Zoning Reform Ideas

[Northern Light]

I find the elevator question fascinating. Maybe it really is true that the cost of one or two elevators is negligible compared to typical midrise construction costs. But I wonder how the math would pencil out for a hypothetical 4-6 storey, 25-50ft wide (i.e. one or two Old Toronto single family house lots), five- to twenty-unit (i.e. roughly between one and three units per floor) building. Would the cost of an elevator be prohibitive?

A single elevator takes up far less space than a single stairwell. There has been much discussion of 2 stairwells vs 1.

But yes, an elevator is a more impactful cost the fewer units you have to spread the cost over, and 2 elevators that much moreso.

The challenge I find is not merely one of insufficient empathy among some for accessibility challenges, or the failure to understand that these don't merely arise with people who already use a mobility aid and are look for housing, but rather also impact tenants/residents who moved into their units able-bodied and have lost that, either temporarily or permanently. Equally true for guests. In the story I related above, I didn't merely have to evacuate my mother from her unit, but get her up to mine in a different building.

People tend to overlook these issues and their seriousness. In that scenario, where does the party being evacuated go if the housing of their family is also inaccessible?

I think those of us who believe in looser rules around things like elevators like to imagine that in a more permissive zoning/building environment large swaths of the city would transition from being dominated by (inaccessible) single family homes to small (slightly more accessible) multi-family buildings. Something like what we might have had if Toronto had been built as a city of small apartment buildings to begin with. Much of Upper Manhattan comes to mind. True, these buildings would be less accessible than those with elevators, but they would be no less accessible than the status quo.

I don't agree with this. If one measured relatively accessibility by the percentage of accessible units, building more inaccessible units lowers that percentage. Yet, the percentage of people requiring elevators doesn't decline at all.

Additionally, we should hold new builds to a higher standard that we did buildings of decades or centuries ago. Not just on accessibility, but on air conditioning so people don't die in heatwaves, and on resistance to fire, so people are less likely to die in one of those, and so on and so on.

Yes, Manhattan has lots of lovely looking buildings that provide density, but lack accessibility.....and many other modern amenities.........but which also have failed to make Manhattan affordable.

Different policy solutions than lowest common denominator construction are required.

****

To be clear, I don't see a value in imposing the toughest conditions on the smallest housing; but I see little value in reducing accessibility standards on new builds, of housing that is one or two tiers above that.

 

[afransen]

I am perhaps baffled that it is okay that people with temporary or sudden mobility issues live on inaccessible SFH/3 story townhouses but unacceptable that the same people may live on the 3rd floor of a building with a single elevator.

 

[Northern Light]

I am perhaps baffled that it is okay that people with temporary or sudden mobility issues live on inaccessible SFH/3 story townhouses but unacceptable that the same people may live on the 3rd floor of a building with a single elevator.

Single family homes that are owned, can be made accessible by the owner/occupant, this is not true of a tenant on the third floor of a building.

Single family homes that aren't fully accessible can be sold by the owner or remortgaged to finance renovations, this is not something a tenant in multi-res can do.

By and large the ground floor of an SFH is or can be made accessible. This level typically contains living space, a kitchen and a bathroom. The lobby of a multi-storey building features no private living space, no kitchen and no bathroom available to a tenant who cannot access their space due to an out of service elevator.

The cost imposition of maximum accessibility for a single unit, is far different than that for a 10 unit + building.

I don't see why you're bafflled.

 

[afransen]

Single family homes that are owned, can be made accessible by the owner/occupant, this is not true of a tenant on the third floor of a building.

Single family homes that aren't fully accessible can be sold by the owner or remortgaged to finance renovations, this is not something a tenant in multi-res can do.

By and large the ground floor of an SFH is or can be made accessible. This level typically contains living space, a kitchen and a bathroom. The lobby of a multi-storey building features no private living space, no kitchen and no bathroom available to a tenant who cannot access their space due to an out of service elevator.

The cost imposition of maximum accessibility for a single unit, is far different than that for a 10 unit + building.

I don't see why you're bafflled.

I live in a townhouse. The ground floor has neither bathroom nor kitchen.

 

[Northern Light]

I live in a townhouse. The ground floor has neither bathroom nor kitchen.

If it were not a stacked townhouse, i would argue against permitting that design on a go-forward basis, existing buildings are always a separate matter.

That said, at least you have a private space where you could sit/lie down, more than can be said for someone trapped in a building lobby. But I would agree, inadequate.

I would add, if you are the owner, and its freehold, you are free to renovate your space to include those features.

 

[yowhatthefrick]

This is probably the most reactionary Ive seen your takes as a lurker, There can be purpose built accessible housing at the same time too, just like there are retirement purpose built housing. 2 things can coexist at the same time, a quick google search states that 1/5 people are disabled and that can easily be accommodated, you can still have single staircase apartments and also have "creative" policy to allocate the first and second floor for disabled people. Id imagine single stair case homes overall is a net positive for Toronto

 

[Northern Light]

This is probably the most reactionary Ive seen your takes as a lurker, There can be purpose built accessible housing at the same time too, just like there are retirement purpose built housing. 2 things can coexist at the same time, a quick google search states that 1/5 people are disabled and that can easily be accommodated, you can still have single staircase apartments and also have "creative" policy to allocate the first and second floor for disabled people. Id imagine single stair case homes overall is a net positive for Toronto

I don't view my take here as reactionary at all. Let me introduce you to David Lepofsky, now that's a reactionary on these issues. I'm far more moderate.

If you read what I wrote about having to help my mother above, I don't think you would feel my take was reactionary, and I would hope you would feel some empathy.

Without doxxing anyone, I will say another UT member is dealing with a similar'ish situation right now, and has expressed privately that they now understand why I'm so adamant on this; and how terribly challenging such situations can be.

I think for those of you who have yet to experience this in your lives, its just something you can't quite get.

You're inclined to think, well that person can just move.............no they can't, they can't do it themselves, they may lack the money, and besides, it takes weeks or months to find a new place and someone needs to survive in the interim.

Having been through what I have, I'm just not prepared to water down standards on accessibility in multi-res over 3 storeys. The me, the comprise has already been made in leaving those sub-4 storey units inaccessible, there's no utility in compounding the problem leading to more suffering.

 

[yowhatthefrick]

I don't view my take here as reactionary at all. Let me introduce you to David Lepofsky, now that's a reactionary on these issues. I'm far more moderate.

If you read what I wrote about having to help my mother above, I don't think you would feel my take was reactionary, and I would hope you would feel some empathy.

Without doxxing anyone, I will say another UT member is dealing with a similar'ish situation right now, and has expressed privately that they now understand why I'm so adamant on this; and how terribly challenging such situations can be.

I think for those of you who have yet to experience this in your lives, its just something you can't quite get.

You're inclined to think, well that person can just move.............no they can't, they can't do it themselves, they may lack the money, and besides, it takes weeks or months to find a new place and someone needs to survive in the interim.

Having been through what I have, I'm just not prepared to water down standards on accessibility in multi-res over 3 storeys. The me, the comprise has already been made in leaving those sub-4 storey units inaccessible, there's no utility in compounding the problem leading to more suffering.

Your position makes sense - after all we are a product of our material conditions, but I think I would be rather open minded on actual progressive housing policies and direct my frustrations on pointing out governments failures on ableist housing policies when they in fact could have accommodated your family situation, my family and thousands of homeless people out here.

I probably dont have an idea or an ounce of experience taking care of disabled people, and no I dont think "getting up and moving" is right either, I think people deserve to live a dignified life in a respectable home. I obviously think this is more nuanced than yes/no single stair case home - elevators or not, even if you built thousands of accessibility purpose built units, no landlord or middleman would want to upkeep those costs in the name of capital gains (see literally any condo with an elevator outtage).

I also dont want to compare struggles and I welcome you to see a perspective of an immigrant whose coming over for a better life living in a bedroom with 5 random people in it because thats the only thing they can afford. Opening up more housing options would alleviate that i would imagine

 

[picard102]

Wild that advocating for accessible buildings is "reactionary".

 

[afransen]

Wild that advocating for accessible buildings is "reactionary".

It's more complex. Advocating to traditional double loaded large scale buildings concentrated outside the yellow belt as the only valid form of midrise might result in reduced supply, including of accessible units.

 

[yowhatthefrick]

Wild that advocating for accessible buildings is "reactionary".

Advocating for accessible buildings and dismissing actual good progressive policies is different, Nice try though

 

[picard102]

It's neither good nor progressive to sell out accessibility, to the illusion of more housing. Nice try though.

 

[Northern Light]

Advocating for accessible buildings and dismissing actual good progressive policies is different, Nice try though

One of things established to me in talking to people in the industry is that when you remove the second staircase the fire rating must rise to protect the remaining one and only and access to same, and this wipes out much of the cost savings superficially achieved by removing the second set of stairs.

That in the real world, new builds w/one staircase are not showing lower ownership or rental costs in market than 2 staircase buildings.

I think you'd find many of the same issues at play when you cut out an elevator, the difference, at the margins gets absorbed in a host of different ways.

This really isn't the key to affordable housing and those championing it rely on gut instinct instead of hard numbers as to whether this produces cheaper housing.

 

[yowhatthefrick]

It's neither good nor progressive to sell out accessibility, to the illusion of more housing. Nice try though.

Not sure where I said or implied to sell out accessibility

One of things established to me in talking to people in the industry is that when you remove the second staircase the fire rating must rise to protect the remaining one and only and access to same, and this wipes out much of the cost savings superficially achieved by removing the second set of stairs.

Thats a good point, however isnt the whole point of single access stair buildings to allow for different amenities to be built with the space saved.

That in the real world, new builds w/one staircase are not showing lower ownership or rental costs in market than 2 staircase buildings.

I think you'd find many of the same issues at play when you cut out an elevator, the difference, at the margins gets absorbed in a host of different ways.

Thats an entirely different issue and would be along the lines of people not thinking of housing as a right and more of an investment

 

[afransen]

One of things established to me in talking to people in the industry is that when you remove the second staircase the fire rating must rise to protect the remaining one and only and access to same, and this wipes out much of the cost savings superficially achieved by removing the second set of stairs.

That in the real world, new builds w/one staircase are not showing lower ownership or rental costs in market than 2 staircase buildings.

I think you'd find many of the same issues at play when you cut out an elevator, the difference, at the margins gets absorbed in a host of different ways.

This really isn't the key to affordable housing and those championing it rely on gut instinct instead of hard numbers as to whether this produces cheaper housing.

Shouldn't this form not exist elsewhere then, particularly in new builds? Yet they seem to get developed.

Might be a bit of "Not Invented Hereism" among local industry.