An post on the secret benefits of accessibility

[conuly]

I remember having an argument with somebody about building houses accessible. I said that it only cost a few thousand dollars to build a new house with wide enough doors and a porch you can ramp for people in wheelchairs. It'd be hard to make something accessible to *everybody* at once (since two people may have complete opposite needs), but you can make the most obvious changes, right?

And he goes "Who'll pay for it?", like that's a big concern. I just didn't get it. I mean, once you're already spending a few hundred thousand for your new house, surely adding another ten thousand on to make it accessible doesn't break the bank, right? And it's got to be cheaper than renovating after the fact if something should happen.

Comments

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

IT's stupid because the greying of America means that a lot more builders are making homes accessible no matter what, building on one floor, building open floor plans, building wide doorways, having big open showers with no lip, and seats in them, grab bars. I can see not wanting to do counters though, that is expensive and makes the house unusable for the current owners. Anyways a home will have a good resale value if it is accessible, it is a good selling point.

[xianghua.livejournal.com]

Not necessarily. You can get counters slightly lower than normal (30" instead of 36") from most suppliers, and while yes, they'd be a bit awkward for tall men, for your average 5'6 woman they're not too bad.

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

Well yeah but I could see why people wouldn't want to compromise. They'd be great for my household, we're all short. Most accomodations wouldn't make life uncomfortable for the average homeowner. That one was one that could possibly be annoying to a current home builder.

Personally I think I want to go back to a one floor plan, I hate stairs. :(

[neurotica0.livejournal.com]

Do you mean the average woman that is 5'6", or that 5'6" is the average height for women?

[xianghua.livejournal.com]

The first, actuall- I have no idea what the statistical average, but it's the average height of women in my family and we conducted an exhaustive test over thanksgiving wekend and determined tat the lower counter height is lovely for everything except chopping veggies.

[neurotica0.livejournal.com]

The average height for adult females in the U.S. is just under 5'4". I'm not saying that takes anything away from your point--I was just trying to understand what you meant--because if it works for someone who is 5'6", I imagine it works even better for someone who is shorter.

[xianghua.livejournal.com]

True!

Grandmother liked it the most- she's 5'1 (back problems, she was taller when she was younger, she's 92); Aunt Mary Carol the least (she's 5'6 and well... I betray my geekdom, but Dursleyish is a great adjective for her. If it's not what everyone else is doing, it must be inferior or evil.)

[neurotica0.livejournal.com]

I'm 5'7" and I already feel like our counters are sort of low, but I would just deal with it if they were lower. (I'm the "runt" of my family, though, so I imagine I would get a lot of complaints from everyone else. On the other hand, I'm considered practically a giant in my boyfriend's family, so I bet I'd get positive remarks from them.)

[xianghua.livejournal.com]

My parents recently (September) completed a weekend house at our family farm. And while some stuff definately added to the overall cost (all the doorways are 4' wide, the hallways are 6' wide- so it DID increase the overall square footage) other things (like a walk-in shower without a lip on it and a slightly dipped floor), making the counters a bit lower than standard wouldn't be much more expensive than any other custom option- and when you're having your own house built, it's silly to think you'll want everything off the shelf anyway.

The people who really need working on are the large homebuilders. Custom homes aren't as much a problem as the less expensive housing like subdivision and tract homes, where designers seem to choose the least expensive solution for any given option- 24" doors for closets, the tiniest, least expensive showers and tubs available, grab bars which are yes, sunk into studs- but the studs are 2x4 instead of really being well-anchored (thye're something that may be supporting the weight of an adult human weighing more than a hundred pounds- not all disabled folks are skinny little old women!)

I'm hoping to take some photos of the new house soon, if you'd like them. It's a beautiful home and the accessibility is just a bonus- it adds to the airy, light feel of the house.

[conuly]

The people who really need working on are the large homebuilders

We were specifically discussing building codes. I thought that the most basic accessible things (door widths, that sort of thing) should be mandated by law, because they harm no one. Any extra expense could be passed on to the consumer because, really, they won't even notice the cost if they're buying a house.

[xianghua.livejournal.com]

See, and I *can* think of places it'd be annoying at best and actively hurtful at worst- tiny building spaces, for 1. Thos 6' hallways and 4' doors take up a HUGE chunk of floor space. If that house was built with 4' hallways and 3' doors no, it'd not be as accessible-b ut it'd be almost 30% smaller. Not a consideration when you're building it on a property of several thousand acres, but when you're putting it on a tiny city lot- or a townhouse- it could impact things negatively. I think it should be a choice and one that more builders make, with tax incentives to encourage them in that direction- but I'm not a big fan of UBCs anyway.

[stejcruetekie.livejournal.com]

If I'm building a house, the only regulations I want on it are those concerning safety and stability of the house (electrical, structural, etc).

Why on earth should I have to spend an extra $10,000 on *my* house for things I quite possibly would never need?

$10,000, no matter how you look at it, is a good chunk of change. It can add a whole year to your mortage. The whole thing with building just about anything is "oh it's only this much more to do this, and only a little bit more to do that, and..." and soon you end up with something 3 times as expensive.

So, I flat out disagree with you here.

[conuly]

Truth is, I used 10k as a rough estimate. More likely, it'd only cost 2 or 3 thousand - for things you quite probably will need, and, if not, which can only add to the value of your house when you sell it.

[rainbow-goddess.livejournal.com]

I don't know what it's like where you live, but in B.C. there is a government program that will give people tax rebates and special grants to help pay to make houses accessible.

[conuly]

I haven't looked into it. Frankly, unless we either take over our next door neighbor's driveway, or get legal access to the back alley behind our house, our home can't really be wheelchair accessible anyway. From the sidewalk, you have to go up 6 steps just to get to the bottom of the front porch, we're on a hill. I don't see how that can be fixed, honestly.

Even with the rebates, though, construction is a pain and a half, and where do you live while they're doing it?

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

IT's stupid because the greying of America means that a lot more builders are making homes accessible no matter what, building on one floor, building open floor plans, building wide doorways, having big open showers with no lip, and seats in them, grab bars. I can see not wanting to do counters though, that is expensive and makes the house unusable for the current owners. Anyways a home will have a good resale value if it is accessible, it is a good selling point.

[xianghua.livejournal.com]

Not necessarily. You can get counters slightly lower than normal (30" instead of 36") from most suppliers, and while yes, they'd be a bit awkward for tall men, for your average 5'6 woman they're not too bad.

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

Well yeah but I could see why people wouldn't want to compromise. They'd be great for my household, we're all short. Most accomodations wouldn't make life uncomfortable for the average homeowner. That one was one that could possibly be annoying to a current home builder.

Personally I think I want to go back to a one floor plan, I hate stairs. :(

[neurotica0.livejournal.com]

Do you mean the average woman that is 5'6", or that 5'6" is the average height for women?

[xianghua.livejournal.com]

The first, actuall- I have no idea what the statistical average, but it's the average height of women in my family and we conducted an exhaustive test over thanksgiving wekend and determined tat the lower counter height is lovely for everything except chopping veggies.

[neurotica0.livejournal.com]

The average height for adult females in the U.S. is just under 5'4". I'm not saying that takes anything away from your point--I was just trying to understand what you meant--because if it works for someone who is 5'6", I imagine it works even better for someone who is shorter.

[xianghua.livejournal.com]

True!

Grandmother liked it the most- she's 5'1 (back problems, she was taller when she was younger, she's 92); Aunt Mary Carol the least (she's 5'6 and well... I betray my geekdom, but Dursleyish is a great adjective for her. If it's not what everyone else is doing, it must be inferior or evil.)

[neurotica0.livejournal.com]

I'm 5'7" and I already feel like our counters are sort of low, but I would just deal with it if they were lower. (I'm the "runt" of my family, though, so I imagine I would get a lot of complaints from everyone else. On the other hand, I'm considered practically a giant in my boyfriend's family, so I bet I'd get positive remarks from them.)

[xianghua.livejournal.com]

My parents recently (September) completed a weekend house at our family farm. And while some stuff definately added to the overall cost (all the doorways are 4' wide, the hallways are 6' wide- so it DID increase the overall square footage) other things (like a walk-in shower without a lip on it and a slightly dipped floor), making the counters a bit lower than standard wouldn't be much more expensive than any other custom option- and when you're having your own house built, it's silly to think you'll want everything off the shelf anyway.

The people who really need working on are the large homebuilders. Custom homes aren't as much a problem as the less expensive housing like subdivision and tract homes, where designers seem to choose the least expensive solution for any given option- 24" doors for closets, the tiniest, least expensive showers and tubs available, grab bars which are yes, sunk into studs- but the studs are 2x4 instead of really being well-anchored (thye're something that may be supporting the weight of an adult human weighing more than a hundred pounds- not all disabled folks are skinny little old women!)

I'm hoping to take some photos of the new house soon, if you'd like them. It's a beautiful home and the accessibility is just a bonus- it adds to the airy, light feel of the house.

[conuly]

The people who really need working on are the large homebuilders

We were specifically discussing building codes. I thought that the most basic accessible things (door widths, that sort of thing) should be mandated by law, because they harm no one. Any extra expense could be passed on to the consumer because, really, they won't even notice the cost if they're buying a house.

[xianghua.livejournal.com]

See, and I *can* think of places it'd be annoying at best and actively hurtful at worst- tiny building spaces, for 1. Thos 6' hallways and 4' doors take up a HUGE chunk of floor space. If that house was built with 4' hallways and 3' doors no, it'd not be as accessible-b ut it'd be almost 30% smaller. Not a consideration when you're building it on a property of several thousand acres, but when you're putting it on a tiny city lot- or a townhouse- it could impact things negatively. I think it should be a choice and one that more builders make, with tax incentives to encourage them in that direction- but I'm not a big fan of UBCs anyway.

[stejcruetekie.livejournal.com]

If I'm building a house, the only regulations I want on it are those concerning safety and stability of the house (electrical, structural, etc).

Why on earth should I have to spend an extra $10,000 on *my* house for things I quite possibly would never need?

$10,000, no matter how you look at it, is a good chunk of change. It can add a whole year to your mortage. The whole thing with building just about anything is "oh it's only this much more to do this, and only a little bit more to do that, and..." and soon you end up with something 3 times as expensive.

So, I flat out disagree with you here.

[conuly]

Truth is, I used 10k as a rough estimate. More likely, it'd only cost 2 or 3 thousand - for things you quite probably will need, and, if not, which can only add to the value of your house when you sell it.

[rainbow-goddess.livejournal.com]

I don't know what it's like where you live, but in B.C. there is a government program that will give people tax rebates and special grants to help pay to make houses accessible.

[conuly]

I haven't looked into it. Frankly, unless we either take over our next door neighbor's driveway, or get legal access to the back alley behind our house, our home can't really be wheelchair accessible anyway. From the sidewalk, you have to go up 6 steps just to get to the bottom of the front porch, we're on a hill. I don't see how that can be fixed, honestly.

Even with the rebates, though, construction is a pain and a half, and where do you live while they're doing it?