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

451–460 of 562 posts

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#451

Post by gabesullice »

I can speak to and endorse this kind of unit from personal experience. I was born, raised and lived most of my life in Denver, CO. Now, I live in France in a 'single-stair multifamily'.

Growing up I mostly lived in single family homes, but in college my dad moved into a townhouse and I lived with him for a couple years.

Before moving to France, my wife and I lived in single family homes and a '5-over-1' apartment.

Now, we live on the 7th floor, end-unit of an apartment building. It's a 'single-stair multifamily,' 'floor-through' apartment (thankfully with an elevator). Meaning our apartment a large balcony one one side and windows on three sides. The only side without a window leads to the stairwell. Every room has a window, even the bathroom and toilet (often separated in France).

Without a doubt, this place is one of the best types of housing I've ever occupied. In the summer we can open up windows on either side of the apartment and get a fantastic breeze. The concrete structure does a great job regulating the temperature for most of the year. We get sunlight in the morning and evening.

I hate yardwork and there's none to do. No sidewalks to shovel snow from either. I also experience neighborliness on par with most single family homes. Very similar to my dad's townhouse actually (probably not by coincidence if you think about the incentive structures).

We have a 5 year old son and we don't miss having a yard. There are parks nearby with playgrounds and paths where he can safely ride his bike without worrying about any cars.

Admittedly, I do miss having barbecues in the backyard. I also miss having a garage to use as a workshop.

The 5-over-1, on the other hand, was easily the worst type of housing I've occupied. Poor lighting, anonymous, ugly corridors. No sense of neighborliness. Poorly maintained and constructed. Nowhere near a good park without walking along a nasty arterial surface street.

I frequently ask myself, 'why can't we have this in the States?!' and now I know why. Building codes, zoning and city planners strike again.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#452

Post by Doxin »

wiml wrote: post #307
keyringlight wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "Well there's your problem" podcast did an episode on 'five over ones' (five stories of wood over one concrete) and touched on this - IIRC they were most likely to burn down during construction when the fire suppression wasn't installed and active yet.

They also did a more in-depth episode on Grenfell, which touched on a lot of the same issues, except Grenfell was (a) taller and (b) occupied.

I can heartily recommend that episode if you like a podcast to a) be respectful to the victims and b) clown on the people who caused it.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#453

Post by astrange »

eru wrote: post #340
astrange wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't pay the mortgage on a place you're not renting out though, so they mostly can't withhold supply. It applies more to things like retired people living by themselves in a 3 bedroom house.

OK. Though if they can't withhold supply, how are those cartels supposed to hold up prices, then?

They don't, it's not real.

(Except that they can prevent construction of new units through zoning.)

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#454

Post by astrange »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #343
astrange wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those places that don't have housing emergencies generally have just as bad regulations, and would have the same problems the instant they became appealing enough to move there. Eventually you run out of built out sprawl.

> hose places that don't have housing emergencies generally have just as bad regulations, and would have the same problems the instant they became appealing enough to move there. If American population was equalized across these other cities, there would be less pressure on the few hot places everyone wants to move now, since our population isn't growing so much these days. > Eventually you run out of built out spraw…

> Out of all those, only Tokyo does well, but that wasn't the case in the 80s and is on the basis of a moribund economy and a not growing national population (one wonders when Seoul and SH will follow).

Japan's economy is growing again (Nikkei is now at the level it was in 1990) and Tokyo's population has always been growing.

…but the rent isn't, because they allow infill development.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#455

Post by astrange »

shiroiuma wrote: post #428
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> hose places that don't have housing emergencies generally have just as bad regulations, and would have the same problems the instant they became appealing enough to move there. If American population was equalized across these other cities, there would be less pressure on the few hot places everyone wants to move now, since our population isn't growing so much these days. > Eventually you run out of built out spraw…

>Manhattan is not a sprawl and a very desirable place to live, with super high rents to boot. Hong Kong, Seoul, Shanghai, and even Tokyo are the same, so I'm not sure what you are trying to claim here. Those cities are actually impossible to have in America (yes, including Manhattan), because of zoning laws and various other laws. Manhattan is only allowed to exist because it's grandfathered in and the local laws all…

Fun fact: the US and Italy have about the same number of elevators, because it costs us about ten times more to build one.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#456

Post by gabesullice »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #346

Single-stair multifamily: why not. I live in one now (wife, daughter and me) after having spent time in a rural area (detached house in the middle of nowhere). But why take Barcelona as an example? These superblocks are horrible . Barcelona is noisy, stressful and impersonate (plus there are shitloads of pickpockets and serious issues between independentists and nationalists). There's a middle ground between one hous…

I spent a little less than a year as a digital nomad living/working for about three weeks at a time in various cities in Italy, France, Austria, and Spain during my twenties. Barcelona's housing was my least favorite and not representative of any other place I stayed. I stayed in those 'superblocks', not near the old city where most tourists stay. It was the most 'American' feeling in terms of its walkability and how impersonal it felt.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#457

Post by gabesullice »

slyall wrote: post #182
rolph wrote: post #80

multiple streams of people converging on a choke point exit is poor planning in general, but often lethal in the case of fire.

Except there are often fewer people per exit in single-exit designs and the exits are closer to each apartment

Correct. You're just not going to get into a bottleneck situation with ~4-8 people per floor/flight of stairs.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#458

Post by gabesullice »

epistasis wrote: post #239
jes5199 wrote: post #38

I think we've hit peak density already and the rest of the 21st century will be defined by people moving into former farmlands

I think just the opposite, people want more density but outdated views have made it illegal. Former farmlands are cheap, dense areas are super expensive. The market has spoken, yet we continue to undersupply density by regulatory fiat, against the will of the people.

Dense, rural towns ftw

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#459

Post by autoexec »

notatoad wrote: post #407
autoexec wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a much bigger assumption that the fire code which requires people have somewhere to escape to when a stairwell is on fire was put in place to make it difficult to build instead of for helping to keep families from burning alive. I fully agree that if after careful and thorough examination it's determined that the codes are outdated and can be removed without endangering people that they should be, even i…

>I think it's a much bigger assumption... i don't think it's that big of an assumption. there's a long history of discrimination being enforced through building codes. will a second stairwell save a life at some point? almost certainly yes, but it wouldn't be an effective blocker if it obviously didn't. the question isn't whether it improves safety, it's whether it improves safety enough to be worthwhile. a second st…

The difference is that for a single family home people have other ways to get out alive. Someone could easily survive a drop out of a second story window and ropes (or today ladders like this one https://www.homedepot.com/p/Kidde-Fire-Escape-Ladder-2-Story...) make single family homes with only one stairwell pretty safe.

That doesn't work when you're got people trapped in a six-story tenement. International Building Code requires the second stairway only for buildings higher than three stories which seems like a good idea considering that the median height leading to death is about 4 to 5 storeys. (https://thetraumapro.com/2010/01/11/what-you-need-to-know-ab...)

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#460

Post by cycomanic »

bluGill wrote: post #194
cycomanic wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When I look closer, the newer the building the better it tends to do in general. Which should be in favour of the US, which has much younger housing stock. So likely the statistics are even worse (from a US standpoint) if we consider building age. >And as the article itself points out, Europe doesn't use nearly as much wood which changes things Actually many new large buildings in Germany, Scandinavia... are build…

a passive house in germany would not even meet the minimun requirments for Minnesota where it wouldn'd be passive. Climate matters.

Sure climate matters, however your assertion seems to be incorrect.

> Almost all Passivhauses rely on: very heavy insulation, R-40 to R-60 walls, R-50 to R-90 roofs, and often R-30 to 50 sub-slab insulation, triple-glazed low-e windows, and exceptional avoidance of thermal bridges (except for wood framing) ...

from [1]

While Minnesota requires significantly less insulation:

> Wood frame wall insulation: R-20 or 13+5 (CZ6), R-21 (CZ7) Foundation or crawl space insulation: R-15 insulation for concrete masonry foundations and R-10 applied to the exterior of the wall; R-10 continuous insulation is allowed on the exterior of the foundation wall if the air leakage rate is below 2.6 ACH50 Duct insulation: Depending on the location, R-3.3 to R-8 and vapor or weather retarder might be required from [2]

To compare to a much more comparable climate. In Sweden the U-value (metric units) of a window must be better than 1 W/m^2K, Minnesota building standard requires a U-factor (imperial) of better than 0.32 Btu/h·ft2·F which corresponds to a U-value (metric units) of 1.82 W/m^2K. Note lower is better, so for a similar climate the European code requires almost twice as good windows.

[1] https://buildingscience.com/documents/insights/bsi-025-the-p...

[2] https://www.tradesmance.com/career-central/minnesota-insulat...

Post reply on HN