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

Definition, Codes, and Construction

• “5‑over‑1” generally means Type V (combustible, usually wood) over a Type I (non-combustible, concrete/steel) podium; some use it to mean five residential floors over one podium level.
• Not inherently “soft-story”; lower floors are often structurally stronger and in concrete/steel.
• Rise in popularity tied to fire‑retardant wood, code changes, and cost advantages over full concrete/masonry.
• Height is constrained by fire code and economics: beyond ~5–6 wood stories, more expensive structural systems, fire requirements, and extra elevators are triggered.
• Alternatives like cross‑laminated/mass timber allow taller “plyscrapers,” but remain niche and pricier.

Safety and Build Quality

• Concerns raised about fire risk, especially during construction before sprinklers are active, and about engineered wood producing toxic smoke; others ask for stronger evidence.
• Earthquake vulnerability is discussed mainly for soft‑story and unreinforced masonry, not 5‑over‑1 per se.
• Many complaints focus on corner‑cutting: bad firestopping, cheap finishes, poor workmanship; others note shoddy construction exists in all eras and typologies.

Urbanism, Retail, and Neighborhood Effects

• Strong support from people living in such buildings or similar mid‑rise mixed‑use areas (US, Europe, Japan): walkability, nearby groceries/cafes/schools, reduced car dependence (some gave up cars for years).
• Ground‑floor retail succeeds where there’s sufficient density, pedestrian‑friendly streets, and everyday uses (grocers, cafes, pharmacies).
• In many US examples, retail sits vacant or goes only to chains/high‑end services due to high rents, mandated “checkbox” retail, and financing structures that discourage lowering rents.
• Suggestions include taxing long‑vacant storefronts, reforming underwriting, or relaxing mandatory retail where demand is weak.

Economics, Zoning, and Housing Supply

• Seen as a cost‑effective way to add mid‑rise density versus single‑family sprawl or full high‑rises.
• Debate over whether they “cause” local housing crises: critics cite luxury student housing and displacement; others cite research that more supply moderates price growth but isn’t sufficient alone.
• Discussion of exclusionary zoning, parking minimums, two‑staircase rules, and process burdens that shape building form and limit alternatives like smaller walk‑ups.

Aesthetics, Community, and Futures

• Many find facades bland, repetitive, or “soulless” despite varied cladding; others say they’re no worse than suburban tracts and will age like earlier “cheap” styles that are now beloved.
• Complaints about anonymous corridors, few balconies, and transient renters; counter‑argument that multi‑family is unfairly held to higher standards than single‑family suburbs.
• Some fear they’re “slums of tomorrow”; others argue that safety, maintenance, and policy—not typology—determine long‑term outcomes.