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

301–310 of 562 posts

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#301

Post by ryukoposting »

breischl wrote: post #294
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…

>Most of those flats have large balconies on the back... with a staircase. It sounds like you're describing an external staircase - loosely speaking a fire escape. I could be wrong though, I'm not sure. The article was discussing the requirement for _fully enclosed_ internal staircases, which is different.

I mean, yes, legally, it's a fire escape. But, there's a full size door leading out to it, it's typically made of treated wood, and the staircase is a normal wood staircase, not some rickety metal thing.

These also have the added bonus of being generally a nicer staircase than the one that's actually built into the house. The interior, retrofitted staircases tend to be narrow with lots of awkward, angled steps.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#303

Post by wiml »

bluGill wrote: post #292
greenthrow wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument doesn't really make sense because the problem isn't lack of houses or apartments, there's plenty of places to put everyone. The problem is one of affordability. The costs of stuff that already exists and has existed for ages isn't really tied to the current cost to build, even if we buy the specious argument that all regulation raises costs and those costs are inevitably passed directly to tenants.

supply and eemand sets rents. You you rent perfecly good existing houses cheap in rural areas. Nobody wants to like there. There is no reason to think there is enourh room for everyone who wants to like in San Francisco, and statistics prove they heve not been building much. Mean while in other states we find areas of demand where housing is not expensive. Where I live you can rent one bedroom apartments for under $1…

Supply, demand, and cartels like Realpage.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#304

Post by eru »

mperham wrote: post #266
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.

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.

Zoning is already pretty bad (at least in the US), and doesn't really have anything to do with safety.

In the sense that even without zoning laws, there were already public nuisance laws that wouldn't have allowed you to open a coal fired power plant next to a Kindergarten.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#305

Post by pandaman »

masklinn wrote: post #52
fnimick wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't even have to go that far, just ban single-family-only zoning. The economic pressure to add more units will take care of the rest.

And more generally move zoning to a nuisance basis (as in Japan or Europe), euclidian exclusionary zoning is a root cause of suburbian sprawl and dead areas. That means local shops can pop up, and city centers are able to progressively transition upwards at the edges (and plots can be upzoned) instead of having a sea of low-density housing suddenly becoming a bunch of skyscrapers.

Zoning is already on the nuisance basis in many places in the US. It means local shops cannot pop up in residential neighborhoods if nobody wants to live near such a shop. If residents are fine with traffic, noise and pests they can vote for changing zoning on any lot to commercial. High density residential is almost the same, except there are also physical limitations of the infrastructure.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#306

Post by scythe »

mperham wrote: post #266
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.

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.

>internationally recognized building safety codes

I mean, the "International Building Code" is a little bit like the "World Series"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Building_Code

>"Calling it 'international' keeps it from being called the 'U.S. Building Code.'" explains Bill Tangye, SBCCI Chief Executive Officer.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#307

Post by wiml »

keyringlight wrote: post #247
jlhawn wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

also fire suppression system (sprinklers) and pressurized stairwells are mandated.

The "Well there's your problem" podcast did an episode on 'five over ones' (five stories of wood over one concrete) and touched on this - IIRC they were most likely to burn down during construction when the fire suppression wasn't installed and active yet.

They also did a more in-depth episode on Grenfell, which touched on a lot of the same issues, except Grenfell was (a) taller and (b) occupied.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#308

Post by eru »

wiml wrote: post #303
bluGill wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

supply and eemand sets rents. You you rent perfecly good existing houses cheap in rural areas. Nobody wants to like there. There is no reason to think there is enourh room for everyone who wants to like in San Francisco, and statistics prove they heve not been building much. Mean while in other states we find areas of demand where housing is not expensive. Where I live you can rent one bedroom apartments for under $1…

Supply, demand, and cartels like Realpage.

Cartel's can't just magically set prices.

They can withhold supply, and that might have an effect on market prices.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#310

Post by eru »

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.

You already have shanty towns with all the regulation.

Making housing cheaper also means making higher quality housing cheaper.

Post reply on HN