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

221–230 of 562 posts

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#221

Post by toast0 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #200
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…

You're looking at it the wrong way. They're not looking at the hypothetical improvements and charging as if you built them. They're saying "this land could reasonably support a skyscraper, therefore it is very valuable land".

On the other hand, I would say, "this land has very high taxes compared to its price; therefore it's not very valuable land."

If you implement a land value tax, as I understand it, the parking lot and the skyscraper next to it should be taxed the same if they have the same footprint. All things being equal, that means a very large tax burden for the parking lot owner, and that certainly is an incentive to transfer it to someone who will do something with it, which is what you're advocating for.

But at the same time, it makes the price you can get for the parking lot much lower. And I'm having a hard time not equating sales price and value. And once I've seen that under a LVT, the parking lot has no or little value, because it can't be sold for much money, it's more confusing --- if the value is low, and the tax rate is based on value, why are the taxes so high?

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#222

Post by snakeyjake »

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…

>US housing stock is also much more wooden and therefore at higher risk to begin with.

Fire compromising the structure of a building, or the structure itself burning is almost never the cause of death or injury. The primary killer in structure fires is hydrogen cyanide gas. Wood does emit hydrogen cyanide but the primary source is synthetic materials like upholstered furniture, wall and floor coverings, cabinetry, and other personal belongings.

If you have two houses, one made of gypsum-covered 2x4 walls and the other made of stone and steel and a faulty space heater ignites a sofa or some polyester curtains, the buildings are equally lethal. The hydrogen cyanide will have killed you long before the fire burned through the drywall. Non-flammable walls don't even necessarily slow a fire's spread if synthetic materials are involved. The high heat of by their combustion and their dirty combustion causes flashover which ignites all flammable materials in a given space.

I have been a volunteer firefighter for almost 20 years. I have experienced too many fatalities but none of them have ever burned to death. All victims have been dead due to asphyxiation (CO/CO2) or cyanide poisoning.

The differences in death rates aren't as stark as the author contends (for example 0.2 deaths per fire in Great Britain, 0.3 in the US) and my gut tells me the main differentiation between the US and European deaths is the smaller, more compartmentalized nature of European dwellings (which limits the spread of smoke) coupled with their greater level of urbanization which leads to faster emergency services response (the faster a fire is knocked down the less gas it produces).

Open floorplans kill.

All of that being said, wooden construction does cause more firefighter deaths-- especially if engineered wood is used. But by the time the floor of a house has been weakened enough by a basement fire to fail and kill a firefighter, all of the occupants are already dead.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#223

Post by throwbadubadu »

quickthrowman wrote: post #206
throwbadubadu wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Didn't doubt that, but that tragedy was not the point of the "embafflement"-response to the "embafflement"-statement actually, what was my point, so pointless in total, same as you now calling that out again...

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#224

Post by davidw »

slyall wrote: post #131
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 store…

Having lived in both places - Italy and the US - I think it's a natural question.

The answer I've heard that makes sense, is that if you do this in US buildings you need decent fire suppression systems even if those bump the price.

But it's well worth doing in terms of making more types of nice buildings viable.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#225

Post by actionfromafar »

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.

Hm.. couldn't a fire engine be driven in reverse? It could have an emergency driver's wheel in the back. I have seen crane trucks driven with a joystick from outside the vehicle, so it doesn't seem impossible.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#226

Post by ok_dad »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #143
ok_dad wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Not everybody does a half-hour of research before every HN comment. Nor should they be expected to. LVT was named (I presume) by the advocates of it. If their name is misleading, don't blame the people reading it who are getting confused.

A person can read about it in maybe ten minutes max, and if someone can’t even do half an hour of research, anyways, should they even comment? Do people have the right to a conversation simply because they read the article title yet have not read even at the surface level about that topic?

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#227

Post by elliotto »

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.

Having streets unable to be accessible by fire response vehicles doesn't seem like a good idea. What would be the alternative here? (genuine question, I'm not from the US)

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#228

Post by ketzo »

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.

“maximize the available land”

Part of the author’s point is that single-stair buildings can be built economically on much smaller pieces of land. This increases the number of plots — especially in urban environments — on which you can build MFH, plots which developers today wouldn’t even think of.

Legalizing single-stair buildings would not really change the viability of big apartment complexes, you’re right. But it would allow for smaller ones.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#229

Post by akavi »

elliotto wrote: post #227
twiddling wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Having streets unable to be accessible by fire response vehicles doesn't seem like a good idea. What would be the alternative here? (genuine question, I'm not from the US)

Smaller fire trucks.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#230

Post by ok_dad »

oh_sigh wrote: post #163
Aunche wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, LVT are designed to be replacement for property taxes, which already have the problem you describe. Also, Terry isn't forced to sell to a rich person. He is a rich person. The type of people who like to live in hip neighborhoods tends to be recent graduates starting their high paying career. While they may have more income than Terry, Terry is significantly wealthier than most of them. If he really want…

They have that problem, but there are frequently programs or legislation designed to reduce that burden. Eg, >10% of Americans are (theoretically) covered by Prop 13. Other municipalities may have laws on the books limiting property tax increases to a certain percent per year. Many other places offer property tax relief programs for people with low income, or the disabled, or the elderly, or generally by increasing e…

The only cases I see LVT being seriously considered is alongside further tax and welfare reform, so that regular people have their burden decreased by the increased taxes from those cases where land is not being used efficiently today. So you’d have a basic income, public health insurance, zoning reform, and laws protecting private residential uses of land. You can’t just fix one issue alone here, it comes with a host of economic and financial reforms.

Also, it does have possible downsides compared to today, like your single family home might not be there in a hundred or fifty years when the area needs more density. That’s okay to me, I think humans need to understand land use changes over time and you’re not always going to have a big family home last hundred of years under more reasonable land use laws.

Post reply on HN