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
#1
Midrise is very hard for developers to pull off too. 

Even if a developer wants to come in and do some cool 4 storey building, landowners don't care. If a landowner if remotely able to get highrise land prices, then that is all they will accept. So developers are forced to pay so much for land, that the only feasible project is a highrise.
Reply


#2
(06-02-2021, 09:46 AM)IronDev Wrote: Midrise is very hard for developers to pull off too. 

Even if a developer wants to come in and do some cool 4 storey building, landowners don't care. If a landowner if remotely able to get highrise land prices, then that is all they will accept. So developers are forced to pay so much for land, that the only feasible project is a highrise.

Landowners will send the land and the developers will buy it, somewhere near market value for the land (market value, is by definition, the price that buyers and sellers agree to).

At the moment land very close to City Hall is quite expensive so most projects are tall, but both 345 King St W and Mayfair are mid-rise buildings. Further out there are many more mid-rise buildings (5-10 storeys) being built: Barra, The Scott, 66 Civic, Market Flats, Otis, Ophelia etc.
Reply
#3
(06-02-2021, 10:18 AM)tomh009 Wrote:
(06-02-2021, 09:46 AM)IronDev Wrote: Midrise is very hard for developers to pull off too. 

Even if a developer wants to come in and do some cool 4 storey building, landowners don't care. If a landowner if remotely able to get highrise land prices, then that is all they will accept. So developers are forced to pay so much for land, that the only feasible project is a highrise.

Landowners will send the land and the developers will buy it, somewhere near market value for the land (market value, is by definition, the price that buyers and sellers agree to).

At the moment land very close to City Hall is quite expensive so most projects are tall, but both 345 King St W and Mayfair are mid-rise buildings. Further out there are many more mid-rise buildings (5-10 storeys) being built: Barra, The Scott, 66 Civic, Market Flats, Otis, Ophelia etc.

Very good points. However, the current market has become this cat and mouse game between land vendors and buyers. The winning bid is whoever is willing to take the biggest risk on having to receive bonus density. Vendors aren't selling based on what is allowed by the density, they are selling based on the maximum achievable density through bonussing/ZBA/OPA. It's a natural consequence of the market, but it forces developers to push density. Remember, a midrise is much cheaper to build than a highrise. Many developers would choose the cheaper, quicker option if it was financially feasible.
Reply
#4
(06-02-2021, 09:46 AM)IronDev Wrote: Midrise is very hard for developers to pull off too. 

Even if a developer wants to come in and do some cool 4 storey building, landowners don't care. If a landowner if remotely able to get highrise land prices, then that is all they will accept. So developers are forced to pay so much for land, that the only feasible project is a highrise.

Don’t forget zoning. Remember, it is illegal to build midrise in most of the city. Ironically, if it was legal to build 4-story apartment buildings everywhere, probably most places wouldn’t actually get such large buildings — instead there would be a ton of townhouses, duplexes, triplexes, etc. After all, if every property owner built a 4-story apartment building, we would be incredibly oversupplied with housing.
Reply
#5
(06-02-2021, 11:12 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: Don’t forget zoning. Remember, it is illegal to build midrise in most of the city. Ironically, if it was legal to build 4-story apartment buildings everywhere, probably most places wouldn’t actually get such large buildings — instead there would be a ton of townhouses, duplexes, triplexes, etc. After all, if every property owner built a 4-story apartment building, we would be incredibly oversupplied with housing.

Which is just wild to me. I don't know why people are not pushing to have this changed - the community, UW architecture faculty, the developers etc. We have rules like not allowing new farmland to be redeveloped but then it's still against the law to develop mid rise projects in a large portion of the city. And when someone attempts it, all it takes is some NIMBYs to totally throw a wrench and derail the project for their own selfish reasons.

I have a feeling a big reason is education. Most people don't understand or even care to pay attention to the nuances of urban planning. But, go to any article or forum post on places like Reddit about high rise towers and you see plenty of people saying "we need less condos, more affordable housing" and so on...but a lot of people don't bother to research things nor go beyond complaining on Reddit or Facebook. Few educate themselves on how we can obtain those things, and few go to council meetings or send out emails saying they want to see more mid rise or affordable housing. There is too much "I want" and not enough "Here is now we can get it".
Reply
#6
(06-02-2021, 11:39 AM)ac3r Wrote:
(06-02-2021, 11:12 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: Don’t forget zoning. Remember, it is illegal to build midrise in most of the city. Ironically, if it was legal to build 4-story apartment buildings everywhere, probably most places wouldn’t actually get such large buildings — instead there would be a ton of townhouses, duplexes, triplexes, etc. After all, if every property owner built a 4-story apartment building, we would be incredibly oversupplied with housing.

Which is just wild to me. I don't know why people are not pushing to have this changed - the community, UW architecture faculty, the developers etc. We have rules like not allowing new farmland to be redeveloped but then it's still against the law to develop mid rise projects in a large portion of the city. And when someone attempts it, all it takes is some NIMBYs to totally throw a wrench and derail the project for their own selfish reasons.

I have a feeling a big reason is education. Most people don't understand or even care to pay attention to the nuances of urban planning. But, go to any article or forum post on places like Reddit about high rise towers and you see plenty of people saying "we need less condos, more affordable housing" and so on...but a lot of people don't bother to research things nor go beyond complaining on Reddit or Facebook. Few educate themselves on how we can obtain those things, and few go to council meetings or send out emails saying they want to see more mid rise or affordable housing. There is too much "I want" and not enough "Here is now we can get it".

I think one issue with these smaller apartment (say basement to level 3) or really, something like even small 6-unit apartment has to have these accessibility rules. This also includes powered doors for entrance and exits. The reality is, that ‘affordable’ housing used to include small apartment dwellings, that can no longer be built unless they fulfill new building code. While these rules are good, they haven’t help when it comes to affordable housing, nor the building of smaller apartment units. And to be honest, I haven’t seen anything like this being built in years.

Forgot to add: more than 600SM or 3 Floors or more, requires elevator.
Reply
#7
(06-02-2021, 02:08 PM)jeffster Wrote: I think one issue with these smaller apartment (say basement to level 3) or really, something like even small 6-unit apartment has to have these accessibility rules. This also includes powered doors for entrance and exits. The reality is, that ‘affordable’ housing used to include small apartment dwellings, that can no longer be built unless they fulfill new building code. While these rules are good, they haven’t help when it comes to affordable housing, nor the building of smaller apartment units. And to be honest, I haven’t seen anything like this being built in years.

Wait, is that really true? A 4 story apartment building with 8 apartments (2 on the “basement” level, a half story below grade) has to have the apartments accessible? If true that is appalling. Not every apartment in the city needs to be accessible.

There is a reason why every (new) commercial establishment needs to be accessible. Actually two reasons which work together: (1) if it’s not that way then having a mobility disability becomes a severe handicap and (2) it’s not that expensive to make it happen. Especially nowadays when most retail is single-story, it’s trivial to make sure there isn’t a gratuitous step at the entrance; in many cases the accessibility code is really just something we can point at when somebody does something stupid to insist they fix it.

But in residential real estate, it’s entirely different. A huge fraction of the population has no problem at all climbing a couple of flights of stairs, and requiring them to pay for accessibility is a severe infringement on their rights, specifically their right to house themselves.

But back to the original question, is that really true?

On the other hand I know of at least one unthinking “accessibility” requirement (or at least I assume it’s a requirement): new townhouse complexes typically have designated disability parking spots. These are obviously a good idea for commercial establishments; we give people with lower mobility the best spots near the door. But in a townhouse complex, visitors who need good parking should just be allowed to park in the driveway of the specific unit they are visiting; the owner can park in visitor. It does not make sense to reduce the amount of normally useable visitor parking by designating a random few spots as disability spots.
Reply


#8
(06-02-2021, 03:56 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(06-02-2021, 02:08 PM)jeffster Wrote: I think one issue with these smaller apartment (say basement to level 3) or really, something like even small 6-unit apartment has to have these accessibility rules. This also includes powered doors for entrance and exits. The reality is, that ‘affordable’ housing used to include small apartment dwellings, that can no longer be built unless they fulfill new building code. While these rules are good, they haven’t help when it comes to affordable housing, nor the building of smaller apartment units. And to be honest, I haven’t seen anything like this being built in years.

Wait, is that really true? A 4 story apartment building with 8 apartments (2 on the “basement” level, a half story below grade) has to have the apartments accessible? If true that is appalling. Not every apartment in the city needs to be accessible.

There is a reason why every (new) commercial establishment needs to be accessible. Actually two reasons which work together: (1) if it’s not that way then having a mobility disability becomes a severe handicap and (2) it’s not that expensive to make it happen. Especially nowadays when most retail is single-story, it’s trivial to make sure there isn’t a gratuitous step at the entrance; in many cases the accessibility code is really just something we can point at when somebody does something stupid to insist they fix it.

But in residential real estate, it’s entirely different. A huge fraction of the population has no problem at all climbing a couple of flights of stairs, and requiring them to pay for accessibility is a severe infringement on their rights, specifically their right to house themselves.

But back to the original question, is that really true?

On the other hand I know of at least one unthinking “accessibility” requirement (or at least I assume it’s a requirement): new townhouse complexes typically have designated disability parking spots. These are obviously a good idea for commercial establishments; we give people with lower mobility the best spots near the door. But in a townhouse complex, visitors who need good parking should just be allowed to park in the driveway of the specific unit they are visiting; the owner can park in visitor. It does not make sense to reduce the amount of normally useable visitor parking by designating a random few spots as disability spots.

It is true! https://www.ontario.ca/page/accessibilit...lding-code

15% of units in a new multi-res building have to be barrier-free, this is rounded down. So an 8 unit building would require 1.2 BF units (which rounds down to 1)
Reply
#9
(06-02-2021, 03:56 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(06-02-2021, 02:08 PM)jeffster Wrote: I think one issue with these smaller apartment (say basement to level 3) or really, something like even small 6-unit apartment has to have these accessibility rules. This also includes powered doors for entrance and exits. The reality is, that ‘affordable’ housing used to include small apartment dwellings, that can no longer be built unless they fulfill new building code. While these rules are good, they haven’t help when it comes to affordable housing, nor the building of smaller apartment units. And to be honest, I haven’t seen anything like this being built in years.

Wait, is that really true? A 4 story apartment building with 8 apartments (2 on the “basement” level, a half story below grade) has to have the apartments accessible? If true that is appalling. Not every apartment in the city needs to be accessible.

You can build a large 3-storey apartment building without elevators, though. An elevator for a four- or five-storey building might cost something like $50K so the impact is significant in a small building, but in a 20-unit building (five units x four floors) you might only be adding a few thousand per unit, assuming you install only one.

You do still need 15% accessible units, but the cost of an accessible unit is not really significantly higher.
Reply
#10
(06-02-2021, 03:56 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(06-02-2021, 02:08 PM)jeffster Wrote: I think one issue with these smaller apartment (say basement to level 3) or really, something like even small 6-unit apartment has to have these accessibility rules. This also includes powered doors for entrance and exits. The reality is, that ‘affordable’ housing used to include small apartment dwellings, that can no longer be built unless they fulfill new building code. While these rules are good, they haven’t help when it comes to affordable housing, nor the building of smaller apartment units. And to be honest, I haven’t seen anything like this being built in years.

Wait, is that really true? A 4 story apartment building with 8 apartments (2 on the “basement” level, a half story below grade) has to have the apartments accessible? If true that is appalling. Not every apartment in the city needs to be accessible.

There is a reason why every (new) commercial establishment needs to be accessible. Actually two reasons which work together: (1) if it’s not that way then having a mobility disability becomes a severe handicap and (2) it’s not that expensive to make it happen. Especially nowadays when most retail is single-story, it’s trivial to make sure there isn’t a gratuitous step at the entrance; in many cases the accessibility code is really just something we can point at when somebody does something stupid to insist they fix it.

But in residential real estate, it’s entirely different. A huge fraction of the population has no problem at all climbing a couple of flights of stairs, and requiring them to pay for accessibility is a severe infringement on their rights, specifically their right to house themselves.

But back to the original question, is that really true?

On the other hand I know of at least one unthinking “accessibility” requirement (or at least I assume it’s a requirement): new townhouse complexes typically have designated disability parking spots. These are obviously a good idea for commercial establishments; we give people with lower mobility the best spots near the door. But in a townhouse complex, visitors who need good parking should just be allowed to park in the driveway of the specific unit they are visiting; the owner can park in visitor. It does not make sense to reduce the amount of normally useable visitor parking by designating a random few spots as disability spots.

And I forgot to add something very important: Elevators. A building with more than 1 floor and 600SM (about 6,400SF) OR 4 floors requires one. I believe the old rules were that you shouldn't have to go up more than 2.5 flights of stairs (so basement units plus 3 floors above - ground level is between basement and 1st floor). Irregardless of that, it still needs to be accessible.

Lots of the "older" buildings around the region, and indeed, the province, as I mentioned, might have a basement plus floors 1 - 3, this now needs an elevator. If you had a small 3 floor building, with say 12 units (4 per floor) at 600sf each, that's 7,200 in total, it needs an elevator.

So there is very little incentive to build small. It used to be that person could dive into landlordship (apparently not a word), build a smaller complex that fit into the community, and not be out a crapload (apparently a word) of money. So this leaves those with a lot more money to start builds, and they're not usually going to be small.

So while we solved accessibility rules, and did end up making things more expensive (like some warned it would).
Reply
#11
(06-02-2021, 05:13 PM)tomh009 Wrote:
(06-02-2021, 03:56 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Wait, is that really true? A 4 story apartment building with 8 apartments (2 on the “basement” level, a half story below grade) has to have the apartments accessible? If true that is appalling. Not every apartment in the city needs to be accessible.

You can build a large 3-storey apartment building without elevators, though. An elevator for a four- or five-storey building might cost something like $50K so the impact is significant in a small building, but in a 20-unit building (five units x four floors) you might only be adding a few thousand per unit, assuming you install only one.

You do still need 15% accessible units, but the cost of an accessible unit is not really significantly higher.

You can't build 'large' -- if it's more than 600SM, you need an elevator. I believe that 600SM INCLUDES common areas and hallways, etc. You'd be looking at 10 very small unit apartment max before you need to consider an elevator.

Can't tell you exactly the cost of an elevator off hand, but my friend does work for Delta and installs elevators for a living. They're closer to $100K just for a very basic elevator (2 floors + extra for each floor). The $50K you mention is for a home elevator, not commercial.

Elevators also require regular maintenance, so it all adds to the cost. Not to mention service calls. So when we're discussing the types of units that are not longer being build, say, a small 14-unit apartment (2 basement units, plus facilities, and 4 per floor). Elevator (4 floors) might cost around $150K, or $11,000 per unit. Yearly maintenance might be amount to $200/unit minimum, assuming no service calls.

While the cost of the physical elevator is a factor, so it the room you lose, so it changes the layout of the units. It changes all the internals of an apartment.

Simply put, not worth it for small apartments.
Reply
#12
(06-02-2021, 07:26 PM)jeffster Wrote: Can't tell you exactly the cost of an elevator off hand, but my friend does work for Delta and installs elevators for a living. They're closer to $100K just for a very basic elevator (2 floors + extra for each floor). The $50K you mention is for a home elevator, not commercial.

Elevators also require regular maintenance, so it all adds to the cost. Not to mention service calls. So when we're discussing the types of units that are not longer being build, say, a small 14-unit apartment (2 basement units, plus facilities, and 4 per floor). Elevator (4 floors) might cost around $150K, or $11,000 per unit. Yearly maintenance might be amount to $200/unit minimum, assuming no service calls.

Home elevators are something like $10-20K. A three-floor elevator might be around $50K. Taller buildings need a much more expensive one. But, while I don't have a price list handy, I do think your $150K estimate for a four-floor elevator is very high. But suppose we split the difference and call it $100K. Make the building footprint a bit bigger, for 22 units (4+3x6) and now the elevator cost is only about $5000/unit, maybe 5% of the cost.

Elevator maintenance is probably $4000-5000/year for a smallish elevator. Once again, it's more reasonable if you increase the number of units somewhat.
Reply
#13
Maybe that’s why we see so many stacked townhouses. That design uses 4 floors in a way that I’m guessing doesn’t trigger the elevator requirement.

Anyway, this is all insane (except for the 15% accessible; that can easily be accommodated by making some of the ground-floor units accessible). Thanks for the education in excessive and inappropriate regulation (although at least in this case clearly well-meaning).

In particular, if it’s OK to have ground floor plus 2 floors above with no elevator, it’s simply irrational to demand an elevator if I now add a basement level below. If level 3 is OK with no basement, it’s OK with a basement. Perhaps a rule like “every floor must be within 2 flights of stairs of a level entrance” would be more appropriate. But zoning rules are normally written based on a lot of arbitrary and stereotypical assumptions about how buildings interact with their environment so this isn’t exactly off-brand.
Reply


#14
This is actually the Ontario Building Code, but, yes. Smile
Reply
#15
(06-03-2021, 08:14 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: Maybe that’s why we see so many stacked townhouses. That design uses 4 floors in a way that I’m guessing doesn’t trigger the elevator requirement.

Anyway, this is all insane (except for the 15% accessible; that can easily be accommodated by making some of the ground-floor units accessible). Thanks for the education in excessive and inappropriate regulation (although at least in this case clearly well-meaning).

In particular, if it’s OK to have ground floor plus 2 floors above with no elevator, it’s simply irrational to demand an elevator if I now add a basement level below. If level 3 is OK with no basement, it’s OK with a basement. Perhaps a rule like “every floor must be within 2 flights of stairs of a level entrance” would be more appropriate. But zoning rules are normally written based on a lot of arbitrary and stereotypical assumptions about how buildings interact with their environment so this isn’t exactly off-brand.

I guess with a stacked Townhome, depending how it is designed, you're normally not going up more than 1.5 flights. Secondly, since they are separated units, each staircase only has to involved 2 or 4 families.

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.
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