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

361–370 of 562 posts

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#361

Post by ajmurmann »

Pxtl wrote: post #250
ketzo wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“maximize the available land” Part of the author’s point is that single-stair buildings can be built economically on much smaller pieces of land. This increases the number of plots — especially in urban environments — on which you can build MFH, plots which developers today wouldn’t even think of. Legalizing single-stair buildings would not really change the viability of big apartment complexes, you’re right. But it…

Yes. Especially since a big problem for Western cities is not "how do I build new megalopoli" but "how do I fill in density without acquiring a whole city block of houses in one go". For a single-stair walk-up you don't need a massive amount of property, you can plonk a pretty danged nice mid-rise building on the same acreage as one large detached house.

With a single stair you can also get windows in opposite ends of the building for the same unit which makes a huge quality of life difference. Getting a real cross-breeze!

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#362

Post by kspacewalk2 »

hammock wrote: post #351
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…

How is double stair MFH overzealous? I can’t control if my neighbor blocks the stairwell with a couch that gets stuck while he’s moving in and now I have no egress if my other neighbor starts a fire. I’m in favor of greater freedoms, and the freedom to choose a single stair MFH if I want. But I don’t want.

A couch and a fire and that couch can't be pushed over or jumped over... That's quite a contrived scenario. I suspect that most of the improvements in the fire safety record of apartment buildings have to do with other factors like materials used, fireproof stair doors, etc etc. The reason I think the two stairs don't do much is that first world countries exist outside North America, they don't have this rule, and their fire safety is just as good or better than ours.

Same reason I'm extremely skeptical that our fire trucks need to be so grotesquely large, despite what the fire departments claim. If there were no countries with a good fire safety record outside North America, like sure, okay, maybe. But they're just as good or better at fighting fires in Europe, and manage to go this with human sized trucks that don't require extremely wide streets, wide turn radiuses, and aren't nearly as deadly for pedestrians as a result. Thanks for existing, Europe, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan etc! One day we'll accept that you to cities, building and engineering better and just copy you.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#363

Post by ajmurmann »

davidw wrote: post #359
eru wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could just add that as an option to the housing regulation: Either build in the traditional American style out of wood, or (new option) build out of stone and add a robust fire suppression system, but in return we let you get away with a single staircase and other features that increase density.

Concrete is probably not a great thing in much of the US for lower-rise buildings. Definitely not here in Oregon. And the fire suppression stuff is mandatory in multifamily housing anyway.

Why is concrete bad in Oregon? Autoclaved, aerated concrete is common in Germany which has a slightly harsher version of our Oregon climate.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#364

Post by kdmccormick »

hammock wrote: post #351
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…

How is double stair MFH overzealous? I can’t control if my neighbor blocks the stairwell with a couch that gets stuck while he’s moving in and now I have no egress if my other neighbor starts a fire. I’m in favor of greater freedoms, and the freedom to choose a single stair MFH if I want. But I don’t want.

> I can’t control if my neighbor blocks the stairwell with a couch that gets stuck while he’s moving in and now I have no egress if my other neighbor starts a fire.

That is an extremely specific situation!

> How is double stair MFH overzealous?

There is a cost to every regulation. The cost to this one is that housing is more expensive for all Americans. Stress, poverty, and homelessness all lead to negative health outcomes. Taken as a whole, those negative outcomes may very well outweigh the fire safety benefits of double-stair (which have never been proven to exist).

> I’m in favor of greater freedoms, and the freedom to choose a single stair MFH if I want. > But I don’t want.

Right, so it sounds like you are in favor of removing the double-stair regulation?

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#365

Post by kspacewalk2 »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #319
eru wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You already have shanty towns with all the regulation. Making housing cheaper also means making higher quality housing cheaper.

We don't really have shanty towns in the states. We definitely don't have a Kowloon Walled City, which is an example of what can happen when no regulations are involved (and somewhat remarkably not burn down and kind of thrive even if still a slum). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City

If only we can have something between a McMansion filled North American suburb and Kowloon Walled City.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#366

Post by jojobas »

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…

Yet people keep flocking to them dreadful single-family-home-majority cities, happy to pay rent and all.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#367

Post by philsnow »

BurningFrog wrote: post #352

Maybe the biggest problem with regulations is that even if they're very positive when enacted, there is usually no mechanism to reevaluate them during the following decades. And so the effects of a fire 164 years ago screws up housing across the US today.

> there is usually no mechanism to reevaluate them during the following decades

One of my favorite parts about Texas, at least on paper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_Advisory_Commission

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#368

Post by kspacewalk2 »

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

Europe has wildfires and rural areas. How will a large fire truck help you when a wood house is burning? Being grotesquely large doesn't mean they put the fire out faster.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#369

Post by Spivak »

fires10 wrote: post #349
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I have minimum lot size of 5 acres. Can't see the wisdom in that one. I also have a minimum square footage size. $20,000 impact fee just to build a house and I receive no utilities or city/ county services.

I wish more than anything we could legislate the fee structures backwards. If the government wants an environmental impact study then the government is footing the bill for it. Putting it on the builder is stupid and just a way of hiding the budget item in other people's wallets.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#370

Post by ksplicer »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #327
alistairSH wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even our wood has so much fire safety chemicals baked in now that it's not nearly as flammable as it used to be. The safety standards should be reevaluated. Plus, I'm sure that there are some developers who would happily build the whole MFH out of concrete if it lets them only use a single stair.
Post reply on HN