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

[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.