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

481–490 of 562 posts

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#481

Post by yccs27 »

robertlagrant wrote: post #476
willis936 wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of these zoning changes lower the already low barrier for multinationals to build, but does nothing for actual families. I'm presently surrounded by hundreds of empty units priced out of reach because these companies are illegally colluding to fix the price. They may claim ignorance and try to launder responsibility through a series of tech products, but at the end of the day the rent is high where I am because…

Sorry I don't understand - why would they be selling units, but also deliberately pricing them too high?

To get more money? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#482

Post by robertlagrant »

yccs27 wrote: post #481
robertlagrant wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry I don't understand - why would they be selling units, but also deliberately pricing them too high?

To get more money? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing

But they're standing empty. If they're empty, they're not getting any money.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#483

Post by Paradigma11 »

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.

That doesnt help you because another neighbor is moving out and blocking the second staircase with another couch. This is the reason why you should have three staircases and only two neighbors. Though a problem arises if a neighbor is able to block a staircase and start a fire at the same time. That has to be checked beforehand.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#484

Post by Paradigma11 »

hammock wrote: post #385
kdmccormick wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. That is an extremely specific situation! > How is double stair MFH overzealous? There is a cost to every regulation. The cost to this one is that housing is more expensive for all Americans. Stress, poverty, and homelessness all lead to negative health ou…

>That is an extremely specific situation! It’s an example. Can you generalize it or should I?

I just dont think it would really help that often. It is not the stairwells that are burning, it is some appartment on a floor below. Your problem is going to be smoke and visibility, not some couch blocking the stair. If those stairs are connected, you will most likely have smoke everywhere and will have no clue if one stair is safer than the other.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#485

Post by ardaoweo »

Aside from getting rid of unnecessary regulation, letting everyone who can work remotely to do so is a great way to bring down house prices in most in-demand areas.

Way too many people are forced to move into big cities simply for work, even though they really wouldn't want to. It's bad for them, and bad for those who actually want to live in those areas, but can't afford it.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#486

Post by ghaff »

andix wrote: post #161
ghaff wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was just visiting a European friend for a couple weeks. They have a car but parking was a sufficient drama that they took the Uber equivalent within the city most of the time. Busses but minimal metro.

I honestly don't see the drama in most European cities, it's not like in NYC. Street parking is very limited in bigger cities, so you might need to park in expensive parking garages. Or use other methods of travel. Only in areas with a lot of old houses (built before cars were a thing) there might be a lack of garages. Owning/driving a car is generally very expensive in many European countries. Not like in the US whe…

This was southern Europe. Looked like mostly street/sidewalk parking as far as I could tell. Certainly lots of cars--not a lot of scooters.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#487

Post by peteey »

mcculley wrote: post #472
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.

> There tends to be belief that housing regulations exist to limit supply. It is often more the case that limited supply is an unintended outcome. People just don’t think ahead.

>limited supply is an unintended outcome.

I have been to many city council meetings. Stymieing population growth is an explicit goal. The speakers tend to perceive harms from more people as opposed to pure misanthropes.

e.g. "More people creates more traffic so we should prevent housing to prevent people"

Although, I cannot see their true intents. It is possible the speakers do dislike people, which is not politically popular. Expressing their desire requires making up other tangential causes. Hidden agendas creates engineering confusion. If the goal was truly to manage traffic, an engineer would suggest better bus routes.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#488

Post by Gabriel54 »

I know I'm going to get a lot of pushback for raising this point, but I'm somewhat incredulous to see people bring up safety as the reason for these restrictions, when this country simultaneously (in many places) allows young adults to buy a gun (or lots of guns!) simply by walking into a store and asking for one. But heaven help you if you want to build a three story building with one stairway.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#489

Post by cmmeur01 »

Gabriel54 wrote: post #488

I know I'm going to get a lot of pushback for raising this point, but I'm somewhat incredulous to see people bring up safety as the reason for these restrictions, when this country simultaneously (in many places) allows young adults to buy a gun (or lots of guns!) simply by walking into a store and asking for one. But heaven help you if you want to build a three story building with one stairway.

Nice another uneducated take that shows no understanding of the firearms buying process.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#490

Post by ghaff »

anon291 wrote: post #291
ghaff wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does mean disabled residents are sort of screwed if there's a fire alarm and the elevators are shutoff--as a friend told me recently--unless the neighbors can help. But that's sort of ignored given lack of realistic options.

If you can't walk down one staircase, and require an elevator no matter what, how are two staircases going to help?

The context was perhaps lost in the thread. Yes, I was talking about having to go up or down a staircase in general. As you say, one or two doesn't really matter.
Post reply on HN