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

491–500 of 562 posts

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#491

Post by ghaff »

gabesullice wrote: post #458
epistasis wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think just the opposite, people want more density but outdated views have made it illegal.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

Relatively dense small villages are a thing in many places. (And historically probably dominated.) Of course, as they get bigger, you've basically created at least a smaller city. And if they stay small you're going to have to travel to a great number of day-to-day locations like larger stores, medical, etc. that depend on a critical mass to operate.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#492

Post by JackFr »

zo1 wrote: post #471
lukas099 wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, what is the safety reason my barber can’t operate out of a room in his house?

Side answer. This kind of regulation lifts GDP by mandating some sort of economic activity. A barber in a room in his house means less rental, less money for commercial real estate company, less money spent buying "commercial" chairs and commercial chemicals. And thousands of other things I can't even fathom as the scope of this problem is huge and so intertwined with all other economic activity.

That’s nonsense. It does not lift GDP any more than breaking windows does. It redirects labor and capital from one use to another.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#493

Post by Spivak »

ido wrote: post #437
Spivak wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's crazy to me that people are arguing against two stair houses when I have a ladder in my single family home in case of a fire that blocks the stairs. Fire in the only stairwell or a collapse, guess you just die or hope the fire department saves you before you suffocate.

If only there was an article addressing exactly your concern!

The article doesn't address this at all. There's only a passing mention of external fire escapes but no argument at all about alternative means of escaping a building in the absence of a the primary one becoming unavailable.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#494

Post by abraxas »

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #412
snakeyjake wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>US housing stock is also much more wooden and therefore at higher risk to begin with. Fire compromising the structure of a building, or the structure itself burning is almost never the cause of death or injury. The primary killer in structure fires is hydrogen cyanide gas. Wood does emit hydrogen cyanide but the primary source is synthetic materials like upholstered furniture, wall and floor coverings, cabinetry, an…

> and the other made of stone and steel Not to mention european houses also have drywall over the concrete these days, the days of barren concrete or plaster over concrete have been over since at least the 90s.

I've never been to a European house that has drywall over concrete or brick. The only time I see drywall used there is in finished attic areas to cover slanted roof rafters.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#495

Post by ksimukka »

gabesullice wrote: post #451

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. No…

My partner and I love the "single-stair multifamily" building "Leilighet" that we live in Oslo, Norway. It was built in the 1920s and has 3 levels with each level having 3 units. We enjoy the people that we live near and we really appreciate that our son is able to be around so many people in our immediate community. For the most part, we are always seeing someone that we know when coming and going.

We have an access road behind the building that is between the building and the green space. This access road is gated and is used by all of us residents (especially the kids).

The green space has plenty of things to share (garden areas, berries, fruit trees, barbecues, tables, chairs, etc...) My 5 year old son has a lot of friends who live in our area and he's able to just be himself running around, climbing trees, digging in dirt, and exploring his world within a safe community.

The density and use of space is much more efficient than what I was previously used to in the Pacific Northwest. During the last five years of living in Oslo, we have only needed a car when visiting friends at their cabins. I feel privileged to live a car free lifestyle.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#496

Post by Gabriel54 »

cmmeur01 wrote: post #489
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.

In the great state of Texas, as I understand the process:

-walk into a licensed firearm dealer

-show government ID (e.g. drivers license)

-fill out ATF form 4473 (approx. two pages)

-wait for background check (called NICS, Near Instance Criminal Background Check System)

-pay for firearm

Did I miss any steps?

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#497

Post by cmmeur01 »

Gabriel54 wrote: post #496
cmmeur01 wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In the great state of Texas, as I understand the process: -walk into a licensed firearm dealer -show government ID (e.g. drivers license) -fill out ATF form 4473 (approx. two pages) -wait for background check (called NICS, Near Instance Criminal Background Check System) -pay for firearm Did I miss any steps?

Little bit different than “ simply by walking into a store and asking for one” no?

Almost like anti-gun people are purposely disingenuous when they state stuff like this and ignore the background check.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#498

Post by seanmcdirmid »

shiroiuma wrote: post #429
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Concrete construction is expensive in the states, although I'm not sure why. 4+1s are common here in Seattle: first story is concrete and commercial, 4 stories on top of that are wooden (we also have the more liberal stair requirements, so I'm not sure what is really going on). Concrete construction is the common way to build in China (and anywhere in Asia sans Japan), but the techniques they use require a bit of ove…

>Concrete construction is the common way to build in China (and anywhere in Asia sans Japan) Concrete-reinforced steel is absolutely common here in Japan. Wood is used for single-family homes, though, but anything larger is generally concrete+steel. >but the techniques they use require a bit of overbuilding and limit their towers to around 34 or so stories. Modern condo towers around me here in Tokyo are frequently 5…

I was in Tokyo recently and didn’t see much talk building growth m, maybe I didn’t go to the right neighborhoods.

China leveraged construction techniques that use unskilled and lower skilled migrant labor, so building height is limited. Other countries that import Chinese and Indian to build (like Singapore) get similar limitations.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#499

Post by seanmcdirmid »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #465
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…

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.

How many are they tearing down to rebuild? Buildings only last ~20-30 years in Japan, so a lot of those are just replacing something that was torn down.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#500

Post by mcculley »

peteey wrote: post #487
mcculley wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 politicall…

The people who attend council meetings are not at all representative of the general myopia that results in so much regulation.

Yes, I have also attended such meetings and interact with NIMBYs. They are part of the problem. General myopia is the bigger problem.

Post reply on HN