Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Could housing be cheaper and better if we stop building so many staircases?

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 309 posts

Re: Could housing be cheaper and better if we stop building so many staircases?

#281

Post by kurthr »

tzs wrote: post #110
kurthr wrote: post #85

I'm looking at Billionaires Row in Manhattan, and I don't think they have two staircases. At 1400ft tall and 60ft wide, I don't think they have room. Regulations are for little people. And since they're really financial instruments, the buildings are still only half full! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wehsz38P74g

They use scissor stairs. That's two stairways in one stairwell, with the stairways winding around each other. They count as two exit stairways if (1) the stairways are enclosed in and separated from each other by masonry or masonry equivalent construction having at least a 2 hour fire resistance rating, and (2) the exit doors are 15 ft or more apart. While they might work as far as providing residents two routes out…

Interesting, can't imagine going down over 1000ft of stairs without sliding on my ass, much less going up with a fire hose in heavy gear.

Re: Could housing be cheaper and better if we stop building so many staircases?

#282

Post by LorenPechtel »

avereveard wrote: post #156
petee wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that you can't track how many disasters were prevented by having two means of egress, so I cant imagine there are real statistics on that I hate the space argument because its a money argument, not a real quality of life issue - make the building 1 floor taller, or don't cram your residents just because you wanted to milk 4 apts instead of 3 on a floor.

It's not the two egress per se, it's about not having cul-de-sac that fire could isolate from the exits. A circular shape with one exit it's much harder to be stuck into by a single ignition point.

That's still a cul-de-sac, just one with a loop.

Re: Could housing be cheaper and better if we stop building so many staircases?

#283

Post by LorenPechtel »

rwmj wrote: post #204
rococode wrote: post #7

Here's something that happened one week ago, a perfect (and sad) example of what happens when you only have one set of stairs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Osaka_building_fire > The victims gasped for air and had difficulties escaping, as there was only one escape route, with the emergency stairs and elevators being located outside the clinic. > Experts were surprised by the fire's high death toll. The authorit…

But also in Japan they allow for rescue/escape through special windows which can be broken in an emergency (the ubiquitous red triangles you see on all tall buildings), so in effect there are many escape routes.

Yeah--what matters is two means of egress. It doesn't matter what form they take. We live in a two-story house, the stairs are the only normal means of escape. But the building code requires bedrooms to have windows sufficient for a firefighter in full gear to go through and there's an emergency ladder stored next to the most accessible window in the one upstairs room actually used for sleeping.

Re: Could housing be cheaper and better if we stop building so many staircases?

#284

Post by LorenPechtel »

kube-system wrote: post #154
afirement wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the point you're making but it doesn't consider that fire safety is made up of layers, including (but not limited to) construction, equipment, policy and response. "Ah shit my building is on fire, I better run" makes so many assumptions that it cannot be considered a meaningful fire safety strategy. For example, what if I am asleep? what if I am deaf? what if I cannot walk? Certainly, there's disasters w…

Response was the first thing that came to mind reading your initial post. I bet you have a full-time fire service close by your building. 70% of the firefighters in the US are volunteers. I can think of several multistory apartment buildings that I know are in volunteer fire department districts off the top of my head. And it’s not like I memorize fire districts.

Because volunteers spend so much less of their time actually fighting fire. 70% of firefighters being volunteers doesn't mean anything like 70% of firefighting is done by volunteers.

And don't expect the volunteers to accomplish much--when the alarm goes off they have to go to the firehouse first, and thus will have a bad response time compared to a professional fire service. They're far more about keeping the fire from spreading than actually putting it out.

Re: Could housing be cheaper and better if we stop building so many staircases?

#285

Post by rcthompson »

ckdarby wrote: post #206
rcthompson wrote: post #126

I live in an apartment with 2 staircases, an elevator, and a fire escape. Several months ago, there was a fire in a first floor apartment that blocked me from using ALL of them, via either unbreathable smoke or flames. I ended up just hiding in my room until the fire department dealt with it. I'm not sure whether this argues for more staircases or fewer. (In hindsight I did have other options, but this was my first f…

How? The staircases are usually located at opposite sides of the building. The entire first floor would need to have been on fire.

There is one exit on the first floor, between the two staircases. The apartment on fire was the closest one to this common exit, directly between the two staircases and across the hall from the elevator, so the smoke went up both staircases equally.

Re: Could housing be cheaper and better if we stop building so many staircases?

#286

Post by sgtnoodle »

pessimizer wrote: post #241
sgtnoodle wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cars are designed to intentionally accelerate you to speeds that easily kill you, though, and carry along a vast amount of stored energy. Buildings are designed to stand still and generally not be flammable. The expected value calculations are seemingly quite a bit different.

> Cars are designed to intentionally accelerate you to speeds that easily kill you It's not the speed that kills you, it's the impact. Multifloor buildings are designed to help you live and work at a height that can kill you, and to prevent air entering and escaping which can kill you. If you can assume that the risk of fire or collapse isn't worth mitigating against, why not assume that a car will never hit anything…

The risk of fire and collapse is mitigated to a large degree already. People are arguing about the relative utility of further mitigations. At least in the US, folk mostly build interior walls with sheetrock and their exterior walls with cement based composites. Bedrooms are legally required to have smoke detectors. Electrical and gas runs are supposed to be installed "to code". Tall buildings require engineering to make appropriately strong structures. Buildings don't completely burn down or collapse very often, especially compared to the frequency of serious car crashes.

Re: Could housing be cheaper and better if we stop building so many staircases?

#287

Post by Turing_Machine »

baybal2 wrote: post #258
Turing_Machine wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And I still find it surreal that people in world's richest country live in wooden houses. A lot of those people live in seismically active areas. While modern masonry construction is certainly safer than traditional masonry, in general wood is far less dangerous than stone or brick in an earthquake.

And steel, or reinforced concrete are safer than both.

Where in the world are single-family homes typically made of steel or reinforced concrete?

Note: not apartments. Houses.

Re: Could housing be cheaper and better if we stop building so many staircases?

#288

Post by lazide »

unethical_ban wrote: post #276
lazide wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of People have died over the years from that kind of design - which is why it isn’t used any more. It can quickly turn a first floor smoldering fire into a whole building conflagration.

Understood, and I'm willing to be wrong on this. My point is, over time and technology we accumulate restrictions that may no longer be as necessary as they were when they were put in. What if we don't need isolated stairwells so much anymore due to materials and fire suppression(sprinkler) regulations, for example? That's my point.

Ah, well I’m sure some enterprising architect is already arguing with a building department about it.

You definitely see them in some hotels and commercial buildings, though my understanding is despite sprinklers, they need to have autoclosing fire doors if that is the case, which are terrible to deal with every day. :s

The problem with sprinklers in California is if there is a serious earthquake, pipe breaks mean you lose fire water pressure right when you might need it most, and whole blocks can burn down.

Been awhile since that happened though so maybe the building department forgot?

Re: Could housing be cheaper and better if we stop building so many staircases?

#289

Post by brian-armstrong »

epistasis wrote: post #268
brian-armstrong wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ideally these apartments could be rented to the many many many people that prefer to not have a car of their own. Especially in SF, there's a need for more apartments like that. The significant price differential for SF real estate without parking suggests this is about 3 "many" too manys.

The price differential reflects the high cost of devoting space to parking, not of the demand for it. A parking space require not only the square footage for the car, but also the lane to get to the parking space. A constructed parking space is equivalent to 1-2 bedrooms worth of living space, which is a huge difference in real estate prices.

It sounds like you haven't ever actually been in a garage. The lane to the spaces is shared by all the spaces, and the garage also houses electrical distribution, water supply, heating and cooling which couldn't be co-located with a unit anyway. It would be at best storage space, and at worst it would just go to waste.

Re: Could housing be cheaper and better if we stop building so many staircases?

#290

Post by lazide »

dapids wrote: post #148
lazide wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does in most places - concrete stairwells (typical) don’t exactly love fire. Sheetrock similar.

If an accelerant is used that is continuously burned until exhausted , then I'm not sure it matters where or what materials are present. If there is a fire at an exit that persists and is difficult to extinguish, said arsonist can then move to the next exit, and perform the same action. Thus blocking multiple exits while acting as a single individual. That's my point.

It’s surprisingly hard to put enough accelerant in a place to burn awhile (5-10 minutes?) in a way that can’t be interfered with and will keep going without tending, without drawing attention to yourself while doing so if anyone is paying attention. Most portable methods (gasoline can?) are so volatile it is just going to explode almost immediately and are easy to recognize as a hazard.

Certainly not impossible, but it requires more craftiness and more prep the more complicated we get.

Which hopefully there aren’t that many folks who are likely to do so. And if someone does, we can catch them fast.

Basic redundancy is a good idea (n=2) in general, for many many reasons. Maintenance doesn’t take out the only way out for instance, or a single fight or accident doesn’t leave someone stuck.

N=5 is probably overkill for anything for a huge convention center.

Post reply on HN