Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Exit Strategy: The Case for Single-Stair Egress

architecturalrecord.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 95 posts

Re: Exit Strategy: The Case for Single-Stair Egress

#71

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

tailspin2019 wrote: post #66
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on if your definition of "Europe" is purely geographic or it has a political dimension (EU vs not). In the context of building safety regulation and the UK's laxness at that, the political interpretation is definitely valid. "Geography" would be more valid if this was about rock formations or trade routes. If someone says "when it comes to building codes, the UK is no longer in Europe", then everyone knows…

Respectfully, I disagree that the definition of "Europe" depends . The UK is in Europe. The fact that we know what they mean by saying the UK is no longer in Europe does not make that statement any more correct. I often see comments from people outside of Europe who think that the UK "left Europe" (not realising the distinction between Europe and the EU). I don't blame them, but I think it's worth pointing out.

> not realising the distinction between Europe and the EU

Respectfully, I disagree that they are not realising that. They are just using language differently, i.e. "Europe" in a political / legislative context can mean "the EU", i.e. a political / legislative boundary not a geographic one.

You can say" they're wrong" if you like, but use of language is more commonly viewed as descriptive not prescriptive: "how language is actually being written and spoken rather than trying to identify a correct way"

tl;DR People know what they're saying and you understand it, so what's the issue? what I said in the 1st comment.

Re: Exit Strategy: The Case for Single-Stair Egress

#72

Post by xdennis »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #58
tailspin2019 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only the ones who are bad at geography :)

It depends on if your definition of "Europe" is purely geographic or it has a political dimension (EU vs not). In the context of building safety regulation and the UK's laxness at that, the political interpretation is definitely valid. "Geography" would be more valid if this was about rock formations or trade routes. If someone says "when it comes to building codes, the UK is no longer in Europe", then everyone knows…

> If someone says "when it comes to building codes, the UK is no longer in Europe", then everyone knows exactly what is meant. Performative misunderstanding isn't helpful.

People can work around a lot of mistakes, it doesn't mean it's correct. If I tell you my brother speaks Mexican, you know very well I mean Spanish. Does that mean I shouldn't be corrected?

Re: Exit Strategy: The Case for Single-Stair Egress

#73

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

xdennis wrote: post #72
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on if your definition of "Europe" is purely geographic or it has a political dimension (EU vs not). In the context of building safety regulation and the UK's laxness at that, the political interpretation is definitely valid. "Geography" would be more valid if this was about rock formations or trade routes. If someone says "when it comes to building codes, the UK is no longer in Europe", then everyone knows…

> If someone says "when it comes to building codes, the UK is no longer in Europe", then everyone knows exactly what is meant. Performative misunderstanding isn't helpful. People can work around a lot of mistakes, it doesn't mean it's correct. If I tell you my brother speaks Mexican, you know very well I mean Spanish. Does that mean I shouldn't be corrected?

It depends. if the phrase "he/she speaks Mexican" to refer to the Mexican dialect of Spanish is in common use, then the descriptivist position is that no, there is nothing to correct.

Re: Exit Strategy: The Case for Single-Stair Egress

#74

Post by jetzzz »

tetromino_ wrote: post #26
helloooooooo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For timber frame buildings, maybe. But in modern concrete fire resistant compartmentalized building it does not make sense at all.

Regardless of whether the building is concrete or wood, it will have plastic: interior decorations, exterior cladding or siding, fittings, insulation, polymerized paint on the walls and ceilings, synthetic carpeting on the floor, furniture and personal property... You won't die from spreading flames, flames spread slowly; instead, you will very quickly die from toxic smoke from burning plastic. The toxic smoke which…

You can separate stairwell and elevator hall/apartment hallway with an open balcony like they do in some countries. This way smoke from the rest of the building can't get to the stairwell. This is called smokeproof enclosure.

Re: Exit Strategy: The Case for Single-Stair Egress

#75

Post by throwaway22032 »

My personal feeling on this is that the risk calculus for wealthy people is different to the risk calculus for the poor, and as a result we get decisions that don't really make a lot of sense for anyone.

If you were to tell 20 year old me that I could save say £100-£200 on rent by taking a bit of a gamble on the fire escape then I'd be ordering climbing gear and practicing climbing out of the window with my harness.

The probability of any apartment building that I'm in catching fire and going full Grenfell is basically zero, as far as I remember it's happened one time in approx ten years in London.

I'm probably more likely to die in a crash whilst sitting on the bus.

It makes far more sense IMO to focus on reducing the flammability of objects, having fire doors, etc.

Re: Exit Strategy: The Case for Single-Stair Egress

#76

Post by KaiserPro »

seabass-labrax wrote: post #14

It's a thought-provoking article. I have mixed feelings about the idea: on one hand, visiting a friend's Weimar-era home in the DDR side of Berlin really impressed me. It was slightly different from those depicted in the article (it was part of a longer row of connected buildings), but the green space afforded by the courtyard was wonderful and the opportunities for community building palpable. Yet, on the other hand…

> The Grenfell Tower disaster was horrific, and although the subsequent building regulations that limit height were clearly reactionary in nature

Grenfell was a failure of regulations to be applied and bad retrofitting.

The cladding was supposed to conform to a specific rating that means it doesn't cause fire spread. Ie, it can burn, but as soon as a heat source is taken away it stopped burning (its more complex than that, but you get the idea that its not supposed to just burn like crazy)

What actually happened is that the fire rating that was given to it was suspect, and it wasn't applied correctly. I had assumed that the type of insolation (either EPS or Polyisocyanurate) was fire proof, as in I doesn't burn like a plastic bag when exposed to flame. Because thats what the fire rating implies. However there are two standards and its a bit hazy. You can have something like rockwool, that doesn't burn as well as industrial packing polystyrene(EPS) which does.

In the 70s when these buildings were built, they had the right idea[1]: concrete boxes with a brick skin. Minimal holes between the flats, and any hole was liberally blocked with asbestos.

THe problem came when asbestos was removed, or the external walls were covered in a flammable non-encased/fire compartmentalised cladding.

Re: Exit Strategy: The Case for Single-Stair Egress

#77

Post by trgn »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #28
seabass-labrax wrote: post #14

It's a thought-provoking article. I have mixed feelings about the idea: on one hand, visiting a friend's Weimar-era home in the DDR side of Berlin really impressed me. It was slightly different from those depicted in the article (it was part of a longer row of connected buildings), but the green space afforded by the courtyard was wonderful and the opportunities for community building palpable. Yet, on the other hand…

I live in a former yugoslav socialist building, and our external walls are made from reinforced concrete. Our internal walls are reinforced concrete. Our bathroom walls are reinforced concrete. Drilling a hole to pull a network cable from one room to another is a pain. On the other hand... this are the results of a rather large gas explosion: https://novice.svet24.si/clanek/novice/crna-kronika/5be30a53... and another…

Fire here will completely demolish a block of these 5-over-1s.

Re: Exit Strategy: The Case for Single-Stair Egress

#78

Post by thaumasiotes »

giantg2 wrote: post #67
thaumasiotes wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At least in my limited experience, it seems a lot of the deaths in the US are related to either intoxication or sleeping. In these states, it's common for the person to have never even been aware of the danger. That won't work as evidence that US fire policies aren't helping. You need data from somewhere where those policies aren't in place, like presumably Finland.

I'm just saying that the tend the other person saw in Finland has logical support here. It can be evidence of how effective a policy is for specific scenarios (models). If someone is is not alert to the danger, then the means of escape are logically moot in those situations. Policies that would help save lives are sprinklers in all houses. This policy is controversial due to the cost and maintenance involved. But the…

> I'm just saying that the tend the other person saw in Finland has logical support here. It can be evidence of how effective a policy is for specific scenarios (models). If someone is is not alert to the danger, then the means of escape are logically moot in those situations.

No, you didn't identify any logical support. If the American policy ensures that people who are aware of the danger always survive, then (a) that is what the policy is supposed to do, and (b) it will guarantee that American fire deaths all happen to people who were not aware of the danger.

Given that, if the policy worked as advertised, it would guarantee exactly the observation that you see, it cannot be the case that this observation is evidence against the effectiveness of the policy.

Re: Exit Strategy: The Case for Single-Stair Egress

#79

Post by tuukkah »

tailspin2019 wrote: post #66
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on if your definition of "Europe" is purely geographic or it has a political dimension (EU vs not). In the context of building safety regulation and the UK's laxness at that, the political interpretation is definitely valid. "Geography" would be more valid if this was about rock formations or trade routes. If someone says "when it comes to building codes, the UK is no longer in Europe", then everyone knows…

Respectfully, I disagree that the definition of "Europe" depends . The UK is in Europe. The fact that we know what they mean by saying the UK is no longer in Europe does not make that statement any more correct. I often see comments from people outside of Europe who think that the UK "left Europe" (not realising the distinction between Europe and the EU). I don't blame them, but I think it's worth pointing out.

People in the EU and in the UK also say that the UK left Europe. What people say is often not meant literally; that's just not how language works.

Re: Exit Strategy: The Case for Single-Stair Egress

#80

Post by giantg2 »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #78
giantg2 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just saying that the tend the other person saw in Finland has logical support here. It can be evidence of how effective a policy is for specific scenarios (models). If someone is is not alert to the danger, then the means of escape are logically moot in those situations. Policies that would help save lives are sprinklers in all houses. This policy is controversial due to the cost and maintenance involved. But the…

> I'm just saying that the tend the other person saw in Finland has logical support here. It can be evidence of how effective a policy is for specific scenarios (models). If someone is is not alert to the danger, then the means of escape are logically moot in those situations. No, you didn't identify any logical support. If the American policy ensures that people who are aware of the danger always survive, then (a) t…

I didn't say anything explict about the US staircase policy. All I said is that the trends on fire deaths the other person identified in Finland apply here in my experience, and that additional stair cases won't help those deaths. The logical part is that if you're unaware of danger (asleep/passed out), you can't take action to avoid it. The policies that would help in those situations are sprinklers, but there's some controversy on them being mandated.
Post reply on HN