Update: Change in Proposed Visitability Ordinance

Date Thursday, June 5th, 2008 at 12:43 am Posts By admin

We had a lot of great comments on my last post about the possibility of mandatory visitability features for new homes in Austin.

Here’s an update from the Austin Business Journal on changes to the proposal:

Austin officials take controversial homebuilding rules off the table

Austin city officials have scaled back a proposed ordinance that would have required all new single-family homes to have features such as wheelchair ramps so they’re more accessible to disabled individuals and the elderly.

The scaled-back ordinance will be presented during a public hearing and considered Thursday by the City Council…

The scaled back requirements are as follows:

  • blocking in the walls of one first floor bath wall to allow for the installation of grab bars
  • minimum of one first floor entry door that is at least 32″ wide
  • all first floor doors at least 30″ wide
  • lever handle hardware on 1st floor doors
  • max height of 48″ for switches, thermostats and eletrical disconnects
  • min height of 15″ for electrical receptacles and plugs

The article also mentions incentives to encourage builders to include more expensive visitability features:

…City Council Member Betty Dunkerley, who proposed the ordinance, says costly rules such as requiring builders to install ramps or no-step entrances will be sent back to stakeholders to include in an incentive or bonus program. If such features are installed the city may give builders increased floor-to-area ratio or impervious cover, says Dunkerley…

This revised ordinance appears to minimize cost to builders while allowing future homeowners to easily install visitability features as needed. The use of incentives to encourage builders to implement more costly visitability features preserves choice and provides the city with a mechanism to increase the supply of homes with these elements.

Read the full article here: Austin Business Journal - Austin officials take controversial homebuilding rules off the table

What do you think? Still too many requirements? Or not enough?

This entry was posted on Thursday, June 5th, 2008 at 12:43 am and is filed under Austin, Construction, Inspired Homes, Listings, News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Filed under Austin, Construction, Inspired Homes, Listings, News

Related Posts

11 Responses to “Update: Change in Proposed Visitability Ordinance”

  1. Eric Rauser Says:
    June 5th, 2008 at 8:58 am

    I just don’t see the need for new legislation. If private accessibility is such a beneficial feature to consumers, then won’t market forces work that out?
    I worry that passing this ordinance even in scaled back form will allow future restrictions. Once it’s determined that potential to install grab-bars hasn’t done anything to make bathrooms more accessible, the next step is to require all houses to have an ADA compliant restroom.
    These universally applied ordinances only serve to limit designers and builders ability to solve specific problems for specific users.

  2. Tim Says:
    June 5th, 2008 at 10:15 am

    The market will never work for issues like visitability. Or rather one could say that it has. The mobility impaired are not a valuable market segment, and so the market has done nothing for them. That’s market efficiency. Government regulation allows us to tweak the market so that we can provide for what would otherwise be “market inefficiency”.

    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.

  3. Ryan Brown Says:
    June 5th, 2008 at 11:19 am

    For more coverage see here:

    Statesman.com - Proposal may open Austin homes to disabled

  4. Eric Rauser Says:
    June 5th, 2008 at 2:05 pm

    It’s hard not to see this as an emotional issue, but if we look at this logically it is clearly Unreasonable Accommodation. The number of wheelchair bound Americans is around 1,600,000 (according to the Disability Statistic Center of UCSF), making up 0.53% of the U.S. population. Less than 6 people out of 1000. Do we really need restrictive legislation for such a small group?

    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.

  5. Tim Says:
    June 5th, 2008 at 3:55 pm

    Mobility Impaired is not the same thing as wheelchair bound. There are many houses in Austin that you couldn’t get into if you simply broke your foot.

    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.

  6. Eric Rauser Says:
    June 5th, 2008 at 4:25 pm

    Tim,
    Covering exposed electrical wiring is a matter of life safety. I don’t see how reinforcing bathroom walls for possible future placement of grab-bars is a matter of public safety. Mandating outlet height for the convenience of a person in a wheelchair won’t help a person with a broken foot get in the front door or save his/her life from electrocution.

  7. Tim Says:
    June 5th, 2008 at 5:04 pm

    My cover plate example was simply to point out that architects are already kept from building pie in the sky designs due to the building code. These are simply changes to the building code. Not some sort of wide reaching communist plot to impose Brutalist architecture on the masses.

    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.

  8. Eric Rauser Says:
    June 5th, 2008 at 5:17 pm

    Again, things like saving time and money isn’t in the purview of building code. The purpose of a building code is the protect the health, safety and welfare of citizens. Zoning codes are to protect rights of citizens and property owners.

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

  9. Ryan Brown Says:
    June 5th, 2008 at 8:48 pm

    While there are many reasons to implement visitability features, I think Eric makes several good points.

    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 ;).

  10. Bob Says:
    June 6th, 2008 at 10:36 am

    Below are my thoughts on the proposed “scaled back” requirements. I have attempted to come at this strictly from a design perspective not a property rights/proper role of government perspective.

    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.

  11. Austin Visitability Outcome | InspiredAustin.com Says:
    June 21st, 2008 at 10:11 pm

    [...] Update: Change in Proposed Visitability Ordinance (10 comments) [...]

Leave a Reply