The case for single-stair multifamily

Single‑stair / “missing middle” building types

• Many commenters praise traditional North American 2–3‑family forms (e.g., Boston triple deckers) and European/Japanese-style single‑stair blocks as ideal “middle” housing: modest buildings, several units, windows on multiple sides, and good family suitability.
• Single‑stair designs are seen as enabling small lots, more 2–3BR units, and “floor‑through” apartments, unlike large double‑loaded corridor buildings.
• Some report living in such buildings in Europe and finding them highly livable; US 5‑over‑1s are often described as the worst-feeling option.

Fire safety and accessibility tradeoffs

• Supporters of reform argue: modern sprinklers, fire‑rated construction, and lower observed fire death rates in Europe and some US cities with looser rules suggest the second stair adds little marginal safety for low‑ to mid‑rise buildings.
• Skeptics stress that codes are “written in blood,” fear deregulating life‑safety to cut costs, and cite incidents like Grenfell (while others note it was mostly cladding/code‑enforcement failure, not stair count).
• Debate over whether two stairs meaningfully help people with mobility issues; many note that once elevators are shut off, single vs double stair changes little for wheelchair users.
• Some suggest compromises: single stair allowed only with sprinklers, better fireproofing, height/unit limits, or external fire escapes; others note historical US fire escapes are now mostly banned or disfavored.

Zoning, parking, and urban form

• Many see the two‑stair requirement as one element in a broader web (single‑family zoning, height/lot/parking minimums, environmental and community review) that suppresses “missing middle” density.
• Others argue parking and height limits matter far more than stair count, and that in places like Chicago significant density coexists with two‑stair rules.

Cost, density, and unit quality

• Pro‑reform commenters say double stairs force double‑loaded corridors, reduce usable floor area, and push buildings toward large, uniform megaprojects instead of small infill.
• Critics counter that an extra stair is a small cost versus land, parking, and financing, and that homelessness stems more from land/zoning and income issues than from this specific code.

Land Value Tax (LVT) thread

• Separate sub‑discussion explains LVT as taxing land’s best‑use value to discourage speculation and underuse (e.g., empty lots, parking in prime areas).
• Concerns raised: potential to push out long‑time owners as neighborhoods appreciate; proponents reply that current property taxes already do this and LVT should be part of broader reforms (zoning, social safety net).

Equity, homelessness, and regulation philosophy

• One side: safetyism and over‑regulation have made ordinary housing unaffordable; loosening codes (including stairs) is framed as necessary to expand supply and cut rents.
• Other side: warns against “race to the bottom” slum conditions; argues some regulations (fire, accessibility, defect liability) protect residents from profit‑driven builders, especially vulnerable tenants.

International comparisons and culture

• Europeans and others express surprise at US dual‑stair norms and large fire trucks; Americans point to combustible wood framing, wildfires, earthquakes, and weaker enforcement as context.
• Multiple commenters emphasize the need for rigorous, location‑specific data analysis of fire outcomes before substantially changing codes.