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

541–550 of 562 posts

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#541

Post by nullc »

u32480932048 wrote: post #522
gamepsys wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Environmental review, community review, and MFH standards all have something to do with safety. It's not like root comment is arguing against fire hydrants or carbon monoxide detectors. I'm just arguing not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

In practice, the has mostly been used by non-environmentalists to delay development they simply don't like. (This one has to do specifically with CA, but it's not the first time I've seen this complaint.) "Projects designed to advance California’s environmental policy objectives are the most frequent targets of CEQA lawsuits: transit is the most frequently challenged type of infrastructure project (edging out challen…

I'm clueless on the subject and don't intend to argue the point, but it struck me that the metric that article consistently uses is one that almost guarantees the results: It's not surprising to learn that the categories that have the greatest amount of activity by far are the ones with the most CEQA challenges.

The point would be much stronger if it was made in terms the rate of challenges for varrious project types rather then in terms of frequency of CEQA challenges being that kind of project.

The assumption I'd draw from that, being ignorant of the subject, is that the argument is unsupportable on that more reasonable basis.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#542

Post by rolph »

gabesullice wrote: post #457
slyall wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

as long as it stays that way, all too often friends, and extended family move in, then thanksgiving and christmas happen

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#543

Post by snakeyjake »

steveBK123 wrote: post #232
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…

What are your thoughts on sprinklers in these types of situations? Are they mostly to give people enough time to get out? Do you feel the safety reduction of moving to single stair is offset by requiring sprinkling? The way I have seen the idea of single-stair multifamily proposed in US was that in areas where zoning requires sprinklers in multifamily dwellings anyway, all the extra hallway space required for the sec…

There are many types of fires that can be extinguished by sprinklers but their primary function is to give occupants more time to escape.

A common type of fire that has emerged recently is lithium ion battery fires. Some jurisdictions have so many it is an epidemic.

Sprinklers do nothing to combat lithium iron battery fires, other than slowing the growth of secondary fires.

Honestly I don't think secondary exits should be required for small, low-occupancy buildings (that's a problem we solved with fire escapes but they're "ugly") but at the same time I don't think eliminating them would solve any accommodation availability problems.

For example, in the floor plan included in the article, eliminating the secondary egress staircase would add less than 140 square feet (varies by jurisdiction/occupancy but that floor plan looks like 48" wide stairs with 8 12" treads and a 48"*96" landing on each end) to the floor. In the article itself the author (rightly) asserts that adding a single bedroom to the design in a size acceptable to the market requires approximately 180 additional square feet.

So all you'd get are bigger bedrooms and/or closets, or the addition of a single tiny bedroom. Indeed, in the example given in the article it would be almost impossible to add an additional bedroom. But one or both of the apartments could be given palatial bathrooms...

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#544

Post by u801e »

pzone wrote: post #536
u801e wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A couch and a fire and that couch can't be pushed over or jumped over. Not everyone is young and in shape to push couches or jump over them.

If you have mobility issues that prevent you from exiting your building easily then you can move somewhere else. We don’t need to make every apartment building in the country more expensive for this extremely specific scenario.

I can go up and down unobstructed stairs without any issues, but I have back problems which keep me from doing heavy lifting and I'm in no condition to jump or climb over a sofa in the middle of a flight of stairs.

The real problem here is expecting people to be able bodied enough to deal with a lack of alternative exits when someone in the same building inevitably is careless enough to start a fire.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#545

Post by pandaman »

masklinn wrote: post #539
pandaman wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zoning is already on the nuisance basis in many places in the US. It means local shops cannot pop up in residential neighborhoods if nobody wants to live near such a shop. If residents are fine with traffic, noise and pests they can vote for changing zoning on any lot to commercial. High density residential is almost the same, except there are also physical limitations of the infrastructure.

That's specifically not what nuisance basis means. That's exclusionary zoning, and the co-morbid NIMBY-ism. In a nuisance basis zoning system, an area would not be zoned like that, a business would only be forbidden if it exceeded the nuisance level for the zone. So in most areas, small stores and restaurants are allowed, because they are low-nuisance businesses. Even in very low nuisance areas, businesses traditiona…

So correct me if I get you incorrectly.

1. "NIMBY" is a Redditism for people who are apparently obsessed with the value of their property and do not allow dense residential construction only because the value of their property will plummet due to increased supply (no nuisance concerns are accepted).

2. The very same "NIMBY" do not allow commercial construction because it decreases residential supply and increases value of their property (which they are obsessed with, see #1), no nuisance concerns are accepted.

Did I get it right?

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#546

Post by atombender »

abraxas wrote: post #494
thatfrenchguy wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Very common here in Norway, at least. Drywall isn't just to create solid surfaces between structural timber, it also helps dampen sound and provide a flat surface for paint. A poured concrete wall is very rough and would require plastering to get a flat, smooth surface, which is more labor-intensive than just drywalling.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#547

Post by pertymcpert »

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.

What are you on about? It does the exact opposite.

I can’t believe I’m seeing this on HN.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#548

Post by willis936 »

robertlagrant wrote: post #482
yccs27 wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They're maximizing revenue by operating at a lower quantity and higher cost. This is microeconomics 101. People get driven out of urban areas where there are good paying jobs. In an ideal market this should be undercut by competition. In reality all available housing in urban areas are owned by large corporations all using the same price-setting backend. This is an illegal trust supercharged by the internet and globalization. It's an international Pottersville rapidly sprung from nowhere. So no, big corporations don't need more government handouts to do more of the same. Incentives for not-profit-driven entities (such as humans seeking secure housing) should be given.

https://www.propublica.org/article/doj-backs-tenants-price-f...

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#549

Post by masklinn »

pandaman wrote: post #545
masklinn wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's specifically not what nuisance basis means. That's exclusionary zoning, and the co-morbid NIMBY-ism. In a nuisance basis zoning system, an area would not be zoned like that, a business would only be forbidden if it exceeded the nuisance level for the zone. So in most areas, small stores and restaurants are allowed, because they are low-nuisance businesses. Even in very low nuisance areas, businesses traditiona…

So correct me if I get you incorrectly. 1. "NIMBY" is a Redditism for people who are apparently obsessed with the value of their property and do not allow dense residential construction only because the value of their property will plummet due to increased supply (no nuisance concerns are accepted). 2. The very same "NIMBY" do not allow commercial construction because it decreases residential supply and increases val…

> So correct me if I get you incorrectly.

You do.

> Did I get it right?

No. Neither of your assertions is relevant to a nuisance-based zoning system. That is the point. They're only possible in an exclusionary zoning system, where plots have to be rezoned in order to have any sort of varied activity.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#550

Post by pandaman »

masklinn wrote: post #549
pandaman wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So correct me if I get you incorrectly. 1. "NIMBY" is a Redditism for people who are apparently obsessed with the value of their property and do not allow dense residential construction only because the value of their property will plummet due to increased supply (no nuisance concerns are accepted). 2. The very same "NIMBY" do not allow commercial construction because it decreases residential supply and increases val…

> So correct me if I get you incorrectly. You do. > Did I get it right? No. Neither of your assertions is relevant to a nuisance-based zoning system. That is the point. They're only possible in an exclusionary zoning system, where plots have to be rezoned in order to have any sort of varied activity.

I don't see where am I. Your opinion is that retail is not nuisance is, you know, just your opinion. American zoning is literally based on nuisance - SFH zoning excludes nuisance sources such as multi-family housing and retail, multi-family zoning excludes retail because it's even bigger sources of nuisance than multi-family housing itself and then there is commercial zoning that is free for all.
Post reply on HN