Yet, people DO move out to the suburbs to HAVE MORE space proving they DO need more space than what this post, and others like it, wish to force upon others - and at a cheaper cost. I certainly did - I got triple the living space for less cost when I moved out of Boston. AND I didn't have to listen to noisy "neighbors" anymore (showing that it isn't just about apartment size, for one example).
I dryly note that the phrase "you don't need <insert object of the day> " is the mark of a Progressive that wishes to make sure that the Davos phrase "you will own nothing and be happy" comes to full fruition - not because "I" want it but that others are willing to force "me" to live that way and fulfill "Have less, do less, be less". It's all about lowering other peoples' standard of living for ideological purposes.
Now, I have NO problem with people who wish to live in cities and voluntarily put themselves into far smaller living quarters than they could have elsewhere, to pay more for food and other needful things, and much more for regular amenities (and don't get me started on taxes - either direct or indirect). I do not dispute that there is, for some people, a set of intangibles pertaining to living in a city; let them choose that as I certainly didn't find that after living 7 years in a most walkable city.
The keyword is voluntary. This post's content speaks loudly against it.
The bulk of this post is about making single stairwell buildings legal. That's not about reducing choice. It's about expanding it. As usual, you are here to make inflammatory statements in bad faith. Go back to Breitbart.
I think about what is written and then I comment on it. And no, not bad faith - just a POV that isn't much expressed by others here.
I will repeat - when someone states "you don't *need* that in this context, it doesn't mean more choice but less choice. Too often I have seen Progressive lawmakers (Left of center) state that and then attempt to pass laws to do exactly that - set the environment such that while people can have choices, the presented choices are only those offered by govt. All others are taken off the table and people end up with less freedom to choose for themselves.
Again, you're only running away from the discussion at hand with that reply. While the entry level point of the post is about single staircases (see my comment about my personal experience with that), a foundational question about choice arose on "You simply do not need so much space" statement that was made.
If someone can afford it, why is it someone else's business to force them into smaller? No, not themselves directly but Progressives always look to seize the govt Levers of Power to force their outlooks onto other by indirect means - that have the Force of Govt. I simply raise the visibility of that.
And is it "bad faith" to ask for fundamental answers to cost, timelines, govt regs, govt zone, and manpower availabilities to accomplish this pie in the sky (at least in my eyes) attempt such a building escapade that Lloyd raised (up from 3.2 to 5 mill +)?
It's one thing to dream about it but Lloyd really seems to want to build that house. Thus, down to earth, fundamental questions SHOULD be asked - and answered.
Otherwise it is pure nonsense to start doing all that with no hope of accomplishing it. You know, like the atrocious project in California to build a bullet train to nowhere? 14 years down the line and not a single rail has been laid - but the end price has soared WAY over the initial amount to over $100 billion USD.
Now you wonder why I chime in with such questions?
I understand the premise of 1 stair, & in smaller buildings I could be convinced. My concern is the example of the Grenfell Tower disaster. I do understand the substantial reason for the disaster was the cladding and many other factors, but it only had one means of egress. So put me in the "Still to be convinced" category.
In Peter Apps' book on Grenfell he discusses this, how if they hadn't told everyone to stay in place they could have got out. But it was also a much taller building than anyone wants to build now with one stair.
“There is also the single staircase. This issue is sometimes overstated. One expert analysed the staircase and found that in normal conditions it was wide enough to accommodate the entire 293-person population of the tower, even if they entered simultaneously. The time it would have taken for an able-bodied person to descend under normal conditions from the very top of the tower was four minutes. This shows us the extraordinary difference a decision to evacuate the building before the stairwell became smoke-logged might have made.”
I was a Resident Assistant (in charge of a floor of undergrads) at BU. During fire alarm drills (or deliberate pulls just for the fun of it). In that dorm of 3 towers of 18 floors each, there were two stairwells in each tower. My responsibility, for each alarm, was to race around each even numbered floor telling people to evacuate; when I hit a door that was locked, I had a master key to open it to tell people to get out.
There was one alarm that actually turned out to have a fire at the bottom of the stairwell - and it was getting smokier and smokier as I went down to fulfill my responsibility. It got to the point I had to wet my tshirt because of the smoke.
I only got out because of the second stairwell because the main one had deliberately set on fire (they caught the perp).
Each floor had 40 residents on floors 5-18 - that's 520 people.
I shudder to think of the outcome if there had only been one stairwell.
Good article! We do need to examine more thoroughly the point access block concept as it does have merit for many housing site applications. Let's keep in mind, that fire safety also depends on material choice and mechanical ventilation systems - the whole design.
Either way, that's going to be tons (metaphorically speaking, pun intended) of upfront carbon to do in 4.5 years (2030 is coming quick).
Does Canada have the skilled manpower to do that, given that adds up to 1.15 million units/year. I'm no builder so Lloyd, you'd know better but approx. how many workers, on average, are at any one site during construction?
If it is even 10, that's almost a third of Canada's population. What is Canada's "in the trades" population? I doubt it is that large.
Now, back to a domain that is more familiar to me - politics and government. Can this movement get the regs changed for all of what you have written about (for that will be needful) as well as the avalanche of permits for the 5.2 mil units done even in a year before construction can start?
That delay is obviously going to radically shift the number of units to be built in the following three years. And I haven't even started in on the CapEx needed - where are all those Loonies going to come from?
Let me close with this question - how many units is Canada NOW building - and are the resources available to RAPIDLY scale up to this new target build number?
I need one of those tee shirts.
"You simply do not need so much space"
Yet, people DO move out to the suburbs to HAVE MORE space proving they DO need more space than what this post, and others like it, wish to force upon others - and at a cheaper cost. I certainly did - I got triple the living space for less cost when I moved out of Boston. AND I didn't have to listen to noisy "neighbors" anymore (showing that it isn't just about apartment size, for one example).
I dryly note that the phrase "you don't need <insert object of the day> " is the mark of a Progressive that wishes to make sure that the Davos phrase "you will own nothing and be happy" comes to full fruition - not because "I" want it but that others are willing to force "me" to live that way and fulfill "Have less, do less, be less". It's all about lowering other peoples' standard of living for ideological purposes.
Now, I have NO problem with people who wish to live in cities and voluntarily put themselves into far smaller living quarters than they could have elsewhere, to pay more for food and other needful things, and much more for regular amenities (and don't get me started on taxes - either direct or indirect). I do not dispute that there is, for some people, a set of intangibles pertaining to living in a city; let them choose that as I certainly didn't find that after living 7 years in a most walkable city.
The keyword is voluntary. This post's content speaks loudly against it.
The bulk of this post is about making single stairwell buildings legal. That's not about reducing choice. It's about expanding it. As usual, you are here to make inflammatory statements in bad faith. Go back to Breitbart.
I think about what is written and then I comment on it. And no, not bad faith - just a POV that isn't much expressed by others here.
I will repeat - when someone states "you don't *need* that in this context, it doesn't mean more choice but less choice. Too often I have seen Progressive lawmakers (Left of center) state that and then attempt to pass laws to do exactly that - set the environment such that while people can have choices, the presented choices are only those offered by govt. All others are taken off the table and people end up with less freedom to choose for themselves.
See the Fallacy of the Great Mind.
Bullshit Baffles Brains
High level debating comeback, there sport.
Your bad faith makes it not worth the effort
Again, you're only running away from the discussion at hand with that reply. While the entry level point of the post is about single staircases (see my comment about my personal experience with that), a foundational question about choice arose on "You simply do not need so much space" statement that was made.
If someone can afford it, why is it someone else's business to force them into smaller? No, not themselves directly but Progressives always look to seize the govt Levers of Power to force their outlooks onto other by indirect means - that have the Force of Govt. I simply raise the visibility of that.
And is it "bad faith" to ask for fundamental answers to cost, timelines, govt regs, govt zone, and manpower availabilities to accomplish this pie in the sky (at least in my eyes) attempt such a building escapade that Lloyd raised (up from 3.2 to 5 mill +)?
It's one thing to dream about it but Lloyd really seems to want to build that house. Thus, down to earth, fundamental questions SHOULD be asked - and answered.
Otherwise it is pure nonsense to start doing all that with no hope of accomplishing it. You know, like the atrocious project in California to build a bullet train to nowhere? 14 years down the line and not a single rail has been laid - but the end price has soared WAY over the initial amount to over $100 billion USD.
Now you wonder why I chime in with such questions?
But you call them "bad faith".
I understand the premise of 1 stair, & in smaller buildings I could be convinced. My concern is the example of the Grenfell Tower disaster. I do understand the substantial reason for the disaster was the cladding and many other factors, but it only had one means of egress. So put me in the "Still to be convinced" category.
In Peter Apps' book on Grenfell he discusses this, how if they hadn't told everyone to stay in place they could have got out. But it was also a much taller building than anyone wants to build now with one stair.
“There is also the single staircase. This issue is sometimes overstated. One expert analysed the staircase and found that in normal conditions it was wide enough to accommodate the entire 293-person population of the tower, even if they entered simultaneously. The time it would have taken for an able-bodied person to descend under normal conditions from the very top of the tower was four minutes. This shows us the extraordinary difference a decision to evacuate the building before the stairwell became smoke-logged might have made.”
More in my post: https://lloydalter.substack.com/p/everyone-in-the-building-industry
I was a Resident Assistant (in charge of a floor of undergrads) at BU. During fire alarm drills (or deliberate pulls just for the fun of it). In that dorm of 3 towers of 18 floors each, there were two stairwells in each tower. My responsibility, for each alarm, was to race around each even numbered floor telling people to evacuate; when I hit a door that was locked, I had a master key to open it to tell people to get out.
There was one alarm that actually turned out to have a fire at the bottom of the stairwell - and it was getting smokier and smokier as I went down to fulfill my responsibility. It got to the point I had to wet my tshirt because of the smoke.
I only got out because of the second stairwell because the main one had deliberately set on fire (they caught the perp).
Each floor had 40 residents on floors 5-18 - that's 520 people.
I shudder to think of the outcome if there had only been one stairwell.
"Legalize single stairwells" is PEAK NICHE! 😂😂❤️
Good article! We do need to examine more thoroughly the point access block concept as it does have merit for many housing site applications. Let's keep in mind, that fire safety also depends on material choice and mechanical ventilation systems - the whole design.
Oh, btw, which number is now correct Lloyd? Your previous post with 3.5 million units (https://lloydalter.substack.com/p/how-canada-could-become-a-green-building) or now this one with 5.2?
Either way, that's going to be tons (metaphorically speaking, pun intended) of upfront carbon to do in 4.5 years (2030 is coming quick).
Does Canada have the skilled manpower to do that, given that adds up to 1.15 million units/year. I'm no builder so Lloyd, you'd know better but approx. how many workers, on average, are at any one site during construction?
If it is even 10, that's almost a third of Canada's population. What is Canada's "in the trades" population? I doubt it is that large.
Now, back to a domain that is more familiar to me - politics and government. Can this movement get the regs changed for all of what you have written about (for that will be needful) as well as the avalanche of permits for the 5.2 mil units done even in a year before construction can start?
That delay is obviously going to radically shift the number of units to be built in the following three years. And I haven't even started in on the CapEx needed - where are all those Loonies going to come from?
Let me close with this question - how many units is Canada NOW building - and are the resources available to RAPIDLY scale up to this new target build number?