Single Stairwell: A Fire Failure

Aaron Fisher | April 28, 2026

Recently a lot of jurisdictions have been considering and passing rules to only require 1 stairwell in multifamily residential buildings. Requiring each unit to have access to 2 stairwells has not only been best practice, it’s been code. Why? Safety.

Supporters of this regulation stress that removing a stairwell reduces the cost of housing and enables significantly different layouts. This is true. Building less building means costs are reduced, and reducing access requirements does open alternative design options.

They often go on to stress that this is standard practice in Europe. BUT, this is where code has been written in blood.

European construction is inherently different than American construction. Where we use wood and timber for structures, they predominantly use concrete and masonry. In the event of a fire, this is the game; one burns, the other does not.

Furthermore, two stairwells are preferred by fire departments. It allows them to use one stairwell to save people, and the other to fight the fire. Fire is chaotic, before having to worry if grandma’s wheelchair is going to roll over the hose.

Often when a building is wood, the fire department’s plan is simply to wait and attack from a distance. Running into a burning structure that is at risk of collapsing, endangers the lives of occupants and the fire fighters. No need to double up on misery.

If the structural material is non-combustible, sure consider a single stairwell. But the wood lobby is pushing this and not yoking these two ideas together.

So while the structure may cost less to build, the risk to property and human life is significantly higher with a single stairwell. Risk is already priced into the system as insurance. Insurers know this and charge more for what appears to the untrained eye to be the same structure. So while we reduce first costs, we are NOT reducing total costs. And this is NOT affordable housing.