Bill introduced in MO house related to universal design in affordable housing
From M.a.d.e.n. (Missouri Advocates with Disabilities Empowerment Network):
Rep. Rachel Storch introduced the universal design bill this week. The bill, HB 2459, is still unnamed. HB 2459 creates laws related to the design of affordable, accessible housing units. Click here to learn more about the bill.
Universal Design differs from ADA in that it tries to create spaces usable by all — eliminating steps and other obstacles. When you find yourself suddenly disabled your housing choices, especially those that are affordable, become very limited in number. My loft will require a few modifications for my return but the open design with limited doors is a good start. Having more universal choices in the affordable category could only be a good thing.
Mandating that a minimum number of units built, affordable or otherwise, meet UD standards makes a lot of sense. The 6 North Apartment building at Laclede & Sarah is a great example of how UD can be quite manageably incorporated into an attractive urban setting. The bill is clearly about UD and affordable housing, and not context, however with clever architectural design strategies this approach to total accessibility can be possible.
Yet another example of why Rep Storch is and will continue to be a rising star in Missouri politics.
While I only did a cursory read of the proposed legislation, my main thought was that this could actually work against urban development by mandating potentially expensive changes.
Don’t get me wrong. I think it is highly desirable, indeed necessary for accessible housing, I just wonder how this would be implemented. The last thing we need is handicapped/disabled housing located primarily in the run-down sections of towns simply because that is where the cheap units are available for rehab.
Good luck in your recovery Steve. Get back up and running soon.
Though late into this discussion, if the basics of Universal Design Housing are done at the time of original construction, the costs are 5%-7% higher. Compare that to the costs of having to move someone out of their home, into some type of assisted living facility, because they can’t get into their bathroom or out their door due to being wheel chair bound.
Much like how the ADA applies to all new commercial construction, it would make a lot more sense to mandate Universal Design standards on the main/first/ground floor of ALL new residential construction*, not just “affordable”. As Steve has proven, and much as many others have, you don’t have to be indigent to be(come) disabled to one degree or another. And if everyone needs to do it, there wouldn’t be the same “stigma” (as perceived by the slightly-different design standards) applied to it, plus the design quality of everything “accessible” will improve, when the market becomes everyone.
.
*We shouldn’t preclude multi-story residences, both for valid urban design/density reasons and for personal reasons/market demand. Requiring accessibility to all levels would typically require an elevator, a potentially huge hit/financially fatal requirement at most price points. But it’s easy to design the main floor to be fully accessible when you’re starting with a “clean sheet of paper”, actually a blank monitor and UD is a requirement from the start. Ideally, this would also require a full bath and one room that could serve as a bedroom on the main floor, but I’ll settle for ramp access, 36″ doors and an accessible ½ bath as a good first step.
.
Having an elderly mom with a walker and brother-in-law in a chair, I’ve also become well aware of the limitations my older S. City home presents. Even if we get (muscle) them up the front steps and in the front front door, simple things like narrow interior door widths and the typical tight bathroom on the first floor are big hurdles for them, just as guests during the day. Sure, retrofitting is an option, but it would be expensive and it would be a challenge with the old wood trim and plaster walls (to do it right), and many of the narrow doorways are constrained on both sides, which increases the degree of difficulty. The end result is fewer visits with us, and more visits with them or in public accessible facilities, like the casinos (which actually do a better-than-average job of being accessible).
[slp – yes we all need to consider the “visitability” of our homes — can a disabled relative or friend join us for dinner?]Â
Now that I’ve read most of the proposed legislation, I’ve discovered a few requirements that need some further review for their unintended consequences, things like “5. The kitchen of the dwelling unit shall contain at least fifty percent of the storage space within reach range.” This is fine in theory, but it’s at cross purposes with the current design trends and taller upper cabinets. Yes, there should be storage within the reach range, but what’s the point of limiting the amount of storage above or below the reach range? The same goes for requiring a 100-watt light fixture at the front door. Better to require a compact fluorescent or LED fixture of appropriate brightness (and comparable to a 100-watt incandescent lamp ain’t the right answer, comparable to a 40-watt lamp is more than adequate) that won’t be burning out in less than a year. I don’t know the bill’s chance of passage, and/or the process for getting some of the more onerous/poorly-thought-through requirements ammended, but in its present form, it’s certainly not “perfect”, although it’s step in the right direction. The current wording mirrors a lot of existing accessibility standards, but doesn’t seem to touch on any evolving sustainability / LEED standards – they’re not mutually exclusive, and we shouldn’t be doing one without the other (utility affordability is just as big an issue as rent affordability). The other big question I have is enforcement – how does the state get involved in enforcing this at the local level (which I assume the underlying, referenced laws apparently do)? Bottom line, I see a lot of good intentions, but I don’t see a comprehensive look at improving housing standards for everyone.
Jim, thank you for bringing up the issues hidden within. The devil is in the details. While it is a ‘step in the right direction’ once it becomes law, then that 100 watt light isn’t an option, its mandatory. Those added expenses here and there add up to forcing the developer to take the cheapest property on the market to rehab to still get his profit margin. Where is the cheapest property? In the run down sections of most towns.
It is a step in the right direction, but it needs to be reviewed by a set of competent professionals first.
My question (and maybe someone can answer it for me) is exactly what is the scope of these proposed design standards? Are they to be used on ALL affordable housing unis, and if so do they expect that every low-income residential unit be made accessible. The implication as Jim mentioned earlier would require an elevator and would kill many many low-income projects that typically are 2-4 stories. The more sensible approach in my opinion would be to require that all ground floor units be made accessible. This is the approach of fair housing, though there is a gap for buildings with less than 4 units, which I assume this bill could address.
My read on the proposed law is that it applies primarily to the first floor of every unit that would be constructed using government funds, and includes a requirement for an accessible bedroom and toilet on that level. In concept, it’s a good step in the right direction. The unfortunate part is that there are multiple, specific standards included in the current draft, so for better or for worse, every one will become the law and will need to be enforced until the legislature sees fit to revise the law at some future date. That’s why I have mixed feelings about it in its current form, and would like to know what opportunity for input, if any, is available at this point.
Shifting gears slightly, and thinking more as an architect about the proposed legislation, I’m seeing less and less need for it in its present form. At the local level, we need to have our plans approved by local city or county building departments, and they rely on the International Building and Residential Codes, which contain many of the same requirements, especially inside a structure. At the Federal level, both the ADA and the Fair Hosing Act contain requirements similar to the ones proposed.
.
Unlike some states, Missouri does not have a statewide building code. All our urban areas are covered by local building codes, as are many, if not all, our rural counties. The one area where this legislation could have an impact is if there are no local building codes. The question then becomes one of who will enforce the law? Will a state agency be created? Will the architect or contractor or owner self-certify compliance? And since in many rural areas the reality of affordable housing includes the words “double wide”, how will this law apply to the moblie home industry, which is governed by its own set of rules and regulations?
.
IF the disabled community sees a big need for this law, and IF they feel they have not been successful in getting the International Code Council to include their recommendations in their model codes, and IF we have a large part of our state without any local building codes, then there may be a need for this law, in a modified form. And if the major need is for exterior access improvements, limit the law to that area alone. Creating a parallel universe of similar, but not identical, requirements does little real good and causes more confusion than anything else.
.
Bottom line, this legislation would create a much better law if it incorpoarted, by reference, all the requirements of Chapter 11 of the most-current edition of the International Building Code (currently 2006), replacing Section 1103.2.4 with the following, and then defining those site access issues that are not covered in the IBC, IRC, ANSI standards, ADAAG and the Fair Housing Act:
.
1103.2.4 Detached dwellings. The first, main or ground floor of detached one- and two-family dwellings and accessory structures, and their associated sites and facilities shall be accessible to people with physical disabilities.
.
Except for one no-step entries, minimum door and hallway width requirements, and usable bathroom facilities in the dwelling unit, an affordable housing unit shall not be required to comply with Chapter 11 if all of the following requirements are met:
.
(1) The site on which the housing is to be constructed cannot be graded or otherwise modified to make compliance with the requirements possible, or compliance is not possible with the parameters dictated by historic preservation requirements; and
.
(2) An architect experienced in accessible design certifies that it is not possible to meet the requirements and the reasons for the impossibility; and
.
(3) A method or location has been identified which would allow for future installation of a ramp or lift permitting access to the residence.
So how come Rep. Storch doesn’t have an email address for constituents to contact her?! (http://www.house.state.mo.us/billtracking/bills071/member/mem064.htm)
rachel.storch@house.mo.gov
Jim, note of clarification. Missouri’s nearly 100 third class counties, by statute, cannot adopt a building code. Cities with a population above 3,000 may adopt a code, but the county in which they reside cannot. Therefore nearly 1/3 of the state’s population resides in counties that cannot be protected by an enforceable building code. You are correct that enforcement will be a key issue as well as inspection and adherence to the intent of the law as written. AIA Missouri is again looking at establishing a coalition that will try to bring a statewide building code to the legislature. Obviously the writer of this bill does not have a complete view of the state’s inability to provide adequate structure for affordable housing throughout the entire state.
Jim Zaviston,
You stated above; “Unlike some states, Missouri does not have a statewide building code. All our urban areas are covered by local building codes, as are many, if not all, our rural counties. The one area where this legislation could have an impact is if there are no local building codes. The question then becomes one of who will enforce the law? Will a state agency be created? Will the architect or contractor or owner self-certify compliance? And since in many rural areas the reality of affordable housing includes the words “double wideâ€, how will this law apply to the moblie home industry, which is governed by its own set of rules and regulations?”
Please understand that Educating all Legislators about the benifits of the IBC Family of Building Codes and their adoption for use by all counties in all States is important everywhere. Architects are Licensed in the State of Missouri to protect the Health, Safety and Welfare of the public. As you know the IBC Family of Building Codes is what Architects use where adopted when designing a building, even if one has not been adopted architects will use a building code typically. By periodic review and adopting a issued up to date building code from the IBC Family of Building Codes, the governing body of the municipality or county identifies the most up to date version to be used by the Architect. The IBC Family of Building Codes are issued every three years to keep them up to date with what is needed to protect the public regarding their Life Safety in Buildings. Please motivate your Legislators to promote all municipalities and counties to adopt the IBC Family of Building Codes or establish a State Wide Building Code.
John, thanks for the information. Bill, I agree. It appears that one fundamental problem we face is that “Missouri’s nearly 100 third class counties, by statute, cannot adopt a building code. Cities with a population above 3,000 may adopt a code, but the county in which they reside cannot. Therefore nearly 1/3 of the state’s population resides in counties that cannot be protected by an enforceable building code.” I would ask why, but I can guess that this is driven by rural concerns about having to get building permits to work on farm buildings. I can also guess that that’s exactly why we don’t, and likely won’t soon, have a statewide building code. I don’t disagree with the bill’s intent, to increase access to affordable housing for people with disabilities in all parts of the state, but I do have significant concerns about its application, should it pass in its present form. I’m going to be contacting the sponsor, and hopefully many of my concerns can be addressed.
Though late into this discussion, if the basics of Universal Design Housing are done at the time of original construction, the costs are 5%-7% higher. Compare that to the costs of having to move someone out of their home, into some type of assisted living facility, because they can’t get into their bathroom or out their door due to being wheel chair bound.