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

51–60 of 562 posts

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#51

Post by toast0 »

ok_dad wrote: post #25
bequanna wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have yet to understand why people have made land value tax a thing. As I understand it, land value and improvements are already taxed but a land value tax would only tax land value. Can someone make this make sense? Why would this promote development?

The classic example is the lot that sits empty or has a parking structure on it in Manhattan. Today, you pay very little tax on the empty land or parking lot because you’re taxed on that total value of the land and improvements. This discourages building stuff sometimes. With land value tax, you’d be taxed on what someone would pay you for that land with improvements similar to surrounding, so it’s advantageous to bu…

> Today, you pay very little tax on the empty land or parking lot because you’re taxed on that total value of the land and improvements. This discourages building stuff sometimes. With land value tax, you’d be taxed on what someone would pay you for that land with improvements similar to surrounding, so it’s advantageous to build something there instead of nothing, since you’re paying the same tax as the sky scraper next door.

If you're being taxed on hypothetical improvements and not just the value of the land, why is it called a Land Value Tax, rather than a Hypothetical Best Use Tax? People assume the name means what it says and get confused.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#52

Post by masklinn »

fnimick wrote: post #27
ponector wrote: post #15

I have a great idea how to solve housing shortage in US: ban single family houses inside and near the city borders. Make 25-mile zone where new construction could be multi family only.

You don't even have to go that far, just ban single-family-only zoning. The economic pressure to add more units will take care of the rest.

And more generally move zoning to a nuisance basis (as in Japan or Europe), euclidian exclusionary zoning is a root cause of suburbian sprawl and dead areas.

That means local shops can pop up, and city centers are able to progressively transition upwards at the edges (and plots can be upzoned) instead of having a sea of low-density housing suddenly becoming a bunch of skyscrapers.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#53

Post by bluGill »

lanewinfield wrote: post #31
exabrial wrote: post #20

No. It’s not only fire that’s a hazard, but a personal safety thing. Most men here probably never experienced being stalked, or having to turn around when your path is through a group of shady characters. In the Midwest, brick/concrete fire stairwells have another benefit: tornado shelters. While a sufficient tornado would decimate any wooden structure, these stairwells provide essential protection from the main haza…

profits and tax revenue? how about more housing for those who need it? or should we prevent housing for the 500,000 americans who don't have it because of tornadoes?

You would scream if those homeless died in a fire or tornado because the building lacked protection.

The two staircase rule increases costs, but not by that much - any place that allows building housing doens't have a homeless problem. That isn't to say there are no homeless people - there are many - but they are homeless because of other issues (mental). In California the homeless often are otherwise normal people who cannot afford a place to live despite the ability to work a job. Where I live you can rent a new two bedroom apartment in walking distance of Burger King that pays enough to afford that apartment and leave enough leftover for food - it won't be a great life, but you can live on one income (and since most people live as a couple that second income can buy some nice things)

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#54

Post by ghaff »

pomian wrote: post #46
alexb_ wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue with regard to single stair buildings are for things taller than 3 stories. IIRC in America 3 stories is the most common limit by far, and in Canada it's even worse with most regulations having 2 stories as the limit for a single stair complex.

We need two exits in Canada. Because a snow drift can easily block one exit. That's why there are exits on each side of a structure, not two, on the same side.

There was a so-so movie based on this one exit theme once. Forget where it was set.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#56

Post by pjmorris »

ajuc wrote: post #35
exabrial wrote: post #20

No. It’s not only fire that’s a hazard, but a personal safety thing. Most men here probably never experienced being stalked, or having to turn around when your path is through a group of shady characters. In the Midwest, brick/concrete fire stairwells have another benefit: tornado shelters. While a sufficient tornado would decimate any wooden structure, these stairwells provide essential protection from the main haza…

It's fucked up that you have problem with society and you think the way to solve it is building code.

Maybe, but there's a long tradition that suggests maybe it's necessary...

"229 If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death."

- Hammurabi's Code, ~1750 BC

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#57

Post by carabiner »

exabrial wrote: post #20

No. It’s not only fire that’s a hazard, but a personal safety thing. Most men here probably never experienced being stalked, or having to turn around when your path is through a group of shady characters. In the Midwest, brick/concrete fire stairwells have another benefit: tornado shelters. While a sufficient tornado would decimate any wooden structure, these stairwells provide essential protection from the main haza…

"Think of the children" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children) has morphed into "think of the helpless women." Tell me, in places that do not have this building regulation, is stalking an epidemic at apartment buildings? In what other ways are they suffering? Would you support adding a two-stair requirement in those locales?

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#58

Post by munchler »

deadbabe wrote: post #19
ponector wrote: post #15

I have a great idea how to solve housing shortage in US: ban single family houses inside and near the city borders. Make 25-mile zone where new construction could be multi family only.

This dovetails nicely with the push for WFH.

Hard disagree. With WFH, cities now have beautiful but empty office buildings near public transportation. Those should be turned into housing first.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#60

Post by masklinn »

hobs wrote: post #16

No mention of the ADA in the entire article - I guess people with mobility issues should go fly a kite.

How exactly do two staircases improve accessibility compared to... one staircase?

The norm in europe is one staircase and one elevator. The elevator is the accessible bit.

Post reply on HN