54 ms·
> 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, r
by 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 agoPeople 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 agoI 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 agoThe 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 agoHe 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 agoCars 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.
- kube-system 5y ago> Cars are designed to intentionally accelerate you to speeds that easily kill you And buildings in North America are often framed out of the same material that they burn in their fireplaces. Both present inherent dangers. Both have widespread safety regulations for this reason. Vehicle accidents are the 2nd leading cause of accidental death in the US and fires are 6th. And this is the result of many decades of both being highly regulated.
- baybal2 5y agoAnd I still find it surreal that people in world's richest country live in wooden houses. People still die in scary numbers there no matter the regulations. Cars can't be made safer anymore. 60Mphs frontal collisions have single digit percentage survivability chance because physics. Homes can be made much safer by building them differently.
- Turing_Machine 5y ago> And I still find it surreal that people in world's richest country live in wooden houses. A lot of those people live in seismically active areas. While modern masonry construction is certainly safer than traditional masonry, in general wood is far less dangerous than stone or brick in an earthquake.
- baybal2 5y agoAnd steel, or reinforced concrete are safer than both.
- Turing_Machine 5y agoWhere in the world are single-family homes typically made of steel or reinforced concrete? Note: not apartments. Houses.
- 5y ago
- jfoster 5y agoIt does not guarantee that you won't encounter a deadly fire. It just adds one extra escape route for this extremely rare event. You could also add an escape slide for each apartment.
- KptMarchewa 5y agoPay more related to the average cost. The point is to lower the average cost by providing more units.
- petee 5y agoObviously thats the outcome, but thats not anyone's problem except the developer, and buyers know the price going into their purchase. For example, if I can cram 14 windowless apartments into the same floor, is it really unfair that that 4 tenants would have to pay more than the 14?