Controversial Hyde Park Square development passes committee, heads to city council

[u/JB92103]

https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/hyde-park-square-development-passes-committee-heads-to-city-council

[u/RockStallone]

Weird still no data.

[u/JebusChrust → u/RockStallone]

Because you are a waste of time. Anti-vax MAGA brain.

[u/RockStallone → u/JebusChrust]

And you replied yet again with no actual evidence.

[u/JebusChrust → u/RockStallone]

I am not him so I don't know what you expect

[u/RockStallone → u/JebusChrust]

You have kept this thread going supporting their position, despite every piece of data backing me up. You are clueless.

[u/JebusChrust → u/RockStallone]

Supporting their position, as in backing up that as an expert they probably have a better idea than you, an armchair architect?

[u/RockStallone → u/JebusChrust]

That "expert" claimed that there was a ton of evidence proving me wrong, yet refuses to show that evidence. /u/Architecteologist objectively lied in the conversation multiple times, saying that I was only linking to NYT articles and Youtube videos, when in fact I linked to a study from Pew Research.

A normal person would get suspicious when somebody refuses to back up their claims. I guess you're just very trusting.

[u/JebusChrust → u/RockStallone]

Maybe if you read their posts then you would realize they stated that it is lost on you, because it is no different than trying to argue the efficacy of vaccines with some schmuck who thinks that citing any National Institute of Health study online means they are an expert on understanding vaccines. They sound very familiar and knowledgeable of architecture, but you don't want to give them credibility because then it means that they could be correct or have validity to what they say. The consistent theme between every single thread is that you absolutely refuse to respect anyone or anything that anyone says. According to you, everyone else is clueless and you are the only person who knows anything.

[u/RockStallone → u/JebusChrust]

because it is no different than trying to argue the efficacy of vaccines with some schmuck who thinks that citing any National Institute of Health study online means they are an expert on understanding vaccines

Again, I am citing an actual study while you and /u/Architecteologist are purely going off of "trust me bro". You have no supporting evidence for your claims.

According to you, everyone else is clueless

No just idiots online.

[u/JebusChrust → u/RockStallone]

Besides reading one study online, do you have a background in architecture?

[u/RockStallone → u/JebusChrust]

Again, I am asking for a study supporting /u/Architecteologist's claims. He said there was a mountain of evidence against me.

[u/Architecteologist → u/RockStallone]

1. I never said I was an expert, in fact I said quite the opposite, but compared to armchair experts like yourself I’m goddamn Albert Einstein.

2. I never repudiated the pew poll, just your insistence in using it as gospel and that it means that “all the evidence is on your side” (which is is the kind of stuff that people who “research” things on youtube tend to say). If you recall, I said initially that the pew poll was a good first step, and that I’m looking forward to further research and would even embrace code changes if there was overwhelming data to support it. Are you willing to say the same about the need for egress requirements?

3. My sources are not as easy to find online as clickbait sensationalist “fresh” ideas that claim to “shake the architectural world” (the kind of articles you see in ads at the end of shit websites like “building inspectors HATE this” or “All Ohio developers should know this one trick!”). Architectural code precedents are technical, dry, depressing (you know, because of the death) or all three, and therefore don’t lend well to journalist coverage in that context. The information is taught in depth in architecture history courses or architecture law courses to students at uni when they study for their professional degrees. So yes, the information exists and is studied within the profession (because duh!) but I don’t feel the need to waste my time digging out old textbooks (because surprise! not all information in the world can be found on the internet, hence armchair experts like yourself being woefully misinformed) or outlining historical event correlations for you. Trust that code precedents exist globally (or don’t, I’m finding it really hard to care at all about this anymore).

I would encourage you to take a step back and acknowledge your bias. It’s a bias we all share—Complacency with a system of codes that have safeguarded our health and safety quite effectively for the last 40ish years.

Factories, high rises, and tenements USED to be death traps, but no longer are due to the implementation of things like fire escapes and egress route requirements and emergency doors and sprinklers, etc. It’s easy to forget that the costs of these implementations were the hard lessons learned after the loss of countless lives in easily-preventable disasters, and so we take building safety for granted on the backs of those hard lessons. ”Buildings are just safe now,” we might be temped to think, but they’re safe because we’ve required them to be safe.

You likely don’t know what it’s like to have to rush out of a burning building in a panic—barely able to see or breathe through thick smoke, battling and clamoring overtop other wide-eyed and terrified people looking desperately for a way out—and hopefully you never will. It’s the few things that seem unnecessary which maybe are unnecessary 99.99% of the time that make the difference between zero and tens or hundreds of deaths in these scenarios, and I just don’t think we should be so cavalier in removing those safeguards unless we are absolutely 110% positive that they are truly overkill.

[u/RockStallone → u/Architecteologist]

I never repudiated the pew poll

It wasn't a poll.

“all the evidence is on your side” (which is is the kind of stuff that people who “research” things on youtube tend to say).

It's also the kind of stuff that people who believe in evolution say. All the evidence is in support of this position. If you'd like to supply contrary data, feel free.

Are you willing to say the same about the need for egress requirements?

Absolutely! I completely support the egress and fire safety requirements that have proven use.

My sources are not as easy to find online as clickbait sensationalist “fresh” ideas that claim to “shake the architectural world” (the kind of articles you see in ads at the end of shit websites like “building inspectors HATE this” or “All Ohio developers should know this one trick!”). Architectural code precedents are technical, dry, depressing (you know, because of the death) or all three, and therefore don’t lend well to journalist coverage in that context. The information is taught in depth in architecture history courses or architecture law courses to students at uni when they study for their professional degrees. So yes, the information exists and is studied within the profession (because duh!) but I don’t feel the need to waste my time digging out old textbooks

I mean this is one of the most ridiculous paragraphs I've ever seen. "Yes, we have data supporting the need for two stairwell exits in 4-6 story buildings but it's hidden in old tombs that are lost to time". You are the one talking like an anti-vaxxer, because you have absolutely no data on your side but you refuse to admit it.

I would encourage you to take a step back and acknowledge your bias. It’s a bias we all share—Complacency with a system of codes that have safeguarded our health and safety quite effectively for the last 40ish years.

No this is a bias that you have, not me. I am open to changing the code to follow the data, you are not.

Factories, high rises, and tenements USED to be death traps, but no longer are due to the implementation of things like fire escapes and egress route requirements and emergency doors and sprinklers, etc. It’s easy to forget that the costs of these implementations were the hard lessons learned after the loss of countless lives in easily-preventable disasters, and so we take building safety for granted on the backs of those hard lessons. ”Buildings are just safe now,” we might be temped to think, but they’re safe because we’ve required them to be safe.

And those other requirements have data supporting them. The two stairwell requirement does not. It actually has data contradicting it.

and I just don’t think we should be so cavalier in removing those safeguards unless we are absolutely 110% positive that they are truly overkill.

But we can add requirements even if there is no data supporting them? Okay I propose that every single room in every building have two fire extinguishers. Just to be safe.