Blocking in the walls of one first floor bath wall to allow for the installation of grab bars

Seems like this would be minimal at first glance, but if you use the ADA required grab bar sizes - the grab bars would not fit in the average residential bath. The average residential bath has 32″ clear floor space for the water closet. Installing blocking is no big deal, but the sizes of grab bars that are to be installed in the future is what should be considered. ADA requires 36″ along the back and 42″ along the side of the water closet. Both of these bars are to be mounted a maximum of 12″ from the corner. The main issue I see is the 36″ bar along the rear. The average bathroom would need to be made larger to accomodate a 36″ grab bar and corner clearance. It seems as if this item would need to be clarified to be able to understand the design impact.

Minimum of one first floor entry door that is at least 32″ wide

The International Residential Code already requires 36″ at the entry

All first floor doors at least 30″ wide

Smaller doors are commonly used in; linen closets, water heater access closets, and pantries. Certianly there may be some others as well, but that is what comes to mind. If 30″ clear is required then the actual door size will need to be 32″. A 30″ wide door will not provide 30″ clear becasue of the jamb projection. This will need to be clarified.

Lever handle hardware on 1st floor doors

The lever handles are generally less durable. I wouldn’t recommend them for high abuse applications unless they are required by code.

Max height of 48″ for switches, thermostats and eletrical disconnects

American graphic standards recommends that the top of the box be between 44″ - 48″ above the floor. The proposed requirement would fall within the typical range.

Min height of 15″ for electrical receptacles and plugs

American graphic standards recommends that the top of the receptacle be between 12″ - 16″ above the floor. The proposed requirement would fall within the typical range.

It comes down the scope of government building codes - going beyond health and safety features may be a dangerous precedent to set.

Perhaps someone can weigh in on the City Charter and how it limits the scope of building ordinances - although that may do more to end the thread than invoking Godwin’s law ;).

Regardless, it might be time for one of us to invoke Godwin’s Law and end this thread.

Public safety isn’t the only thing the building code covers. Obviously some in the city feel that putting this in the building code will save them time and money in the future and contribute a substantial benefit to the public good.

An architect can’t decide that exposed electrical sockets meet their diverse user with an appropriate solution. There’s a “blanket ordinance” that says you have to put a cover plate on.

Logically it makes the most sense for the standard building code to accommodate the most people.

I realize that this is an unpopular statement, and that I will seem like a bad person. My interest, though, is in maintaining my ability to provide diverse users with an appropriate solution instead of a blanket ordinance on all residences.

Statesman.com - Proposal may open Austin homes to disabled

The market would have the poor starving to death in the streets as they’re not productive enough to feed. Thankfully as a society this is not acceptable so we tweak the market to keep it from happening. It’s all a balance.