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

281–290 of 562 posts

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#281

Post by michaelt »

from-nibly wrote: post #79

We just need to make builders more liable for issues caused by their own building. Building codes are just a way to say, you won't get in trouble for bad things that happen, in return you have to follow these rules every time you build a house. Instead if we just say, if you build a house that kills someone, you are now a murderer, then yeah I think the markets can figure out how to not get people killed. But that's…

Unfortunately this is unlikely to work, so long as limited liability companies exist.

After all, it's a simple enough matter to start a new company, trade for 3-5 years, pay yourself some big dividends then declare bankruptcy and start a new company with a very similar name and set of employees.

Furthermore, the construction of larger buildings often allows for a merry-go-round of blame shifting. The architect specifies fireproof material 'or equivalent', the main contractor outsources parts of the design to specialist suppliers, the specialist suppliers trust marketing materials, the material manufacturers had small print saying people should run their own tests, the specialist fire consultant didn't raise the alarm about a change but he stopped getting paid a third of the way through the project, the contractors thought the building inspectors were checking for safety, the building inspectors thought they were a secondary safety net and responsibility lay with the designers... and so on.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#283

Post by adaml_623 »

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.

Double stair Vs single stair is totally a safety issue

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#284

Post by ryukoposting »

In many cities, the second staircase is used as an amenity.

Chicago is chock-full of old houses converted to three-flats. Most of those flats have large balconies on the back... with a staircase. These balconies provide fresh air and nice views at a price point where both of those things are otherwise impossible to find.

So yes, my counterpoint is "but I like the second staircase." But, I really do - a lot of people do, and I don't see why landlords would build those things if they weren't required to.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#285

Post by sokoloff »

loeg wrote: post #265
gamepsys wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Side setbacks absolutely have an effect on fire safety (a greater distance gives less propensity to ignite the neighboring building and provides access with which to fight the original structure fire).

Front setbacks and lot area coverage ratios have a more minor version of this same effect from fires across the street. It takes a pretty good sized fire to ignite the building across a street, but as density increases and more of a lot's area is able to covered with structures, the chances to get a pretty good sized fire going do increase.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#287

Post by anon291 »

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.

> If we take deregulation and cheap housing to the extreme we end up with shanty towns.

That's possible, but, considering that all the most expensive places in this country were developed in the very way this article is advocating, I'm going to label it as improbable.

Many amongst my friends and family think I'm a bit crazy living in the inner city, but the truth is my equity has skyrocketed, and will continue to do so. Urban dwellings are in high demand. Given that many of these same urban dwellings are illegal to construct now / prohibitively expensive, we've handicapped the ability of the market to meet demand.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#288

Post by secabeen »

ryukoposting wrote: post #284

In many cities, the second staircase is used as an amenity. Chicago is chock-full of old houses converted to three-flats. Most of those flats have large balconies on the back... with a staircase. These balconies provide fresh air and nice views at a price point where both of those things are otherwise impossible to find. So yes, my counterpoint is "but I like the second staircase." But, I really do - a lot of people…

Yeah, there's also a large collection of existing stock that does this as multi-family construction with a back porch:

https://chicagoreader.com/best-of-chicago/business-in-the-fr...

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#289

Post by crazygringo »

baq wrote: post #201
crazygringo wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> That aside, I fail to see any cultural or other reason

But are you an expert in it? Have you researched it? Are you sure the world would "work just as well" if the safety requirements were removed in the US? Considering things like different building materials, different rates of wildfires near urban areas, etc.?

Maybe instead of declaring yourself baffled as if it's obviously something dumb or backwards because it's not how you do it in Europe (or another place), you should ask why it's different instead, and see if you can learn rather than judge.

Then it wouldn't come across as condescending.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#290

Post by sokoloff »

neuronexmachina wrote: post #271
beejiu wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copy paste from Europe, where they are about half the size?

Some possible reasons for why American fire trucks tend to be larger: * more frequently sent to rural homes, where there might not be an available hydrant, so they need to transport all the water they're likely to need * same for wildfires * American homes more likely to be wood+drywall

Why "wood+drywall" rather than just "wood"?

Drywall is non-combustible and used as the main component in many fire-rated wall assemblies.

Post reply on HN