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

321–330 of 562 posts

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#321

Post by Aeolun »

gamepsys wrote: post #295
anon291 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I use to look at buying a 60+ year old condo/coop on the west coast, until I looked at the earthquake statistics and safety standards of brick multistory buildings. Now I know why the newer steel buildings cost 2-6x the old brick buildings in the same neighborhood.

I’m doubtful they actually cost more to construct?

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#322

Post by seanmcdirmid »

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.

> 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.

That isn't true though. Our housing emergency is limited to places that are growing and thriving. There isn't a housing emergency in Detroit or much of the midwest for example, just not many are thrilled about moving to those places (or want to leave them as soon as possible).

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#323

Post by colatkinson »

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.

This is a super common setup in my part of NYC (minus the elevator). It seems to work fairly well, especially since it makes it viable to have lots of buildings in a row with minimal wasted space between them.

It's definitely not the densest design possible, but it certainly seemed to let them fit a lot of fairly spacious 1-2 BRs in not a lot of space back in the early 20th c., and the height can scale up pretty well (though the elevator probably becomes at least a soft requirement above 4-5 floors).

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#324

Post by eru »

bobthepanda wrote: post #215
nineplay wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. the height is generally determined by the height of the fire ladders available, providing a second means of egress This is an interesting requirement and makes me wonder if some of the need for two staircases comes from the proximity - or lack thereof - to fire services. I'd be sitting in a burning home for a long time if I had to wait for a fire ladder.

A lot of the requirements make sense in bigger buildings. It's not easy to evacuate a large office building taking up a city block using only ladders. And some of it is reactive; for example, there is a distance separation requirement for stairwells, because during 9/11 the three North Tower stairwells were only 70 feet apart and enclosed only with gypsum, so they were all severed on impact, dooming the people above…

Even Singapore has lots of those middle sized buildings missing from the US.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#325

Post by seanmcdirmid »

sokoloff wrote: post #285
loeg wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ya. My setback is 3 feet, definitely just a margin for fire safety. I wanted to put an awning in but couldn't because it would be too close to the fence of my property boundary (I live in a town home that abuses the 3 foot setback to maximize living space).

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#326

Post by eru »

crazygringo wrote: post #195
paulddraper wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I've lived in old, old buildings :/

They have their charm! Nothing quite like hanging out on a fire escape on a hot humid summer night with a cold beer and charming company. Along with the contortions involved climbing through the window in both directions...

Given the size distribution of Americans these days, I wonder if many could even climb out to use the fire escapes?

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#327

Post by seanmcdirmid »

alistairSH wrote: post #309
adaml_623 wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Double stair Vs single stair is totally a safety issue

One that much of Europe has mitigated somehow.

By building their buildings out of brick rather than wood. Though its probably overkill here in the states and canada.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#328

Post by eru »

bluGill wrote: post #297
Tiktaalik wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reason five over ones are popular in the US has nothing to do with staircase requirements. The reason is money, like always. Yes it is money. More staircases remarkably increase the costs of buildings. Single stairway, cheaper buildings, more profitable to do other sorts of buildings, more variety of buildings etc. (see also no parking mandates)

Stairs are not expensivei they take space, but are cheay otherwise

Space ain't free.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#329

Post by seanmcdirmid »

bombcar wrote: post #203
twiddling wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget about street widths being determined by the ability to turn around fire equipment.

If it makes you feel any better the oldest streets around here are wider than newer ones, because they had to be able to turn a wagon with a team of horses.

That sounds like what they did in Salt Lake City.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#330

Post by Tarq0n »

eru wrote: post #317
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…

> (Wood construction is generally a good thing from a sustainability perspective) I don't really see how wood is more sustainable than eg brick or even steel and glass? > Whenever I see this proposed my brain immediately goes to the Grenfell Tower fire in the UK. I guess that may just be an outlier due to the myriad of other causes, but it gives me pause. You should look at statistics instead of single lurid anecdata…

Wood captures carbon within it and has minimal energy cost compared to steel, glass and brick. Lumber can also be regrown.

So highly sustainable from a global warming perspective at least.

Post reply on HN