Exit Strategy: The Case for Single-Stair Egress
architecturalrecord.com
Exit Strategy: The Case for Single-Stair Egress
1–10 of 95 posts
Re: Exit Strategy: The Case for Single-Stair Egress
#2https://milpitasbeat.com/assemblymember-alex-lee-pushes-for-...
Re: Exit Strategy: The Case for Single-Stair Egress
#3Re: Exit Strategy: The Case for Single-Stair Egress
#4Re: Exit Strategy: The Case for Single-Stair Egress
#5Single-stair egress costs lives. It shouldn't be allowed. They were right to ban them, no matter how 'ugly' or costly it makes the buildings.
Per the article:
> American approaches aim to make combustible light wood-frame buildings easier to escape by providing multiple paths of egress; European codes, by contrast, require fire-resistant materials and compartmentation to prevent fires from spreading in the first place. Statistically, the evidence is clear: fire-death rates are consistently lower in Europe than in the U.S. and Canada.
It's almost as if disproving this statement is the whole point of the article or something.
Re: Exit Strategy: The Case for Single-Stair Egress
#6Single-stair egress costs lives. It shouldn't be allowed. They were right to ban them, no matter how 'ugly' or costly it makes the buildings.
Very few things have a single, simplistic effect in the complex world system.
Re: Exit Strategy: The Case for Single-Stair Egress
#7Single-stair egress costs lives. It shouldn't be allowed. They were right to ban them, no matter how 'ugly' or costly it makes the buildings.
Re: Exit Strategy: The Case for Single-Stair Egress
#8Re: Exit Strategy: The Case for Single-Stair Egress
#9Single-stair egress costs lives. It shouldn't be allowed. They were right to ban them, no matter how 'ugly' or costly it makes the buildings.
For timber frame buildings, maybe. But in modern concrete fire resistant compartmentalized building it does not make sense at all.