• 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

Stricter ADA laws could be coming for Austin homes

A pathway into the home with no steps; it doesn't have to be the front door. ​I purposely designed my house to have a 6" step down to the deck at all exterior doors to reduce the snow piling up at the door.



The door has to be able to clearly open 32 inches. Already required by code



There must be a clear route to a kitchen and bathroom that is 32 inches wide. Hallways already required to be 36" minimum



There must be a bathroom on the first floor. This could add considerable cost if not an original design of a tract home builder. I have seen many "powder rooms" located on the first floor and all bathing facilities on the upper floor



Light switches on the "visitable" floor must be 48 inches high; outlets must be 15 inches high. Most homes already use a maximum 48 minimum 15 for switches and outlet locations.

I personally do not care if this could be accomplished without spending an additional penny. I would still be against it because I am loosing my freedom and rights to design and build a house of my choosing for my use with my money. Just because "somebody" may visit the house or purchase it in the future and may have to make modification for their needs is not my problem. Nor should I be required to expend my funds or change my design for some mysterious future owner or visitor invited or not.
 
mtlogcabin said:
A pathway into the home with no steps; it doesn't have to be the front door. ​I purposely designed my house to have a 6" step down to the deck at all exterior doors to reduce the snow piling up at the door.

The door has to be able to clearly open 32 inches. Already required by code



There must be a clear route to a kitchen and bathroom that is 32 inches wide. Hallways already required to be 36" minimum



There must be a bathroom on the first floor. This could add considerable cost if not an original design of a tract home builder. I have seen many "powder rooms" located on the first floor and all bathing facilities on the upper floor



Light switches on the "visitable" floor must be 48 inches high; outlets must be 15 inches high. Most homes already use a maximum 48 minimum 15 for switches and outlet locations.

I personally do not care if this could be accomplished without spending an additional penny. I would still be against it because I am loosing my freedom and rights to design and build a house of my choosing for my use with my money. Just because "somebody" may visit the house or purchase it in the future and may have to make modification for their needs is not my problem. Nor should I be required to expend my funds or change my design for some mysterious future owner or visitor invited or not.
mtlogcabin, your last sentence is the fact that people need to remember. Thank you.
 
Just like all Zoning and building codes.... I own the property, don't tell me what I can and can't build on it....
 
mark handler said:
Just like all Zoning and building codes.... I own the property, don't tell me what I can and can't build on it....
And that makes it OK for any regulation that comes down the pipe to be inflicted on people. Because there are restrictions in place, that means you should happily embrace any new restriction that shows up.

It's an interesting life philosophy, I'll give you that.

Brent.
 
Yes let's build a meat rendering outbuilding right next to your bedroom window

You "are/were" in the wrong business if you don't like regulation. Everything in the codes are regulations.

Please don't were you Seat belts and/or helmets more regulations.

Please don't put in your Smoke/CM detectors more regulations.
 
And you would be OK with building your home so that it suits 1% of the populace.

All of the items/regulations that you cited are a direct result of certain people not taking responsibility for themselves and/or there actions. Perhaps not in the wrong business but in the wrong time frame. The majority of these regulations were driven by the initiation of lawsuits where someone thought someone else should take care of them.
 
It is not an issue of government telling me I can't build my home with certain life safety requirements, it is government dictating a certain design for my home.

What's next mandatory domed shaped homes in high wing areas.
 
mark handler said:
Yes let's build a meat rendering outbuilding right next to your bedroom windowYou "are/were" in the wrong business if you don't like regulation. Everything in the codes are regulations.

Please don't were you Seat belts and/or helmets more regulations.

Please don't put in your Smoke/CM detectors more regulations.
Mark, you need to quit with that. It's stupid.

ANY business no matter what is regulated, and some excessively.

I build to those regulations to the best of my ability. I exceed where possible.

It does not mean I welcome more of them.

Apparently you are correctly pigeonholed in the right business as you embrace more regulation.

It's good for you. That's great. Hope you are a millionaire. I however choose to not just accept everything force fed me. And that's why I would make a crappy bureaucrat, and you appear to be a gifted one.

Brent.
 
north star said:
In some cases, it is easier and more politically pleasing ...to throw the bldg. dept. "under the bus" and have them appear to be the bad guys ... .As a code official, ...who would you want to protect ...
From another thread
 
What is stupid is the fight against accessibility laws and codes.

It is going to happen and fighting is a waste of resources, that can be used to make the spaces more accessible.
 
Accessible for who, is the question you should be asking yourself. What person with what disability/limitations/impairment would you choose to design your house for, and lets not forget the companions, dogs people etc.
 
kilitact said:
Accessible for who, is the question you should be asking yourself. What person with what disability/limitations/impairment would you choose to design your house for, and lets not forget the companions, dogs people etc.
Universal design. Access for 99.9% of the population. People should be able to invite any one to their home. Any relative any friend.

I'm sorry I'm having a super bowl party with everyone but you can not come.

We need to design products and the built environment to be usable, to the greatest extent possible, by everyone, regardless of their age, ability, or status in life.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mark said:
We need to design products and the built environment to be usable, to the greatest extent possible, by everyone, regardless of their age, ability, or status in life.
I doubt that the Austin ordinance is constitutional, ADA was carefully crafted to apply to "public accommodations" only, it violates first amendment freedom of association to apply it to private residences. We had a civil rights case here in San Francisco several years ago, a prestigious private golf club that banned women and certain other minorities was situated partially on rented public land, the courts ruled that they couldn't discriminate because of the fact that they were partially on public land. i don't remember the settlement but I think they started allowing membership to minorities.

I have to wonder if anyone in Austin will challenge it in the courts, Austin has become californicated by our communists.
 
mark handler said:
Universal design. Access for 99.9% of the population. People should be able to invite any one to their home. Any relative any friend. I'm sorry I'm having a super bowl party with everyone but you can not come.

We need to design products and the built environment to be usable, to the greatest extent possible, by everyone, regardless of their age, ability, or status in life.
If you could conceive or design such a building that would be monumental. I think that someone would perceive themselves to be left out and or at a disadvantage.
 
conarb said:
I have to wonder if anyone in Austin will challenge it in the courts, Austin has become californicated by our communists.
Yes it is the communists that are behind accessibility.....Bush 1 and Bush 2 communists

By the way, ADA has nothing to do with SF residential housing.
 
Mark said:
Yes it is the communists that are behind accessibility.....Bush 1 and Bush 2 communistsBy the way, ADA has nothing to do with SF residential housing.
Mark:

I use the word "communists" to describe the politics of those who believe in the communist maxim "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Actually Marx took his maxim from the French Socialist Utopians.

Wikipedia said:
Although Marx is popularly thought of as the originator of the phrase, the slogan was common to the socialist movement and was first used by Louis Blanc in 1839, in "The organization of work". The origin of this phrasing has also been attributed to the French utopian Morelly, who proposed in his 1755 Code of Nature "Sacred and Fundamental Laws that would tear out the roots of vice and of all the evils of a society".......¹
And yes, the Bushes were (are) pretty stupid, it was Bush I who signed off on the United Nations Agenda 21 which is giving us so many fits in One Bay Area with communitarian mixed use developments, forcing them into upper class cities and neighborhoods to create a socially integrated "classless society", another maxim of communism.

¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need
 
conarb said:
I doubt that the Austin ordinance is constitutional, ADA was carefully crafted to apply to "public accommodations" only, it violates first amendment freedom of association to apply it to private residences.
I don't see any basis for it to be unconstitutional. It's no different than many sections of the building code a dictate how I how it should be built. Especially considering any part of the ordinance that I've read does not actually refer to the ADA, all it does is set certain design specifications that must be met in any new residence.
 
The intent of this is visitability, the three key features that are promoted:

At least one zero-step entrance on an accessible route leading from a driveway or public sidewalk,

First floor doors providing 32 inches of passage space and

At least a half bathroom on the First floor

That is it
 
mark handler said:
The intent of this is visitability, the three key features that are promoted:At least one zero-step entrance on an accessible route leading from a driveway or public sidewalk,

First floor doors providing 32 inches of passage space and

At least a half bathroom on the First floor

That is it
"This is it?" This report says they are adopting ADA guidelines. If there is litigation obviously this information will be brought into evidence showing that the intent was to extend ADA style requirements into a non public accommodation setting unconstitutionally granting special privileges to a quasi-suspect class of individuals.
 
conarb said:
"This is it?" This report says they are adopting ADA guidelines. If there is litigation obviously this information will be brought into evidence showing that the intent was to extend ADA style requirements into a non public accommodation setting unconstitutionally granting special privileges to a quasi-suspect class of individuals.
Dick read your article

"The new standards will require:

New homes with a habitable space on the first floor to be constructed with a bathroom.

Light switches on the visitable floor must be no higher than 48 inches above the floor; outlets must be a minimum of 15 inches above the floor

A clear path on the visitable flood with a minimum width of 32 inches

An exterior route to a no-step entrance for newly developed lots and all new structures built on existing lots"

Everyone says ADA when the mean to say accessible

NOT ADA, If anything it would fall under "Fair Housing"
 
Mark:

Granted that the "ADA Guidelines" as stated in the article are not excessive, but they constitute the slippery to ever more discriminatory regulations. Adopting the role of a missionary for use of the police power of the State to impose huge regulatory burdens on ordinary people requires a high standard of proof. Civil Rights legislation was itself unconstitutional and imposed as redress for past grievances suffered by blacks, it was only allowed for a time limited period, in fact Justice O'Connor limited that time to 25 more years 10 years ago in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003). Civil Rights legislation itself was the slippery slope that has allowed other groups like the disabled to become the beneficiaries of discriminatory status. The mentally deficient are also disabled, looking down the slippery slope is the day going to come that we are going to have to employ mentally retarded individuals as architects, engineers, builders, and building inspectors? I know some would argue that we already have the mentally retarded in these groups ergo there is no discrimination.
 
The uninformed use the term ADA for everything involved with disabled and even mobility inpared senior issues.

ADA has nothing to do with SFD housing.

It would have been more correct to use the term ANSI117.1 type C but no one in the general public would understand.

And also remember that this applies to NEW not existing product.
 
Austin votes for “sticks” vs. “carrots” with Zero-Step Ordinance

by Aaron D. Murphy

http://empoweringthematuremind.com/austin-votes-sticks-vs-carrots-w-zero-step-ordinance/

In a 6-1 vote this week, the Austin city council passed an ordinance that moves them one step toward Stepless-Entry-Homethe “age friendly” & “inclusive” world of new home construction. But for all the passion and belief I have in this movement, I’m not sure this was the right decision for the city to make. They will now require new construction to have at least one “no step” entry into the home, and set light switches and outlets at more universally reachable heights.

As an architect that is personally passionate and professionally educated and certified about “Aging in Place” in residential design, I am working to consult with cities and jurisdictions (along with housing design for large builders and developers) to design Age-Friendly communities and “Inclusive” home designs. I see both sides of this argument. I’ve spoken on stage many times (including to my own city council and planning department) on the topic, and how best to go about getting more inclusive home design to be a part of the language of a city, and of the builders that are finally starting to ramp up again with new home construction after the recession.

I think it comes down to a choice about directing this movement with either “carrots” or “sticks”. The sticks in this case would be, as Austin has chosen to do, going about it via mandating the change with rules, laws, and requirements. I see this approach as a parallel to something much like pollution control, wherein you are forced into compliance, or you pay fees and fines for non-compliance.

The other approach, the carrots, I think could be a better approach overall for getting inclusive design practices and home layouts to get into a “new speculative” that is more considerate of people with all levels of ability. I think it’s better for the home buyer, the builder, and the real estate industry to let the market decide that this is truly what we want in the next 4 buying cycles (on average every 7 years) that will occur during the remainder of this Silver Tsunami of 10,000 people turning 65 years old for the last 3 years and for the next 18 years. Personally, I think it IS WHAT WE WANT, but we need to get enough product inventory into the market to test and prove that theory!

In a “carrot” approach, you should make it work for the builder to be interested in compliance. It has to pencil for them. It has to be profitable, or at least not cost more to consider it. Therefore, by creating incentives (like permit fee offsets and density bonuses to builder/developer) it may be a better way to create offsetting balances that help their spreadsheets and allow builders to consider being interested in compliance toward a movement that would create multi-generational, visit-able, and inclusively designed homes that simply work better than the standard “spec house”, for everyone. It works better for the grandparents, but also the grandkids, the parents, the caretakers, and anyone else that may be in your home! If the “cost add” (which can be almost zero when planned for in the design phase before construction, vs. retrofitting a home) can be offset to the builder by a lesser permit fee from the jurisdiction, or the “lot density bonus” that would equate to a builder maybe getting one more lot on their development parcel (ie. one more sell-able product with a profit margin for them) then I think you’d get the builder to “open their ears” and their minds to the idea. For them, it’s going to be a “No MATH, no DEAL” mentality situation.

Right now I don’t see the “stick” mandate / law approach sorting itself out particularly well. As the article mentions, from the builder side, it could simply have those developers looking just outside the jurisdiction vs. inside it for lots to build homes on. That’s counter-productive in it’s own right, as it would continue to create sprawl and “suburbs” when we already have a housing stock that is 2/3 “empty nested” in the existing suburbs, and people migrating back toward cities for better walk-ability and access to public transit and services such as health care.

What I’d like to see is enough forward thinking big builders working with agencies to make some % of their new homes meet an optional 2-3 tiered “certification” (like LEED or EnergyStar) that would allow their housing for sale to stand apart from their competitors and be more “future thinking” in it’s design friendliness. I know of a few people that are working on (and have asked us to help with development of) concepts like this for a tiered certification for new homes related to universal design, accessibility, and the like. If we can make it makes sense for the builder to “try it” financially (with those incentives) then I think we can get to the point where we can let the MARKET DECIDE with quicker sales / higher sales prices being bid up / lower DOM (Days on Market = holding costs to the developer)…

SOLD signTHEN I think “what the public wants” can answer it’s own question for the housing industry and builder/developer. If these houses are selling QUICKER, or at HIGHER PRICES than the standard “spec house” that isn’t designed for anyone in particular, THEN we will have a viable movement in the housing industry – a paradigm shift that we’ve been preaching and passionately advocating for in the last 4 years. Our hope is that we can all “paddle faster” and get housing design in front of this SILVER TSUNAMI of Baby Boomers and their families (along with anyone else – 25% of our nation statistically) who are in any way not “perfectly able”.

Whether it is your height, weight, sight, hearing, mobility, or any other difference you may have that is considered not “perfectly able”, you should get equal use, enjoyment, and longevity out of your own home and community. Good, pro-active, and thoughtful design in planning mode (vs. reactive “panic” mode after it’s too late to do it right and cost-effectively) is the key to a housing stock that considers the future of our population, as it ramps back up to full speed as a leading indicator of an economy that appears to be climbing out of this horrific recession of the last five years. Full speed is great, but let’s make sure we are pointing that speed in the right direction, one that includes “INCLUSIVE DESIGN”.
 
So are they also requiring a bedroom and/or bathroom on the accessible/stepless entry level? If they are, does the bathroom have to meet Fairhousing guidelines? Is the bedroom sized for a single bed or king size or something in between? It makes no sense to get people through the front door if they can not do anything else once they are in. We have an entire subdivision(200+ homes) in which every home has stepless front entry and built with thought to elderly occupancy. No over-reaching ordinance or law to compel the builder or developer to comply. If there is a market, someone will fill the need.
 
Top