Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Accessible housing issues
#16
(06-03-2021, 10:32 AM)jeffster Wrote: As for the 3 story plus basement: basement is usually were laundry facilities are located, plus storage. Either way, from floor 3 to basement, it's 3 flights.

Right, but if that’s not the case, then your entire justification goes out the window. A lot of zoning rules are like this — “people don’t want to live next to stores” turns into “you may not live next to a store”.

Are new buildings still being built with basement laundry? Laundry appliances are cheap enough I’d probably dispense with the dedicated room and give everybody a stacked washer/dryer in their bathroom. Total laundry room area = 1m² per apartment. Certainly cheaper than putting in an elevator just so people can conveniently get to the inconveniently located laundry room.
Reply


#17
The AODA (among other recent legislative changes) has made important steps towards removing the segregation of disabled people in our community.
With respect to accessible parking spots, they are generally larger than regular parking spot for ease of loading and may also be near a ramp to a sidewalk.

With respect to not having all new buildings with elevators, we are confining the physically disabled to ground floor interactions. They will be unable to visit friends or relatives on other floors. This also includes those with declining mobility. With the growing trend towards encouraging aging-in-place, forcing someone to move simply because their building is not accessible goes against that practice. If someone has been living in second, third or fourth story of a small apartment building for a number of years (or decades), forcing them to move if they now need a walker or wheelchair puts undue hardship on them.

PS. Likely related to this current diversion, the ad showing on this page is for Home Stairlifts of Woodbridge, ON. "June is Seniors Month...All New Straight Stairlifts $3100"
Reply
#18
(06-03-2021, 11:10 PM)nms Wrote: The AODA (among other recent legislative changes) has made important steps towards removing the segregation of disabled people in our community.
With respect to accessible parking spots, they are generally larger than regular parking spot for ease of loading and may also be near a ramp to a sidewalk.

With respect to not having all new buildings with elevators, we are confining the physically disabled to ground floor interactions.  They will be unable to visit friends or relatives on other floors.  This also includes those with declining mobility.  With the growing trend towards encouraging aging-in-place, forcing someone to move simply because their building is not accessible goes against that practice.  If someone has been living in second, third or fourth story of a small apartment building for a number of years (or decades), forcing them to move if they now need a walker or wheelchair puts undue hardship on them.

PS. Likely related to this current diversion, the ad showing on this page is for Home Stairlifts of Woodbridge, ON. "June is Seniors Month...All New Straight Stairlifts $3100"

That’s nice and all, but small apartment buildings with 2 apartments on each floor are an important middle ground between detached homes and larger apartment buildings. What’s better, an empty lot or an 4-story, 8-unit cheap apartment with no elevator?

I agree it would be weird to build a large building with a dozen or more apartments on each floor and not include an elevator, but to make smaller affordable buildings illegal is unreasonable. In a time when affordable housing is in short supply, we need to allow affordable housing to be built, not make some forms of it illegal.

If we took your point to its logical conclusion, we would require every house, including single detached houses, to have an elevator, so that its hypothetical future occupants wouldn’t have to move on account of mobility restrictions. I hope it’s clear that this is entirely infeasible. Actually even that isn’t the ultimate conclusion; we could imagine requiring every house to include nursing home care for when its occupants need it. People need to choose their housing based on their needs and resources; as circumstances change, sometimes they need to move. This is just how things are, not some discrimination imposed by an intolerant human society. The only question is where to draw the line between small buildings that don’t necessarily have elevators and large ones which must.

If you really want to improve accessiblity, require the ground floor of every new dwelling to be accessible from outside (sometimes called “visitable” design). It’s still very common to have 2-6 steps up from the ground to the entrance door. One might initially assume the reason is related to the existing terrain, but when one considers the amount of earthmoving that is done in a new subdivision it becomes clear that the existing terrain is irrelevant; they change the topography to whatever they want.

As to the accessible parking spots, the whole point is that the most accessible spots in a typical townhouse complex are the ones that belong to the individual units, not the designated spots in the visitor section. This is a different context from a large retail store where it makes a lot of sense to reserve spots near the door for people with limited mobility. Different context, different solution.
Reply
#19
(06-04-2021, 09:59 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: If we took your point to its logical conclusion, we would require every house, including single detached houses, to have an elevator

This is a pretty crummy slippery slope you are arguing. Equating a single home dwelling with limited accessibility options to a multi-unit building with limited accessibility options is disingenuous. An apartment building is not a private residence, it is a commercial entity. No one is arguing that all individual units must be accessible, only that access to them must be.
Reply
#20
(06-04-2021, 12:01 PM)robdrimmie Wrote:
(06-04-2021, 09:59 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: If we took your point to its logical conclusion, we would require every house, including single detached houses, to have an elevator

This is a pretty crummy slippery slope you are arguing. Equating a single home dwelling with limited accessibility options to a multi-unit building with limited accessibility options is disingenuous. An apartment building is not a private residence, it is a commercial entity. No one is arguing that all individual units must be accessible, only that access to them must be.

“it is a commercial entity” … whose costs, capital and ongoing, are paid for entirely by its occupants (plus some profit to the owner, without which the building would not have been built and would therefore have no occupants). A building with 6 apartments and an elevator has 6 households sharing the cost of the elevator. I’m pretty sure most people, and especially most people of limited means, can think of plenty of more valuable uses for their money than buying and maintaining 1/6 of an elevator.

I already admitted that a larger building (not going to say a specific exact size, but definitely including anything with a dozen apartments per floor) should have an elevator. The only question is how small you take it. Anyway, a rental townhouse development is “a commercial entity”. Does that mean the townhouses should have elevators? Or more precisely, does that mean the occupants of the townhouses should be required to pay for elevators? Should basement apartments be illegal if they don’t have level entry?

It’s easy to say everybody should have stuff; it’s a lot harder to actually provide housing for people, especially when there are all sorts of people adding on requirements without which the project may not proceed.
Reply
#21
(06-04-2021, 12:49 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: The only question is how small you take it. Anyway, a rental townhouse development is “a commercial entity”.

I take it very small. I am of the opinion that entry to all property owned for the purposes of profit should be accessible.

(06-04-2021, 12:49 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Does that mean the townhouses should have elevators? Or more precisely, does that mean the occupants of the townhouses should be required to pay for elevators?

My post was quite small, and I explicitly said: "No one is arguing that all individual units must be accessible, only that access to them must be."

(06-04-2021, 12:49 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Should basement apartments be illegal if they don’t have level entry?

Not if there is an accessible way to access that entry.
Reply
#22
I'm curious, ljmorlan. Do you feel that building codes are also too much of a burden to put on property owners? Where does your line get drawn. It's a lot cheaper to build a lot of homes if it doesn't matter how they're built. But despite increased regulations about how buildings are built somehow landlords are still doing a pretty good job making money.
Reply


#23
Looks like we are going a bit off topic here. I will say that I think for the most part I agree with most of the AODA. It is important to provide equal accessibility to commercial properties, event spaces, transit, sidewalks and city facilities. I do think their is reasonable argument to be made that this it has made providing/ building housing more expensive and less small players are likely to enter the market. I am not sure what can be done about it though. Seems like everything continuously has more and more red tape and regulations. Gone are the days of small walk ups apartment buildings being built. 

 https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4579781,-...8192?hl=en

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4530619,-...8192?hl=en

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4541157,-...6656?hl=en
Reply
#24
(06-04-2021, 01:24 PM)robdrimmie Wrote: I'm curious, ljmorlan. Do you feel that building codes are also too much of a burden to put on property owners? Where does your line get drawn. It's a lot cheaper to build a lot of homes if it doesn't matter how they're built. But despite increased regulations about how buildings are built somehow landlords are still doing a pretty good job making money.

Your framing is wrong, especially as to lower-income housing. First, it’s not really property owners who have to comply with building codes, but construction organizations; property owners just have to make sure they contract with professional organizations who understand the codes. The question is not whether they are too much of a burden to put on construction organizations or property owners, but whether they are too much of a burden to put on occupants. Remember, it is the occupants who actually pay for the building.

Getting back to the question, which is still a good one. Some are too much of a burden, most aren’t. For example, requiring sufficient fire exits, safe electrical and plumbing, and indoor toilets are clearly not too much.

How to decide which is which? It’s a combination of several factors, all of which can be legitimately argued in many cases.

One factor is cost. How much money can be saved by skipping the requirement? In an old building, retrofitting fire exits and modern electrical can be expensive, but in new construction it’s hard to see how any significant money can be saved by skimping out on these things.

Another factor is visibility. In theory, a person can decide to save some money now with the increased risk that they might die of smoke inhalation in a fire, or that a fire might be more likely due to poor electrical work; but in practice nobody has the ability to check on and make informed choices about these. It makes way more sense (it’s even, in a strictly economic sense, way more efficient) to set some minimum requirements that occupants are entitled to assume are present in all accommodation.

Another is whether the regulations are preventing good things from happening. This isn’t so much a per-regulation matter as a question of total regulatory burden.

I don’t claim that these are the only factors. In any case, they apply to most regulation in one way or another.

Getting back to elevators and just looking at the above factors, commercial elevators are very expensive, and it’s immediately obvious on visiting the building whether it has an elevator. So people are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves whether they want to rent in the building with no elevator or the possibly more expensive building with an elevator. And if regulations are preventing single houses from being replaced by 6- or 8-apartment small buildings, then the regulations are definitely preventing good things from happening.

As to accessibility, not everybody needs accessible accommodation, any more than everybody needs a pool (note: a frivolity for most; but a necessity for some) or a barbecue. Requiring any of these things increases the cost of housing and reduces quantity traded. More people can be helped by supplying a variety of accommodation.
Reply
#25
(06-04-2021, 01:18 PM)robdrimmie Wrote:
(06-04-2021, 12:49 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: The only question is how small you take it. Anyway, a rental townhouse development is “a commercial entity”.

I take it very small. I am of the opinion that entry to all property owned for the purposes of profit should be accessible.

(06-04-2021, 12:49 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Does that mean the townhouses should have elevators? Or more precisely, does that mean the occupants of the townhouses should be required to pay for elevators?

My post was quite small, and I explicitly said: "No one is arguing that all individual units must be accessible, only that access to them must be."

(06-04-2021, 12:49 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Should basement apartments be illegal if they don’t have level entry?

Not if there is an accessible way to access that entry.

What does profit have to do with it? Why is it OK to build a townhouse complex for sale as a condo with inaccessible entrances but not one to be rented out?

What about a duplex? One unit up, one unit down. Elevator?

What I mean by a basement apartment not having level entry is that the entry cannot be reached accessibly. Anyway, why is the reaching the entry so important, in itself? If the apartment itself isn’t accessible it doesn’t do anybody much good. Doesn’t make sense to allow a step immediately inside the door but not immediately outside the door.
Reply
#26
(06-05-2021, 08:58 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: What does profit have to do with it? Why is it OK to build a townhouse complex for sale as a condo with inaccessible entrances but not one to be rented out?

What about a duplex? One unit up, one unit down. Elevator?

What I mean by a basement apartment not having level entry is that the entry cannot be reached accessibly. Anyway, why is the reaching the entry so important, in itself? If the apartment itself isn’t accessible it doesn’t do anybody much good. Doesn’t make sense to allow a step immediately inside the door but not immediately outside the door.

Profit matters because I subscribe to the notion that landlords are a fundamental cause of housing supply issues. I don't believe it is just to profit off of land or property ownership. Condos typically imply collective ownership. Any revenue a board earns is intended to be returned to the property itself. There are still flaws with collective ownership, it's not a panacea but it's a model I prefer.

If those duplex units are to be rented then yes, elevator.

Entry matters because I don't believe there's a way to make a home that is accessible in a universal fashion. Different disabilities require different accommodations. It probably isn't possible in practice to achieve universal access to entry either, but it's a target.

I am not going to respond to your other post. Equating accessibility to having a barbecue is deeply off-putting to me, and I don't think there's any value in us having that conversation.
Reply
#27
(06-05-2021, 12:48 PM)robdrimmie Wrote:
(06-05-2021, 08:58 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: What does profit have to do with it? Why is it OK to build a townhouse complex for sale as a condo with inaccessible entrances but not one to be rented out?

What about a duplex? One unit up, one unit down. Elevator?

What I mean by a basement apartment not having level entry is that the entry cannot be reached accessibly. Anyway, why is the reaching the entry so important, in itself? If the apartment itself isn’t accessible it doesn’t do anybody much good. Doesn’t make sense to allow a step immediately inside the door but not immediately outside the door.

Profit matters because I subscribe to the notion that landlords are a fundamental cause of housing supply issues. I don't believe it is just to profit off of land or property ownership. Condos typically imply collective ownership. Any revenue a board earns is intended to be returned to the property itself. There are still flaws with collective ownership, it's not a panacea but it's a model I prefer.

If those duplex units are to be rented then yes, elevator.

Entry matters because I don't believe there's a way to make a home that is accessible in a universal fashion. Different disabilities require different accommodations. It probably isn't possible in practice to achieve universal access to entry either, but it's a target.

I am not going to respond to your other post. Equating accessibility to having a barbecue is deeply off-putting to me, and I don't think there's any value in us having that conversation.

How do landlords cause housing supply issues? Until condominiums were invented you couldn’t even have a large building without a landlord of some sort. There are entire countries where it’s perfectly normal for people of most income levels to live in rental accommodation; some of these are significantly more socialist than Canada, and yet they still haven’t outlawed rentals. Anyway the point is you seem to think people buying condos are capable of deciding whether they need an elevator but people looking to rent aren’t capable of making this decision.

Congratulations, you just made duplexes significantly less affordable.

As to barbecue vs. accessibility, yes of course accessibility is a necessity for some people whereas a barbecue is not, and I think I’ve written enough here to be entitled to expect that people understand that I’m not somebody who thinks everybody should sink or swim regardless of ability or resources. My point is that I actually believe people are capable of making choices for themselves and can trade off different features of a property. It makes zero sense for us all, as a society, to spend a huge amount of money for elevators in small buildings when most people don’t even need them. As long as we have accessibility rules that ensure that a substantial fraction of properties are accessible, then there will be no problem with access for those who need it.

Changing circumstances have been mentioned. Guess what, when people have kids or when their kids grow up or when they get or lose a better paying job they might also have to or want to move. That’s simply not a problem that is reasonable to solve by making it illegal to build a triplex without an elevator.

Also you might want to think more about the actual consequences of what you’re suggesting. So it’s OK to build an owner-occupied duplex without an elevator, but if it is to be rented it needs an elevator? Great! I can duplex my house to provide a living space for one of my kids as they grow up; but now when they move out it becomes illegal for me to rent out the perfectly good unit in which they were living because there is no elevator. This is the sort of rule that brings the whole notion of government into disrepute.

One thing that is for sure, we’re never going to house everybody if we insist on everybody having expensive accommodation.

General rule: believing “rich people bad” is not a good framing for fixing any problems.
Reply
#28
There are various solutions to make existing private homes accessible (see my wry comment about stair glides). The reality is that while the majority of single family homes,  townhomes or small apartments are not accessible when they are first constructed, they can be retrofitted after the fact to accommodate the needs.  This ranges from extra handrails in bathrooms up to and including ramps or lifts inside and outside of buildings.  Private or community personal support worker or nursing care is also available to provide care at home as necessary.  When then person in need no longer needs those devices or services, the home can be returned to a less accessible state.

The question is whether new builds should be required to provide homes that are accessible or easily retrofitted from the start.  My answer is still yes.  In your duplex scenario with one up, one down, the ground floor unit can be made accessible through proper grading.  That project is now 50% accessible.


Just as the pandemic was declared last year, a third review of the AODA recommended improvements to the act with a specific eye to residential construction. (see below) I'm not sure, with everything pivoting to Covid response, whether any of these recommendations are being considered.


Quote:Incentives for Housing Accessibility

During the public meetings the Hon. David Onley held while preparing his review, attendees outline barriers they have encountered in inaccessible housing. For instance, some common barriers in houses and apartments are:
  • Steps without ramps, elevators, or lifts

  • Lack of automatic or push-button doors at apartment-building entrances

  • Narrow entrances, doorways, or hallways

  • No accessible Parking in apartment buildings or condominiums

  • Bathrooms without room for people in wheelchairs to turn around

  • Counters, cabinets, and other fixtures too high for people to access from their wheelchairs
For example, people sometimes live in houses where bathrooms are too small for their wheelchairs. As a result, they cannot use the bathrooms in their own homes independently. Furthermore, many people must live in these conditions for ten years or more, because of the accessible housing shortage. Although new houses and apartments are built every year, few of them are accessible. In addition, when houses are built accessibly, they are not always affordable. Therefore, Onley’s review recommends rules and incentives for housing accessibility.

Rules for Accessibility in New Housing
Onley’s review recommends that the barrier-free requirements of the Ontario Building Code should apply to living spaces. Moreover, review attendees suggest that a certain percentage of new living spaces should be accessible. For instance, in a new apartment building, a certain percentage of the apartments should be barrier-free. Likewise, a certain percentage of the houses in a subdivision should also be built without barriers. These requirements would ensure that people with accessibility needs have places to live that meet those needs. In addition, attendees suggest that living spaces should be built in ways that allow accessible features to be easily added later. For example, someone who gains a disability as they age may need an elevator in their home.
Furthermore, the review recommends tax deductions for the sale or land transfer of buildings or subdivisions offering accessible housing. These deductions will encourage developers to include accessible living spaces in new apartment buildings or subdivisions.

Incentives for Retrofitting Existing Housing
To meet the need of retrofitting existing houses for accessibility, Onley’s review recommends grants and tax incentives. For instance, the review mentions that twenty years ago, the government offered grants for people to add accessible features to their homes. This grant program allowed people to buy inaccessible houses and make the changes needed to live in them independently. Furthermore, older adults who gained disabilities could make their houses accessible and remain living in their homes. Therefore, the review recommends that the government should offer this home renovation program again. In addition, owners of rental properties should have access to similar funding to make their properties accessible to tenants with disabilities.
Reply


#29
(06-06-2021, 12:01 AM)nms Wrote: The question is whether new builds should be required to provide homes that are accessible or easily retrofitted from the start.  My answer is still yes.  In your duplex scenario with one up, one down, the ground floor unit can be made accessible through proper grading.  That project is now 50% accessible.

Exactly. This is entirely reasonable. I’m sure some builders would protest “but local topography!” or whatever but given how much earth moving happens it’s hard to believe it’s really insurmountable to arrange for one floor to be accessible.

Even triplexes would be 1/3 accessible under this approach.

Another example: I once helped someone move into a 3-story apartment building with no elevator. Fortunately, they were moving into the ground floor; and in fact we lifted most of the stuff over the balcony railing and didn’t even take it through the corridors at all. OK, so it has no elevator. But the main floor is accessible, right? Wrong! 2 steps from the sidewalk to the door, another 3 I think inside. Completely stupid, and obviously built by people who weren’t even pretending to think about accessibility. This particular apartment building is big enough that I find it hard to believe an elevator would add that much to the overall cost, but I feel absolutely confident saying the main floor, and therefore 1/3 of the units, should have been built accessible; even a retrofit would not be a big deal.

I would say that if 1/3 of rental apartments in small buildings are accessible and all of them in larger buildings, that should be a big enough base that people with mobility issues should be able to find suitable accommodation. They wouldn’t be relegated to the small fraction of apartments that just happen to be accessible; but at the same time the vast bulk of lower-income people who do not need elevators would not be forced to pay for them.

Right now I think the biggest barrier is zoning rules and, in Waterloo, the rental housing licensing regime. Even to rent out a basement in an otherwise owner-occupied building, there is a bunch of pointless paperwork required.
Reply
#30
(06-05-2021, 11:43 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: How do landlords cause housing supply issues?

Why don't you try just typing that into Google? Oh right, because you pretty clearly don't actually care about what I'm saying. Which is cool by me.

(06-05-2021, 11:43 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: I think I’ve written enough here to be entitled to expect that people understand that I’m not somebody who thinks everybody should sink or swim regardless of ability or resources.

I said that I didn't think a conversation with you on the matter would be of value to me. I said your comments were off-putting to me. I said nothing about you.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links