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

41–50 of 562 posts

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#41

Post by masklinn »

LandoCalrissian wrote: post #37

Why not get rid of all fire safety protections? We can really get moving then. The ADA is pretty onerous, if we just ignore that we can have it up in half the time! I don't REALLY need all that electrical grounding in my house, all that extra copper adds up you know, think of how many more houses we could build without it?

As the article argues, at length, the "most of the USA" with this requirement does worse than NYC which does not have it, and significantly worse than Europe which does not have it but even more.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#43

Post by RandomLensman »

ok_dad wrote: post #25
bequanna wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have yet to understand why people have made land value tax a thing. As I understand it, land value and improvements are already taxed but a land value tax would only tax land value. Can someone make this make sense? Why would this promote development?

The classic example is the lot that sits empty or has a parking structure on it in Manhattan. Today, you pay very little tax on the empty land or parking lot because you’re taxed on that total value of the land and improvements. This discourages building stuff sometimes. With land value tax, you’d be taxed on what someone would pay you for that land with improvements similar to surrounding, so it’s advantageous to bu…

So if the most valuable use is luxury apartments and stores that would be what everything needs to converge to? Feels like a tax always looking towards the most valuable use could actually be very regressive and push anything but the richest out of economically attractive cities. Maybe I am missing something?

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#44

Post by munchler »

erikaww wrote: post #24
ponector wrote: post #15

I have a great idea how to solve housing shortage in US: ban single family houses inside and near the city borders. Make 25-mile zone where new construction could be multi family only.

A more realistic solution is just to remove restrictions that discourage MFH in the first place (zoning height limits parking requirements lot size requirements height requirements regressive fees/taxes)

How to ruin existing suburban neighborhoods in one easy step!

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#45

Post by renewiltord »

bequanna wrote: post #13
alexb_ wrote: post #3

Land Value Tax being the main method of taxation would encourage municipalities to adopt things like this.

I have yet to understand why people have made land value tax a thing. As I understand it, land value and improvements are already taxed but a land value tax would only tax land value. Can someone make this make sense? Why would this promote development?

Well, one system taxes land value and improvement and the other taxes only land value. In the first system, all improvements have a tax cost of x * value(improvement). In the second system, they have a tax cost of 0. There's three possible outcomes: this increases improvements, this keeps them the same, and this decreases improvements. It depends on whether you think moving one cost component from positive to zero puts us in the first, the second, or the third worlds there.

I just tried it out and ChatGPT helps if you want to understand this. It is quite patient and will provide instant responses.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#46

Post by pomian »

alexb_ wrote: post #6
hiAndrewQuinn wrote: post #2

The Boston triple decker should be the standard home of North America and nobody can tell me otherwise.

The issue with regard to single stair buildings are for things taller than 3 stories. IIRC in America 3 stories is the most common limit by far, and in Canada it's even worse with most regulations having 2 stories as the limit for a single stair complex.

We need two exits in Canada. Because a snow drift can easily block one exit. That's why there are exits on each side of a structure, not two, on the same side.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#47

Post by kilotaras »

bequanna wrote: post #13
alexb_ wrote: post #3

Land Value Tax being the main method of taxation would encourage municipalities to adopt things like this.

I have yet to understand why people have made land value tax a thing. As I understand it, land value and improvements are already taxed but a land value tax would only tax land value. Can someone make this make sense? Why would this promote development?

Someone buys a property:

    +-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
    |    Type     | Land Value | Cover Value | Total Value |
    +-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
    | Parking Lot |        100 |           0 |         100 |
    | Dump        |        100 |         -20 |          80 |
    | Skyscrapper |        100 |         100 |         200 |
    +-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
Land increases in price and buyer sells it:

    +-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
    |    Type     | Land Value | Cover Value | Total Value |
    +-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
    | Parking Lot |        150 |           0 |         150 |
    | Dump        |        150 |         -20 |         130 |
    | Skyscrapper |        150 |         100 |         250 |
    +-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
In all 3 cases there's a profit of 50, but dump payed the least taxes followed by parking lot and then skyscrapper. In places where land increases in value it incentives to hold the land while NOT developing it.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#48

Post by ghaff »

alexb_ wrote: post #6
hiAndrewQuinn wrote: post #2

The Boston triple decker should be the standard home of North America and nobody can tell me otherwise.

The issue with regard to single stair buildings are for things taller than 3 stories. IIRC in America 3 stories is the most common limit by far, and in Canada it's even worse with most regulations having 2 stories as the limit for a single stair complex.

Boston and immediate environs is still pretty expensive but, at least historically, these sort of multi-unit houses tended to be in less expensive neighborhoods (many of which are now pretty expensive).

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#49

Post by Spivak »

lanewinfield wrote: post #31
exabrial wrote: post #20

No. It’s not only fire that’s a hazard, but a personal safety thing. Most men here probably never experienced being stalked, or having to turn around when your path is through a group of shady characters. In the Midwest, brick/concrete fire stairwells have another benefit: tornado shelters. While a sufficient tornado would decimate any wooden structure, these stairwells provide essential protection from the main haza…

profits and tax revenue? how about more housing for those who need it? or should we prevent housing for the 500,000 americans who don't have it because of tornadoes?

This is what's called a false dilemma, pitting two non-mutually exclusive options as an either or situation when they're actually not opposed to one another.

We should get to reap the benefits of improved fire and personal safety and build more housing.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#50

Post by pmontra »

jackson1442 wrote: post #22
hobs wrote: post #16

No mention of the ADA in the entire article - I guess people with mobility issues should go fly a kite.

you can have single-stair with elevators.

Which is the norm in Europe. One stair, one elevator. Even large and long buildings are divided in "stairs": there is central concrete tower with the staircase and the elevator shaft and a number of flats around it. Repeat like a pack of AA batteries. No way to move between them except the basement with parking for the cars.
Post reply on HN