[allengeorge]

In that context, there may be an alternative to 2 staircases, but its likely not a lot less expensive.

Maybe it’s less about the expense, but more about the configuration of the units and how much of the floor plate can be used for living areas.

 

[allengeorge]

For the record, I’m against the idea of mandating 2 elevators the moment your building hits 6 storeys.

I believe this is an overreaction to the problems that it seems are trying to be addressed (accessibility, and the case a single elevator goes out).

 

[Northern Light]

Maybe it’s less about the expense, but more about the configuration of the units and how much of the floor plate can be used for living areas.

There's no question that a second stair case takes up lots of room and that's absolutely the financial tradeoff I'm discussing when I say, that it may not financially work out.

You add 'x' ft 2 in rentable or sellable space, but the trade is against both the capital and operating costs of advanced fire suppression which can be significant.

****

I'm simply saying, we got that high, (6s) we need buildings w/larger floor plates to make it work, to make it safe and accessible. The small (narrow) 6s building is inherently unsafe, inaccessible or unaffordable or all three.

 

[Northern Light]

For the record, I’m against the idea of requiring two elevators the moment your building hits 6 storeys.

We fundamentally disagree. On this point I'm passionate and non-negotiable, I see the harm as extreme, for reasons I'm outlined in detail above. I will fight the idea tooth and nail.

 

[allengeorge]

We fundamentally disagree. On this point I'm passionate and non-negotiable, I see the harm as extreme, for reasons I'm outlined in detail above. I will fight the idea tooth and nail.

Ok. I do believe that this is a case of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face, but respect the energy you bring to this.

I would totally be fine with mandating specific requirements for the first two floors to make them always accessible without power, etc - but it’s unclear that the solution you’re advocating for is a net benefit for the thousands of people who would like to have housing.

Adding an elevator is expensive, it constrains the lots on which a building can be built (probably meaning that small-scale buildings would not be built), affects unit layouts, and increases the cost of the overall building and the subsequent units. It’s unclear to me how this is a ‘win’ overall.

EDIT: I believe what is required in many of these conversations is a better idea of opportunity cost as well as additional data. For example, how many people requiring accessibility accommodations are going unhoused or experiencing poor housing today? What is the consequence of requiring a second elevator? How many sites would become unbuildable (ie what is the loss in units)? Would this result in more extremely tall buildings as developers decide that they’d rather densify ‘excessively’? I honestly have no idea, so can only speak in naive generalizations.

 

[allengeorge]

There's no question that a second stair case takes up lots of room and that's absolutely the financial tradeoff I'm discussing when I say, that it may not financially work out.

You add 'x' ft 2 in rentable or sellable space, but the trade is against both the capital and operating costs of advanced fire suppression which can be significant.

Neither do I. Not working in this area, I can’t tell whether the tradeoff is financially sound. I would be curious to hear from a range of builders whether removing the double-stair limits and requiring advanced fire suppression instead would make additional lots viable or not. Without that data we can’t have an informed conversation about whether the tradeoff is worth it and whether it achieves the goal of making more lots easier to densify.

 

[Northern Light]

Ok. I do believe that this is a case of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face, but respect the energy you bring to this.

I would totally be fine with mandating specific requirements for the first two floors to make them always accessible without power, etc - but it’s unclear that the solution you’re advocating for is a net benefit for the thousands of people who would like to have housing.

Adding an elevator is expensive, it constrains the lots on which a building can be built (probably meaning that small-scale buildings would not be built), affects unit layouts, and increases the cost of the overall building and the subsequent units. It’s unclear to me how this is a ‘win’ overall.

The problem w/this argument is the same as the argument on fire proofing and alarms. Are you going to argue that someone is better off in housing where they are likely to die prematurely because they were burned to death?

No, of course not. Yet, fire alarms, smoke detectors, 2 methods of egress, extinguishers in hallways all come at a cost that drives up housing. So does adding electricity, so does having indoor plumbing. Yet, we tore all the crap down that didn't have that (or renovated it to include that).

Why? Because we believe its a human right to have the dignity of a toilet instead of a chamber pot or an outhouse, because we believe its a human right to have running water in your sink and not have to walk 1/2 a mile to a well, and because we think its a human right not to burn to death in your own home.

The argument that we must lower the standards to what people can afford strikes me as immoral, unethical and a huge step backwards. It also provides cover for low wages and low social assistance and disability rates.

Trying to build housing to fit a $733 per month income on Ontario works, (at 30% of income equals rent that's $220 per month) means housing w/no water or heat. Perhaps the alternative is to raise social assistance rates by more than a factor of 2.

Trying to build housing to fit a minimum wage income (full-time) of $2,664 a month (before tax), from which you must also pay transit, food, clothing and everything else is also not workable) using the 30% of your income on housing guideline, that would allow a rent of $799 per month.

The problem w/housing is not minimum standards, the problem is low incomes. (along with investors in the housing market, short-term rentals, TFWs and international students)

 

[downtownordinary]

As someone who currently lives in a modern 4 story building with 1 elevator (and 20 units), I can say anecdotally adding a 2nd elevator to a building of this size makes it completely uneconomical. And if it's not economical it won't get built and won't be accessible to anyone.

In my building a significant portion of our monthly fees goes towards maintaining the elevator. Monthly inspections are required by law, the builder signed onto a 30 year maintenance contract with one of the big suppliers (likely to reduce the installation cost of the elevator). So we have a fixed cost of maintaining that elevator and have to budget for its replacement in 25 years.

The fees in smaller buildings are already much higher due to fewer units paying into other fixed costs as well garbage collection, fire suppression testing, etc.

Even a single elevator on a building of this size would have me wary of the future maintenance costs.

 

[allengeorge]

The problem w/this argument is the same as the argument on fire proofing and alarms. Are you going to argue that someone is better off in housing where they are likely to die prematurely because they were burned to death?

No, of course not. Yet, fire alarms, smoke detectors, 2 methods of egress, extinguishers in hallways all come at a cost that drives up housing. So does adding electricity, so does having indoor plumbing. Yet, we tore all the crap down that didn't have that (or renovated it to include that).

Why? Because we believe its a human right to have the dignity of a toilet instead of a chamber pot or an outhouse, because we believe its a human right to have running water in your sink and not have to walk 1/2 a mile to a well, and because we think its a human right not to burn to death in your own home.

No one is arguing for the removal of all elevators, or for the removal of all fire suppression or egress requirements. What I - and others - in this thread are asking is to carefully consider and balance the tradeoffs.

Consider second stairwell requirements. For example, I pointed out that it may be useful to remove them not to reduce costs, but to improve the floor plans. I also was amenable to increasing fire suppression requirements and simply stated that we needed to hear from builders/architects whether removing stairwells and increasing fire suppression would make more sites viable for small-scale densification.

As for elevators, I think the reasoning is on even shakier ground. The argument I’m hearing is that we need two elevators the moment any building exceeds 4 floors because every ~30 years the elevator will have to be replaced, and there may be also be a failure along the way. To understand whether this proposed mitigation is reasonable, we need to understand how long it takes to replace an elevator and what the MTBF for elevators are. Then, ask if the installation and maintenance cost of adding this elevator is worth that. Also, does adding a second elevator make more sites unviable? Are you ok with losing 10 homes for that second elevator?

At any rate, to have an informed conversation about whether these changes should be considered or not we need to have an understanding of the trafeoffs. For example: if 2nd stairs were dropped, how many more houses would be built? If 2 elevators were required, how many sites would not be densified, or densified less? With some modeling we could decide what goals we want to prioritize.

My goal is the number of homes, as opposed to requiring that every home in a development be accessible. (Again, I am in favor of requiring that at least one - if not two - floors of units should be fully accessible on new builds). But I understand that may not be where we land as a society.

The argument that we must lower the standards to what people can afford strikes me as immoral, unethical and a huge step backwards. It also provides cover for low wages and low social assistance and disability rates.

Trying to build housing to fit a $733 per month income on Ontario works, (at 30% of income equals rent that's $220 per month) means housing w/no water or heat. Perhaps the alternative is to raise social assistance rates by more than a factor of 2.

Trying to build housing to fit a minimum wage income (full-time) of $2,664 a month (before tax), from which you must also pay transit, food, clothing and everything else is also not workable) using the 30% of your income on housing guideline, that would allow a rent of $799 per month.

No one here is arguing that we design a home/unit for someone on $233 or $800/month. I can’t speak for others as to what they want, but what I want is to ensure that small-scale densification is financially viable for developers, so that the number of homes available will increase over time, with plenty of options that aren’t the extremes of high-rise or SFH. For people on that low of an income we will need to build deeply affordable housing and, yes, increase ODSB. I have always been in support of both those positions.

The problem w/housing is not minimum standards, the problem is low incomes. (along with investors in the housing market, short-term rentals, TFWs and international students)

Those are part of the problems, sure. But I think we can also look at what makes housing more expensive to build in Canada and attack that where reasonable.

 

[Northern Light]

No one is arguing for the removal of all elevators, or for the removal of all fire suppression or egress requirements. What I - and others - in this thread are asking is to carefully consider and balance the tradeoffs.

With great respect, I think we'll need to wind this exchange down, as I'm find your posts on this problematic, as in you're not reading what I'm writing and instead repeating talking points, and I'm rather irritated.

As for elevators, I think the reasoning is on even shakier ground. The argument I’m hearing is that we need two elevators the moment any building exceeds 4 floors because every ~30 years the elevator will have to be replaced, and there may be also be a failure along the way. To understand whether this proposed mitigation is reasonable, we need to understand how long it takes to replace an elevator and what the MTBF for elevators are. Then, ask if the installation and maintenance cost of adding this elevator is worth that. Also, does adding a second elevator make more sites unviable? Are you ok with losing 10 homes for that second elevator?

So I understand exactly how long it takes to replace an elevator, I just had this done in my building in the last 12 months. The answer was six months for cab replacement, hoist replacement, and shaft rehabilitation.

Second, prior to that replacement, elevators in building were each, on average down 2 - 3x per year, for 1-3 days per occurrence.

That's about 7 days per year of no elevator service, every year, for many years. Outages have been longer in the past as well.

This also doesn't factor for an elevator being on service due to move-ins.

At any rate, to have an informed conversation about whether these changes should be considered or not we need to have an understanding of the trafeoffs. For example: if 2nd stairs were dropped, how many more houses would be built? If 2 elevators were required, how many sites would not be densified, or densified less? With some modeling we could decide what goals we want to prioritize.

While I agree we need to weigh trade-offs, there are trade-offs we do not need to weigh. We are not removing indoor plumbing to save money. We are not removing fire alarms to save money. and We should not trap people in or out of their units for days, weeks or months so we can build housing a bit cheaper. Its not a reasonable trade, at all, ever.

We can exclude people from some units entirely by doing 3-storey walk-ups, that's a trade, but one in which those w/mobility needs are not resident in a non-accessible structure.

But once you invite people to be in a structure, you must maintain that accessibility.

My goal is the number of homes, as opposed to requiring that every home in a development be accessible. (Again, I am in favor of requiring that at least one - if not two - floors of units should be fully accessible on new builds). But I understand that may not be where we land as a society.

My goal it to house everyone, in dignified, safe housing, and not to consider placing them at undue risk to hit a target.

I'm also not suggesting we make every SFH accessible or even a 3-storey walk-up, I'm suggesting that once you invite people to rely on an elevator, you can't deprive them of the elevator.