Super interesting article, I'm going to spread it around. The effects of bad and outdated building codes can be plainly obvious if you know where to look, but unlike with zoning, public knowledge...
Super interesting article, I'm going to spread it around. The effects of bad and outdated building codes can be plainly obvious if you know where to look, but unlike with zoning, public knowledge and awareness is really low. My department has spent the last year writing a new comprehensive plan, so I've been in the field engaging with the public about the city and it could improve. I fielded so many comments about zoning issues (parking minimums, minimum lot size for a new subdivision, unit per sqft requirements, etc.), but not one word about the state building code.
Of course, the building code doesn't explain everything. Building codes don't overtly control density, zoning, parking, or any other classic planning issue. But they indirectly affect the implementation of the YIMBY vision. For example, the classic New England three-family is a staple in Providence, RI. Huge sections of the city feature these houses as the base urban fabric. It's still legal to build these sorts of houses in Providence, and sometimes people actually build them, or at least versions of them. Here's one from 2017 which roughly aligns with the surrounding urban fabric. Even this one isn't perfect; instead of containing three stacked coterminous units like a classic triple-decker, this one features split levels with separate entrances.
Don't worry, developers absolutely build structures that more closely resemble a classic Providence triple-decker. It's just that those homes are very rarely three-family dwellings, at least in the legal sense. Check this one out, for example. According to this property's use card, the structure is a two-family dwelling constructed in 2021. The plans submitted for this house show a large, empty, almost entirely above-grade basement, with two residential units above. If pressed, the developer will claim that the basement is for tenant storage, and the building department has no choice but to believe them. But after the city issues a certificate of occupancy, the developer will return and perform unpermitted work, adding a kitchen, walls, bathrooms, and more, converting the space into an illegal third unit. Notice how this structure's front door is lifted almost a full story off the ground. Developers do this to make their illegal "basement" units as rentable as possible, complete with full-sized windows and ground floor amenities.
Admittedly, the example I've shown here is a bit on the egregious side, not all of these illegal three-families have front doors that far off the ground. Here's a different example. Built in 2019, this structure resembles any other house in the city. Its urban form is great. The front door is a little too high, but the ornate fence in front makes that a bit more amenable. Like the prior example, this structure legally listed as a two-family. But there are definitely three units in there. The smoking gun? Three electric meters on the exterior wall. Here's an earlier streetview capturing the construction process for this house. Look at how shallow the foundation is!
It begs a question. For both of the locations I showed, city ordinance allows three-family dwellings by-right. So why did the developers build two-family dwellings with illegal basement units instead? You can probably sense where this is going. The Rhode Island state building code requires developers to sprinkler all new structures containing three or more residential units. Sprinkler installation is incredibly expensive, making it more economical for builders to construct "two-family dwellings" and take their chances with an illegal third unit instead. Fire safety has been quite strict in Rhode Island ever since the Station Nightclub fire, although I don't know if this particular building code requirement derives from that moment or from a different time. The bigger question is whether it matters. Providence gets its density either way. And if the state raised its sprinklering cut-off, developers might just do the same practice but with four units instead of three. For me, it's a safety and quality-of-life matter. The building department never inspects the illegal basement units; all manner of bad construction practice could be lurking down there. And, of course, an above-ground unit is superior to a basement unit for several reasons. More above-ground units mean a higher average standard of life in the city.
I think we can all agree that there's not enough affordable housing? Well, cheap (efficient) workarounds enable more affordable housing. So I think it would be better to have slightly less strict...
I think we can all agree that there's not enough affordable housing? Well, cheap (efficient) workarounds enable more affordable housing. So I think it would be better to have slightly less strict codes in some cases and enforce them better.
Averages don't tell the full story, but I'll go with that for a bit: it seems like not allowing basement units would also mean higher-priced housing (on average) because costs are higher on average. A basement unit might not be ideal, but it's a lot better than no housing and sometimes people would rather save on rent.
People get excited about tiny houses, but in practice, cheap housing would more likely be a basement or attic unit.
Basement units are actually legal in Providence. People build them frequently. Considering that they're purpose-built for habitation, the basement units in these fake two-family dwellings are...
Basement units are actually legal in Providence. People build them frequently. Considering that they're purpose-built for habitation, the basement units in these fake two-family dwellings are probably better than the average basement unit city-wide. Many basement units are stuck in actual basements, places never intended as living spaces. The illegal thing, per the building code, is creating three units at a time without sprinklering. Developers leave the basement conspicuously empty in their submitted plans because it's the most plausible place to do so. I suspect the building department already looks the other way on these obviously but not explicitly illegal plans for the reasons you stated in your reply, but it would be tougher to justify if the developers submitted plans showing conspicuously empty above-ground floors instead.
There are a few other benefits to building the sorts of houses I described in my first post. Two-family dwellings have a lower appraisal value than three-family dwellings, meaning that property taxes are slightly lower. That benefit only lasts for a few years however. Once the house gets reappraised, its tax status will reflect the number of units present in the house, regardless of its supposed legal use. In addition, the developers of these houses pay lower permitting fees to the city than if they were up front about the true scope of work. Being said, under-representing construction costs to municipalities is a widespread practice in the construction industries which isn't limited to this sort of build.
I support affordable housing. However, finding compromises between the drive to build cheap and the drive to build well is a big part of an urban planner's job. In this case, the compromise is easy. The RI building code should be amended to require sprinklers only at higher unit counts. That's how it is in other places, including some surrounding states similarly dense with triple-deckers. That way, developers could build as cheaply as they do right now, but the work would be legal and the houses would be better contributors to the urban fabric.
cough elevators and accessibility are equally important cough But really it's frustrating to ignore how many people can't be housed or can't remain in their housing as they get older in the...
cough elevators and accessibility are equally important cough
But really it's frustrating to ignore how many people can't be housed or can't remain in their housing as they get older in the advocated spaces. I just wish people thinking so deeply about design would think about Universal Design.
It absolutely should be a concern, but maybe it doesn't need to be every building and it would also be easy to make the ground level suites wheel chair accessible while having stairs to the upper...
It absolutely should be a concern, but maybe it doesn't need to be every building and it would also be easy to make the ground level suites wheel chair accessible while having stairs to the upper portion. A compromise could be if a developer is making a complex, require a certain percentage have lifts.
Everyone becomes disabled at some point unless you die first, sometimes temporarily, sometimes not, sometimes young and nearly everyone with age. Breaking your leg can make accessing your 4th...
Everyone becomes disabled at some point unless you die first, sometimes temporarily, sometimes not, sometimes young and nearly everyone with age. Breaking your leg can make accessing your 4th floor walkup miserable at best
In a country that consistently lets down the disabled folks among them, planning buildings with accessibility firmly in place from the start is key to letting people remain independent for as long as possible. Does every space need identical accommodations? No, if only because accommodations can look different for different people.
But you already talked us back from Universal Design to "not every building, ground floor only, maybe a lift if there's a complex".
The building itself being accessible feels like a bare minimum. The apartments almost certainly won't be even if they say they are.
The problem is that if you have a 4-story building, and it costs something like US$100k for a lift, then people will build a house instead of an apartment (there is no requirement in most places...
The problem is that if you have a 4-story building, and it costs something like US$100k for a lift, then people will build a house instead of an apartment (there is no requirement in most places for houses to have lifts). Then instead of 1 wheelchair accessible apartment and 3-non accessible apartments we have 1 non-accessible house.
I am aware of this. I would like to see concept pieces consider universal design and accessibility by default and not lament how expensive it is to make sure disabled people can get into their...
I am aware of this. I would like to see concept pieces consider universal design and accessibility by default and not lament how expensive it is to make sure disabled people can get into their homes or ignore them entirely.
I'm especially not interested in making excuses for someone (the author) who did the latter by using the former.
The author's concept piece seem to be to be about reducing cost and increasing density, so I can understand why they didn't include a lift in their schematics. I think at a practical level the...
The author's concept piece seem to be to be about reducing cost and increasing density, so I can understand why they didn't include a lift in their schematics. I think at a practical level the best thing is to require step-free access to ground floors of such apartments, which is relatively easy to achieve by pressuring building regulators.
When building short appartment buildings (i.e. 4 floors or fewer) I suspect that lifts are very unlikely to become commonplace (baring a new invention which dramatically reduces the costs). I think it makes sense to encourage people to build taller (to at least 8-10 stories) because one then gets better density and lifts.
Once again, I am advocating for and am very passionate about making things accessible by default. I don't care about "why" they didn't do this. I care that they "should" do this.
Once again, I am advocating for and am very passionate about making things accessible by default. I don't care about "why" they didn't do this. I care that they "should" do this.
There are a few known ways to deal with this without making housing that’s inaccessible by design: Sticks: zoning can prohibit new single family home construction, so that’s no longer an out;...
There are a few known ways to deal with this without making housing that’s inaccessible by design:
Sticks:
zoning can prohibit new single family home construction, so that’s no longer an out;
cities can increase taxes on vacant lots, so land owners can’t cheaply sit on properties;
building codes can be changed to require accessibility. This is already being done in some areas, and it hasn’t been pointed to as the source of any particular problems.
Carrots:
mortgage insurance (in Canada, this is often the CMHC, which integrates closely with the federal government) can offer discounts to developers that add accessibility features,
regions can offer rebates, tax credits, or favourable loans for money spent on improving accessibility.
Compared to the cost of building and land acquisition, adding accessibility features is relatively cheap. There are non-elevator options to improve accessibility at lower costs (eg inclined platform lifts in stairwells) which could be explored.
At the end of the day, accessibility helps everyone, and since buildings are often designed for several generations of inhabitation, there’s a lot of time for it to pay itself off. Given the tremendous initial investment of construction to begin with (and that accessibility features aren’t likely to touch more than a couple percent of overall cost), and the social benefits that are derived from them (reduced cost for hospice care in aging societies, improved quality of life for families, … job creation…), they seem like a slam dunk.
Unfortunately although this solution does work I think it's really tough (to the point of impossibility) to get it implemented. People (especially in the Anglosphere) like single family home...
zoning can prohibit new single family home construction, so that’s no longer an out;
Unfortunately although this solution does work I think it's really tough (to the point of impossibility) to get it implemented. People (especially in the Anglosphere) like single family home construction. In places where the commercial pressure to build tall structures (i.e. tower blocks) is really high they almost universally have lifts and relatively good accessibility.
building codes can be changed to require accessibility. This is already being done in some areas, and it hasn’t been pointed to as the source of any particular problems.
It's not, and generally building codes do require accessibility, especially in new build. The problem is in refitting old buildings which can be really, really expensive. Like a lot more than a couple of percent of the overall cost kind of expensive.
Fair enough! I suppose my counterpoint is that preferences/trends change. But as my hometown is in the process of rezoning single family home zones into comprehensive development zones, I can’t...
Unfortunately although this solution does work I think it's really tough (to the point of impossibility) to get it implemented. People (especially in the Anglosphere) like single family home construction. In places where the commercial pressure to build tall structures (i.e. tower blocks) is really high they almost universally have lifts and relatively good accessibility.
Fair enough! I suppose my counterpoint is that preferences/trends change. But as my hometown is in the process of rezoning single family home zones into comprehensive development zones, I can’t compare my experience to folks to whom that seems like an impossibility.
Ultimately it’s down to the sort of society we want to build together. I’d imagine most folks are busy just getting through the day to imagine anything different, though, so yeah, it’ll be an uphill battle to change anything.
It's not, and generally building codes do require accessibility, especially in new build. The problem is in refitting old buildings which can be really, really expensive. Like a lot more than a couple of percent of the overall cost kind of expensive.
Oh, absolutely! Apologies; I didn’t realize that the topic had changed to retrofits — I was talking about new construction this whole time. I don’t have expertise in retrofitting or the costs associated with it, so I can’t comment on that :)
You can have elevators with single-stair homes! The key difference between single-stair and multi-stair is that you must have a central hallway when making multi-stair buildings so all residents...
You can have elevators with single-stair homes! The key difference between single-stair and multi-stair is that you must have a central hallway when making multi-stair buildings so all residents can access multiple stairwells.
When making a single-stair building, you can have a column that includes one stairwell and one elevator, allowing homes to take up that extra space, making 3+ bedroom multifamily homes much more space-efficient.
Yes I suspected so, but they weren't mentioned and that thoughtfulness and consideration from ideas/design folks is needed! Ty though, I'm not an architect by any means
Yes I suspected so, but they weren't mentioned and that thoughtfulness and consideration from ideas/design folks is needed!
Ty though, I'm not an architect by any means
I have a crazy idea. What if we produce a second means of egress - right through the apartments themselves! Create an emergency hallway from the apartments themselves. Basically have...
I have a crazy idea. What if we produce a second means of egress - right through the apartments themselves! Create an emergency hallway from the apartments themselves. Basically have instant-destruct wall panels!
Have thick opaque tempered glass panels at key locations between adjacent units. Hang an emergency hammer or similar device suitable for shattering the panels like you would a fire extinguisher. Strike them, and they instantly turn to powder. If there's a fire and the main hallway is blocked, people can literally just break an instant hole in the wall. It will make a ton of noise, so there's no hiding that you've done it. Also you could install some sensors to trigger a fire alarm if a panel is broken. Finally, this isn't like a fire door between units. You don't have to worry about your neighbor sneaking into your apartment by picking the lock. If someone breaks that, you're going to know about it. It will be as subtle as your neighbor busting a hole in the drywall with an axe.
Now, clear egress could be a problem. You don't want someone placing a wardrobe right in front of the instant hallway you're trying to create. So what you could do is have paths in apartments that were required, in the lease, to be kept clear of furniture and belongings. Maybe it could simply be that interior hallways could be joined together in an emergency. Mark that area off with special tile and place emergency light stripping along it. Perform periodic inspections to ensure the fire path is free. To the user, it could be something as simple as a rule that said they couldn't place any belongings or furniture in a certain hallway.
That is no good for containing a fire to the unit of origin, unless you use fire-rated glass which you wouldn't be able to break easily. Basically that big glass panel would allow fire to spread...
That is no good for containing a fire to the unit of origin, unless you use fire-rated glass which you wouldn't be able to break easily.
Basically that big glass panel would allow fire to spread directly between units.
Equally? No. Yes, it's unquestionably good when people have the opportunity to age in place. But that doesn't mean it's equally important. Society has intersecting needs, competing priorities, and...
Equally? No.
Yes, it's unquestionably good when people have the opportunity to age in place. But that doesn't mean it's equally important.
Society has intersecting needs, competing priorities, and therefore prioritizes some good things over other good things.
This sort of logic leads to all bathroom stalls being accessible but half as many toilets. Does every parking spot need to be wheelchair accessible too? Not every space needs to be usable by every...
This sort of logic leads to all bathroom stalls being accessible but half as many toilets. Does every parking spot need to be wheelchair accessible too?
Not every space needs to be usable by every person. Sometimes doing so would come with poor tradeoffs.
I think you're making an assumption about my logic. Universal Design is about not just whether something is broadly usable, but making spaces adaptable for changing needs. That doesn't mean making...
I think you're making an assumption about my logic. Universal Design is about not just whether something is broadly usable, but making spaces adaptable for changing needs. That doesn't mean making everything the same. A hypothetical comparison is if more parking spots have space for a ramp (and a cart of groceries and a stroller) than fewer need to be reserved for that need. (but accessible parking spots are also about location so it's not so easy. ) Family bathrooms allow disabled people and their caregivers as well as parents' with small children, non-binary people, someone with IBS, etc. to have additional privacy. Building more of those is in fact a great thing!
But we're talking about people's homes. Rarely is someone suddenly disabled while using a parking spot and needs to switch. Rarely is someone disabled in a regular toilet stall and immediately needing to switch stalls. Many people who are disabled still live in a home and some of them may find their home inaccessible. It is in our societal best interest to build homes in a way that keeps injured, ill, and elderly folks from having to abandon their homes due to mobility issues.
UD is not something I made up. I read through a lovely PDF for commercial home developers that walks through the principles and recommendations. There's so much guidance out there. I am disappointed to find people not consider that in think pieces and even more disappointed to have people pick at my language or misrepresent what I'm talking about when I've really tried to be extremely clear.
I agree with you completely. But building more private bathrooms, double stalls, and wheelchair parking spaces comes at an opportunity cost. And if those spaces aren't necessary for their purpose...
It is in our societal best interest to build homes in a way that keeps injured, ill, and elderly folks from having to abandon their homes due to mobility issues.
I agree with you completely.
But building more private bathrooms, double stalls, and wheelchair parking spaces comes at an opportunity cost. And if those spaces aren't necessary for their purpose then it's wasteful and inefficient design.
We don't need to deal in absolutes. A low-rise apartment building where the bottom floor must be accessible and any vacancies must first be offered to residents on higher floors with priority given to the most elderly would be a damn good compromise between building efficiently and ensuring as many people as possible can age in place.
Sure, my point has been that this wasn't really considered at all and I want to see this always considered by people investigating the design of homes and such. I'm not saying every building ever...
Sure, my point has been that this wasn't really considered at all and I want to see this always considered by people investigating the design of homes and such. I'm not saying every building ever needs elevators and stuff, I do understand that's not reasonable, but I think we should be pushing towards accessibility and designing things so it's easier and cheaper to add accessibility features when people need them. I'd rather those very small home elevators be put in place at the build, or at least the space for them be considered so they could be added later as an ADA need for someone.
I'm not saying every parking spot should be an accessible spot, but larger spots overall both leads to fewer spots - which is in alignment with reducing cars and such - and better experiences for everyone.
I'd like to see going for the cheapest possible option dis-incentivized because that'll be better for everyone. I know economics will remain in play, but if we're re-evaluating our priorities when it comes to housing, we should re-evaluate them.
But does every additional building need to have the price premium for universal design if there already exists sufficient inventory of accessible unit?
But does every additional building need to have the price premium for universal design if there already exists sufficient inventory of accessible unit?
Universal design doesn't have to cost much more when applied at the design phase. But if you could be certain that the people in 3B won't break their leg or have a stroke or something we could...
Universal design doesn't have to cost much more when applied at the design phase. But if you could be certain that the people in 3B won't break their leg or have a stroke or something we could probably not worry about that apartment's accessibility.
This is my opinion only but yeah, landlords should do this, architects should do this, this should be expected. We do a horrible job of making accessible spaces actually accessible as it stands. It'd be nice to come from a principle of UD.
Setting aside monatery costs of construction, there are a pair of conflicting facts at play. As you said, pretty much all of us will be disabled at some point Most of us are not presently...
Setting aside monatery costs of construction, there are a pair of conflicting facts at play.
As you said, pretty much all of us will be disabled at some point
Most of us are not presently disabled, nor are we likely to become so in the near future
How large would the elevators be? That would have an impact on the tradeoffs. Consider,
An elevator would be nice in the unlikely I have a stroke or my son breaks his leg before we move out.
That space could have been used to give us an extra closet in our unit (or more square footage for the kitchen)
However, if the elevator is large enough, it can double as a freight elevator. Makes moving much easier and is nice to have for hauling bulky stuff (compared to one that's for standing humans only).
There's no way to know who will become disabled and when, it could be sooner rather than later. There's also no way to know who will buy/rent the units when building them. I'm not an architect,...
Setting aside monatery costs of construction, there are a pair of conflicting facts at play.
As you said, pretty much all of us will be disabled at some point
Most of us are not presently disabled, nor are we likely to become so in the near future
There's no way to know who will become disabled and when, it could be sooner rather than later. There's also no way to know who will buy/rent the units when building them.
I'm not an architect, and I really don't want to get in the weeds on what the precise right elevator size is and the trade offs. I know those tradeoffs exist. The point is to consider them and do our best as a society to create affordable and accessible spaces.
Because all the barriers to accessibility can be mirrored by barriers to affordability - developers don't want to make "cheap" homes, why would they when they can make more money otherwise. Developers want to cut corners but make things look premium to charge as much as possible for the buildings, etc.
People will make less money overall, but it will be better for us as a society and it will be better ethically.
I was trying to change the subject from developer profitability to the space preferences of the residents. No matter the building's footprint, space used by an elevator is space that could have...
I was trying to change the subject from developer profitability to the space preferences of the residents. No matter the building's footprint, space used by an elevator is space that could have gone to amenities within the apartments. I don't think it's right for regulation to say, "You're not allowed to take that gamble if you'd prefer a larger master bedroom." I am fine with the regulation saying that in multi-building complexes, at least 20% of buildings must be elevator-accessible to ensure sufficient inventory.
If you're building a single family home, I think it's different than multi family units. Those already have regulations. I don't see it as much different than those, or for the individual,...
If you're building a single family home, I think it's different than multi family units. Those already have regulations. I don't see it as much different than those, or for the individual, insurance requirements. Sometimes unexpected things happen.
I think residents have a wide variety of space preferences and I'm not going to be able to capture them adequately as they'll vary. Creating a variety of units is definitely one way to address that. As is allowing modifications even of rentals. That's not been the landlord tenant experience I've had.
But yeah I recognize you were changing the topic, I'm talking about principle of the design of buildings not digging into individual preferences and needs. Those will vary. Needing no tight hallways or right angles in them. Needing wider doors. Needing lower countertops or no carpet. I could go on and on with needs alone. I'm not really interested in it? If you use principles of UD, you're addressing most needs and making wants and needs easier to achieve.
For new construction, I think it would be pretty reasonable to require space near the stairwell to be allocated for an elevator so that one could be put in later. (Perhaps used as closet space...
For new construction, I think it would be pretty reasonable to require space near the stairwell to be allocated for an elevator so that one could be put in later. (Perhaps used as closet space until the elevator is put in.)
This article is about emergency evacuation, though, and we are always warned not to use the elevator in case of fire. It seems like best way to handle that for people who can't use the stairs is to be on the first floor.
So interestingly our elevators don't shut down during fire alarms anymore because it's generally a better idea to evacuate than to be stuck especially at the beginning of an alarm. But there are...
So interestingly our elevators don't shut down during fire alarms anymore because it's generally a better idea to evacuate than to be stuck especially at the beginning of an alarm. But there are evac points on all floors for folks that can't.
Disability isn't all or nothing, with can use stairs and can't begin immutable diametrically opposed choices. Some folks can do a few stairs. Some can crawl if it comes down to it. Some cannot. Some folks break a leg and can't do stairs for 8 weeks and then can do them but it hurts a lot. Some folks start needing more and more help with stairs and eventually can't do them anymore. If we're building homes, we should plan for this so that people don't lose their homes long before they might ever need to.
And I believe housing should be affordable, subsidized by the government and a human right. But I advocate for universal design because it involves making things useable for everyone. A lot of...
And I believe housing should be affordable, subsidized by the government and a human right. But I advocate for universal design because it involves making things useable for everyone. A lot of accommodations, like automatic doors, make everyone's life easier.
The problem with "rights language" when it's about guaranting expensive things is that it doesn't grapple with limited government budgets. If there's not enough for everyone, someone's going to go...
The problem with "rights language" when it's about guaranting expensive things is that it doesn't grapple with limited government budgets. If there's not enough for everyone, someone's going to go without.
For an example, see the supposed right to a speedy trial. More people needing a trial doesn't get more judges hired.
A "right to affordable housing" might just give you a spot on a waiting list.
Oh I believe we fail in small and larger ways to live up this daily. It's my personal belief I expressed, not a policy position. But even if it were, the current failure to live up to the right...
Oh I believe we fail in small and larger ways to live up this daily. It's my personal belief I expressed, not a policy position. But even if it were, the current failure to live up to the right doesn't mean it isn't one.
But I'd like to note, that you're just telling me over and over why things can't happen. I know where we're at. I believe we should be better. I don't lack awareness of the general failure of my own government or others to live up to human rights issues. I'm deeply aware of the difficulty in affording housing and even more deeply aware of the barriers thrown up to that by accessibility.
I'd rather talk about what this could look like - larger buildings, or smaller chair lift elevators that just go a couple of floors and take up vastly less space - than re-list all the reasons why our society doesn't take care of the most vulnerable, doesn't actually care about affordable housing if it's only for young able bodies people, or has more "important" priorities.
I genuinely feel like this is weird pattern of explaining things tangential to someone who generally knows those things and I'm not upset so much as really rather confused by it.
Sometimes I'm interested in discussing small changes, one at a time. It seems like that's what this article is about? It's not about making big reforms, it's about one particular regulation that...
Sometimes I'm interested in discussing small changes, one at a time. It seems like that's what this article is about? It's not about making big reforms, it's about one particular regulation that most people don't know about and how it has big effects.
From that point of view, when we start from a topic that's about how it would be good to change just one thing and then tack on lots of other nice ideas, it makes the topic much broader. Particularly if we start adding big projects like guaranteeing housing for everyone :-)
So, instead I look for smaller changes. Adding "and it would be nice to guarantee space for an elevator too" was a way of responding to your concern with something smaller in scope.
Then again, zoning laws aren't up to any of us, so I guess it's just recreational typing anyway.
I do understand that, my initial comment in this thread was just about how I wished universal design was considered when people did thinkpieces. While they're discussing just one regulation, in...
I do understand that, my initial comment in this thread was just about how I wished universal design was considered when people did thinkpieces. While they're discussing just one regulation, in the process they could have been inclusive and chose to be exclusive instead. That's annoying.
Perhaps I'm feeling the frustration of a previous thread where many responses were similarly "here's why being inclusive is too expensive and so it just isn't being done". I don't know.
I didn't so much intend to talk about housing being a right, it was more that your previous comment invoked caring about affordability as if it's in contrast to accessibility. Disabled folks are often on a fixed, incredibly small, income. I absolutely care about that. But if they can't live in a house it doesn't matter how cheap it is. I also believe in affordability, but I think it's an excuse when housing is being built currently to be neither affordable nor accessible.
(below is a pro-wood construction rant, because the more I learned about construction, the more that the concrete > steel > wood superiority hierarchy seemed like an artifact of my...
(below is a pro-wood construction rant, because the more I learned about construction, the more that the concrete > steel > wood superiority hierarchy seemed like an artifact of my misunderstanding the field)
Re. Building multi-family buildings out of wood, we’ve already seen wooden single family homes last multiple generations, and modern multi-family buildings are better able to withstand fires (which are less common now than when we lit houses with gas, didn’t standardize wiring, and hadn’t invented modern fire suppressing sprinklers).
Given that materials such as laminated structural bamboo exist (along with other structural composite lumbers), wood preservatives are better understood than ever, and that North America has substantial history rapidly building sound wooden structures on a budget (and in every climate from Floridian bogs, to Yukon tundra, to earthquake prone California), I don’t really see the need to introduce more reinforced concrete into the mix. It’s expensive, hard to transport, and (currently) tends to emit ridiculous amounts of CO2 during its production, transport, and installation. I could see an argument made for clay bricks if they’re made locally, but realistically, better-than-code built wooden structures seem like an excellent optimum.
Makes sense! Fwiw, reading over my post, I think I’m coming across as trying to convince or argue with you — that’s totally not the case; I’m actually just very tired with work today, and you’ve...
Makes sense! Fwiw, reading over my post, I think I’m coming across as trying to convince or argue with you — that’s totally not the case; I’m actually just very tired with work today, and you’ve accidentally stumbled on a subject I’ve done far too much reading into and enjoy sharing with folks.
Re. Longevity, I’d underline that most buildings have expected lifetimes anyhow. Focusing on making a structure that stays up the longest will result in much more expensive buildings that aren’t necessarily nicer to live in — and there will be far fewer of them to boot — so the metric I’ve started leaning towards is amortized yearly cost (total cost of ownership/expected years of service). Nbd if you don’t, just saying for the sake of discussion
Re. Safety, fair enough! Do note that concrete structures are still damaged by fire, potentially beyond a point where it’s safe to reinhabit, even if it’s still physically standing (I’m not at all qualified to explain this, but it’s worth reading more into!). Equally, wooden structures can be designed to resist a significant amount of fire.
Plus, any fire which doesn’t total the building can also have the damage repaired, which helps!
Wood is much more durable than you might think! The oldest wooden structure in the world is a ~1300 year old temple in Japan that's still in good condition. When built right and maintained...
Wood is much more durable than you might think! The oldest wooden structure in the world is a ~1300 year old temple in Japan that's still in good condition. When built right and maintained appropriately, wooden structures can last for an extraordinarily long time.
Make the stairway shaft out of concrete and steel and the rest of the building out of wood. That said, I don't see why newer buildings couldn't have balcony's with built in hatches and a ladder...
Make the stairway shaft out of concrete and steel and the rest of the building out of wood. That said, I don't see why newer buildings couldn't have balcony's with built in hatches and a ladder that unfolds like an attic access ladder.
A little outdoor space that can be used in an emergency as an egress, wire the hatch to the fire alarm to deter people from using them except in an emergency.
Massive timber actually performs quite well in fire, better than unprotected steel. If you have a major fire, chances are the building will need to be demolished or completely gutted to rebuild...
Massive timber actually performs quite well in fire, better than unprotected steel.
If you have a major fire, chances are the building will need to be demolished or completely gutted to rebuild anyway, whether it's concrete or timber.
I'll basically always defend timber construction, including for matters of fireproofing - drywall is incredibly fire-resistant, and the actual stick framing itself isn't as much of a fuel source...
I'll basically always defend timber construction, including for matters of fireproofing - drywall is incredibly fire-resistant, and the actual stick framing itself isn't as much of a fuel source as the items in the house.
That being said - I'm incredibly wary of slackening safety codes for basically any reason. Regulations are written in blood, and being able to properly move people out of a building in case of emergency without forming bottlenecks where crushing can happen is a big mark in favor of the American two-stair requirement in my book.
Do we need better options for housing density? Absolutely. I'm skeptical that this is the battle worth fighting, though.
Re. whether this is the right battle, in case it’s of interest, About Here had a nice video covering how the stairwell requirement unnecessarily restricts density and designs. Imo it isn’t a...
Re. whether this is the right battle, in case it’s of interest, About Here had a nice video covering how the stairwell requirement unnecessarily restricts density and designs. Imo it isn’t a perfect take, but overall: since we can focus on more than one thing at a time as a society, it’d be useful to tack an extra few percent of homes onto new apartment complexes with the stroke of a pen if they’re going up anyways.
One thing I noticed about American stairwells vs stairwells in Europe or Asia is how ridiculously overbuilt the American ones are and in such quantity!
One thing I noticed about American stairwells vs stairwells in Europe or Asia is how ridiculously overbuilt the American ones are and in such quantity!
It depends on the region and what the building is for, but I'm not sure permanence is the right goal to shoot for. The flexibility of stick-built construction is hard to beat. Buildings can become...
It depends on the region and what the building is for, but I'm not sure permanence is the right goal to shoot for. The flexibility of stick-built construction is hard to beat. Buildings can become awkward or obsolete as their inhabitants' desires change. They get torn down because people want something else and they're not easily modified.
Also, the more expensive it is, the more insurance will cost, which matters more with climate change.
Apparently, that's a bit of a myth. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/no-wall-street-investors-haven-015642526.html
banks and hedge funds that apparently own most of our housing
Apparently, that's a bit of a myth.
In fact, institutional homebuyers (those who bought 100+ homes in a 12-month period) didn’t even reach 2.5% market share at the peak level in this data line, which goes back to the start of the century.
That's per company. If someone had full control of 1,000 LLCs, and each LLC owned 10 properties, that person would control 10,000 properties and not show up on that chart.
That's per company. If someone had full control of 1,000 LLCs, and each LLC owned 10 properties, that person would control 10,000 properties and not show up on that chart.
Super interesting article, I'm going to spread it around. The effects of bad and outdated building codes can be plainly obvious if you know where to look, but unlike with zoning, public knowledge and awareness is really low. My department has spent the last year writing a new comprehensive plan, so I've been in the field engaging with the public about the city and it could improve. I fielded so many comments about zoning issues (parking minimums, minimum lot size for a new subdivision, unit per sqft requirements, etc.), but not one word about the state building code.
Of course, the building code doesn't explain everything. Building codes don't overtly control density, zoning, parking, or any other classic planning issue. But they indirectly affect the implementation of the YIMBY vision. For example, the classic New England three-family is a staple in Providence, RI. Huge sections of the city feature these houses as the base urban fabric. It's still legal to build these sorts of houses in Providence, and sometimes people actually build them, or at least versions of them. Here's one from 2017 which roughly aligns with the surrounding urban fabric. Even this one isn't perfect; instead of containing three stacked coterminous units like a classic triple-decker, this one features split levels with separate entrances.
Don't worry, developers absolutely build structures that more closely resemble a classic Providence triple-decker. It's just that those homes are very rarely three-family dwellings, at least in the legal sense. Check this one out, for example. According to this property's use card, the structure is a two-family dwelling constructed in 2021. The plans submitted for this house show a large, empty, almost entirely above-grade basement, with two residential units above. If pressed, the developer will claim that the basement is for tenant storage, and the building department has no choice but to believe them. But after the city issues a certificate of occupancy, the developer will return and perform unpermitted work, adding a kitchen, walls, bathrooms, and more, converting the space into an illegal third unit. Notice how this structure's front door is lifted almost a full story off the ground. Developers do this to make their illegal "basement" units as rentable as possible, complete with full-sized windows and ground floor amenities.
Admittedly, the example I've shown here is a bit on the egregious side, not all of these illegal three-families have front doors that far off the ground. Here's a different example. Built in 2019, this structure resembles any other house in the city. Its urban form is great. The front door is a little too high, but the ornate fence in front makes that a bit more amenable. Like the prior example, this structure legally listed as a two-family. But there are definitely three units in there. The smoking gun? Three electric meters on the exterior wall. Here's an earlier streetview capturing the construction process for this house. Look at how shallow the foundation is!
It begs a question. For both of the locations I showed, city ordinance allows three-family dwellings by-right. So why did the developers build two-family dwellings with illegal basement units instead? You can probably sense where this is going. The Rhode Island state building code requires developers to sprinkler all new structures containing three or more residential units. Sprinkler installation is incredibly expensive, making it more economical for builders to construct "two-family dwellings" and take their chances with an illegal third unit instead. Fire safety has been quite strict in Rhode Island ever since the Station Nightclub fire, although I don't know if this particular building code requirement derives from that moment or from a different time. The bigger question is whether it matters. Providence gets its density either way. And if the state raised its sprinklering cut-off, developers might just do the same practice but with four units instead of three. For me, it's a safety and quality-of-life matter. The building department never inspects the illegal basement units; all manner of bad construction practice could be lurking down there. And, of course, an above-ground unit is superior to a basement unit for several reasons. More above-ground units mean a higher average standard of life in the city.
I think we can all agree that there's not enough affordable housing? Well, cheap (efficient) workarounds enable more affordable housing. So I think it would be better to have slightly less strict codes in some cases and enforce them better.
Averages don't tell the full story, but I'll go with that for a bit: it seems like not allowing basement units would also mean higher-priced housing (on average) because costs are higher on average. A basement unit might not be ideal, but it's a lot better than no housing and sometimes people would rather save on rent.
People get excited about tiny houses, but in practice, cheap housing would more likely be a basement or attic unit.
Basement units are actually legal in Providence. People build them frequently. Considering that they're purpose-built for habitation, the basement units in these fake two-family dwellings are probably better than the average basement unit city-wide. Many basement units are stuck in actual basements, places never intended as living spaces. The illegal thing, per the building code, is creating three units at a time without sprinklering. Developers leave the basement conspicuously empty in their submitted plans because it's the most plausible place to do so. I suspect the building department already looks the other way on these obviously but not explicitly illegal plans for the reasons you stated in your reply, but it would be tougher to justify if the developers submitted plans showing conspicuously empty above-ground floors instead.
There are a few other benefits to building the sorts of houses I described in my first post. Two-family dwellings have a lower appraisal value than three-family dwellings, meaning that property taxes are slightly lower. That benefit only lasts for a few years however. Once the house gets reappraised, its tax status will reflect the number of units present in the house, regardless of its supposed legal use. In addition, the developers of these houses pay lower permitting fees to the city than if they were up front about the true scope of work. Being said, under-representing construction costs to municipalities is a widespread practice in the construction industries which isn't limited to this sort of build.
I support affordable housing. However, finding compromises between the drive to build cheap and the drive to build well is a big part of an urban planner's job. In this case, the compromise is easy. The RI building code should be amended to require sprinklers only at higher unit counts. That's how it is in other places, including some surrounding states similarly dense with triple-deckers. That way, developers could build as cheaply as they do right now, but the work would be legal and the houses would be better contributors to the urban fabric.
If the article linked by OP interested you, I recommend this one by Russil Wvong titled [b]uilding less expensive family-size apartments.
cough elevators and accessibility are equally important cough
But really it's frustrating to ignore how many people can't be housed or can't remain in their housing as they get older in the advocated spaces. I just wish people thinking so deeply about design would think about Universal Design.
It absolutely should be a concern, but maybe it doesn't need to be every building and it would also be easy to make the ground level suites wheel chair accessible while having stairs to the upper portion. A compromise could be if a developer is making a complex, require a certain percentage have lifts.
Everyone becomes disabled at some point unless you die first, sometimes temporarily, sometimes not, sometimes young and nearly everyone with age. Breaking your leg can make accessing your 4th floor walkup miserable at best
In a country that consistently lets down the disabled folks among them, planning buildings with accessibility firmly in place from the start is key to letting people remain independent for as long as possible. Does every space need identical accommodations? No, if only because accommodations can look different for different people.
But you already talked us back from Universal Design to "not every building, ground floor only, maybe a lift if there's a complex".
The building itself being accessible feels like a bare minimum. The apartments almost certainly won't be even if they say they are.
The problem is that if you have a 4-story building, and it costs something like US$100k for a lift, then people will build a house instead of an apartment (there is no requirement in most places for houses to have lifts). Then instead of 1 wheelchair accessible apartment and 3-non accessible apartments we have 1 non-accessible house.
I am aware of this. I would like to see concept pieces consider universal design and accessibility by default and not lament how expensive it is to make sure disabled people can get into their homes or ignore them entirely.
I'm especially not interested in making excuses for someone (the author) who did the latter by using the former.
The author's concept piece seem to be to be about reducing cost and increasing density, so I can understand why they didn't include a lift in their schematics. I think at a practical level the best thing is to require step-free access to ground floors of such apartments, which is relatively easy to achieve by pressuring building regulators.
When building short appartment buildings (i.e. 4 floors or fewer) I suspect that lifts are very unlikely to become commonplace (baring a new invention which dramatically reduces the costs). I think it makes sense to encourage people to build taller (to at least 8-10 stories) because one then gets better density and lifts.
Once again, I am advocating for and am very passionate about making things accessible by default. I don't care about "why" they didn't do this. I care that they "should" do this.
There are a few known ways to deal with this without making housing that’s inaccessible by design:
Sticks:
Carrots:
Compared to the cost of building and land acquisition, adding accessibility features is relatively cheap. There are non-elevator options to improve accessibility at lower costs (eg inclined platform lifts in stairwells) which could be explored.
At the end of the day, accessibility helps everyone, and since buildings are often designed for several generations of inhabitation, there’s a lot of time for it to pay itself off. Given the tremendous initial investment of construction to begin with (and that accessibility features aren’t likely to touch more than a couple percent of overall cost), and the social benefits that are derived from them (reduced cost for hospice care in aging societies, improved quality of life for families, … job creation…), they seem like a slam dunk.
Unfortunately although this solution does work I think it's really tough (to the point of impossibility) to get it implemented. People (especially in the Anglosphere) like single family home construction. In places where the commercial pressure to build tall structures (i.e. tower blocks) is really high they almost universally have lifts and relatively good accessibility.
It's not, and generally building codes do require accessibility, especially in new build. The problem is in refitting old buildings which can be really, really expensive. Like a lot more than a couple of percent of the overall cost kind of expensive.
Fair enough! I suppose my counterpoint is that preferences/trends change. But as my hometown is in the process of rezoning single family home zones into comprehensive development zones, I can’t compare my experience to folks to whom that seems like an impossibility.
Ultimately it’s down to the sort of society we want to build together. I’d imagine most folks are busy just getting through the day to imagine anything different, though, so yeah, it’ll be an uphill battle to change anything.
Oh, absolutely! Apologies; I didn’t realize that the topic had changed to retrofits — I was talking about new construction this whole time. I don’t have expertise in retrofitting or the costs associated with it, so I can’t comment on that :)
You can have elevators with single-stair homes! The key difference between single-stair and multi-stair is that you must have a central hallway when making multi-stair buildings so all residents can access multiple stairwells.
When making a single-stair building, you can have a column that includes one stairwell and one elevator, allowing homes to take up that extra space, making 3+ bedroom multifamily homes much more space-efficient.
Yes I suspected so, but they weren't mentioned and that thoughtfulness and consideration from ideas/design folks is needed!
Ty though, I'm not an architect by any means
I have a crazy idea. What if we produce a second means of egress - right through the apartments themselves! Create an emergency hallway from the apartments themselves. Basically have instant-destruct wall panels!
Have thick opaque tempered glass panels at key locations between adjacent units. Hang an emergency hammer or similar device suitable for shattering the panels like you would a fire extinguisher. Strike them, and they instantly turn to powder. If there's a fire and the main hallway is blocked, people can literally just break an instant hole in the wall. It will make a ton of noise, so there's no hiding that you've done it. Also you could install some sensors to trigger a fire alarm if a panel is broken. Finally, this isn't like a fire door between units. You don't have to worry about your neighbor sneaking into your apartment by picking the lock. If someone breaks that, you're going to know about it. It will be as subtle as your neighbor busting a hole in the drywall with an axe.
Now, clear egress could be a problem. You don't want someone placing a wardrobe right in front of the instant hallway you're trying to create. So what you could do is have paths in apartments that were required, in the lease, to be kept clear of furniture and belongings. Maybe it could simply be that interior hallways could be joined together in an emergency. Mark that area off with special tile and place emergency light stripping along it. Perform periodic inspections to ensure the fire path is free. To the user, it could be something as simple as a rule that said they couldn't place any belongings or furniture in a certain hallway.
That is no good for containing a fire to the unit of origin, unless you use fire-rated glass which you wouldn't be able to break easily.
Basically that big glass panel would allow fire to spread directly between units.
Equally? No.
Yes, it's unquestionably good when people have the opportunity to age in place. But that doesn't mean it's equally important.
Society has intersecting needs, competing priorities, and therefore prioritizes some good things over other good things.
I disagree that it isn't equally important to make sure that people can use your buildings. And that includes disabled people.
This sort of logic leads to all bathroom stalls being accessible but half as many toilets. Does every parking spot need to be wheelchair accessible too?
Not every space needs to be usable by every person. Sometimes doing so would come with poor tradeoffs.
I think you're making an assumption about my logic. Universal Design is about not just whether something is broadly usable, but making spaces adaptable for changing needs. That doesn't mean making everything the same. A hypothetical comparison is if more parking spots have space for a ramp (and a cart of groceries and a stroller) than fewer need to be reserved for that need. (but accessible parking spots are also about location so it's not so easy. ) Family bathrooms allow disabled people and their caregivers as well as parents' with small children, non-binary people, someone with IBS, etc. to have additional privacy. Building more of those is in fact a great thing!
But we're talking about people's homes. Rarely is someone suddenly disabled while using a parking spot and needs to switch. Rarely is someone disabled in a regular toilet stall and immediately needing to switch stalls. Many people who are disabled still live in a home and some of them may find their home inaccessible. It is in our societal best interest to build homes in a way that keeps injured, ill, and elderly folks from having to abandon their homes due to mobility issues.
UD is not something I made up. I read through a lovely PDF for commercial home developers that walks through the principles and recommendations. There's so much guidance out there. I am disappointed to find people not consider that in think pieces and even more disappointed to have people pick at my language or misrepresent what I'm talking about when I've really tried to be extremely clear.
I agree with you completely.
But building more private bathrooms, double stalls, and wheelchair parking spaces comes at an opportunity cost. And if those spaces aren't necessary for their purpose then it's wasteful and inefficient design.
We don't need to deal in absolutes. A low-rise apartment building where the bottom floor must be accessible and any vacancies must first be offered to residents on higher floors with priority given to the most elderly would be a damn good compromise between building efficiently and ensuring as many people as possible can age in place.
Sure, my point has been that this wasn't really considered at all and I want to see this always considered by people investigating the design of homes and such. I'm not saying every building ever needs elevators and stuff, I do understand that's not reasonable, but I think we should be pushing towards accessibility and designing things so it's easier and cheaper to add accessibility features when people need them. I'd rather those very small home elevators be put in place at the build, or at least the space for them be considered so they could be added later as an ADA need for someone.
I'm not saying every parking spot should be an accessible spot, but larger spots overall both leads to fewer spots - which is in alignment with reducing cars and such - and better experiences for everyone.
I'd like to see going for the cheapest possible option dis-incentivized because that'll be better for everyone. I know economics will remain in play, but if we're re-evaluating our priorities when it comes to housing, we should re-evaluate them.
But does every additional building need to have the price premium for universal design if there already exists sufficient inventory of accessible unit?
Universal design doesn't have to cost much more when applied at the design phase. But if you could be certain that the people in 3B won't break their leg or have a stroke or something we could probably not worry about that apartment's accessibility.
This is my opinion only but yeah, landlords should do this, architects should do this, this should be expected. We do a horrible job of making accessible spaces actually accessible as it stands. It'd be nice to come from a principle of UD.
Setting aside monatery costs of construction, there are a pair of conflicting facts at play.
How large would the elevators be? That would have an impact on the tradeoffs. Consider,
I'm not an architect, and I really don't want to get in the weeds on what the precise right elevator size is and the trade offs. I know those tradeoffs exist. The point is to consider them and do our best as a society to create affordable and accessible spaces.
Because all the barriers to accessibility can be mirrored by barriers to affordability - developers don't want to make "cheap" homes, why would they when they can make more money otherwise. Developers want to cut corners but make things look premium to charge as much as possible for the buildings, etc.
People will make less money overall, but it will be better for us as a society and it will be better ethically.
I was trying to change the subject from developer profitability to the space preferences of the residents. No matter the building's footprint, space used by an elevator is space that could have gone to amenities within the apartments. I don't think it's right for regulation to say, "You're not allowed to take that gamble if you'd prefer a larger master bedroom." I am fine with the regulation saying that in multi-building complexes, at least 20% of buildings must be elevator-accessible to ensure sufficient inventory.
If you're building a single family home, I think it's different than multi family units. Those already have regulations. I don't see it as much different than those, or for the individual, insurance requirements. Sometimes unexpected things happen.
I think residents have a wide variety of space preferences and I'm not going to be able to capture them adequately as they'll vary. Creating a variety of units is definitely one way to address that. As is allowing modifications even of rentals. That's not been the landlord tenant experience I've had.
But yeah I recognize you were changing the topic, I'm talking about principle of the design of buildings not digging into individual preferences and needs. Those will vary. Needing no tight hallways or right angles in them. Needing wider doors. Needing lower countertops or no carpet. I could go on and on with needs alone. I'm not really interested in it? If you use principles of UD, you're addressing most needs and making wants and needs easier to achieve.
I think that is good public policy.
For new construction, I think it would be pretty reasonable to require space near the stairwell to be allocated for an elevator so that one could be put in later. (Perhaps used as closet space until the elevator is put in.)
This article is about emergency evacuation, though, and we are always warned not to use the elevator in case of fire. It seems like best way to handle that for people who can't use the stairs is to be on the first floor.
So interestingly our elevators don't shut down during fire alarms anymore because it's generally a better idea to evacuate than to be stuck especially at the beginning of an alarm. But there are evac points on all floors for folks that can't.
Disability isn't all or nothing, with can use stairs and can't begin immutable diametrically opposed choices. Some folks can do a few stairs. Some can crawl if it comes down to it. Some cannot. Some folks break a leg and can't do stairs for 8 weeks and then can do them but it hurts a lot. Some folks start needing more and more help with stairs and eventually can't do them anymore. If we're building homes, we should plan for this so that people don't lose their homes long before they might ever need to.
I think we should care about affordable housing too, though. There are tradeoffs. But I don't know how much more expense it would be.
And I believe housing should be affordable, subsidized by the government and a human right. But I advocate for universal design because it involves making things useable for everyone. A lot of accommodations, like automatic doors, make everyone's life easier.
The problem with "rights language" when it's about guaranting expensive things is that it doesn't grapple with limited government budgets. If there's not enough for everyone, someone's going to go without.
For an example, see the supposed right to a speedy trial. More people needing a trial doesn't get more judges hired.
A "right to affordable housing" might just give you a spot on a waiting list.
Oh I believe we fail in small and larger ways to live up this daily. It's my personal belief I expressed, not a policy position. But even if it were, the current failure to live up to the right doesn't mean it isn't one.
But I'd like to note, that you're just telling me over and over why things can't happen. I know where we're at. I believe we should be better. I don't lack awareness of the general failure of my own government or others to live up to human rights issues. I'm deeply aware of the difficulty in affording housing and even more deeply aware of the barriers thrown up to that by accessibility.
I'd rather talk about what this could look like - larger buildings, or smaller chair lift elevators that just go a couple of floors and take up vastly less space - than re-list all the reasons why our society doesn't take care of the most vulnerable, doesn't actually care about affordable housing if it's only for young able bodies people, or has more "important" priorities.
I genuinely feel like this is weird pattern of explaining things tangential to someone who generally knows those things and I'm not upset so much as really rather confused by it.
Sometimes I'm interested in discussing small changes, one at a time. It seems like that's what this article is about? It's not about making big reforms, it's about one particular regulation that most people don't know about and how it has big effects.
From that point of view, when we start from a topic that's about how it would be good to change just one thing and then tack on lots of other nice ideas, it makes the topic much broader. Particularly if we start adding big projects like guaranteeing housing for everyone :-)
So, instead I look for smaller changes. Adding "and it would be nice to guarantee space for an elevator too" was a way of responding to your concern with something smaller in scope.
Then again, zoning laws aren't up to any of us, so I guess it's just recreational typing anyway.
I do understand that, my initial comment in this thread was just about how I wished universal design was considered when people did thinkpieces. While they're discussing just one regulation, in the process they could have been inclusive and chose to be exclusive instead. That's annoying.
Perhaps I'm feeling the frustration of a previous thread where many responses were similarly "here's why being inclusive is too expensive and so it just isn't being done". I don't know.
I didn't so much intend to talk about housing being a right, it was more that your previous comment invoked caring about affordability as if it's in contrast to accessibility. Disabled folks are often on a fixed, incredibly small, income. I absolutely care about that. But if they can't live in a house it doesn't matter how cheap it is. I also believe in affordability, but I think it's an excuse when housing is being built currently to be neither affordable nor accessible.
(below is a pro-wood construction rant, because the more I learned about construction, the more that the concrete > steel > wood superiority hierarchy seemed like an artifact of my misunderstanding the field)
Re. Building multi-family buildings out of wood, we’ve already seen wooden single family homes last multiple generations, and modern multi-family buildings are better able to withstand fires (which are less common now than when we lit houses with gas, didn’t standardize wiring, and hadn’t invented modern fire suppressing sprinklers).
Given that materials such as laminated structural bamboo exist (along with other structural composite lumbers), wood preservatives are better understood than ever, and that North America has substantial history rapidly building sound wooden structures on a budget (and in every climate from Floridian bogs, to Yukon tundra, to earthquake prone California), I don’t really see the need to introduce more reinforced concrete into the mix. It’s expensive, hard to transport, and (currently) tends to emit ridiculous amounts of CO2 during its production, transport, and installation. I could see an argument made for clay bricks if they’re made locally, but realistically, better-than-code built wooden structures seem like an excellent optimum.
Makes sense! Fwiw, reading over my post, I think I’m coming across as trying to convince or argue with you — that’s totally not the case; I’m actually just very tired with work today, and you’ve accidentally stumbled on a subject I’ve done far too much reading into and enjoy sharing with folks.
Re. Longevity, I’d underline that most buildings have expected lifetimes anyhow. Focusing on making a structure that stays up the longest will result in much more expensive buildings that aren’t necessarily nicer to live in — and there will be far fewer of them to boot — so the metric I’ve started leaning towards is amortized yearly cost (total cost of ownership/expected years of service). Nbd if you don’t, just saying for the sake of discussion
Re. Safety, fair enough! Do note that concrete structures are still damaged by fire, potentially beyond a point where it’s safe to reinhabit, even if it’s still physically standing (I’m not at all qualified to explain this, but it’s worth reading more into!). Equally, wooden structures can be designed to resist a significant amount of fire.
Plus, any fire which doesn’t total the building can also have the damage repaired, which helps!
Wood is much more durable than you might think! The oldest wooden structure in the world is a ~1300 year old temple in Japan that's still in good condition. When built right and maintained appropriately, wooden structures can last for an extraordinarily long time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C5%8Dry%C5%AB-ji
Make the stairway shaft out of concrete and steel and the rest of the building out of wood. That said, I don't see why newer buildings couldn't have balcony's with built in hatches and a ladder that unfolds like an attic access ladder.
A little outdoor space that can be used in an emergency as an egress, wire the hatch to the fire alarm to deter people from using them except in an emergency.
Massive timber actually performs quite well in fire, better than unprotected steel.
If you have a major fire, chances are the building will need to be demolished or completely gutted to rebuild anyway, whether it's concrete or timber.
I'll basically always defend timber construction, including for matters of fireproofing - drywall is incredibly fire-resistant, and the actual stick framing itself isn't as much of a fuel source as the items in the house.
That being said - I'm incredibly wary of slackening safety codes for basically any reason. Regulations are written in blood, and being able to properly move people out of a building in case of emergency without forming bottlenecks where crushing can happen is a big mark in favor of the American two-stair requirement in my book.
Do we need better options for housing density? Absolutely. I'm skeptical that this is the battle worth fighting, though.
Re. whether this is the right battle, in case it’s of interest, About Here had a nice video covering how the stairwell requirement unnecessarily restricts density and designs. Imo it isn’t a perfect take, but overall: since we can focus on more than one thing at a time as a society, it’d be useful to tack an extra few percent of homes onto new apartment complexes with the stroke of a pen if they’re going up anyways.
One thing I noticed about American stairwells vs stairwells in Europe or Asia is how ridiculously overbuilt the American ones are and in such quantity!
It depends on the region and what the building is for, but I'm not sure permanence is the right goal to shoot for. The flexibility of stick-built construction is hard to beat. Buildings can become awkward or obsolete as their inhabitants' desires change. They get torn down because people want something else and they're not easily modified.
Also, the more expensive it is, the more insurance will cost, which matters more with climate change.
Apparently, that's a bit of a myth.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/no-wall-street-investors-haven-015642526.html
That's per company. If someone had full control of 1,000 LLCs, and each LLC owned 10 properties, that person would control 10,000 properties and not show up on that chart.