7 ms·

Everyone in the comments is raising the (valid) fire safety argument; however, I'd like to point out that this is a non-obvious trade-off. How many house fires

Everyone in the comments is raising the (valid) fire safety argument; however, I'd like to point out that this is a non-obvious trade-off. How many house fires are there? How many of them are in tall buildings? How many of them would block just one stair, and not two? Yes, there is a probability that an extra stair will save your life; however, this is a very tiny probability, against a certainty of extra living space, for everyone, every day.

wolverine876 5y ago
You are free to ignore fire safety rules in your own private house, built far away from everyone else's private homes (and anything flammable). History shows that fire can be disasterous.
petee 5y ago
The problem is that you can't track how many disasters were prevented by having two means of egress, so I cant imagine there are real statistics on that I hate the space argument because its a money argument, not a real quality of life issue - make the building 1 floor taller, or don't cram your residents just because you wanted to milk 4 apts instead of 3 on a floor.
- armada651 5y ago
  > The problem is that you can't track how many disasters were prevented by having two means of egress, so I cant imagine there are real statistics on that Why wouldn't you be able to compare statistics from the US to any other country that doesn't have that rule?
  - petee 5y ago
    There are alot of factors: building codes, materials, age, likely ignition sources . Probably not impossible, but difficult to find a meaningful way to compare. I'm also guessing that fire reporting doesn't include the level of detail you would need. For example, a fire in which firefighters were able to tackle from two sides would be quickly extinguished, where as the same fire with 1-sided access might have become a disaster. But thats a what-if, only learned the hard way.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    Because countries that don't have that rule also don't have a bunch of other important fire safety rules.
    - BlackFingolfin 5y ago
      Citation needed? What other important fire safety rules are "missing" in e.g. (from TFA) South Korea, China, Sweden, Italy, or Germany?
- emodendroket 5y ago
  Given the popularity of wood construction (5-1s are most of what gets build afaict), I think the main limiter is how big you're allowed to build wood buildings.
- jpollock 5y ago
  We can compare fatality rates from fires between countries with dual exits and those without: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_building_or_structure_fires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_building_or_structure_... We can also see if mass casualty fires in buildings stopped happening after the regulation change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn_Theatre_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn_Theatre_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fi... https://www.nytimes.com/1860/02/03/archives/calamitous-fire-tenement-house-on-elmstreet-destroyed-thirty.html https://www.nytimes.com/1860/02/03/archives/calamitous-fire-...
  - petee 5y ago
    My counter argument would be regulations for new buildings take a long time to be widely applied, I think you would need to judge every single fire on a case by case basis, not region or by period.
    - kube-system 5y ago
      And there are a ton of other variables. Construction materials, fire response, suppression and alarm systems, the purpose of the building, etc.
- voisin 5y ago
  > just because you wanted to milk 4 apts instead of 3 on a floor. You realize that this would mean the three residents would have to pay more for their unit, right? It isn’t just developers “milking” condo buyers or tenants. It has to do with efficiency.
  - Gigablah 5y ago
    People pay more for units all the time for various reasons - location, orientation, superstition, etc. I’m sure they’ll add “not suffocating to death during a fire” to the list.
    - CheezeIt 5y ago
      I wouldn’t want to pay 33% more for that extra increment of safety. I drive a car, after all.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - kube-system 5y ago
        The premium that you pay extra for the safety equipment in your car is likely more than 33%. We would have many new cars for 4-digit prices if not for the large number of safety systems required on cars.
        yes_really 5y ago
        He could pay a bit extra to reduce his commute from 30 minutes to 29 minutes. That would already be a reduction of death risk higher than the second staircase in the building.
        sgtnoodle 5y ago
        Cars are designed to intentionally accelerate you to speeds that easily kill you, though, and carry along a vast amount of stored energy. Buildings are designed to stand still and generally not be flammable. The expected value calculations are seemingly quite a bit different.
- ramshorns 5y ago
  The amount of available space isn't the only benefit of using only one staircase. It also means the units can face outward in multiple directions and there's a more central common area.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
    A lot of regulations are designed to make new construction as expensive as possible and limit usable floor space as much as possible. No one should be surprised that fire safety laws are going to the extreme for safety at a large cost to floor space.
    - lazyasciiart 5y ago
      Citation needed.
      - julianapostate 5y ago
        Government agencies dont allow authoritative sources to remark on their incompetence. See the last 2 years as a citation of that.
        pessimizer 5y ago
        You were allowed to remark on it here, you just didn't.
    - landemva 5y ago
      Municipalities in USA are adopting code for residential new construction to require sprinklers. Big cost that most people won't do anything to stop it because it is only for really big houses (for now). In fifteen years people will wonder why new housing is so expensive and every size house has sprinklers which the homeowner must hire someone to maintain. And pay for sprinkler inspection report prior to resale. On a totally different note, I can't find any cheap or affordable new cars. Am looking for basic wheels without finicky gadgets like backup cameras and tire pressure monitors and lane departure warnings. Something simple and without high insurance costs to cover all those gadgets I don't need. I wonder why things (house, car) seem unaffordable and contain gadgets which are difficult to fix and which increase insurance costs. What happened America?
- avereveard 5y ago
  It's not the two egress per se, it's about not having cul-de-sac that fire could isolate from the exits. A circular shape with one exit it's much harder to be stuck into by a single ignition point.
  - LorenPechtel 5y ago
    That's still a cul-de-sac, just one with a loop.
- jfoster 5y ago
  Money is just a resource and allocating this resource toward staircases may save fewer lives than allocating it in some other way.
- EricE 5y ago
  "its a money argument, not a real quality of life issue" You need to go back and read the article more closely. It's a HUGE quality of life issue; mainly US building codes restrict apartments to one side of the building which has all kinds of implications - cross airflow, alignment of rooms with the sun - and the ability to have more variety of sizes of units to better meet needs that currently go unmet, especially with families. I mean if you look at the article the majority of it is all about quality of life - not only for the apartments, but greater/more effective use of the stairwells and common areas.
jfoster 5y ago
In fact, every additional staircase adds a potentially useful escape route, so how many will be enough?

wolverine876 5y ago

You are free to ignore fire safety rules in your own private house, built far away from everyone else's private homes (and anything flammable). History shows that fire can be disasterous.

petee 5y ago

The problem is that you can't track how many disasters were prevented by having two means of egress, so I cant imagine there are real statistics on that I hate the space argument because its a money argument, not a real quality of life issue - make the building 1 floor taller, or don't cram your residents just because you wanted to milk 4 apts instead of 3 on a floor.

armada651 5y ago
> The problem is that you can't track how many disasters were prevented by having two means of egress, so I cant imagine there are real statistics on that Why wouldn't you be able to compare statistics from the US to any other country that doesn't have that rule?
- petee 5y ago
  There are alot of factors: building codes, materials, age, likely ignition sources . Probably not impossible, but difficult to find a meaningful way to compare. I'm also guessing that fire reporting doesn't include the level of detail you would need. For example, a fire in which firefighters were able to tackle from two sides would be quickly extinguished, where as the same fire with 1-sided access might have become a disaster. But thats a what-if, only learned the hard way.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  Because countries that don't have that rule also don't have a bunch of other important fire safety rules.
  - BlackFingolfin 5y ago
    Citation needed? What other important fire safety rules are "missing" in e.g. (from TFA) South Korea, China, Sweden, Italy, or Germany?
emodendroket 5y ago
Given the popularity of wood construction (5-1s are most of what gets build afaict), I think the main limiter is how big you're allowed to build wood buildings.
jpollock 5y ago
We can compare fatality rates from fires between countries with dual exits and those without: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_building_or_structure_fires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_building_or_structure_... We can also see if mass casualty fires in buildings stopped happening after the regulation change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn_Theatre_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn_Theatre_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fi... https://www.nytimes.com/1860/02/03/archives/calamitous-fire-tenement-house-on-elmstreet-destroyed-thirty.html https://www.nytimes.com/1860/02/03/archives/calamitous-fire-...
- petee 5y ago
  My counter argument would be regulations for new buildings take a long time to be widely applied, I think you would need to judge every single fire on a case by case basis, not region or by period.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    And there are a ton of other variables. Construction materials, fire response, suppression and alarm systems, the purpose of the building, etc.
voisin 5y ago
> just because you wanted to milk 4 apts instead of 3 on a floor. You realize that this would mean the three residents would have to pay more for their unit, right? It isn’t just developers “milking” condo buyers or tenants. It has to do with efficiency.
- Gigablah 5y ago
  People pay more for units all the time for various reasons - location, orientation, superstition, etc. I’m sure they’ll add “not suffocating to death during a fire” to the list.
  - CheezeIt 5y ago
    I wouldn’t want to pay 33% more for that extra increment of safety. I drive a car, after all.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - kube-system 5y ago
      The premium that you pay extra for the safety equipment in your car is likely more than 33%. We would have many new cars for 4-digit prices if not for the large number of safety systems required on cars.
      - yes_really 5y ago
        He could pay a bit extra to reduce his commute from 30 minutes to 29 minutes. That would already be a reduction of death risk higher than the second staircase in the building.
      - sgtnoodle 5y ago
        Cars are designed to intentionally accelerate you to speeds that easily kill you, though, and carry along a vast amount of stored energy. Buildings are designed to stand still and generally not be flammable. The expected value calculations are seemingly quite a bit different.
ramshorns 5y ago
The amount of available space isn't the only benefit of using only one staircase. It also means the units can face outward in multiple directions and there's a more central common area.
- onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
  A lot of regulations are designed to make new construction as expensive as possible and limit usable floor space as much as possible. No one should be surprised that fire safety laws are going to the extreme for safety at a large cost to floor space.
  - lazyasciiart 5y ago
    Citation needed.
    - julianapostate 5y ago
      Government agencies dont allow authoritative sources to remark on their incompetence. See the last 2 years as a citation of that.
      - pessimizer 5y ago
        You were allowed to remark on it here, you just didn't.
  - landemva 5y ago
    Municipalities in USA are adopting code for residential new construction to require sprinklers. Big cost that most people won't do anything to stop it because it is only for really big houses (for now). In fifteen years people will wonder why new housing is so expensive and every size house has sprinklers which the homeowner must hire someone to maintain. And pay for sprinkler inspection report prior to resale. On a totally different note, I can't find any cheap or affordable new cars. Am looking for basic wheels without finicky gadgets like backup cameras and tire pressure monitors and lane departure warnings. Something simple and without high insurance costs to cover all those gadgets I don't need. I wonder why things (house, car) seem unaffordable and contain gadgets which are difficult to fix and which increase insurance costs. What happened America?
avereveard 5y ago
It's not the two egress per se, it's about not having cul-de-sac that fire could isolate from the exits. A circular shape with one exit it's much harder to be stuck into by a single ignition point.
- LorenPechtel 5y ago
  That's still a cul-de-sac, just one with a loop.
jfoster 5y ago
Money is just a resource and allocating this resource toward staircases may save fewer lives than allocating it in some other way.
EricE 5y ago
"its a money argument, not a real quality of life issue" You need to go back and read the article more closely. It's a HUGE quality of life issue; mainly US building codes restrict apartments to one side of the building which has all kinds of implications - cross airflow, alignment of rooms with the sun - and the ability to have more variety of sizes of units to better meet needs that currently go unmet, especially with families. I mean if you look at the article the majority of it is all about quality of life - not only for the apartments, but greater/more effective use of the stairwells and common areas.

jfoster 5y ago

In fact, every additional staircase adds a potentially useful escape route, so how many will be enough?