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

261–270 of 562 posts

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#261

Post by massysett »

epistasis wrote: post #237
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.

> progressives to jettison anti-sprawl initiatives and environmental reviews. I follow these matters closely in my state and others, but have never heard a single instance of either of these! Could you point to some examples, because I would love to know more, and have not found and examples by searching the web.

I don't know if you'd consider him "progressive" enough, but President Biden is trumpeting National Environmental Policy Act reforms.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/news-updates/2023/07/28/biden...

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#262

Post by amluto »

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…

> -- Frequency of wildfires. They are not uncommon in my southwest corner, so fire safety is taken very seriously

There is finally progress on building codes for wildfire safety (called “WUI” codes).

It still has missing bits. For example, try to find a standard for a building air intake in an area subject to wildfires.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#263

Post by elzbardico »

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…

Because of the European Union there's a lot more of common standards and regulations concerning things like buildings between European Countries than there are between American States.

Also, a lot more stuff is codified by law or treaties instead of by business and trade associations.

So, on this matter, it makes a lot of sense of speaking about the European experience.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#264

Post by epistasis »

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…

> 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)

So if we really care about fire safety, shouldn't we be regulating more effective mitigations to protect these wooden buildings, rather than the two stair aspect?

Pointing out that there's a bigger risk factor than single stair has a natural conclusion.

However, I have become so jaded that I no longer believe that people advocating for two stair cases actually care about fire safety, because of their lack of concern about wooden structure risks.

Imposing strict, burdensome, and hardly-useful restrictions on multi-unit housing while ignoring life saving regulations for single unit housing has pretty clear ideological motivations.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#265

Post by loeg »

gamepsys wrote: post #259
mperham wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Setbacks, parking minimums and floor area ratios have nothing to do with safety. Community reviews have absolutely nothing to do with safety.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#266

Post by mperham »

gamepsys wrote: post #259
mperham wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We have zoning and internationally recognized building safety codes already.

Our current housing emergency happening everywhere is a pretty good indicator that we should be much more aggressive about trimming back the regulatory state which has ossified our cities.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#267

Post by epistasis »

massysett wrote: post #261
epistasis wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> progressives to jettison anti-sprawl initiatives and environmental reviews. I follow these matters closely in my state and others, but have never heard a single instance of either of these! Could you point to some examples, because I would love to know more, and have not found and examples by searching the web.

I don't know if you'd consider him "progressive" enough, but President Biden is trumpeting National Environmental Policy Act reforms. https://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/news-updates/2023/07/28/biden...

This is talking about energy projects, but I don't see any aspect of jettisoning environmental review. Its about making it more effective and faster, which certainly doesn't mean weakening.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#268

Post by neilv »

> But when architects try to design apartments with two or more bedrooms, the apartments balloon in size, since every 10-foot-wide bedroom ends up coming with 30 or more feet in unit depth. Try to add a single 120-square foot bedroom and you’ll end up having to add another 180 square feet on top that you need to fill some other way—probably with walk-in closets and en-suite bathrooms, adding the expense of more plumbing, fixtures, and tiles.

Can any architects say whether that's absolutely true, within the constraints, or are solutions with different desirable properties possible?

Reason I'm asking: I've been looking at floorplans and renders for new condo and apartment buildings recently, and I wonder whether some of the decisions in layouts might've been phoned-in, without lots of creative or problem-solving work happening.

(Maybe it's like software, in which brilliant isn't normally demanded, so sometimes the work is approached more like a huge bulk of tediousness to slog through?)

(Or maybe some of the confusing decisions are due to solving larger constraints, like a $1M condo gets an inexplicably badly-positioned kitchen because the $3M condo above takes priority for where pipes run, and they're generally trying to minimize plumbing costs?)

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#269

Post by autoexec »

notatoad wrote: post #249
autoexec wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>that were put in place to save human lives There's an assumption here that the code was put in place to save lives. There's a whole lot of regulation that exists simply to make it difficult to build. Lots of people profit when housing is scarce (or unavailable to certain demographics), and want to keep it that way. It is always worth asking what the point of a regulation is, and whether it accomplishes the thing it…

I think it's a much bigger assumption that the fire code which requires people have somewhere to escape to when a stairwell is on fire was put in place to make it difficult to build instead of for helping to keep families from burning alive.

I fully agree that if after careful and thorough examination it's determined that the codes are outdated and can be removed without endangering people that they should be, even if it didn't make it easier for developers.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#270

Post by toast0 »

amluto wrote: post #235

> The common hallway that must connect the two stairs in a modern American code-compliant building cuts the structure in two, cutting off the possibility of floor-through apartments found in traditional American multifamily architecture like the New York City tenement or the Los Angeles dingbat. What requires a common hallway? The example single-stair plans seem like an equal number of staircases could be bolted on t…

The single-stair plan shown [1] isn't really single stair. It's three stairs, one per pair of units (per floor). If multifamily requires two means of egress, you'd need to add three more stairs, which takes up a lot of footprint. It would be easier to delete one stairway and add a hallway; but then only the two end units can address both the front and back of the building.

It's worse if you do stairs to a central landing and multiple units off that landing, where there's simply no way to add a single stairway that addresses all the units.

[1] https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_pr...

Post reply on HN