• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Door atBottom of stairs

ICE said:
Why is this not enough of an answer:

R311.7.6 Landings for stairways. There shall be a floor or landing at the top and bottom of each stairway. The width perpendicular to the direction of travel shall be not less than the width of the flight served. For landings of shapes other than square or rectangular, the depth at the walk line and the total area shall be not less than that of a quarter circle with a radius equal to the required landing width. Where the stairway has a straight run, the depth in the direction of travel shall be not less than 36 inches (914mm).

Exception: A floor or landing is not required at the top of an interior flight of stairs, including stairs in an enclosed garage, provided that a door does not swing over the stairs.

Okay I get that the OP is in Canada and Canadian code is different from US code ... even from one part of Canada to the other but can there be a convoluted, hard to understand bit of code for a landing? My post is #47. Forty-seven and climbing. Who reads 47 posts trying to find the pearl?
Click to expand...
I am not looking for a pearl.

This is a forum. A place to have conversation and learn things you didn't even know you didn't know.

If you have a problem with there being 47 posts on a particular thread...might I suggest that you could lessen the problem by not adding to the post. Especially if your goal is to denegrate people for trying to understand something that you may already understand.

I have been very respectful to everyone here. I don't understand where your hostility has come from.

Doesn't seem a very hospitable way to treat new members looming to learn.
 
korcraft said:
As mentioned I could just be OK doing it "wrong" and it would likely function just fine with a 24" landing... But, for this case I don't think it is worth the trade off to deal with any negative outcome that may come along with not following code
Click to expand...
Some people are motivated by the fear of getting caught. Some people treat life/safety code with an unbridled respect for the code. This forum has both.
 
Last edited:
korcraft said:
As mentioned I could just be OK doing it "wrong" and it would likely function just fine with a 24" landing... But, for this case I don't think it is worth the trade off to deal with any negative outcome that may come along with not following code when I have a perfectly code compliant solution of just installing the door at the top.
Click to expand...
I always believe that people in general make the best decisions for them when they are provided clear and unbiased information. I'm glad we were able to provide that for you to help you make an informed decision.
 
I have researched this in the past. A landing is required in front of the door to provide, well, a landing area before being stacked up at the door. If you think about it in practical terms, if there is no place to land, to transition from a descent to travel on a level surface at the bottom, a user will be reaching down, at an angle to operate the door hardware and potentially cramming their head against the door to do so. Now think about how many people traverse down stairs, which is sometimes much more rapidly and uncontrolled. An uncontrolled descent (think about a 10 year old) could end with a crash. In my research I found this from the Q&A to the IRC. Not Canadian, but the requirement seems pretty similar, so maybe the reasoning is as well.

1763730749847.png
 
korcraft said:
This is a forum. A place to have conversation and learn things you didn't even know you didn't know.
Click to expand...
You mentioned that you frequent another forum that covers subject matter you are an expert in. Have you ever had someone new join the forum with a very specific question they really don't know much about? How did those conversations end up?
korcraft said:
I have been very respectful to everyone here. I don't understand where your hostility has come from.
Click to expand...
It's not hostility, as I tried to explain earlier. Its frustration based on the appearance that you were arguing the validity of our responses and following up with statements that imply you're just going to ignore the code anyways.
korcraft said:
Doesn't seem a very hospitable way to treat new members looming to learn.
Click to expand...
@ICE isn't hospitable to anyone. He's just a stick in the mud.
 
korcraft said:
I have been very respectful to everyone here. I don't understand where your hostility has come from.

Doesn't seem a very hospitable way to treat new members looming to learn.
Click to expand...

It may appear to you as hostility, but it's actually more fatigue and skepticism. Any code official who has been a code official for more than a few weeks has almost certainly encountered any number of owners and designers who play all sorts of games in attempts to avoid doing what the codes plainly and clearly require doing. After being subjected to a near-constant barrage of such arguments, there's a natural tendency to not have a lot of patience when such attempts are encountered.

If you are objective, you should acknowledge that after several different responses have cited code sections and provided explanations from different perspectives, when you then post that you don't understand that part of the code so you don't think it applies to you ... that's not likely to earn you a lot of respect. Perhaps that's not what you meant when you posted that statement, but that's the way it reads to us. It suggests that you are NOT here to learn, but to shop for an opinion that will justify ignoring what everyone else agrees the code says.
 
Last edited:
@ICE you can add another tik on your holster, this one's not coming back...

Or maybe you only get half a tik, @Yankee Chronicler and I can share the other half tik.

I don't feel bad though, yet another first-time poster that didn't get the answer they wanted. Bu-bye.
 
ICE said:
I don’t think I was harsh with the guy at all. Some people are extra sensitive. As a child, I was not allowed to play with them.
Click to expand...
Certainly not, nor were the rest of us. They asked a question, we answered it. They didn't like the answer and were offended that we got annoyed by the apparent disregard for code.
1763760110624.png
 
Joe.B said:
Certainly not, nor were the rest of us. They asked a question, we answered it. They didn't like the answer and were offended that we got annoyed by the apparent disregard for code.
View attachment 17175
Click to expand...

What I was annoyed by, beyond the apparent intent to ignore the code, was the dismissal of multiple good-faith attempts to answer the question -- which resulted in the "I don't understand, so I don't think it applies to me."

THAT's annoying. Those are the types who ignore the established appeal process and go running straight to the mayor or the head of the city council to complain that the building official is being mean again.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
What I was annoyed by, beyond the apparent intent to ignore the code, was the dismissal of multiple good-faith attempts to answer the question -- which resulted in the "I don't understand, so I don't think it applies to me."

THAT's annoying. Those are the types who ignore the established appeal process and go running straight to the mayor or the head of the city council to complain that the building official is being mean again.
Click to expand...
Yup, that's so true.
1763763104364.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top