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

251–260 of 562 posts

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#251

Post by amluto »

smithsj619 wrote: post #220
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…

That's what I'm trying to raise money to do! ;-) Basically through an analysis of fire loss history combined with open property data. The fire engineering field hasn't traditionally had access to great data, for a few different reasons, but now the data is actually potentially available to answer the question – but it does need a bit of time and investment. (I'm the author of the article.)

I’m curious: is there room for a middle ground involving non-enclosed fire escapes? How useful are these?

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#252

Post by autoexec »

Animats wrote: post #231
multjoy wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grenfell is what happens when building regulations are poorly enforced. In principle, each apartment in Grenfell should have been able to burn out completely while the neighbouring units were untouched, so there was no need for a second stair as any evacuation would have been limited to units adjacent rather than the entire population. What actually happened is that years of neglect had seen firebreaks and bulkheads…

Which is why the article's call for "reform of defect liability laws that drive insurance costs up for condo developers" makes his whole position deeply suspicious.

Exactly. If modern day advances make single-stair multifamily homes perfectly safe than there's zero reason to give condo developers a free pass for designs that are found to have led to families burning death.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#253

Post by Paul-Craft »

autoexec wrote: post #236
slyall wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think there is some of that certainly, but it's also worth being cautious anytime a developer says they want to abandon fire codes that were put in place to save human lives so that they can add greater density housing. Fire codes got where they are in part because developers were fine with packing people into unsafe housing situations. Let's not let our guard down entirely now.

All safety regulations are written in blood.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#254

Post by epistasis »

pmontra wrote: post #50
jackson1442 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you can have single-stair with elevators.

Which is the norm in Europe. One stair, one elevator. Even large and long buildings are divided in "stairs": there is central concrete tower with the staircase and the elevator shaft and a number of flats around it. Repeat like a pack of AA batteries. No way to move between them except the basement with parking for the cars.

Elevator regulations are another area where the US needs to improve.

In many areas, the regulation is that if there is an elevator, it must be big enough to hold a stretcher for EMTs. These are of course far more expensive than an elevator large enough to accommodate a wheel chair.

So given the choice between some accessibility and extreme accessibility which is too expensive to provide, the legal choice is to go with zero accessibility.

After a while it becomes clear that the point of most of these regulations is to make multi-unit housing inconvenient and expensive, under the veneer of regulations that, on their face, would improve outcomes.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#255

Post by [deleted] »

Pxtl wrote: post #246
ska wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What requires a common hallway? Effectively, the building code they are talking about the value of changing. Fully enclosed stairways at the back for each "slice" would be cost prohibitive, and exterior "fire escape" type stairs are not allowed either.

Even as a compromise you could make a pretty good small building with 2 units per floor, single walk-up stairwell+landing+elevator on the front, and an exterior fire-escape on the back.

[deleted]

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#256

Post by mperham »

gamepsys wrote: post #234
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…

Just curious, are there any regulations on housing you agree with? There tends to be belief that housing regulations exist to limit supply. Let's not forget that many of these encourage safety and are cost effective ways to increase the quality of life of the residents. If we take deregulation and cheap housing to the extreme we end up with shanty towns.

None of the things he mentioned have anything to do with safety.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#257

Post by Pxtl »

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.

It's even worse in Canada.

You need a 2nd staircase for a multi-unit home that's over 2 storeys. If it weren't for the "multi-unit" part, there would be a lot of houses that would need to be built with a 2nd stair.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#258

Post by rootusrootus »

massysett wrote: post #240

The evidence the author gives is not compelling. "Almost every country in Western Europe—where single-stair apartment buildings can rise many times the IBC’s three-story height limit—has fewer fire deaths per capita than the US." There is no analysis of where these fire deaths are occurring: are they in single-family homes? Commercial buildings? Car wrecks that caught on fire? Trailer parks? More compelling would be…

Indeed, going by this [0] information from FEMA, it seems like the US is mid-pack.

[0] https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/v12i8.pdf

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#259

Post by gamepsys »

mperham wrote: post #256
gamepsys wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just curious, are there any regulations on housing you agree with? There tends to be belief that housing regulations exist to limit supply. Let's not forget that many of these encourage safety and are cost effective ways to increase the quality of life of the residents. If we take deregulation and cheap housing to the extreme we end up with shanty towns.

None of the things he mentioned have anything to do with safety.

Environmental review, community review, and MFH standards all have something to do with safety. It's not like root comment is arguing against fire hydrants or carbon monoxide detectors. I'm just arguing not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Post reply on HN