• 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

I'm not really sure how that could be your take. If you read my responses I said,it looks like its going to be a minimum of 34" to 36"...

I don't think I have said anything close to something like..."I don't like the answer you are giving me so I'm going to argue it".

I haven't argued with anyone on the code.

One person suggested that I would treat the code as though it was a Chinese menu simply because I expressed confusion if the part of the code was referring to my particular situation...though I still concluded that it seems like the general consensus is that to meet code it's going to be 34" or 36". Depending if it is a minimum 36" no matter what, or just has to be as long as the stairs are wide in the direction of travel.

I don't think I have argued with anyone's interpretation of any bit of code.
 
korcraft said:
I'm not really sure how that could be your take. If you read my responses I said,it looks like its going to be a minimum of 34" to 36"...

I don't think I have said anything close to something like..."I don't like the answer you are giving me so I'm going to argue it".

I haven't argued with anyone on the code.

One person suggested that I would treat the code as though it was a Chinese menu simply because I expressed confusion if the part of the code was referring to my particular situation...though I still concluded that it seems like the general consensus is that to meet code it's going to be 34" or 36". Depending if it is a minimum 36" no matter what, or just has to be as long as the stairs are wide in the direction of travel.

I don't think I have argued with anyone's interpretation of any bit of code.
Click to expand...
I apologize, I didn't mean to say otherwise.
 
korcraft said:
Seems unneccesary for an internal door.
Click to expand...
korcraft said:
That's why I'm not quite sure that this part of the code applies to my situation.
Click to expand...
korcraft said:
In reality this is a home I live in and have no issue not meeting code knowing what I am doing is not unsafe. Headroom will be there...no tripping hazard etc.

If I ever sold and it was a problem, I could literally just remove the door entirely.
Click to expand...
korcraft said:
but because I am not sure that it is referring to the specific application that I am trying to figure out.
Click to expand...
I was simply pointing out that statements like these are going to lead to responses like you got from @Yankee Chronicler.

It's nothing personal, and my only intention was to let you know exactly that, it's nothing personal, so don't take it that way. It seems that you took my response personally, so for that, I apologize.
 
It's fine. Just was a bit confused.

I am a regular contributor on and audio forum (that i s my actual professional) and certainly understand the frustration of people getting answers they don't like and then lashing out against the experienced posters trying to help them.

Which is why that wasn't my intent. I genuinely was trying to converse with you all in good faith.

I appreciate everyone's willingness to chime in. Believe me, I recognise the reason I am here asking the question is because I know less than you all on the topic.

But I do like to fully understand things,and will certainly my ask follow up questions if things don't make sense to me.
 
Inspector Gift said:
First question I want to ask is if the basement has a code compliant emergency egress window? Then seeing the pics, I appears there isn't a continuous handrail for the stairs. And yes, I agree that a landing is required at the bottom of the stairs. If this is a single-family dwelling, a landing would need to be 36 inches in the direction of travel (R311.7.6).
Click to expand...
Emergency egress from basements is not required in Canadian codes (just from bedrooms).
 
Codes in Canada are clear, a landing has to be provided at the bottom of all flights of stairs. The only time there is an exception is for single dwelling unit buildings when the landing is grade. Functionally, code did not want to require people to have to construct a landing outside if the ground can be treated as a landing.

The discussion about voluntarily having a code violation can be a challenging one. Most people I encounter who enter into this discussion focus on the "it's my house and I should be able to do whatever I want with it" thought approach. I actually don't have an issue if that person is actually the only one impacted by a code violation. I am all about choice theory. The problem is that it is never JUST them that get impacted. Mortgage and insurance companies have financial interest in the home and we probably are not calling to consult them on adding construction that violates the code. Children who are under the age of majority cannot consent to this and in Canada the government has a responsibility to protect them that supersedes parental rights. We also have visitors (including first responders) to our home and we likely do not provide them a detailed safety briefing on both known and potential hazards prior to inviting them in.

My recommendation to you is to think very carefully before knowingly adding a code violation to your home.
 
Last edited:
Yes there is a landing at the top...but I don't know if that would change if I added a door at the top. I will measure when I get home...there is a closet directly across the hall in the direction of travel at the top of the stairs.

To my knowledge this is to code...I don't know if simple adding a door at the top would change the code requirements for how much of a landing area there is.

Kind of the same predicament I am in at the bottom.

I think that a door at the top of stairs cannot open I to the stairwell...which makes perfect sense to me.
 
Last edited:
korcraft said:
Yes...but I don't know if that would change if I added a door at the top. I will measure when I get home...there is a closet directly across the hall in the direction of travel at the top of the stairs.

To my knowledge this is to code...I don't know if simple adding a door at the top would change the code requirements for how much of a landing area there is.

Kind of the same predicament I am in at the bottom.

I think that a door at the top of stairs cannot open I to the stairwell...which makes perfect sense to me.
Click to expand...
You can have a door at the top without a landing as long as the door swings away from the stairs.
 
Fair enough.

I am a little confused by the exception to the code. If at the bottom of the stairs there is just ground (grade) there is no minimum landing area required? Meaning I could construct a wall for example within 12" of the bottom step and that would be OK as long as it is ground rather than a built up landing?

I am sure I am misunderstanding.
 
Do the Canadian codes have the ability to request a code modification as long as "the spirit and functional intent of the code are observed and public health, welfare and safety are assured"?

It would take a landing much longer than 3 ft. to keep the people in JoeB's post #17 from hitting the door.
 
korcraft said:
Fair enough.

I am a little confused by the exception to the code. If at the bottom of the stairs there is just ground (grade) there is no minimum landing area required? Meaning I could construct a wall for example within 12" of the bottom step and that would be OK as long as it is ground rather than a built up landing?

I am sure I am misunderstanding.
Click to expand...
It does, I was just paraphrasing. Here is the actual language:

4) A landing may be omitted at the bottom of an exterior stair or ramp, provided
there is no obstruction, such as a gate or door, within the lesser of the width of the
stair or ramp or
a) 900 mm for stairs or ramps serving a single dwelling unit, and
b) 1 100 mm for stairs or ramps not serving a single dwelling unit.
 
Is that the purpose of the landing space...to keep people from hitting the door if they tripped down the last step?
 
tmurray said:
It does, I was just paraphrasing. Here is the actual language:

4) A landing may be omitted at the bottom of an exterior stair or ramp, provided
there is no obstruction, such as a gate or door, within the lesser of the width of the
stair or ramp or
a) 900 mm for stairs or ramps serving a single dwelling unit, and
b) 1 100 mm for stairs or ramps not serving a single dwelling unit.
Click to expand...
I see. So I could not build a wall within 12" of the last step then...which makes sense.

But also...where it says a landing may be omitted.

Is it referring to building a physical landing...or just an area in front steps.

I think that is adding to my confusion haha
 
Paul Sweet said:
Do the Canadian codes have the ability to request a code modification as long as "the spirit and functional intent of the code are observed and public health, welfare and safety are assured"?

It would take a landing much longer than 3 ft. to keep the people in JoeB's post #17 from hitting the door.
Click to expand...
It's a little different. We have a process called an alternative solution.

We have an objective based code, so know what the code is trying to achieve by each provision. These are demonstrated by a function and objective pair. Here are the two functional and objective language for the requirement for a landing:

Pair 1:
F30 To minimize the risk of injury to persons as a result of tripping,
slipping, falling, contact, drowning or collision.

An objective of this Code is to limit the probability that, as a
result of the design or construction of the building, a person in
or adjacent to the building will be exposed to an unacceptable
risk of injury due to hazards. The risks of injury due to hazards
addressed in this Code are those caused by—
OS3.1 – tripping, slipping, falling, contact, drowning or
collision

Pair 2:
F10 To facilitate the timely movement of persons to a safe place in
an emergency.

An objective of this Code is to limit the probability that, as a
result of the design or construction of the building, a person in
or adjacent to the building will be exposed to an unacceptable
risk of injury due to hazards. The risks of injury due to hazards
addressed in this Code are those caused by—
OS3.7 – persons being delayed in or impeded from
moving to a safe place during an emergency

With this information, a suitably qualified professional can develop another way to meet the code requirements without following the prescriptive requirements. Largely, these approaches are based on detailed engineering studies and modelling. In this case, I would expect to see a study that demonstrates that buildings with reduced landing sizes at the bottom of stairs did not result in an increase in injuries in comparison with ones that do meet code. This package is then provided to the building official for approval. Largely, this approval is administrative in nature and just ensures that the professional has the appropriate qualifications to perform the required analysis, they have properly analyzed the code requirements and the solution is well supported by evidence. There is no requirement that the professional convince the building official that their solution meets the code. In fact, the building official might be strongly opposed to the alternative solution, but if it is demonstrated as equivalent, they is little they can do to reject it.

The obvious challenge is finding the detailed studies that deal with the issue you are facing.
 
tmurray said:
It's a little different. We have a process called an alternative solution.

We have an objective based code, so know what the code is trying to achieve by each provision. These are demonstrated by a function and objective pair. Here are the two functional and objective language for the requirement for a landing:

Pair 1:
F30 To minimize the risk of injury to persons as a result of tripping,
slipping, falling, contact, drowning or collision.

An objective of this Code is to limit the probability that, as a
result of the design or construction of the building, a person in
or adjacent to the building will be exposed to an unacceptable
risk of injury due to hazards. The risks of injury due to hazards
addressed in this Code are those caused by—
OS3.1 – tripping, slipping, falling, contact, drowning or
collision

Pair 2:
F10 To facilitate the timely movement of persons to a safe place in
an emergency.

An objective of this Code is to limit the probability that, as a
result of the design or construction of the building, a person in
or adjacent to the building will be exposed to an unacceptable
risk of injury due to hazards. The risks of injury due to hazards
addressed in this Code are those caused by—
OS3.7 – persons being delayed in or impeded from
moving to a safe place during an emergency

With this information, a suitably qualified professional can develop another way to meet the code requirements without following the prescriptive requirements. Largely, these approaches are based on detailed engineering studies and modelling. In this case, I would expect to see a study that demonstrates that buildings with reduced landing sizes at the bottom of stairs did not result in an increase in injuries in comparison with ones that do meet code. This package is then provided to the building official for approval. Largely, this approval is administrative in nature and just ensures that the professional has the appropriate qualifications to perform the required analysis, they have properly analyzed the code requirements and the solution is well supported by evidence. There is no requirement that the professional convince the building official that their solution meets the code. In fact, the building official might be strongly opposed to the alternative solution, but if it is demonstrated as equivalent, they is little they can do to reject it.

The obvious challenge is finding the detailed studies that deal with the issue you are facing.
Click to expand...
Wow lots of great info there.

So in this case I would need to find a professional and they would design and co tact the proper authorities about the change?

I don't think I will do all that. Probably easier just to put the door at the top of the stairs...but that is a fascinating process I did not know existed!
 
korcraft said:
That is not what I mean. What I mean is, I'm not sure this particular part of the code is actually referring to what it is I'm doing.
Click to expand...

It is referring to exactly what you are doing.

Joe.B said:
Many of us who are responding to the question you posed are code officials and we deal with the kind of reaction you're having on a regular basis. Don't be to surprised if the reactions you receive sound annoyed. It's because it is annoying. You're getting solid (and free mind you) advice from a group of people who have dedicated their professional career to understanding the extremely complex world of building codes. Your response is akin to "Well, I didn't get the answer I wanted, so I'm going to argue it." Or "Well, I don't understand it, so it must not apply to me."
Click to expand...

Heh, heh ...

True story: Twenty-five or so years ago, when I was wearing my architect hat, I was doing the construction documents for a bank branch and I pointed out to the boss a condition that violated (clearly, in my mind) a provision of the building code. His response?

"I've never understood that section of the code, so I don't think it applies to me."

Product of an Ivy League education. 'Nuff said.
 
korcraft said:
Wow lots of great info there.

So in this case I would need to find a professional and they would design and co tact the proper authorities about the change?

I don't think I will do all that. Probably easier just to put the door at the top of the stairs...but that is a fascinating process I did not know existed!
Click to expand...

I don't know about your codes in Canada, but the U.S. IBC and IRC also have provisions addressing doors (and landings) at the top of stairs. Be sure you do your research.
 
korcraft said:
Is that the purpose of the landing space...to keep people from hitting the door if they tripped down the last step?
Click to expand...
My understanding is that it is more about having a flat area to recover and get up from after the fall.
korcraft said:
Is it referring to building a physical landing...or just an area in front steps.
Click to expand...
To the lay person a landing does not look any different than the rest of the floor. I think you're imagining something like this:
1763668787468.png
That's a landing, but it would still be a landing if the platform wasn't there. In this next picture, the person is standing on the landing at the bottom of the stairs:
1763668878755.png
 
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?
 
Joe.B said:
My understanding is that it is more about having a flat area to recover and get up from after the fall.

To the lay person a landing does not look any different than the rest of the floor. I think you're imagining something like this:
View attachment 17165
That's a landing, but it would still be a landing if the platform wasn't there. In this next picture, the person is standing on the landing at the bottom of the stairs:
View attachment 17166
Click to expand...
Yes. I was understanding that the landing could be either as you pictured...or just the floor. But was thinking if it were a landing that was raised as in your picture...that would make sense for needing that to be a certain size...similar to requiring a stair rise and run to be a certain size for safe use. Having a run of 2" for a stair tread would be quite awkward to navigate.

This is why I was thinking that perhaps that bit of code didn't pertain to me if the landing area was just floor...not a riser with an edge.

This is why I wanted to have the discussion though to help me make a choice. In the end I think it will be better for me to simply install a door at the top of the stairs (that doesn't open over the steps).

I would have to move another door that leads to the other side of the basement to accommodate a 36" landing area at the bottom as that would put the door about 10" inside the side door's opening.

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.

Appreciate everyone's help and input.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top