I live in one, it isn't that awesome. Lots of noise from neighbours, but the worst thing is the big fire hazard. The risk of fire means there is a lot of sprinklers everywhere which regularly get damaged and leak everywhere. Usually every 2-3 years in our building a sprinkler pipe will get broken or leak will appear and destroy a few units.
There’s some massive variance in 4-over-1 and 5-over-1, with newer units very much built to a price.
I lived in one in Boston that was 4 total floors, actually all steel framed (so not really a 3-over-1), polished concrete floors in every unit, and built to the tune of $55M for ~150 units. Was intended to be condos, bottom fell out in 2007/2008, so it was rezoned to apartments. Dead silent in the over 8 years I was there. I must’nt of been the only one that thought it was good — there was a notable rapper as my next door neighbor, and a Stanley Cup winner in another hallway on my floor. I moved in when the market bottomed out, and paid like $1700/mo for years (moved out when it went up to $2450). I think it’d be ~$4000/mo now.
The newer ones though? I’ve heard of sub-$20M costs for similar number of units. They leak not because of the sprinklers, but because the general waterproofing and roofing is beyond awful, and just cost-cutting everywhere. I talked to some maintenance folks that had been to several new ones owned by the same company as the $55M one: “They don’t build them like that anymore. If they did, we wouldn’t be dealing with constant problems.”. Talk up your maintenance folk — they’ll be more than happy to vent about your building’s issues.
So the issue is building things to a price, knowing some people will pay because the vacancy rate is one of the tightest in the country.
I've lived in multiple of them, and they were often about the same or better than more "traditional" apartments in the area. Usually way lower energy costs than the traditional units. About the same amount of noise for a given build quality, it mostly depended on who lived in the neighboring units.
There were sprinklers in every apartment I've lived in. Building codes in my area require them in any structure with multiple households sharing the structure. Townhouses, apartments, commercial buildings, etc. all have sprinklers everywhere. It doesn't matter if its a high rise or a duplex, if it was built since like the early 90s its got sprinklers.
The issue with the modern apartment building noise, in my estimation, isn't wood construction (which is commonly blamed), but ducts. The double-loaded corridor requires extra ventilation per fire code. The demand for central air conditioning implies ducts. A properly designed double-stud wooden wall can have a Sound Transmission Class higher than 60, but a small hole in a wall can cut the STC by as much as 30. The presence of a large void in the wall (duct) could severely reduce the efficacy of the sound insulation.
The apartment buildings I've lived in without central A/C (in Atlanta and San Francisco) were consistently quieter than the ones with central A/C. Underfloor radiant heating and wall A/C units might be a better way to design apartment buildings. Removing climate control from the access corridor and letting it vent to the outside would reduce the need for sprinklers and complex ventilation. This is slightly less energy efficient, but apartment buildings are already way more energy efficient than houses, and anything that makes apartments more livable can increase the efficiency of the whole society by increasing people's willingness to live in apartments.
Likewise - I've lived in these 5 story things and in proper high rises, and there is no comparison. It's likely that the 5 story buildings could be built to the same standard as a high rise, but there is little incentive for the builders to do so, and instead they're absolute lowest bar of quality.
Just the elevator speed makes a huge difference: I could get to floor 18 of the most recent high rise I lived in quicker than floor 3 of the mid rise.
yeah—I feel like this is something that can be solved by code modification to expect better. 5-over-1's are already min/max'ing code, so if they're fire hazards, then we should expect cities to rein it in. Safety shouldn't be what makes 5-over-1s fail.
I would like to live in one instead of my current situation but the noise is what is concerning. Newer units should be more quiet than past buildings. I don't know what modern building techniques they use, if any, for sound isolation. Are there airgaps? I'm guessing no concrete slabs between floors? To me it seems like it's the difference between a high rise hotel/apt where it's like a tomb in the room and a smaller building that uses less expensive/more robust material and you can hear much more from the outside and your neighbors.
The Seattle area is full of them. I've also been seeing 5 over 2 over 1 (?) where there are 2 floors of parking sandwiched between the housing and stores. One floor is for residents, while the other is for guests and shoppers.
It would be nice if they could make them look good. The examples in that article are hideous. Sad that beautiful towns will have to take in such awful architecture because it's relatively cheap to construct and will get the builder through warranty. But it isn't based in any historical standard, just a post-modern hellscape. Especially that one in NJ - it's just the worst thing I think I've ever seen.
They should at least make the facades respect a standard sort of like how they do in England and parts of Europe.
The really ugly buildings, at least in San Francisco and Oakland that I'm familiar with, are where they take a single family house and chop it up into a bunch of little apartments. It's such an illogical abomination. From the outside you have a bunch of doors stuck in crazy places, kind of a "shanty town" vibe. From the inside all the rooms are weirdly shaped and extra plumbing is stuck in where it doesn't make sense.
It reminds me of the old joke about C++, that it's like designing an octopus by nailing extra legs onto a dog.
Anyway, I would like to see all of those replaced with something-over-1 apartment buildings.
It's especially bad if affordances for green space aren't taken into account. New York City, for all its problems, has done an excellent job of ensuring that there are trees and parks basically everywhere, combined with generally wide sidewalks, which makes the endless rows of 3-5 story apartment buildings feel comfortable to inhabit.
I agree in part but it doesn't take much design-wise to make them blend in smoothly from what I'm seeing. At least when theres a lot of trees around maybe?
Anyway the real postmodern hellscape kinda seems like its the homelessness thing more than the too much housing in walkable mixed-use zoning thing.
Why do you assume to know best about what should be everywhere? This thread gives examples of how this is the only level of density that is even being allowed, but why cheer that? People, when left to their own devices, have generally preferred something like von Thunen rings, rather than a single level of density. Letting such decisions play out organically ought to be the default position, unless you have some very strong non-aesthetic reason to do otherwise.
> People, when left to their own devices, have generally preferred something like von Thunen rings, rather than a single level of density.
Citation please. The US can’t be used as an example because zoning laws have enforced strict single use zones for many decade. When you look at Europe which never had such zone if laws, you don’t find clear cut zones, or such clear cut concentric rings of density.
rr888|3 years ago
MrFoof|3 years ago
I lived in one in Boston that was 4 total floors, actually all steel framed (so not really a 3-over-1), polished concrete floors in every unit, and built to the tune of $55M for ~150 units. Was intended to be condos, bottom fell out in 2007/2008, so it was rezoned to apartments. Dead silent in the over 8 years I was there. I must’nt of been the only one that thought it was good — there was a notable rapper as my next door neighbor, and a Stanley Cup winner in another hallway on my floor. I moved in when the market bottomed out, and paid like $1700/mo for years (moved out when it went up to $2450). I think it’d be ~$4000/mo now.
The newer ones though? I’ve heard of sub-$20M costs for similar number of units. They leak not because of the sprinklers, but because the general waterproofing and roofing is beyond awful, and just cost-cutting everywhere. I talked to some maintenance folks that had been to several new ones owned by the same company as the $55M one: “They don’t build them like that anymore. If they did, we wouldn’t be dealing with constant problems.”. Talk up your maintenance folk — they’ll be more than happy to vent about your building’s issues.
So the issue is building things to a price, knowing some people will pay because the vacancy rate is one of the tightest in the country.
vel0city|3 years ago
There were sprinklers in every apartment I've lived in. Building codes in my area require them in any structure with multiple households sharing the structure. Townhouses, apartments, commercial buildings, etc. all have sprinklers everywhere. It doesn't matter if its a high rise or a duplex, if it was built since like the early 90s its got sprinklers.
scythe|3 years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_Transmission_Class#Sound_...
The apartment buildings I've lived in without central A/C (in Atlanta and San Francisco) were consistently quieter than the ones with central A/C. Underfloor radiant heating and wall A/C units might be a better way to design apartment buildings. Removing climate control from the access corridor and letting it vent to the outside would reduce the need for sprinklers and complex ventilation. This is slightly less energy efficient, but apartment buildings are already way more energy efficient than houses, and anything that makes apartments more livable can increase the efficiency of the whole society by increasing people's willingness to live in apartments.
jen20|3 years ago
Just the elevator speed makes a huge difference: I could get to floor 18 of the most recent high rise I lived in quicker than floor 3 of the mid rise.
0xffff2|3 years ago
cptcobalt|3 years ago
illegalsmile|3 years ago
ortusdux|3 years ago
nemo44x|3 years ago
They should at least make the facades respect a standard sort of like how they do in England and parts of Europe.
lacker|3 years ago
The really ugly buildings, at least in San Francisco and Oakland that I'm familiar with, are where they take a single family house and chop it up into a bunch of little apartments. It's such an illogical abomination. From the outside you have a bunch of doors stuck in crazy places, kind of a "shanty town" vibe. From the inside all the rooms are weirdly shaped and extra plumbing is stuck in where it doesn't make sense.
It reminds me of the old joke about C++, that it's like designing an octopus by nailing extra legs onto a dog.
Anyway, I would like to see all of those replaced with something-over-1 apartment buildings.
nerdponx|3 years ago
pkdpic|3 years ago
Anyway the real postmodern hellscape kinda seems like its the homelessness thing more than the too much housing in walkable mixed-use zoning thing.
But again, I hear you on the architecture.
IIAOPSW|3 years ago
[deleted]
pkdpic|3 years ago
linksnapzz|3 years ago
IIAOPSW|3 years ago
nwah1|3 years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Heinrich_von_Th%C3%BCne...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentric_zone_model
avianlyric|3 years ago
Citation please. The US can’t be used as an example because zoning laws have enforced strict single use zones for many decade. When you look at Europe which never had such zone if laws, you don’t find clear cut zones, or such clear cut concentric rings of density.