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

91–100 of 562 posts

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#91

Post by chris-orgmenta »

cal5k wrote: post #39
baq wrote: post #17

European here. I can't even put to words my embafflement upon having learnt that you US folks need two staircases.

How do you think we feel about cookie notices?

That ain't us.... kind of. That's the websites deciding to follow the letter of the law (or a spiteful, capitalist interpretation, taking it right to the line) instead of the spirit of the law.

OK, unintended consequences of legislation. But those cookie banners are not mandated, exactly. They don't need to be there. It's the companies deciding to do it that way, so they can keep gobbling data.

It's like if the building companies implemented the 2nd staircase, but only so they could measure who is going up and down it. Not for saving lives.

If they were opt in, or unnecessary tracking wasn't implemented in the first place, then the banners could be elegant or gone.

But I do agree that the legislation (especially the ultra focus on cookies specifically) was... blinkered & short sighted.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#92

Post by screye »

baq wrote: post #17

European here. I can't even put to words my embafflement upon having learnt that you US folks need two staircases.

Oddly, this is already a solved problem.

NYC fire escapes are world famous. If every sub-10 floor building can have a 2nd window fire escape.... then you can have your cake and eat it too.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#93

Post by jlhawn »

from-nibly wrote: post #79

We just need to make builders more liable for issues caused by their own building. Building codes are just a way to say, you won't get in trouble for bad things that happen, in return you have to follow these rules every time you build a house. Instead if we just say, if you build a house that kills someone, you are now a murderer, then yeah I think the markets can figure out how to not get people killed. But that's…

There are construction defect laws in California which, infamously, only apply to multi-family buildings and exempt single-family homes. There's a 10-year window after certification of occupancy where the builder is liable for any construction defects, not just those that may lead to death of occupants. In practice it's mostly cosmetic/finishing issues that people complain and file lawsuits about. Leveling the playing field here would be nice.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#94

Post by r00fus »

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…

Aren't there other ways to address these safety issues without ballooning the cost of the building? When safety regulations come with minimal extra cost/efficiency (think: ABS or seatbelts in cars) then it's a great idea. When it mandates massive inefficiencies, it must be questioned.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#95

Post by quickthrowman »

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

This is why an architect and/or engineer(s) supervise a general contractor. A few things have changed in the construction industry over the last 3800 years.

I’m not sure why I even bother reading HN threads about construction.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#96

Post by rsync »

I knew this was coming.

Affordability problems in desirable locales already caused progressives to jettison anti-sprawl initiatives and environmental reviews.

It was only a matter of time before our gaze shifted to building codes and life safety provisions as cost-adds that "we" should all work against.

It does not gratify me in any way to have foreseen this.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#97

Post by SkeuomorphicBee »

Looking from the outside I would guess this is one of the big reasons for the "missing middle" [1] (lack of medium-density housing) in most North American cities. It is simply not economically feasible to build a small to medium size multi-unit building if you need to include two stairwells, so all buildings are either single family houses or huge mega projects.

In my country the simple and cheap four-story walk-up condo building (with a single stair and no elevator) is the bread and butter medium density housing for the working class. You either have two or four units per floor, all opening to the stairwell with almost no space lost in corridors, it is simple and efficient. Alternatively for higher density there are higher versions with typically up to 12 floors with one or two elevators but still only one stairwell, so keeping the same efficiency.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_middle_housing

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#98

Post by r00fus »

Retric wrote: post #88
ksenzee wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The two-staircase requirement leads directly to apartment buildings being big, with long corridors. Given my choice of living in a small building with a few families, with one staircase, where people know each other (the one-stair architecture does in fact lend itself to residents knowing each other) or living in a big building, with long corridors, where people don’t get to know each other, I’d feel a lot safer as a…

A 2nd set of stairs split across multiple units is a trivial matter from a cost perspective. Height restrictions, adding more office space than housing, mandatory parking etc are the real issues. Tiny increases in construction costs get wiped out when there’s insufficient housing stock.

There is a strong correlation between construction costs and housing stock.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#99

Post by phatskat »

cjwilliams wrote: post #34
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…

I wonder if building second stairwells in multifamily buildings is really a cost effective way of mitigating stalking.

Mitigation isn’t the end result - the OP (as I read it) is saying that two exits provides for not being trapped by a stalker. You may still be stalked or approached by a malicious group of actors, but a second exit makes it much more difficult to be cornered.

Re: The case for single-stair multifamily

#100

Post by ghaff »

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.

In practice, in much of the US, it's the commute that drives people into cities (or maybe being young). But I've never lived in a city after school and had no real interest in doing so. Maybe I would have at first but like most tech companies at the time the offices were well outside the city.
Post reply on HN