lot in Manhattan, it would cause the property to change hands to someone who could be more productive with it.

Even though it wouldn't be worth as much without LVT, it would still be worth a lot in such an extreme case, so it's not devastating for the owner either.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#206

Post by quickthrowman »

throwbadubadu wrote: post #173
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.

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

The cause is irrelevant, 72 people died in a building fire in 2017. That didn’t need to happen.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#207

Post by bombcar »

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.

Us Americans are very wide.

The second staircase is for the oversized pickup truck.

(And anyway the dual staircase thing isn’t even universal in the US).

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#208

Post by Aunche »

RandomLensman wrote: post #148
Aunche wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luxury apartments will depreciate into regular apartments over time. Allowing demand for luxury apartments to be pent up just means that rich people will capture more regular apartments instead.

Why would that happen? Demand will be satisfied as that would be the most high value thing to do, driving the land tax wherever the process starts.

You mean why luxury apartments will become regular apartments? Most of the "luxury" apartments these days aren't really that special besides being newer and trendier. Of course, the truly iconic buildings will always be considered luxurious, but even the above average ones depreciate. In Manhattan, you can see a lot of buildings from a century ago with degraded ornamentation that would have been beautiful in their heyday, but they're actually more affordable than their neighbors that are plainer, but more renovated.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#209

Post by ksenzee »

Retric wrote: post #88
ksenzee wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The two-staircase requirement leads directly to apartment buildings being big, with long corridors. Given my choice of living in a small building with a few families, with one staircase, where people know each other (the one-stair architecture does in fact lend itself to residents knowing each other) or living in a big building, with long corridors, where people don’t get to know each other, I’d feel a lot safer as a…

A 2nd set of stairs split across multiple units is a trivial matter from a cost perspective. Height restrictions, adding more office space than housing, mandatory parking etc are the real issues. Tiny increases in construction costs get wiped out when there’s insufficient housing stock.

I can’t tell whether you’re unfamiliar with the single- vs. double-staircase architectural arguments, or disagreeing with them: https://slate.com/business/2021/12/staircases-floor-plan-twi...

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#210

Post by RecycledEle »

I worked on a design (only as a hobby) for a group of units in a pentagon or hexagon shape that would surround a central room. The landlord can quickly sheetrock over some doors while cutting others open. The idea is to be able to expand or contract units to accommodate different tennants.

The most hilarius objection I could imagine is "nobody can have 2 refrigerators and 2 kitchens," coming from my brother who spent a fortune to renovate for exactly that.

A second laundry room can be handy, as can a second bathroom. A third laundry room can be converted to a closet with minor work to cover the washer/dryer connections and some shelves.

The central area would be another bedroom that has one doorway cut open and all the other doorways sheetrocked over.

One last thought, if you have never considered buying a duplex for a growing family and cutting in a door or two between the sides, you should. The "you can't do that" usually turns into "that's so cool" after a few hours.

Post reply on HN