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

61–70 of 562 posts

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#61

Post by bluGill »

masklinn wrote: post #41
LandoCalrissian wrote: post #37

Why not get rid of all fire safety protections? We can really get moving then. The ADA is pretty onerous, if we just ignore that we can have it up in half the time! I don't REALLY need all that electrical grounding in my house, all that extra copper adds up you know, think of how many more houses we could build without it?

As the article argues, at length, the "most of the USA" with this requirement does worse than NYC which does not have it, and significantly worse than Europe which does not have it but even more.

When I look closer, the newer the building the better it tends to do in general. And as the article itself points out, Europe doesn't use nearly as much wood which changes things (not always for the good - Europe tends to have terrible insulation and their construction materials are not helping - though newer buildings do well here)

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#63

Post by adameasterling »

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 worked together to constrain supply, leading to skyrocketing costs.

It's the single most important economic issue for me. We need a nationwide effort to ease these restrictions, or we're just going to continue to see rents eat up more and more of young people's earnings.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#65

Post by oblio »

pjmorris wrote: post #56
ajuc wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's one thing to ensure the builder doesn't skimp on mortar and an entirely different thing to try to mitigate stalking with 2 stairwells...

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#66

Post by adameasterling »

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…

You are free to choose buildings with multiple stairways if that's a requirement for you! We're talking about easing mandatory regulations, allowing builders to meet demand. We're not saying that all buildings must only have one stairway.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#67

Post by bobthepanda »

nicole_express wrote: post #21

I'd like to see more discussion of the safety impact; I know the article makes the point that fire deaths per capita are lower in Europe, which lacks the requirement, but it also notes that US housing stock is also much more wooden and therefore at higher risk to begin with. (Wood construction is generally a good thing from a sustainability perspective) Whenever I see this proposed my brain immediately goes to the Gr…

The intention of the double stairwell requirement, is that you are not supposed to have your access point to the stairwell by an obstruction, and there should be a maximum access time to the stairwell.

One notable requirement of single-stair buildings where they are legal in the US, is that

1. the height is generally determined by the height of the fire ladders available, providing a second means of egress

2. the single stair requirement usually only applies to buildings that have a low maximum units per floor. In Seattle where they are legal, this is four units. At four units a floor, your front door directly opens feet away from the stairwell, and having a second staircase a sufficient distance away would be hard to fit in the floor plan.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#68

Post by ok_dad »

toast0 wrote: post #51
ok_dad wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don’t know why they name stuff what they do, but it’s dumb to simply read the name of something and then make assumptions based on no further information about that thing. Maybe you should have read the Wikipedia about it before assuming stuff?

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#69

Post by bluGill »

alexb_ wrote: post #6
hiAndrewQuinn wrote: post #2

The Boston triple decker should be the standard home of North America and nobody can tell me otherwise.

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.

It is generally understood that at 4 floors you need an elevator which is expensive. This is partially the ADA (which doesn't say this from what I can tell, but is generally understood to suggest it), and partially 4 floor is enough stairs few people would agree to walk up them.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#70

Post by deadbabe »

munchler wrote: post #58
deadbabe wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why? They could be used as really cheap offices eventually as demand falls.
Post reply on HN