16 ms·

In Praise of 5-Over-1 Buildings (2019)

112 points by goles 2y ago

bombcar 2y ago
One of the reasons they're not as common anymore is because of the dangers associated with them, not only in earthquake country, but also fires. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_story_building https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_story_building
- Retric 2y ago
  5 over 1 doesn’t necessarily imply a Soft story building. In many cases the bottom floor is much stronger than what’s above it.
- LarsDu88 2y ago
  5-over-1 are increasingly common and not the same thing as soft story buildings. 5-over-1 refers specifically to the wood construction of the top 5 floors. You can have a soft story building that is not built out of wood and even more vulnerable to earthquakes.
  - nsnick 2y ago
    5 over 1 has nothing to do with the number of floors. It means type 5 (wood) over type 1 (concrete).
    - jrochkind1 2y ago
      Looks like while some people agree with you, it's not the most common use. > The name derives from the maximum permissible five floors of combustible construction (Type III or Type V) over a fire-resistive Type I podium of one floor for "5-over-1" or two floors for "5-over-2", as defined in the United States-based International Building Code (IBC) Section 510.2.[1][4] Some sources instead attribute the name to the wood framing of the upper construction; the International Building Code uses "Type V" to refer to non-fireproof structures, including those framed with dimensional lumber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-over-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-over-1
    - tomtheelder 2y ago
      It’s debated, but the prevailing belief is that it originated to refer to the number of stories. Hence you’ll also see “5-over-2” used fairy commonly as well.
- micromacrofoot 2y ago
  Most of the buildings of this style that are going up around me have steel framed first floors and wood above. The elevator and stair shafts are concrete block to help protect fire escape routes.
- kibwen 2y ago
  In addition to the sibling comment, the recent rise of 5-over-1s is largely attributable to the use of fire-retardant wood in order to comply with fire codes.
- kjs3 2y ago
  Not sure where you live, but in my own US city they went from non-existent (as far as I recall) 20 years ago to literally everywhere I go. There's probably 4 going up within 3 miles of my house right now. Maybe that has to do with more stringent firecodes. Only thing close are the row-houses where there's 3-5 units, narrow, 3 stories high with a roof deck (I don't know what they're called).
- majormajor 2y ago
  The canonical "5 over 1" has a very solid concrete base. Hence the name. From the article: "5-over-1 construction—so called because it frequently combines up to five floors of inexpensive wood-framed construction over a concrete podium—is popular primarily because it is a cost-effective means to build, especially here in timber-rich Oregon." It's a mostly new style.
wry_discontent 2y ago
I was recently in Spain and this was the only kind of building I encountered that wasn't a palace or bureaucracy building. It fostered such a sense of being in the middle of something alive and it spread out for miles in every direction. It was so easy to find my way around the hotel because the sights were familiar but unique, but once I moved a little bit away it was all a labyrinthine mish mash of the same. I loved it and I love the 5 over 1
- leoedin 2y ago
  Spain has one of the highest percentage of apartment based households in Europe - 66%. It makes for really dense towns and cities, which allows for the excellent cafe and tapas culture. Low density suburbs are so lifeless in comparison.
micromacrofoot 2y ago
I have a lot of these going up in my area, maybe 8 within a block or so, and I don't hate them. They're simple and modern, which many people I know hate at the moment, but I really enjoy the ground-level retail they've brought along with them. Now more than ever, we can't really be picky about our housing. It looks fine, it's fairly inexpensive to build, and it provides mixed use.
CodeWriter23 2y ago
Huh. My wife and I have been calling these "Stack and Pack". Didn't know there was an actual technical term for them.
from-nibly 2y ago
I know at least one of ideas is that the retail would be relevant to the inhabitants of the top 5 floors. Has anyone seen that work well in action? Or are these just houses on random strip malls. I don't like the idea of stores I don't care about inviting increased traffic around my house, but i would happily have increased traffic if it meant at least some stores I care about are just downstairs.
- TulliusCicero 2y ago
  > Has anyone seen that work well in action? Yes, it works pretty much anywhere if the retail in question is the relatively useful/high traffic sort (e.g. grocery stores, bakeries, coffee shops, restaurants/cafes, etc). And it doesn't have to just serve the people of that exact building, if there are a bunch of other 5-over-1's or similar in the immediate area. Honestly, this sounds like a bit of a stereotypical American question: "Can <thing that the rest of the world already does> actually work at all?" Edit: I should add that of course there can be other variables at play. For example, if the general street design of the area is more pedestrian friendly, that's helpful to this style of zoning/building, and if the street design is hostile to pedestrians, then these things won't work quite as well.
  - mech422 2y ago
    I used to live over a bodega and laundrymat in NYC.. it was relatively cheap AND convenient :-)
- cpitman 2y ago
  It works really well. During the pandemic, everything I needed was within a couple blocks of me. I went so long without needing to drive that my car actually had issues afterwards.
  - febusravenga 2y ago
    Surprise, it's good for many things but bad for cars... intesting observation in times when many of us realize our environment is more friendly to cars than to people.
jccalhoun 2y ago
I live an hour or so away from the town I went to grad school so I still visit once a month or so. It seems like every time I visit another old building is torn down and another one of these 5 over 1 buildings are going up. The stores are rarely successful and I'm sure that the companies building all these things just factor in the cost of building these as a cost of doing business in that town. Most of the kids that rent these "luxury apartments" (which is how they are always described) are from cities with much higher cost of living so they can charge a ton of money and mom and dad will still think it is reasonable. This ends up recreating housing crises of big cities because people that live and work in the town are getting priced out of living there.
- TulliusCicero 2y ago
  > The stores are rarely successful and I'm sure that the companies building all these things just factor in the cost of building these as a cost of doing business in that town. One of the things you see people complaining about in cities like Seattle or SF is higher commercial rent prices pushing out all the "cool" but not particularly profitable businesses. And how do you get lower business rents? There's a thing called supply-and-demand that might be helpful here.
  - mtalantikite 2y ago
    > And how do you get lower business rents? There's a thing called supply-and-demand that might be helpful here. It's part of it for sure, but there are lots of commercial vacancies that sit empty for years because landlords often keep storefronts vacant on purpose. It's a confluence of reasons and it depends on the locale -- sometimes there's a tax break if it's vacant, sometimes there's a tax increase if rent hits a certain threshold and the landlord wants even more to make up for the new tax, sometimes the mortgage is guaranteed by the rent price in some way and lowering the rent would cause the holder to pay back the difference immediately, etc. There are tons of empty storefronts in NYC at the moment, for example, so more supply isn't really the issue here, often it's a web of really bad policy. And I'm sure this is the place where people start saying Land Value Tax.
dkarl 2y ago
> It’s also because their rise has been so sudden, an outcome of changing codes, improved economic fortunes, and pent-up demand in the wake of the Great Recession more than a decade ago. And it is true they sometimes tend toward being architecturally bland or downright ugly. They have so many other advantages that they don't need to be attractive, and developers hate to pay for anything they don't need. Also, this moment where they're breaking out and popping up like weeds to fill pent-up demand is an awkward moment, design-wise, because you need a lot of new designs quickly without a long history to look back on and draw from. Compare that to high-rise office buildings or single family homes, where you have a century and more of variations in countless different styles, where you have not only countless iconic examples but decades' worth of reaction to many of them. Some of the 5-over-1 buildings going up now will turn out to be iconic, style-defining precedents. Most will be trash, but will still serve the functional purpose. Personally, I love seeing these go up near me. It means more housing supply and more businesses near me that cater to foot traffic, in the same package.
- jrochkind1 2y ago
  There are plenty 50-100 year old examples (the whole range) in, say, Chicago of mid-rise 4-6 story buildings with retail on the first floor and residential or office on the remaining floors. Chicago is a mid-rise city. Examples which are considered attractive and historic and nobody complains about them... but they aren't timber frame over concrete podium, they're brick or stone on all floors. Which is of course often too expensive to do now. (Although Chicago has all-masonry examples from the past couple decades too... as well as timber-over-concrete examples I think). I guess it's the timber-over-concrete that is new and without historical example? Or regardless, the issue is that the historical examples are too expensive to build now. (Why isn't this an issue with residential too? I think it is actually?) Here's a very typical generic Chicago example, which possibly has had it's ground floor facade replaced at some point in an uninspired way, but you can see the masonry on the upper floors (only 3-over-1) which would be an absolute premium luxury build today, and the building has plenty of character even though it's not being used for especially high-rent purposes at the moment: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9654135,-87.6587315,3a,75y,2.88h,111.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sS3BGfbQt_wzMUdk1zWomPg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9654135,-87.6587315,3a,75y,2... Here's a new construction (past 20 years anyway) 4-over-1 that is all brick... pretty boring and generic. Would people hate it as much as the timber-over-concrete? I have no idea. https://www.google.com/maps/@41.962424,-87.6661565,3a,75y,262.19h,119.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv6TOZ5H83BO2hiA_L4BBSA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/@41.962424,-87.6661565,3a,75y,26... Here's a pretty delightful and typical older all masonry 5-over-1, nothing special, tons of buildings like this. https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9582377,-87.6528717,3a,75y,84.49h,102.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbP-humajRslr3p4ZIKsTpg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9582377,-87.6528717,3a,75y,8... There is no lack of great historical examples of mid-rise 5-over-1 residential over retail -- but they probably aren't timber frame over concrete podium.
m0llusk 2y ago
Strange how aesthetics consistently get the highest priority for architectural decisions. My understanding is the biggest real criticism of five over one designs is that as built most of the wood is not wood as most understand it, but various engineered wood products. These engineered wood products have many positive qualities, but are also highly vulnerable to fire and produce a great deal of toxic smoke when they burn. To me increased risk of unusually damaging fires is a far more serious problem than poor aesthetics. If taken seriously then it should be possible to address or even eliminate both the increased fire risk and aesthetic objections.
- InitialLastName 2y ago
  Do you have a source for any of that?
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  > aesthetics consistently get the highest priority for architectural decisions Wouldn't most of it be explained by cost? Design a single, generic 5-over-1 building. Rinse and repeat?
foobarian 2y ago
I'm pretty impressed that it's possible to build that high on a wood frame. I was guessing there was a steel frame inside.
- TulliusCicero 2y ago
  With cross-laminated timber you can go even higher (though I imagine it's more expensive than this building style): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-laminated_timber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-laminated_timber > In 2012, Forte Living, an apartment complex in Melbourne, Australia, became the tallest plyscraper framed with CLT alone. The building has 10 stories and stands just over 32 m tall. The 759 CLT panels necessary for the project were manufactured in Austria using European spruce that was grown and harvested there.[31]
  - Snoddas 2y ago
    Here is another example https://www.sarakulturhus.se/en/303172/The-Wood-Hotel-by-Elite https://www.sarakulturhus.se/en/303172/The-Wood-Hotel-by-Eli... "In the 20-story wooden house, there are 205 modern hotel....."
    - TulliusCicero 2y ago
      Yes, though that building does use some concrete and steel: https://matadornetwork.com/read/wood-hotel-sweden/ https://matadornetwork.com/read/wood-hotel-sweden/ > The hotel’s not without any metal, though. Generators and heating/cooling units on the fifth and sixth floors are supported by a steel truss. There’s also concrete atop the hotel to minimize sway. But for the most part, the Wood Hotel is a marvel of white wood and forest aromas, like living in a life-sized doll house designed for the 2020s. Obviously much, much less than a typical tall building though.
- c5karl 2y ago
  Fire safety, not the strength of wood framing, is what blocked this type of construction before. Effective sprinkler systems are what addressed that concern. There remains a concern about fire safety during construction, before the sprinklers are activated. There have been serious fires and deaths of construction workers while these buildings were going up.
pnw 2y ago
Trivia: I learned that these are called muffintop buildings here in the Pacific Northwest by contractors. Once moisture penetrates the building envelope on the wooden upper stories, they swell over the fixed concrete base.
- buildsjets 2y ago
  Didn't you just describe how ever single wood-framed, concrete-foundation building is designed, regardless of whether it is a 5-over-1, a new-construction McMansion, or a 970's rambler?
ajkjk 2y ago
The main issues with them is that they are don't create much community, with their lifeless corridors and alienating common areas, and that the ground-floor retail tends to be (apparently) reserved for overpriced retail chains that come and go every few years, presumably because they charge high rents for large spaces. They also tend to not have balcony space for people to decorate so from outside they look completely un-personalized. If they were less soulsuckingly lifeless nobody would mind them. Also as a result of their soulsuckingness it's hard to imagine treating one as a long-term home, which compounds because they're more soulsucking due to having nobody people treating them as long-term homes. Also they are usually not for sale as condos either so that's another reason they don't feel like long-term homes. (Nor are they able to personalize them significantly).
- TulliusCicero 2y ago
  > The main issues with them is that they are don't create much community, with their lifeless corridors and alienating common areas What I noticed with development patterns when I lived in Munich, is that there were a LOT more "pedestrian plaza" type areas scattered throughout the city compared to US cities. I think that's what's needed, is any given neighborhood having at least a few plaza areas with some open space, some benches, a fountain, etc.
  - mjevans 2y ago
    Personal observations... I'm not sure the culture in the US would lend itself that way. Parks and public commons areas tend to become the dumping ground for unsolved social issues. Those who've fallen through society's cracks. Those who would abuse the ability to interact with others to interact in uncouth ways. Issues of space size and use density. Even during the height of Pokemon Go when (mostly) nerds were incentivized to visit city parks the mostly polite use was frowned upon as an unwanted crowd interfering with those who'd traditionally use the same public space. Then there's the more 'accepted' version of gatherings in cities: paying various retail places for the privilege of being there, usually at a markup that reflects the value of being in such a dense area. Fixing both of those problems, and any others I didn't mention, will take political will and a shift in culture. Programs to connect the unfortunate with the social integration or support help they need, and measures to combat rent-seeking (laws and tax biases) seem like a distant pipe dream.
SamBam 2y ago
Yeah. They're everywhere around me (Greater Boston), but we really do need more housing in this country. These allow denser construction, without needing to build skyscrapers. One of the issues, though not directly related to 5-over-1, is the inability (that I've seen) of cities to construct neighborhoods. Most places where these are going up are not "neighborhoods," even in places were urban neighborhoods are very natural, like Greater Boston. Instead, there is sometimes some attempt at a retail space on the bottom of these buildings, but the streets are too wide, not walkable enough, and the retail opportunities are not designed for corner shops/bodegas/other cheap places that help create a neighborhood. I don't know how to create a neighborhood from whole cloth, but somebody has been thinking about it, I'm sure, and I wish cities would try to learn from their lessons.
- TulliusCicero 2y ago
  It's always possible to go back and fix streets. Amsterdam used to be a car-dominated hellscape not totally dissimilar from American cities, it just got to be more walk and bike-friendly through heavy street/road renovations over the decades. > but the streets are too wide, not walkable enough Right, but this is fixable. You can always go and reduce the car/parking lane space and make the sidewalk wider and/or add a bike lane.
  - throwaway2037 2y ago
    > Amsterdam used to be a car-dominated hellscape not totally dissimilar from American cities When was this?
    - TulliusCicero 2y ago
      In the post-WW2 era up to the 70's. The 70's are when there was a big movement that initiated the social change back to being more walk/bike-friendly (though it took decades to get Dutch cities to where they are now): https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Transportation_Planning_Casebook/Stop_de_kindermoord https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Transportation_Planning_Casebo... You can find pics of what it was like in their cities. Not exactly the same as US ones necessarily, but close. There's a couple pics here: https://www.distilled.earth/p/how-the-netherlands-built-a-biking https://www.distilled.earth/p/how-the-netherlands-built-a-bi...
kqr2 2y ago
Also for smaller buildings, they should probably remove the need for two fire exits . Video: Why North America Can't Build Nice Apartments (because of one rule) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRdwXQb7CfM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRdwXQb7CfM
jerlam 2y ago
The people complaining about how these buildings look should compare to what a modern suburban subdivision looks like. Rows and rows of look-alike houses that cost vastly more than these apartments, taking over a much greater land area, and adding vastly more vehicle traffic. Every single "iconic" architecture looked stale in its era.
ianbicking 2y ago
Everyone complains about the aesthetics, and I feel it too, but I have no idea what they should do. The surface treatments on these buildings have a lot of variety and aesthetic interest, with many colors and textures. They often add other physical variety with outset and inset portions of the building. It's not uncommon to have different shapes at the roofline. I can't think of historical apartment buildings that are any more interesting or pleasant if you look at them objectively. And yet... there is a kind of tedium to them. Some of that is just efficient use of space, they tend to go up in very rectangular blocks. Maybe that's just the inevitable reaction to the most common new structure of our time.
- kibwen 2y ago
  In all honesty, a bland 5-over-1 is still more interesting to look at than any cookie-cutter suburban house ever built.
- 7952 2y ago
  It is a shame that there isn't more creativity with these facades. Make something arty or fun rather than just trying to fit in.
ryukoposting 2y ago
I've lived in a few of these, and the "cheap" part is really the biggest concern. Besides the fact that they all share in their corrugated-metal hideousness, they're a symptom of developers pushing the boundaries of building code to save a few bucks. Without doxxing myself, I'll say that I was among the first group of residents of a 5-over-1 that made local news for the safety problems associated with its cheap construction. Non-functional smoke detectors, incorrectly installed fire walls, flood markings in the concrete basement, paint smears on the cabinets, doors with massive and varying gaps underneath, the whole 9 yards. In a brand new building. Truly a remarkable exercise in corner-cutting.
- bobthepanda 2y ago
  this is a problem in every era of construction, though. developers have not really changed their mindset or their ability to cut corners, they just change the flavor of building they like. Seattle is full of Sears catalog Craftsman homes that are not at all climate appropriate, and while they are historic and beloved today that was not always the case. If you buy one of them today they're probably moldy.
  - ryukoposting 2y ago
    The tough thing with Sears homes is you never know who built them. They showed up in a boxcar and you either hired someone to build them, or you built them yourself. Here in the Midwest we have plenty of Sears homes and I've never heard a bad thing about them. I guess that traces back to your "the problem is the builder, not the building" argument. You're right, but I think it's okay to dislike a blatant symbol of half-assedness.
    - bobthepanda 2y ago
      what i mean to say by "while they are historic and beloved today that was not always the case." is that people often complained about them in the era that they were built, because people back then also did not like the new cheap stuff and had rose tinted glasses about the good old days. As a general example, New York's iconic brownstones were also complained about in their era because they were prone to crumbling and flaking, and yet now they are beloved pieces of city history worth millions of dollars. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/nyregion/saying-goodbye-to-the-face-of-new-yorks-brownstones.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/nyregion/saying-goodbye-t...
cbdumas 2y ago
Increasing housing density is a great thing and I'm all for it. That said I wish that cheapo stick framed buildings weren't the only way to get it done. In my experience, living in a multistory stick framed building usually means absolutely zero sound isolation from neighbors which can lead to some really frustrating situations. It was night and day better when I moved into an apartment building from the 60s with the levels made of concrete.
- glxxyz 2y ago
  Exactly this- modern concrete high rises generally have much better sound isolation than stick framed
- Micanthus 2y ago
  The apartment building I live in was built in 2019 and is solid concrete. I only ever hear my neighbors when they're drilling or something. In my city it's housing built post WWII to about the millenium that's known for shitty sound insulation, although it often has other benefits like higher cielings and charm. It seems like a weird US thing from what I've seen online that new buildings are still just a frame and drywall. I don't get why though, sure building costs initially are slightly lower but a concrete building will last much longer, it's easier to insulate against weather, and they can charge higher rent for the sound isolation as well
- dvdkon 2y ago
  I have to say drywall + insulation can work really well. In the flat I rent both walls to neighbors and between rooms are like this, and I only ever hear people through the doors or windows. The rest of the building (outside walls and floors) are from brick, though.
- c5karl 2y ago
  I'll respond to your anecdote with an anecdote of my own. I've been in a wood-framed apartment building for two years, and I never hear my neighbors. There are many ways to incorporate sound insulation in construction, and masonry isn't the only way to achieve it.
glxxyz 2y ago
6 stories (here) = Wood framed building = noise from neighbours above, below and beside
bastien2 2y ago
They're bad for cars, so the establishment is decrying them as ruining America. I went two years with nothing more than a carshare membership when I lived in a 5+1 because I was three blocks from a grocery store and that three blocks had every type of restaurant I frequent. As soon as I moved back into a "traditional" American residential neighborhood, I needed a car again.
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  They are great for cars. For a lot of them every unit gets a spot and theres even guest spots. Sure beats the old way of hoping you find street parking. They are actually terrible for bikes. Mine and the rest in the rack in the garage were stolen and management was not helpful at all and didn’t produce security tapes. Bike thieves know following a car in to one of these is an easy way to steal bikes.
dang 2y ago
Url changed from https://www.archdaily.com/978264/in-praise-of-5-over-1-buildings https://www.archdaily.com/978264/in-praise-of-5-over-1-build..., which points to this.
ehnto 2y ago
Japan has heaps of this kind of moderate-high density. You notice they don't have heaps of high rises there, and I think this size of building is a great middle ground. You get more vibrant street levels thanks to the commerce floor, and you can get much more comfortable housing than "commie blocks" or apartment high rises that get stuffed in the middle of unfavorable locations. It's also not anti-family like some people seem to think it is. They are often bigger than units or apartments, and being close to the things you need is very pro-social. Of course, nothing is more pro-family and just generally pro everyon, than affordable housing. The investment-real estate economy is a blight on many of our societies.
Animats 2y ago
The slums of tomorrow, today! Are those things being built outside a few high-demand areas such as the SF bay area?
- dangus 2y ago
  Before you accuse them of being slums, maybe take a look at the construction quality of your own recently-built single family home. It’s not like Ryan Homes are built to last. 5-over-1s are being built across the country because almost every metro area has high housing demand. NIMBYs can’t seem to imagine someone choosing to live in a multi-family home. They’d rather the middle/lower middle/working class stay out of their town entirely and keep their inflated property values for their single family home. Fun fact: one condo building generates the same/more property tax income than a square mile of single family homes. So if you like low taxes in your city you’ll welcome 5-over-1s with open arms. Single family homes alone basically can’t sustain city coffers because they generate so little revenue per quantity of land, even lower than trailer parks.
mfacktor 2y ago
They honestly look fine. They are unsettling to some because of how large they are. But that's because of two-staircase requirements which make it cost prohibitive to build small-scale walk-up apartments like they used to. The two-staircase rule was originally for fire safety but due to better fire resistant materials, it provides no measurable benefit anymore. So we should get rid of that rule and essentially legalize small footprint multi-family homes again.
cr125rider 2y ago
A podcast, Well There’s Your Problem, run by some engineers and others who rip into them a bit: https://youtu.be/xVodkE47aLw?si=vW9VPeQYRCzqE9zr https://youtu.be/xVodkE47aLw?si=vW9VPeQYRCzqE9zr Some NSFW language I’m sure. Lots of rambling. It’s a journey.
maronato 2y ago
There’s a great video by Wendover about how 5 over 1s are a way for corporate landlords to spend less to build worse apartments that they use to corner and consolidate the market. Then, once they stiffen competition, they skyrocket the rent prices. https://youtu.be/UX4KklvCDmg https://youtu.be/UX4KklvCDmg

112 points by goles 2y ago

One of the reasons they're not as common anymore is because of the dangers associated with them, not only in earthquake country, but also fires. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_story_building https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_story_building

Retric 2y ago
5 over 1 doesn’t necessarily imply a Soft story building. In many cases the bottom floor is much stronger than what’s above it.
LarsDu88 2y ago
5-over-1 are increasingly common and not the same thing as soft story buildings. 5-over-1 refers specifically to the wood construction of the top 5 floors. You can have a soft story building that is not built out of wood and even more vulnerable to earthquakes.
- nsnick 2y ago
  5 over 1 has nothing to do with the number of floors. It means type 5 (wood) over type 1 (concrete).
  - jrochkind1 2y ago
    Looks like while some people agree with you, it's not the most common use. > The name derives from the maximum permissible five floors of combustible construction (Type III or Type V) over a fire-resistive Type I podium of one floor for "5-over-1" or two floors for "5-over-2", as defined in the United States-based International Building Code (IBC) Section 510.2.[1][4] Some sources instead attribute the name to the wood framing of the upper construction; the International Building Code uses "Type V" to refer to non-fireproof structures, including those framed with dimensional lumber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-over-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-over-1
  - tomtheelder 2y ago
    It’s debated, but the prevailing belief is that it originated to refer to the number of stories. Hence you’ll also see “5-over-2” used fairy commonly as well.
micromacrofoot 2y ago
Most of the buildings of this style that are going up around me have steel framed first floors and wood above. The elevator and stair shafts are concrete block to help protect fire escape routes.
kibwen 2y ago
In addition to the sibling comment, the recent rise of 5-over-1s is largely attributable to the use of fire-retardant wood in order to comply with fire codes.
kjs3 2y ago
Not sure where you live, but in my own US city they went from non-existent (as far as I recall) 20 years ago to literally everywhere I go. There's probably 4 going up within 3 miles of my house right now. Maybe that has to do with more stringent firecodes. Only thing close are the row-houses where there's 3-5 units, narrow, 3 stories high with a roof deck (I don't know what they're called).
majormajor 2y ago
The canonical "5 over 1" has a very solid concrete base. Hence the name. From the article: "5-over-1 construction—so called because it frequently combines up to five floors of inexpensive wood-framed construction over a concrete podium—is popular primarily because it is a cost-effective means to build, especially here in timber-rich Oregon." It's a mostly new style.

wry_discontent 2y ago

I was recently in Spain and this was the only kind of building I encountered that wasn't a palace or bureaucracy building. It fostered such a sense of being in the middle of something alive and it spread out for miles in every direction. It was so easy to find my way around the hotel because the sights were familiar but unique, but once I moved a little bit away it was all a labyrinthine mish mash of the same. I loved it and I love the 5 over 1

leoedin 2y ago
Spain has one of the highest percentage of apartment based households in Europe - 66%. It makes for really dense towns and cities, which allows for the excellent cafe and tapas culture. Low density suburbs are so lifeless in comparison.

micromacrofoot 2y ago

I have a lot of these going up in my area, maybe 8 within a block or so, and I don't hate them. They're simple and modern, which many people I know hate at the moment, but I really enjoy the ground-level retail they've brought along with them. Now more than ever, we can't really be picky about our housing. It looks fine, it's fairly inexpensive to build, and it provides mixed use.

CodeWriter23 2y ago

Huh. My wife and I have been calling these "Stack and Pack". Didn't know there was an actual technical term for them.

from-nibly 2y ago

I know at least one of ideas is that the retail would be relevant to the inhabitants of the top 5 floors. Has anyone seen that work well in action? Or are these just houses on random strip malls. I don't like the idea of stores I don't care about inviting increased traffic around my house, but i would happily have increased traffic if it meant at least some stores I care about are just downstairs.

TulliusCicero 2y ago
> Has anyone seen that work well in action? Yes, it works pretty much anywhere if the retail in question is the relatively useful/high traffic sort (e.g. grocery stores, bakeries, coffee shops, restaurants/cafes, etc). And it doesn't have to just serve the people of that exact building, if there are a bunch of other 5-over-1's or similar in the immediate area. Honestly, this sounds like a bit of a stereotypical American question: "Can <thing that the rest of the world already does> actually work at all?" Edit: I should add that of course there can be other variables at play. For example, if the general street design of the area is more pedestrian friendly, that's helpful to this style of zoning/building, and if the street design is hostile to pedestrians, then these things won't work quite as well.
- mech422 2y ago
  I used to live over a bodega and laundrymat in NYC.. it was relatively cheap AND convenient :-)
cpitman 2y ago
It works really well. During the pandemic, everything I needed was within a couple blocks of me. I went so long without needing to drive that my car actually had issues afterwards.
- febusravenga 2y ago
  Surprise, it's good for many things but bad for cars... intesting observation in times when many of us realize our environment is more friendly to cars than to people.

jccalhoun 2y ago

I live an hour or so away from the town I went to grad school so I still visit once a month or so. It seems like every time I visit another old building is torn down and another one of these 5 over 1 buildings are going up. The stores are rarely successful and I'm sure that the companies building all these things just factor in the cost of building these as a cost of doing business in that town. Most of the kids that rent these "luxury apartments" (which is how they are always described) are from cities with much higher cost of living so they can charge a ton of money and mom and dad will still think it is reasonable. This ends up recreating housing crises of big cities because people that live and work in the town are getting priced out of living there.

TulliusCicero 2y ago
> The stores are rarely successful and I'm sure that the companies building all these things just factor in the cost of building these as a cost of doing business in that town. One of the things you see people complaining about in cities like Seattle or SF is higher commercial rent prices pushing out all the "cool" but not particularly profitable businesses. And how do you get lower business rents? There's a thing called supply-and-demand that might be helpful here.
- mtalantikite 2y ago
  > And how do you get lower business rents? There's a thing called supply-and-demand that might be helpful here. It's part of it for sure, but there are lots of commercial vacancies that sit empty for years because landlords often keep storefronts vacant on purpose. It's a confluence of reasons and it depends on the locale -- sometimes there's a tax break if it's vacant, sometimes there's a tax increase if rent hits a certain threshold and the landlord wants even more to make up for the new tax, sometimes the mortgage is guaranteed by the rent price in some way and lowering the rent would cause the holder to pay back the difference immediately, etc. There are tons of empty storefronts in NYC at the moment, for example, so more supply isn't really the issue here, often it's a web of really bad policy. And I'm sure this is the place where people start saying Land Value Tax.

dkarl 2y ago

> It’s also because their rise has been so sudden, an outcome of changing codes, improved economic fortunes, and pent-up demand in the wake of the Great Recession more than a decade ago. And it is true they sometimes tend toward being architecturally bland or downright ugly. They have so many other advantages that they don't need to be attractive, and developers hate to pay for anything they don't need. Also, this moment where they're breaking out and popping up like weeds to fill pent-up demand is an awkward moment, design-wise, because you need a lot of new designs quickly without a long history to look back on and draw from. Compare that to high-rise office buildings or single family homes, where you have a century and more of variations in countless different styles, where you have not only countless iconic examples but decades' worth of reaction to many of them. Some of the 5-over-1 buildings going up now will turn out to be iconic, style-defining precedents. Most will be trash, but will still serve the functional purpose. Personally, I love seeing these go up near me. It means more housing supply and more businesses near me that cater to foot traffic, in the same package.

jrochkind1 2y ago
There are plenty 50-100 year old examples (the whole range) in, say, Chicago of mid-rise 4-6 story buildings with retail on the first floor and residential or office on the remaining floors. Chicago is a mid-rise city. Examples which are considered attractive and historic and nobody complains about them... but they aren't timber frame over concrete podium, they're brick or stone on all floors. Which is of course often too expensive to do now. (Although Chicago has all-masonry examples from the past couple decades too... as well as timber-over-concrete examples I think). I guess it's the timber-over-concrete that is new and without historical example? Or regardless, the issue is that the historical examples are too expensive to build now. (Why isn't this an issue with residential too? I think it is actually?) Here's a very typical generic Chicago example, which possibly has had it's ground floor facade replaced at some point in an uninspired way, but you can see the masonry on the upper floors (only 3-over-1) which would be an absolute premium luxury build today, and the building has plenty of character even though it's not being used for especially high-rent purposes at the moment: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9654135,-87.6587315,3a,75y,2.88h,111.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sS3BGfbQt_wzMUdk1zWomPg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9654135,-87.6587315,3a,75y,2... Here's a new construction (past 20 years anyway) 4-over-1 that is all brick... pretty boring and generic. Would people hate it as much as the timber-over-concrete? I have no idea. https://www.google.com/maps/@41.962424,-87.6661565,3a,75y,262.19h,119.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv6TOZ5H83BO2hiA_L4BBSA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/@41.962424,-87.6661565,3a,75y,26... Here's a pretty delightful and typical older all masonry 5-over-1, nothing special, tons of buildings like this. https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9582377,-87.6528717,3a,75y,84.49h,102.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbP-humajRslr3p4ZIKsTpg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9582377,-87.6528717,3a,75y,8... There is no lack of great historical examples of mid-rise 5-over-1 residential over retail -- but they probably aren't timber frame over concrete podium.

m0llusk 2y ago

Strange how aesthetics consistently get the highest priority for architectural decisions. My understanding is the biggest real criticism of five over one designs is that as built most of the wood is not wood as most understand it, but various engineered wood products. These engineered wood products have many positive qualities, but are also highly vulnerable to fire and produce a great deal of toxic smoke when they burn. To me increased risk of unusually damaging fires is a far more serious problem than poor aesthetics. If taken seriously then it should be possible to address or even eliminate both the increased fire risk and aesthetic objections.

InitialLastName 2y ago
Do you have a source for any of that?
throwaway2037 2y ago
> aesthetics consistently get the highest priority for architectural decisions Wouldn't most of it be explained by cost? Design a single, generic 5-over-1 building. Rinse and repeat?

foobarian 2y ago

I'm pretty impressed that it's possible to build that high on a wood frame. I was guessing there was a steel frame inside.

TulliusCicero 2y ago
With cross-laminated timber you can go even higher (though I imagine it's more expensive than this building style): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-laminated_timber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-laminated_timber > In 2012, Forte Living, an apartment complex in Melbourne, Australia, became the tallest plyscraper framed with CLT alone. The building has 10 stories and stands just over 32 m tall. The 759 CLT panels necessary for the project were manufactured in Austria using European spruce that was grown and harvested there.[31]
- Snoddas 2y ago
  Here is another example https://www.sarakulturhus.se/en/303172/The-Wood-Hotel-by-Elite https://www.sarakulturhus.se/en/303172/The-Wood-Hotel-by-Eli... "In the 20-story wooden house, there are 205 modern hotel....."
  - TulliusCicero 2y ago
    Yes, though that building does use some concrete and steel: https://matadornetwork.com/read/wood-hotel-sweden/ https://matadornetwork.com/read/wood-hotel-sweden/ > The hotel’s not without any metal, though. Generators and heating/cooling units on the fifth and sixth floors are supported by a steel truss. There’s also concrete atop the hotel to minimize sway. But for the most part, the Wood Hotel is a marvel of white wood and forest aromas, like living in a life-sized doll house designed for the 2020s. Obviously much, much less than a typical tall building though.
c5karl 2y ago
Fire safety, not the strength of wood framing, is what blocked this type of construction before. Effective sprinkler systems are what addressed that concern. There remains a concern about fire safety during construction, before the sprinklers are activated. There have been serious fires and deaths of construction workers while these buildings were going up.

pnw 2y ago

Trivia: I learned that these are called muffintop buildings here in the Pacific Northwest by contractors. Once moisture penetrates the building envelope on the wooden upper stories, they swell over the fixed concrete base.

buildsjets 2y ago
Didn't you just describe how ever single wood-framed, concrete-foundation building is designed, regardless of whether it is a 5-over-1, a new-construction McMansion, or a 970's rambler?

ajkjk 2y ago

The main issues with them is that they are don't create much community, with their lifeless corridors and alienating common areas, and that the ground-floor retail tends to be (apparently) reserved for overpriced retail chains that come and go every few years, presumably because they charge high rents for large spaces. They also tend to not have balcony space for people to decorate so from outside they look completely un-personalized. If they were less soulsuckingly lifeless nobody would mind them. Also as a result of their soulsuckingness it's hard to imagine treating one as a long-term home, which compounds because they're more soulsucking due to having nobody people treating them as long-term homes. Also they are usually not for sale as condos either so that's another reason they don't feel like long-term homes. (Nor are they able to personalize them significantly).

TulliusCicero 2y ago
> The main issues with them is that they are don't create much community, with their lifeless corridors and alienating common areas What I noticed with development patterns when I lived in Munich, is that there were a LOT more "pedestrian plaza" type areas scattered throughout the city compared to US cities. I think that's what's needed, is any given neighborhood having at least a few plaza areas with some open space, some benches, a fountain, etc.
- mjevans 2y ago
  Personal observations... I'm not sure the culture in the US would lend itself that way. Parks and public commons areas tend to become the dumping ground for unsolved social issues. Those who've fallen through society's cracks. Those who would abuse the ability to interact with others to interact in uncouth ways. Issues of space size and use density. Even during the height of Pokemon Go when (mostly) nerds were incentivized to visit city parks the mostly polite use was frowned upon as an unwanted crowd interfering with those who'd traditionally use the same public space. Then there's the more 'accepted' version of gatherings in cities: paying various retail places for the privilege of being there, usually at a markup that reflects the value of being in such a dense area. Fixing both of those problems, and any others I didn't mention, will take political will and a shift in culture. Programs to connect the unfortunate with the social integration or support help they need, and measures to combat rent-seeking (laws and tax biases) seem like a distant pipe dream.

SamBam 2y ago

Yeah. They're everywhere around me (Greater Boston), but we really do need more housing in this country. These allow denser construction, without needing to build skyscrapers. One of the issues, though not directly related to 5-over-1, is the inability (that I've seen) of cities to construct neighborhoods. Most places where these are going up are not "neighborhoods," even in places were urban neighborhoods are very natural, like Greater Boston. Instead, there is sometimes some attempt at a retail space on the bottom of these buildings, but the streets are too wide, not walkable enough, and the retail opportunities are not designed for corner shops/bodegas/other cheap places that help create a neighborhood. I don't know how to create a neighborhood from whole cloth, but somebody has been thinking about it, I'm sure, and I wish cities would try to learn from their lessons.

TulliusCicero 2y ago
It's always possible to go back and fix streets. Amsterdam used to be a car-dominated hellscape not totally dissimilar from American cities, it just got to be more walk and bike-friendly through heavy street/road renovations over the decades. > but the streets are too wide, not walkable enough Right, but this is fixable. You can always go and reduce the car/parking lane space and make the sidewalk wider and/or add a bike lane.
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  > Amsterdam used to be a car-dominated hellscape not totally dissimilar from American cities When was this?
  - TulliusCicero 2y ago
    In the post-WW2 era up to the 70's. The 70's are when there was a big movement that initiated the social change back to being more walk/bike-friendly (though it took decades to get Dutch cities to where they are now): https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Transportation_Planning_Casebook/Stop_de_kindermoord https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Transportation_Planning_Casebo... You can find pics of what it was like in their cities. Not exactly the same as US ones necessarily, but close. There's a couple pics here: https://www.distilled.earth/p/how-the-netherlands-built-a-biking https://www.distilled.earth/p/how-the-netherlands-built-a-bi...

kqr2 2y ago

Also for smaller buildings, they should probably remove the need for two fire exits . Video: Why North America Can't Build Nice Apartments (because of one rule) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRdwXQb7CfM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRdwXQb7CfM

jerlam 2y ago

The people complaining about how these buildings look should compare to what a modern suburban subdivision looks like. Rows and rows of look-alike houses that cost vastly more than these apartments, taking over a much greater land area, and adding vastly more vehicle traffic. Every single "iconic" architecture looked stale in its era.

ianbicking 2y ago

Everyone complains about the aesthetics, and I feel it too, but I have no idea what they should do. The surface treatments on these buildings have a lot of variety and aesthetic interest, with many colors and textures. They often add other physical variety with outset and inset portions of the building. It's not uncommon to have different shapes at the roofline. I can't think of historical apartment buildings that are any more interesting or pleasant if you look at them objectively. And yet... there is a kind of tedium to them. Some of that is just efficient use of space, they tend to go up in very rectangular blocks. Maybe that's just the inevitable reaction to the most common new structure of our time.

kibwen 2y ago
In all honesty, a bland 5-over-1 is still more interesting to look at than any cookie-cutter suburban house ever built.
7952 2y ago
It is a shame that there isn't more creativity with these facades. Make something arty or fun rather than just trying to fit in.

ryukoposting 2y ago

I've lived in a few of these, and the "cheap" part is really the biggest concern. Besides the fact that they all share in their corrugated-metal hideousness, they're a symptom of developers pushing the boundaries of building code to save a few bucks. Without doxxing myself, I'll say that I was among the first group of residents of a 5-over-1 that made local news for the safety problems associated with its cheap construction. Non-functional smoke detectors, incorrectly installed fire walls, flood markings in the concrete basement, paint smears on the cabinets, doors with massive and varying gaps underneath, the whole 9 yards. In a brand new building. Truly a remarkable exercise in corner-cutting.

bobthepanda 2y ago
this is a problem in every era of construction, though. developers have not really changed their mindset or their ability to cut corners, they just change the flavor of building they like. Seattle is full of Sears catalog Craftsman homes that are not at all climate appropriate, and while they are historic and beloved today that was not always the case. If you buy one of them today they're probably moldy.
- ryukoposting 2y ago
  The tough thing with Sears homes is you never know who built them. They showed up in a boxcar and you either hired someone to build them, or you built them yourself. Here in the Midwest we have plenty of Sears homes and I've never heard a bad thing about them. I guess that traces back to your "the problem is the builder, not the building" argument. You're right, but I think it's okay to dislike a blatant symbol of half-assedness.
  - bobthepanda 2y ago
    what i mean to say by "while they are historic and beloved today that was not always the case." is that people often complained about them in the era that they were built, because people back then also did not like the new cheap stuff and had rose tinted glasses about the good old days. As a general example, New York's iconic brownstones were also complained about in their era because they were prone to crumbling and flaking, and yet now they are beloved pieces of city history worth millions of dollars. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/nyregion/saying-goodbye-to-the-face-of-new-yorks-brownstones.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/nyregion/saying-goodbye-t...

cbdumas 2y ago

Increasing housing density is a great thing and I'm all for it. That said I wish that cheapo stick framed buildings weren't the only way to get it done. In my experience, living in a multistory stick framed building usually means absolutely zero sound isolation from neighbors which can lead to some really frustrating situations. It was night and day better when I moved into an apartment building from the 60s with the levels made of concrete.

glxxyz 2y ago
Exactly this- modern concrete high rises generally have much better sound isolation than stick framed
Micanthus 2y ago
The apartment building I live in was built in 2019 and is solid concrete. I only ever hear my neighbors when they're drilling or something. In my city it's housing built post WWII to about the millenium that's known for shitty sound insulation, although it often has other benefits like higher cielings and charm. It seems like a weird US thing from what I've seen online that new buildings are still just a frame and drywall. I don't get why though, sure building costs initially are slightly lower but a concrete building will last much longer, it's easier to insulate against weather, and they can charge higher rent for the sound isolation as well
dvdkon 2y ago
I have to say drywall + insulation can work really well. In the flat I rent both walls to neighbors and between rooms are like this, and I only ever hear people through the doors or windows. The rest of the building (outside walls and floors) are from brick, though.
c5karl 2y ago
I'll respond to your anecdote with an anecdote of my own. I've been in a wood-framed apartment building for two years, and I never hear my neighbors. There are many ways to incorporate sound insulation in construction, and masonry isn't the only way to achieve it.

glxxyz 2y ago

6 stories (here) = Wood framed building = noise from neighbours above, below and beside

bastien2 2y ago

They're bad for cars, so the establishment is decrying them as ruining America. I went two years with nothing more than a carshare membership when I lived in a 5+1 because I was three blocks from a grocery store and that three blocks had every type of restaurant I frequent. As soon as I moved back into a "traditional" American residential neighborhood, I needed a car again.

kjkjadksj 2y ago
They are great for cars. For a lot of them every unit gets a spot and theres even guest spots. Sure beats the old way of hoping you find street parking. They are actually terrible for bikes. Mine and the rest in the rack in the garage were stolen and management was not helpful at all and didn’t produce security tapes. Bike thieves know following a car in to one of these is an easy way to steal bikes.

dang 2y ago

Url changed from https://www.archdaily.com/978264/in-praise-of-5-over-1-buildings https://www.archdaily.com/978264/in-praise-of-5-over-1-build..., which points to this.

ehnto 2y ago

Japan has heaps of this kind of moderate-high density. You notice they don't have heaps of high rises there, and I think this size of building is a great middle ground. You get more vibrant street levels thanks to the commerce floor, and you can get much more comfortable housing than "commie blocks" or apartment high rises that get stuffed in the middle of unfavorable locations. It's also not anti-family like some people seem to think it is. They are often bigger than units or apartments, and being close to the things you need is very pro-social. Of course, nothing is more pro-family and just generally pro everyon, than affordable housing. The investment-real estate economy is a blight on many of our societies.

Animats 2y ago

The slums of tomorrow, today! Are those things being built outside a few high-demand areas such as the SF bay area?

dangus 2y ago
Before you accuse them of being slums, maybe take a look at the construction quality of your own recently-built single family home. It’s not like Ryan Homes are built to last. 5-over-1s are being built across the country because almost every metro area has high housing demand. NIMBYs can’t seem to imagine someone choosing to live in a multi-family home. They’d rather the middle/lower middle/working class stay out of their town entirely and keep their inflated property values for their single family home. Fun fact: one condo building generates the same/more property tax income than a square mile of single family homes. So if you like low taxes in your city you’ll welcome 5-over-1s with open arms. Single family homes alone basically can’t sustain city coffers because they generate so little revenue per quantity of land, even lower than trailer parks.

mfacktor 2y ago

They honestly look fine. They are unsettling to some because of how large they are. But that's because of two-staircase requirements which make it cost prohibitive to build small-scale walk-up apartments like they used to. The two-staircase rule was originally for fire safety but due to better fire resistant materials, it provides no measurable benefit anymore. So we should get rid of that rule and essentially legalize small footprint multi-family homes again.

cr125rider 2y ago

A podcast, Well There’s Your Problem, run by some engineers and others who rip into them a bit: https://youtu.be/xVodkE47aLw?si=vW9VPeQYRCzqE9zr https://youtu.be/xVodkE47aLw?si=vW9VPeQYRCzqE9zr Some NSFW language I’m sure. Lots of rambling. It’s a journey.

maronato 2y ago

There’s a great video by Wendover about how 5 over 1s are a way for corporate landlords to spend less to build worse apartments that they use to corner and consolidate the market. Then, once they stiffen competition, they skyrocket the rent prices. https://youtu.be/UX4KklvCDmg https://youtu.be/UX4KklvCDmg