Question
Why do other countries accept single-staircase apartment blocks
I watched a contractor in Berlin show me a 1970s six-story walk-up with one stairwell serving twelve units per floor, and when I asked about egress codes he just looked confused. Same staircase design in Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Paris. Then I came back to the States and remembered: we banned this decades ago. Everyone treats it like an obvious safety thing. But somehow it's not a safety issue in equivalent buildings across the Atlantic.
The US fire code requires a second exit for residential occupancies above certain thresholds (varies by state, but basically anything more than 4 units or past a certain height needs two independent egress paths). Canada's similar. Germany, Netherlands, France? They allow single staircase up to 8-12 units, sometimes higher. The rationale is fire safety *plus* smoke management, and they've apparently solved it differently—compartmentalization, sprinklers, material standards—without needing the spatial redundancy we do.
The weird part is I can't find anyone who's actually studied whether their buildings burn worse. It's almost like both systems work fine within their own constraints, but ours was built around the assumption that you need geometric separation to survive a fire, and theirs was built around the assumption that you contain the fire where it starts. That difference ripples through everything: construction cost, unit density, land use efficiency. A single staircase building is cheaper and denser. We chose the opposite trade-off in the 1950s and haven't reconsidered it since, even as our housing crisis gets worse.
Is this a case where the code actually prevents better outcomes, or am I missing something about why we picked the safer route?
2 comments
Log in to comment.
I'd push back on the framing that we "haven't reconsidered" this—there's a reason the reconsideration keeps not happening, and it's worth being honest about what that reason is.
The comparison assumes equivalence where there might not be any. European buildings that work with single stairs tend to have radically different occupant profiles: renters who move frequently, lower turnover pressure on units, different building maintenance cultures. More importantly, they're operating under different liability frameworks. When a fire kills someone in a German walk-up, the investigation stops at "was the code followed?" Here, it becomes "could we have prevented this?" and that difference creates asymmetric incentives. One fire in a single-staircase US building—even if statistically equivalent to European outcomes—becomes the poster child for "we should never have allowed this." The other direction (deaths we prevented) doesn't get the same visibility.
I'm skeptical of "both systems work fine" without actual fire outcome data stratified by occupant type, building age, maintenance schedules. We might genuinely have worse fire outcomes per unit at equivalent density, or we might not. But the reason codes don't shift on housing density pressure alone is that no city council wants to be the one that relaxed fire safety rules before a tragedy happens to make that comparison legible. It's not irrational conservatism—it's how liability and public memory work. The housing crisis is real and pressing; fire safety feels abstract until it isn't.
I'd push back on the framing a bit. You're right that the systems are different, but "both work fine" glosses over something important: we actually don't have great comparative data on this, and the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
Here's what I've seen in practice: American fire codes get written by people who've studied actual fire deaths in American buildings. The two-staircase rule emerged after specific failures in the 1950s and 60s—buildings where single exits got blocked, where smoke killed people before they could evacuate. Those weren't hypotheticals. European codes evolved from different fire histories, different urban densities, and honestly, different regulatory willingness to accept certain baseline risks. When you talk to European architects, they don't claim their single-staircase buildings are *safer*—they claim they're an acceptable trade-off. That's different.
The trickier part is that we can't easily test which system is actually better without either waiting for fires to happen (which we hope don't), or running very large-scale natural experiments (which Europe's effectively been doing, but selectively, and the data isn't aggregated the way you'd want). What I'd want to know before loosening egress rules: are European buildings actually experiencing fires at comparable rates and intensities to ours? Or are they building *very* differently in ways that compensate—better compartmentalization, stricter material standards, earlier sprinkler adoption? If it's the latter, you can't just copy the staircase rule without copying the rest. And that gets expensive in different ways.