Accessible housing issues

[Bytor]

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.

That's quite the tone-deaf statement right there, trying to compare accessibility to a barbecue or pool. Accessibility is a "must", whereas barbecues and pools are "wants"

[danbrotherston]

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.

That's quite the tone-deaf statement right there, trying to compare accessibility to a barbecue or pool. Accessibility is a "must", whereas barbecues and pools are "wants"

I usually agree with ijmorlan, but while his statement might not be entirely untrue, I really have to suggest that it is at best an oversimplification.

Many accomodations for accessibility help everyone at least some of the time. Curb cuts, accessible doors, elevators, useful to people with strollers, or moving stuff in and out of a home, or even just with a grocery trundle buggy.

While yes, some people are more able to deal with not having those accommodations, they are still beneficial. I am going to agree that requiring every single apartment to have an elevator is perhaps too great a cost to pay to achieve that benefit, we should be honest about what the trade off is.

And frankly, I don't think cost of elevators is the main obstacle here.

[ijmorlan]

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.

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.

Well it’s off-putting to me for people to just blithely assume that it won’t do anything bad to affordability to demand that duplexes have elevators in them, so I guess we’re even. I’m actually very reasonable, but I expect people to actually think critically about things and to debate based on actual facts and evidence. In this specific case I think you owe us all an explanation of how you could require elevators in duplexes without reducing affordability. And just to be clear “the landlords will pay for it” is not a plan.

Just as nobody should be in planning unless they have fully internalized the fact that the best parts of our cities were built before planning, nobody should be proposing regulations unless they understand that regulating X to require Y might not result in Y: instead X might go away. This doesn’t mean that all or even most regulations are bad, but it’s a possibility that has to be considered.

[ijmorlan]

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.

That's quite the tone-deaf statement right there, trying to compare accessibility to a barbecue or pool. Accessibility is a "must", whereas barbecues and pools are "wants"

I re-iterate my reply to this point from before:

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.

[ijmorlan]

I usually agree with ijmorlan, but while his statement might not be entirely untrue, I really have to suggest that it is at best an oversimplification.

Many accomodations for accessibility help everyone at least some of the time. Curb cuts, accessible doors, elevators, useful to people with strollers, or moving stuff in and out of a home, or even just with a grocery trundle buggy.

While yes, some people are more able to deal with not having those accommodations, they are still beneficial. I am going to agree that requiring every single apartment to have an elevator is perhaps too great a cost to pay to achieve that benefit, we should be honest about what the trade off is.

And frankly, I don't think cost of elevators is the main obstacle here.

This is why I totally agree with most accessibility requirements. It really annoys me, for example, to see single steps places that could have been eliminated by just being a bit more careful with the grading. Also I get uncomfortable when I see construction which technically follows the rules but could have been so much better with a bit more care. I’m looking at you UW E5 western entrance!

I’m pretty sure I already said that I agree that larger apartment buildings, even lowrises with only 2-3 floors, should have elevators. The question is whether it makes sense for smaller buildings, perhaps no larger than 2 apartments per floor (although the exact cutoff is legitimately a matter for debate, primarily on economic grounds), should also be required to have the same. I’m quite confident the answer is no; and nobody has attempted to prove otherwise, just cast aspersions on my care for those members of the community who require accessible accommodation.

It might be different if everybody were wealthy; but since we have both non-wealthy people and people who require accessibility, we need to make sure we include both groups (among others) in our thinking.

[robdrimmie]

Well it’s off-putting to me for people to just blithely assume that it won’t do anything bad to affordability to demand that duplexes have elevators in them, so I guess we’re even.

Please show me where I said affordability would not be impacted? I implied the exact opposite when I asked about your position on building codes. You are not reading my words, and as a result you are responding to arguments I'm not making and getting upset about things I am not saying.

[Bytor]

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.

Except I didn't say that we should have elevators in duplexes, or anything like that.

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.

In general, I would agree, however, your comparison of accessibility to a pool is still tone-deaf. People who need accessibility are not equivalent to people who want a pool. By making that comparison as you did, you strongly implied that accessibility is something frivolous, like a pool, and that disabled people are not worthy of consideration because of that frivolity rather than needing to "ensure that a substantial fraction of properties are accessible".

Even if you didn't mean to make that implication, that is how you came across, and that dismissive and forgetful attitude is frankly why we as a society are so crappy at making things accessible and why disabled people are rarely included in the planning process to spot the problems beforehand.

You need to do better.

[ijmorlan]

Well it’s off-putting to me for people to just blithely assume that it won’t do anything bad to affordability to demand that duplexes have elevators in them, so I guess we’re even.

Please show me where I said affordability would not be impacted? I implied the exact opposite when I asked about your position on building codes. You are not reading my words, and as a result you are responding to arguments I'm not making and getting upset about things I am not saying.

It’s entirely possible I am just confused about what you think. I got the impression that you thought duplexes should be required to have elevators, and I’m saying that’s obviously bad enough for affordability that it’s obviously a bad idea to require that.

But if you don’t think that then we probably agree, since I think that building accessibility should be improved and that most of our existing accessibility rules make sense.

Edit: You said “If those duplex units are to be rented then yes, elevator.” I just don’t see how this is compatible with being concerned about affordability. If not enough units get built because it is illegal to build affordable units then that doesn’t help anybody.

[ijmorlan]

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.

Except I didn't say that we should have elevators in duplexes, or anything like that.

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.

In general, I would agree, however, your comparison of accessibility to a pool is still tone-deaf. People who need accessibility are not equivalent to people who want a pool. By making that comparison as you did, you strongly implied that accessibility is something frivolous, like a pool, and that disabled people are not worthy of consideration because of that frivolity rather than needing to "ensure that a substantial fraction of properties are accessible".

Even if you didn't mean to make that implication, that is how you came across, and that dismissive and forgetful attitude is frankly why we as a society are so crappy at making things accessible and why disabled people are rarely included in the planning process to spot the problems beforehand.

You need to do better.

Interesting. What I actually said is “any more than everybody needs a pool (note: a frivolity for most; but a necessity for some)”. In other words, I mentioned explicitly that it is usually a frivolity right there in the same sentence, yet you latched on to the pool, not the barbecue that I mentioned in the next clause without saying anything about the fact that barbecues are not necessities.

So what I take away from this is a reminder that even if one is careful to explain the main point, people will still sometimes latch onto a detail and become unable to see the overall thrust of the paragraph. I’m not saying my paragraph couldn’t be improved, but I really think that anybody should be able to read this thread and understand that I am not uncaring when it comes to accessibility; but I am also not unthinkingly devoted to an ideal, unmoored from other considerations.

[robdrimmie]

Edit: You said “If those duplex units are to be rented then yes, elevator.” I just don’t see how this is compatible with being concerned about affordability. If not enough units get built because it is illegal to build affordable units then that doesn’t help anybody.

One of my core principles is that accessibility is a right. That's fundamentally in opposition to the compromises you are willing to make in service of affordability, which I do agree is also a right. I respect that there's compromises that would have to be made to fulfill my goal but it's also not some discrete change to make to the world, it goes part in parcel with the changes to society that mostly I think we agree about.

What's the actual percentage of affordable *rental* housing that makes up the difference between the relatively small 3 or 4 story type buildings we agree about, and these sorts of small units about which we disagree? Yes, it would limit the types of affordable housing that is available, not everyone would be able to buy that sort of property. That's a compromise I'm okay making for accessibility. I understand if that is off-putting to you.

Lots more types of affordable dwellings should still be built, it's not as though there is only one format possible. Yes, it means that people who cannot afford to purchase these smaller units would be priced out of that market. They are also priced out of mansions, penthouses in condos, single dwelling homes anywhere in Southern Ontario, and numerous other forms of housing that can't be made affordable.

You've decided to create some kind of zero sum game between affordable and accessible housing. Along the way you've filled your posts with invective and personal attacks. 100% accessible entry for rental units does not equate to elimination of all affordable housing.

[ijmorlan]

Edit: You said “If those duplex units are to be rented then yes, elevator.” I just don’t see how this is compatible with being concerned about affordability. If not enough units get built because it is illegal to build affordable units then that doesn’t help anybody.

One of my core principles is that accessibility is a right. That's fundamentally in opposition to the compromises you are willing to make in service of affordability, which I do agree is also a right. I respect that there's compromises that would have to be made to fulfill my goal but it's also not some discrete change to make to the world, it goes part in parcel with the changes to society that mostly I think we agree about.

Just because it’s a right doesn’t mean it’s a right to have every single dwelling unit have it. I think I have the right to eat at restaurants without worrying about my allergies, but that doesn’t mean Thai cuisine is not allowed to exist.

Personally I think in our society it’s reasonable to provide appropriate nursing care as a right; but it would be absurd to require every dwelling unit to have nursing care available on site. Even requiring every large apartment building to require it is probably unreasonable.

Well, in exactly the same way, it’s unreasonable to demand that every apartment in every duplex and triplex be accessible. As long as the (or really “a”) “ground floor” of every new duplex and triplex has accessible entry, and if larger buildings have elevators (and no gratuitous barriers) then we’re doing pretty well.

You've decided to create some kind of zero sum game between affordable and accessible housing. Along the way you've filled your posts with invective and personal attacks. 100% accessible entry for rental units does not equate to elimination of all affordable housing.

I’m not creating the zero sum game. It’s just a fact that if it is illegal to do things like replace detached houses with duplexes, fewer dwelling units will be provided; and if it is unnecessarily expensive to do then that will also result in fewer dwelling units being provided.

This also isn’t just about accessibility vs. affordability. It’s also about unreasonable (and unnecessary) interference with personal decisions. Suppose somebody owns a duplex with one accessible and one inaccessible unit, and lives in the inaccessible unit. If I understand you correctly you think (in effect, even if you haven’t said so) that it should be illegal for them to move from the inaccessible unit to the accessible one and rent out the inaccessible one instead.

Bottom line, what I said before, not every single dwelling unit needs to be accessible. It’s just not needed, not economical, and not reasonable to require by law; and any reasonable advocate for people with accessibility needs will recognize the truth of that, especially if they are also an advocate for people with affordability needs.

Finally, I just glanced through the entire thread and I’m now quite confused: I don’t see how anybody could claim that I have “filled [my] posts with invective and personal attacks”. If you could point at one or two specific examples I would find it helpful, although “filled” implies more than just one or two examples written at a heated moment.

[robdrimmie]

I don’t see how anybody could claim that I have “filled [my] posts with invective and personal attacks”. If you could point at one or two specific examples I would find it helpful, although “filled” implies more than just one or two examples written at a heated moment.

You're right, "filled" was hyperbole, and I apologize for that. Statements such as "Also you might want to think more about the actual consequences of what you’re suggesting" are about me, not the subject being discussed. Surfacing consequences can be done without dismissive commentary on what I do or do not think.

It seems likely you'll disagree with me again, and that's okay. I don't think there's anything more that either of us will gain from any additional participation from me, so I'll likely not continue with it. I am grateful for all the information you've shared in this thread, and I have a high amount of respect for your passion and engagement on both affordability and accessibility.

[ijmorlan]

I don’t see how anybody could claim that I have “filled [my] posts with invective and personal attacks”. If you could point at one or two specific examples I would find it helpful, although “filled” implies more than just one or two examples written at a heated moment.

You're right, "filled" was hyperbole, and I apologize for that. Statements such as "Also you might want to think more about the actual consequences of what you’re suggesting" are about me, not the subject being discussed. Surfacing consequences can be done without dismissive commentary on what I do or do not think.

OK, thanks, I can appreciate that.

I will say that I didn’t mean the statement you quoted as an attack; I really do think that people often want to do good but don’t think through the actual long-term consequences of a proposal. That being said, I can see how it could come off as aggressive.

It seems likely you'll disagree with me again, and that's okay. I don't think there's anything more that either of us will gain from any additional participation from me, so I'll likely not continue with it. I am grateful for all the information you've shared in this thread, and I have a high amount of respect for your passion and engagement on both affordability and accessibility.

I want to say that I have a very good impression of you as well. I’ll be honest and say I don’t understand your exact position on this specific issue, but it’s clear you are coming from a place of care and concern for others, and I do respect that.

[ac3r]

The Region of Waterloo has launched an Affordable Housing Plan page. A key part of it is the goal to build 2'500 homes within 5 years which to me seems like a grossly insufficient amount given the thousands upon thousands of people that are moving here each year. Link: https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/livin...-plan.aspx