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

371–380 of 562 posts

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#371

Post by u801e »

kspacewalk2 wrote: post #362
hammock wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> A couch and a fire and that couch can't be pushed over or jumped over.

Not everyone is young and in shape to push couches or jump over them.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#372

Post by ksplicer »

jojobas wrote: post #366
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.

I don't know anyone starting a family happy with the situation. Most people I know are moving to suburbs only because they can't get 3 bedroom apartments in cities. If MFH's became broadly available I think many new families would flock there.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#373

Post by maxglute »

neilv wrote: post #268

> But when architects try to design apartments with two or more bedrooms, the apartments balloon in size, since every 10-foot-wide bedroom ends up coming with 30 or more feet in unit depth. Try to add a single 120-square foot bedroom and you’ll end up having to add another 180 square feet on top that you need to fill some other way—probably with walk-in closets and en-suite bathrooms, adding the expense of more plumb…

>absolutely true, within the constraints

Basically. Possible geometries relative to site limitations and building codes have been programmatically optimized to death to maximize number of units. There's not much hacking when living room + bedroom need windows. Occasionally there's a plot large enough where carving light wells / atriums makes sense. But developers would rather work on smaller plots that doesnt require wasting interior space, or larger plots where they can fit multiple buildings.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#374

Post by true_religion »

ajmurmann wrote: post #360
SkeuomorphicBee wrote: post #97

Looking from the outside I would guess this is one of the big reasons for the "missing middle" [1] (lack of medium-density housing) in most North American cities. It is simply not economically feasible to build a small to medium size multi-unit building if you need to include two stairwells, so all buildings are either single family houses or huge mega projects. In my country the simple and cheap four-story walk-up c…

The two stairways result in double-loaded hallways which also negatively impact unit sizes and make it impossible to have windows on more than one wall in most rooms. It's a total disaster

The fire escape can count as a separate staircase too and it can go over windows.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#375

Post by gamepsys »

eru wrote: post #304
mperham wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Zoning laws have a lot to do with safety & public health. Industrial zoning is far away from residential because factories produce pollution.

Edit: Some parts of zoning law has to do with safety/health. Some parts don't. Some parts are about more than one thing.

When I was growing up there was a chemical fire in a factory in town. People were evacuated. Luckily, very few homes were evacuated because zoning laws kept homes far away from the factory. The residential area that was evacuated was low density.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is some value in some of these rules.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#376

Post by jojobas »

Naturally the authors don't live in dangerous shoeboxes, dorm rooms or co-living pods they advocates the plebs should race to the bottom to.

Every time someone nudges "the workforce" closer and closer to the 2-penny hangovers you can be sure he has a downtown penthouse, a suburban mansion, or both, and hope to scalp bottom-feeder market once regulations are laxed.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#377

Post by anticensor »

novagameco wrote: post #214
deadbabe wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People can never live there, it’s not up to code. You can rent the offices really really cheap.

Change the code and it becomes way cheaper to renovate them. Turn them into dormitory style buildings with communal bathrooms and interior apartments with no outward facing windows

Most married couples would still not prefer them. It would be stuffed by single people that would otherwise be homeless.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#379

Post by lukas099 »

u801e wrote: post #371
kspacewalk2 wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> A couch and a fire and that couch can't be pushed over or jumped over. Not everyone is young and in shape to push couches or jump over them.

So even more contrived

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#380

Post by jojobas »

ksplicer wrote: post #372
jojobas wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't know anyone starting a family happy with the situation. Most people I know are moving to suburbs only because they can't get 3 bedroom apartments in cities. If MFH's became broadly available I think many new families would flock there.

Everyone I spoke to who has lived with kids in both flats and houses on 600sqm blocks prefers the latter, commute (which commute?) be damned.
Post reply on HN