• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Stairs you can't have

B

bill1952

SAWHORSE
Joined
Aug 12, 2021
Messages
2,119
Location
Clayton NY
Been touched on before here, but stair designs you'd have trouble getting permitted. And then if the stairs are not required, do they have to comply. I think I'd lable it a climbing wall, as it's a similar hazard.
 

Attachments

  • FB_IMG_1703599207325.jpg
    FB_IMG_1703599207325.jpg
    60.5 KB · Views: 27
I subscribe to the "if it looks like a stair, and acts like a stair, it is a stair" philosophy. Not sure that one even meets that low standard.
 
So assuming all MOE was met without this stair, you'd allow a climbing wall, or maybe a slide or fireman's pole, but not this?
 
bill1952 said:
So assuming all MOE was met without this stair, you'd allow a climbing wall, or maybe a slide or fireman's pole, but not this?
Click to expand...
I can only offer the way I do it. I think some things carry an expectation of performance. A stair is one of those for me. If there are two stairs, and one has compliant risers, but the other does not, I call it a deficiency. The definition for stairs is pretty open ended in both the IRC and the IBC. It would be a stretch to not consider them as stairs. If they are stairs then IRC 311.4 requires vertical egress from habitable levels to be by stairs in accordance with 311.7 and IBC 1011.1 requires that stairways serving occupied portions of a building to comply with 1011.2 through 1011.13. Neither includes limitations for "required". So beyond my expectation of performance theory, I think code may dictate they meet the applicable provisions. If it was a slide, a climbing wall or a pole, they would not be stairs by definition, nor would anyone expect them to act as such. Just the way I do it.
 
If MOE is met otherwise, I'm going to try to weasel out with the definition of a stair by saying that I see no risers:

[BE]STAIR. A change in elevation, consisting of one or more risers.
[BE]STAIRWAY. One or more flights of stairs, either exterior or interior, with the necessary landings and platforms connecting them, to form a continuous and uninterrupted passage from one level to another.
 
Since the MOE section R311 has requirements for stairways that are not an MOE like 311.3.2 Floor elevations at other exterior doors, R311.7.10.2 Bulkhead enclosure stairways, R311.7.11 Alternating tread devices, and Ships ladders it makes me believe that it means all stairways are to comply even if they are not an MOE.
 
Sifu said:
I can only offer the way I do it. I think some things carry an expectation of performance. A stair is one of those for me. If there are two stairs, and one has compliant risers, but the other does not, I call it a deficiency. The definition for stairs is pretty open ended in both the IRC and the IBC. It would be a stretch to not consider them as stairs. If they are stairs then IRC 311.4 requires vertical egress from habitable levels to be by stairs in accordance with 311.7 and IBC 1011.1 requires that stairways serving occupied portions of a building to comply with 1011.2 through 1011.13. Neither includes limitations for "required". So beyond my expectation of performance theory, I think code may dictate they meet the applicable provisions. If it was a slide, a climbing wall or a pole, they would not be stairs by definition, nor would anyone expect them to act as such. Just the way I do it.
Click to expand...
99% of the funky stair designs we see on here, I would agree with you. This one subjectively looks less "stair-ish" to me than most, which is the only reason I lean the other way in this particular case.
 
If you are not going to call it a stair, then is the top of what even it is an open sided walking surface? and does it need a guard possibly?
 
tbz said:
If you are not going to call it a stair, then is the top of what even it is an open sided walking surface? and does it need a guard possibly?
Click to expand...
That's what I wonder about slides. I've seen them in contemporary churches a number of times. Could just step onto it.
 
tbz said:
If you are not going to call it a stair, then is the top of what even it is an open sided walking surface? and does it need a guard possibly?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call it a walking surface, so I would not require a guard.

More info on walking surfaces that may or may not support my position: https://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/threads/define-walking-surface.9735/

Edit: I think I mis-understood what you were saying, at the top opening where you might step off the upper floor onto the "stairs" probably would require a guard.
 
Last edited:
There was a time when the code for stairs expressly applied to the "required" stairs. An instructor that I had, named Marvin Root, successfully defended a restaurant that was sued by a woman that fell on a set of stairs that did not meet code parameters for required stairs. The thing is, the stairs were in addition to the required stairs.

The thing in the picture that Bill posted is so far from being stairs that it would be hard to get much more than a legitimate guard at the floor above that surrounded the opening... and label it art.
 
Last edited:
steveray said:
Is it stairs or a series of shelves......?
Click to expand...
My point exactly.

I had to deal with this in a new 2-story commercial office building. Go in on final, circular stairs for the only egress from the 2nd floor.

No way. They ended up with a new 2nd story exit directly to the exterior. Great!

What to do with the finished circ stairway?

Give me a revision calling them a circular plant shelf, awesome!

Everyone was happy, I don't know, don't care, what they use them for!
 
bill1952 said:
Been touched on before here, but stair designs you'd have trouble getting permitted. And then if the stairs are not required, do they have to comply. I think I'd lable it a climbing wall, as it's a similar hazard.
Click to expand...
Don't the Codes in the Excited States require stairs to meet requirements for handrails, guards, and stairtread dimensions, regardless of whether required or not? Our codes make no distinction.
 
Inspector Gadget said:
Don't the Codes in the Excited States require stairs to meet requirements for handrails, guards, and stairtread dimensions, regardless of whether required or not? Our codes make no distinction.
Click to expand...
That is the basic debate in this thread. It would be a shame to cite some of the stairs highlighted in this thread, but in most cases I would.
 
Sifu said:
That is the basic debate in this thread. It would be a shame to cite some of the stairs highlighted in this thread, but in most cases I would.
Click to expand...
I draw on my football officiating experience many times in this career.

Just like it sucked donkey nuggets to apply a holding penalty that negated the only touchdown a sad-sack, no-win team had scored in seven games ... it was still my job to apply that penalty.

I just had this exact sort of argument discussion with a contractor who used the "we've been doing this for 15 years, and everybody's accepted it and now we'll have to change everything" approach. Followed by the "this must be new" approach.

"Nope. Been there since 1995. Now you know what you have to do."

Does it suck? Yep. Am I totally without empathy? Nope. Am I going to make him do the right thing anyway? Youbetcha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top