Yet, on the other hand, the safety doctrine unnerves me:
> American approaches aim to make combustible light wood-frame buildings easier to escape by providing multiple paths of egress; European codes, by contrast, require fire-resistant materials and compartmentation to prevent fires from spreading in the first place.
Why can't we have both multiple staircases and fire-retardant construction? The Grenfell Tower disaster was horrific, and although the subsequent building regulations that limit height were clearly reactionary in nature, I can't see people being comfortable with the 'stay in your room' safety advice after this kind of event. People are going to follow their instincts and head for the stairs, and things are not going to be pleasant if there's A: only one and B: it's blocked.
One idea that comes to mind is building entirely fire-resistant steel and glass bridges between medium high-rise buildings. If you're too high up to use the emergency out-door stairs, but the (single) interior staircase is blocked, you could move sideways to your neighbours. Security and privacy concerns about having easy access to neighbouring properties could be mitigated by having safety-glass dividing doors with emergency hammers next to the lock. The lock could itself be opened by mutual agreement of both sides in non-emergencies.