Anne Paulson

Adopting single stair would save lives, by building new housing and getting people out of firetraps and off the street.

The expression I'm looking for is "instead of doing the work, they pulled the answer they wanted out of their asses."

But what about the single stair buildings where nothing would have been built? If new single stair buildings where nothing otherwise would have been built result in fewer people in old firetraps or on the street, that is an enormous safety improvement. 2/2

For one thing, they (implicitly, they don't actually give us numbers) compare single stair buildings to new corridor buildings with two stairs, as if new single stair buildings would just be substituting for new two stair buildings. 1/2

So instead they'll give us information they pulled out of their ass.

Because people who live in Europe in single stair buildings get out of the building differently than Americans would? Faster? Slower? More/less in the way of firefighters? That seems... improbable.

LOL. Canada and the US are different nations, so it's definitely international.

Not to mention, why are they doing modeling instead of looking at real single stair buildings in real fires? Or at least in addition to looking at real single stair buildings in real fires.

The modeling is unbelievably shoddy. The state of California should be ashamed to put out this college freshman level modeling.

I'm wrong. The cited cost is the cost of ONE stair. So there would be a ~10% reduction, which is enormous.

Wow, that's a lot. The report didn't make that clear. I misunderstood.

I also thought the report would be about how actual single stair buildings perform in fires, but instead it's about vibes.

There's a lot in the report about what firefighters think, but it's missing the part with the facts about how actual single stair buildings actually perform in fires. Which I would've thought would be the most important part.

Is it a savings of up to 12.5%, or a savings up to half of 12.5% because you build one stair/elevator instead of two?

It'd be a ~5% reduction, because there would be one stair instead of two. But still, 5% is enormous. Also, of course, single stair makes buildings on small lots possible that wouldn't be possible at any price with the two stair requirement.

Yeah, if we had a building that looked just like a single stair building, but it had a second stairway glued to the side, egress time would be lightning fast, but that is not the relevant comparator. A double stair building has a long corridor, and escapees have to make their way along it. 3/3

The report doesn't compare single stair buildings' egress time with the existing, allowed egress time for double stair buildings with long corridors. 2/3

The whole report is skimpy. They have a section on potential issues for egress during a fire, but no section on whether these potential issues turn out to be actual issues in actual fires in actual single stair buildings. Also they model double stair building floorplans as 4500 sq ft squares??? 1/3

A single stair building has three or four units clustered around a stairwell. How on earth do they get to 23 occupants?

What happens when there are fires in single stair buildings? I know, let's consult firefighters who have never fought fires in the type of buildings we're talking about! They will certainly be able to tell us!

Oddly, the font looks fine on my computer. Unfortunately, the content still looks terrible.

"Sorry, Mr. Parent, we noticed a motorcycle in among the bikes at the bike rack, so we secured it until it could be removed."

Ugh. I liked this report better when I couldn't see it. Who cares if California fire marshalls don't like single stair? What is the experience of people who fight fires in single stair buildings of the type that would be allowed but aren't now allowed?

I have neighbors that pay $3K per year, and neighbors that pay $50K, for houses that are not very different. On average, people in my city get about an $18K discount from true valuation. Homeowners are trying to pass a proposition so they can again pass down their assessments to their children.

404 forbidden

I think bluesky would be roughly 300% better if people here were capable of reading “this is an assessment of the empirical reality of a situation” without assuming it comes with an implicit “and therefore I endorse the reality of that situation”

Dear Cities:
If you find yourself writing ordinances to ban #Ebikes from parks, please take a look at your streets. Are they safe enough for people--all people, including kids--to ride bikes? I'd bet a lot of money they are not.
Fix your streets first, and everybody wins.

Too much from Dems about political disagreement, and not enough of, "Madman is in charge of government, doing lunatic things incompetently and illegally, should be impeached at once."

Comparative advantage, a basic economic pillar.

Sympathy. I live a mile from a bike shop and all the wrenches know me by name because they have to fix my disasters, mostly lack of maintenance. But I can just walk home when I drop off the bike.