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

461–470 of 562 posts

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#461

Post by cycomanic »

jenadine wrote: post #438
cycomanic wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm often surprised when posters identify themselves as "European" which encompasses such a broad range of cultures, biotypes, and ecosystems that it makes any comparison of the US way vs the European way virtually impossible. Many people in Europe do indeed identify as European. This has become more and more prevalent as people increasingly move around in Europe. I'd also argue that you are ignoring the cultural d…

Regarding identifying as European, this is often in relation to something, and one can identify one selves as many things. I identify myself as an inhabitant of my city compared to someone from a neighbour city. I identify as European compared to someone from United States. I identify myself as a westerner compared to people with a completely different culture.

Excellent point. I would also concede to the previous commenter, that citizens of different countries in Europe have (in many aspects) larger cultural differences than citizens of different states in the US (and language is a huge factor), but there are still many commonalities as well.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#462

Post by slyall »

porkbeer wrote: post #426
slyall wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll guess this is people who can afford a big stand-alone house in a nice area

Or Those who want to know their kids are safe and have a place to play.

Not much use wanting to have a stand-alone place if you can't afford it.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#463

Post by bagels »

astrange wrote: post #455
shiroiuma wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I've seen be some terrifying elevators in Italy.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#464

Post by TomK32 »

There's point about the whole fire risk that has been missed so far: Denser settlements allow fire fighters to repsond and arriver faster and the chance for a neighbour to spot the fire in a house is much higher if there are more neighbours.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#465

Post by throwaway2037 »

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…

More about Tokyo new units here: https://rstudio-pubs-static.s3.amazonaws.com/361409_dcd56370...

Title = How Tokyo built its way to abundant housing

TL;DR: Since 1995 (yes, during the lost decade) they are building ~150k new "dwellings" per year. Wow.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#466

Post by throwaway2037 »

bluGill wrote: post #292
greenthrow wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument doesn't really make sense because the problem isn't lack of houses or apartments, there's plenty of places to put everyone. The problem is one of affordability. The costs of stuff that already exists and has existed for ages isn't really tied to the current cost to build, even if we buy the specious argument that all regulation raises costs and those costs are inevitably passed directly to tenants.

supply and eemand sets rents. You you rent perfecly good existing houses cheap in rural areas. Nobody wants to like there. There is no reason to think there is enourh room for everyone who wants to like in San Francisco, and statistics prove they heve not been building much. Mean while in other states we find areas of demand where housing is not expensive. Where I live you can rent one bedroom apartments for under $1…

> Nobody wants to li[v]e there.

It would be better to say that rents are lower in rural areas because there is either more supply or lower median salary.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#467

Post by FinnKuhn »

bluGill wrote: post #297
Tiktaalik wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reason five over ones are popular in the US has nothing to do with staircase requirements. The reason is money, like always. Yes it is money. More staircases remarkably increase the costs of buildings. Single stairway, cheaper buildings, more profitable to do other sorts of buildings, more variety of buildings etc. (see also no parking mandates)

Stairs are not expensivei they take space, but are cheay otherwise

In most cities space is the expensive thing

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#468

Post by bell-cot »

bluGill wrote: post #297
Tiktaalik wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reason five over ones are popular in the US has nothing to do with staircase requirements. The reason is money, like always. Yes it is money. More staircases remarkably increase the costs of buildings. Single stairway, cheaper buildings, more profitable to do other sorts of buildings, more variety of buildings etc. (see also no parking mandates)

Stairs are not expensivei they take space, but are cheay otherwise

By the time you've complied with all current codes, stairs themselves do take up an unreasonable amount of floor space.

But there's a usually-worse cost to the second set of stairs, that I'll call "geometry". A second set of stairs is not a giant support column, which you can wall off and ignore. The halls, doors, and such that it requires also suck up space, and impose many more restrictions on the layout of the actual living spaces for human beings - which are the sole reason for the building to exist.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#469

Post by brtkdotse »

eru wrote: post #310
gamepsys wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just curious, are there any regulations on housing you agree with? There tends to be belief that housing regulations exist to limit supply. Let's not forget that many of these encourage safety and are cost effective ways to increase the quality of life of the residents. If we take deregulation and cheap housing to the extreme we end up with shanty towns.

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

> Making housing cheaper also means making higher quality housing cheaper.

Or, much more likely, builder profits higher.

Post reply on HN