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

441–450 of 562 posts

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#441

Post by wolverine876 »

slyall wrote: post #131
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…

Unfortunately people from the US (including those who have never lived in an apartment or thought about fire regulations before) instinctively get really worried about this whole idea and assume people are just going to get killed. Happens in this thread and whenever it is brought up in social media. The original article talks about statistics, various extra measures to ensure safety and limiting to buildings 6 store…

I also have an instinct to avoid standing where I could fall a long way - it's probably a good instinct. You haven't provided evidence that the instinct regarding fire safety in single-stair buildings is flawed.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#442

Post by mcmoor »

notatoad wrote: post #249
autoexec wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is some of that certainly, but it's also worth being cautious anytime a developer says they want to abandon fire codes that were put in place to save human lives so that they can add greater density housing. Fire codes got where they are in part because developers were fine with packing people into unsafe housing situations. Let's not let our guard down entirely now.

>that were put in place to save human lives There's an assumption here that the code was put in place to save lives. There's a whole lot of regulation that exists simply to make it difficult to build. Lots of people profit when housing is scarce (or unavailable to certain demographics), and want to keep it that way. It is always worth asking what the point of a regulation is, and whether it accomplishes the thing it…

Ah yes I also sometimes think that some people who champion more regulations and safety actually don't want the thing to exist. Like any discussion about traffic management for example. Or every "think of the children!!".

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#443

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

See also a related video by About Here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRdwXQb7CfM

which mentions this very pertinent section of the US National Housing Association Proceedings (1913), p.212:

"Do everything possible in our laws to encourage the construction of private dwellings and even two-family dwellings, because the two-family house is the next least objectionable type, and penalize so far as we can in our statute, the multiple dwelling of any kind... if we require multiple dwellings to be fireproof, and thus increase the cost of construction; if we require stairs to be fireproofed, even where there are only three families; if we require fire escapes and a host of other things, all dealing with fire protection, we are on safe grounds (compared to zoning regulations based on race), because that can be justified as a legitimate exercise of the police power[...] In our laws let most of the fire provisions relate solely to multiple dwellings, and allow our private houses and two-family houses to be built with no fire protection whatever"

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#444

Post by sunshowers »

rsync wrote: post #188
cycomanic wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I knew this was coming. > Affordability problems in desirable locales already caused progressives to jettison anti-sprawl initiatives and environmental reviews. > It was only a matter of time before our gaze shifted to building codes and life safety provisions as cost-adds that "we" should all work against. So if your safety provisions yield worse outcomes than other places is it not time to review those regulation…

Please see my use of the words “our” and “we”. I am one of those progressives. I just haven’t flip-flopped on sprawl and open space and environmental review based on my current economic outlook.

Conservationist "hippie" environmentalism is very different from, and in many ways the opposite of, modern climate activism. A general concern for the environment is roughly the only thing they share in common.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#445

Post by amrocha »

sroussey wrote: post #431
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…

No elevator would be a no-no here. What if you were in a wheelchair?

Then find a place with an elevator. Not every home needs to be for everyone

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#446

Post by matsemann »

hammock wrote: post #388
kelseyfrog wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a hypothetical for a two-stairwell building: two couches. We can avoid this dangerous scenario with a three-stairwell minimum requirement.

Good point. Why do we even bother with two-lane roads and a double yellow line? Such a waste of space. Very contrived to presume there is always a car coming the other way

Why would you need two lanes in each direction, except perhaps on a highway..? I agree, such a waste of space.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#447

Post by cheriot »

wolverine876 wrote: post #436
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…

> Burdensome regulations on housing construction have caused costs to skyrocket. How much have costs increased, and what tells us that it's regulations, not many other causes? Also, which regulations? Some are more valuable, some less, and inevitably some will misfire. I'm not just going to trust real estate developers, who have their own interests, to meet other needs. > below-market mandates I'm not sure we need mo…

> Also, which regulations?

The entire article is on the prohibition of single stair multi-family residential.

> I'm not sure we need more high-end development - those tenants have plenty of options.

This is silly. When car makers couldn't make enough cars in 2021 and the price went up, was the solution to ban making new cars? Should we have prohibited making cars with fancy trim? Having enough housing for everyone is the only way to make sure affordable housing exists.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#448

Post by amrocha »

wolverine876 wrote: post #441
slyall wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately people from the US (including those who have never lived in an apartment or thought about fire regulations before) instinctively get really worried about this whole idea and assume people are just going to get killed. Happens in this thread and whenever it is brought up in social media. The original article talks about statistics, various extra measures to ensure safety and limiting to buildings 6 store…

I also have an instinct to avoid standing where I could fall a long way - it's probably a good instinct. You haven't provided evidence that the instinct regarding fire safety in single-stair buildings is flawed.

It's not an instinct, it's a gut reaction to change. The evidence is that people aren't burning to death in Europe.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#449

Post by shiroiuma »

Aeolun wrote: post #344
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.

I think in Japanese apartment buildings they’re all required to have their own rope ladder? Since you go from balcony to balcony they don’t even have to be very long.

There's no rope ladder in my apartment here. I've never heard of such a thing.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#450

Post by cheriot »

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.

We should require two stairs for single family housing as well.

The elderly and disabled will also need to get furniture up stairs. Not to mention that the housing shortage forces more people to share a house with strangers.

Post reply on HN