rdaner
Senior Member
Where are we on the stairway requirement for mid-rise housing? I’m assuming that it is still being discussed but wasn’t sure.
|
|
|
- Thread starter A Torontonian Now
- Start date
txlseries4
Active Member
I don’t know much about the policy, current or proposed, but saw on social media that the IAFF put out a statement on their position (against) single staircase/exit. It was along with someone’s commentary that: “This International Association of Fire Fighters position statement against single-stair in Canada shows that they don’t know the code, and it’s really a U.S. org. The single-stair height limit in Canada isn’t three stories (that’s America) – it’s usually just one story!” How true or nuanced that is, I'm unsure, but thought I'd pass it and the statement along
Here’s the the part of the statement and a link to it:
IAFF Position Statement on Single-Exit Residential Buildings
Recent efforts in provincial legislatures aim to circumvent the National Code processes and remove important safety design features from multi-story residential buildings. Currently, the Canadian National Building Code requires two exits in residential buildings greater than three stories. If proponents are successful, residential buildings could be permitted to include only a single exit in a residential structure greater than three stories. These proposals will decrease critical life-safety components of future dwellings and, in emergency situations, will require all building occupants to escape through a single stairwell – the same stairwell fire fighters would need to use upon arrival.
The International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) is concerned these efforts are short-sighted and dangerous to the public and responding fire fighters. It is imperative that the adverse consequences of a decrease in life-safety design are fully considered by decision makers. While we understand and support the urgent need for additional affordable housing, the IAFF also believes that all housing must be safe housing. The removal of two exits – a critical safety design feature – is not an acceptable trade-off for additional housing.
These are life and death issues that should be addressed through the consensus code process, not through legislative action that bypasses technical review and evaluation. Proponents refer to these efforts as a “Single-Stair Initiative,” but the IAFF believes a more accurate term is “Single-Exit” or “One Way Out.” The more accurate terminology is as dangerous as it sounds.
There are several issues that warrant further consideration.
Here’s the the part of the statement and a link to it:
IAFF Position Statement on Single-Exit Residential Buildings
Recent efforts in provincial legislatures aim to circumvent the National Code processes and remove important safety design features from multi-story residential buildings. Currently, the Canadian National Building Code requires two exits in residential buildings greater than three stories. If proponents are successful, residential buildings could be permitted to include only a single exit in a residential structure greater than three stories. These proposals will decrease critical life-safety components of future dwellings and, in emergency situations, will require all building occupants to escape through a single stairwell – the same stairwell fire fighters would need to use upon arrival.
The International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) is concerned these efforts are short-sighted and dangerous to the public and responding fire fighters. It is imperative that the adverse consequences of a decrease in life-safety design are fully considered by decision makers. While we understand and support the urgent need for additional affordable housing, the IAFF also believes that all housing must be safe housing. The removal of two exits – a critical safety design feature – is not an acceptable trade-off for additional housing.
These are life and death issues that should be addressed through the consensus code process, not through legislative action that bypasses technical review and evaluation. Proponents refer to these efforts as a “Single-Stair Initiative,” but the IAFF believes a more accurate term is “Single-Exit” or “One Way Out.” The more accurate terminology is as dangerous as it sounds.
There are several issues that warrant further consideration.
Northern Light
Superstar
This policy idea continues to be wrong and dangerous. I would favour charging any politician, builder or architect with criminally negligent homicide the first time someone can't escape a burning building because of this.
As I have previously noted there are alternate safety measures........from mandatory fire suppression systems, to higher fire ratings on walls, windows and doors, but collectively they cost more than providing the 2nd stair case.
This is a dumb idea, distracting people from real solutions.
Cambry Ardship
Active Member
But it's not just about the cost. Having single staircases opens up a range of multiunit buildings that can be built on smaller lots and constructing different types of neighbourhoods that are limited by our policy choices today.
There's plenty of jurisdictions that that have a lower rate of deaths from fire than Canada and the US do while allowing taller single stair buildings. So yes, it would mean that fire departments have to learn from international experience and change some of their procedures and policies but I am unconvinced that this change would necessarily result in more deaths or injuries.
There's plenty of jurisdictions that that have a lower rate of deaths from fire than Canada and the US do while allowing taller single stair buildings. So yes, it would mean that fire departments have to learn from international experience and change some of their procedures and policies but I am unconvinced that this change would necessarily result in more deaths or injuries.
Northern Light
Superstar
I got it. I stand by what I said. I don't see a tangible net benefit, and I consider the effort on this wasted at best and dangerous at worst.
The point is creating more affordable housing, the primary solutions for which are:
Reducing demand
Pubiic/Non-profit ownership
Higher incomes in the bottom 2 qintiles of the income spectrum from both wages and government assistance.
Solve the above, solve the problem; spending time working on other things...problem persists.
There are unrelated reasons for the difference in this statistic.
***
The notion that Fire Departments here are too obstinate is fair; but at the same time, suggesting we subsidize dangerous housing with hundreds of millions or more new fire fighting equipment when we could just build affordable housing instead seems like a misapplication of resources.
goodcitywhenfinished
Active Member
I propose a compromise solution to both @Northern Light and @Cambry Ardship
Keep dual egress fire codes but get rid of FAR and setback bylaws as a way to generate larger apartment units on smaller lots.
Keep dual egress fire codes but get rid of FAR and setback bylaws as a way to generate larger apartment units on smaller lots.
just east of the creek
Senior Member
There is an article in Fridays Globe and Mail that I am just getting to by Dave LeBlanc (self proclaimed’architourist’) called “A Reimagining of Suburban Delight” ….introducing the Subdivillage.
The link is https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/toronto/article-a-re-imagining-of-suburban-delight/
I think this is still subscriber only, but I’ll copy the text in later if needed.
I would be interested in others reaction to the concept and the planning.
The link is https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/toronto/article-a-re-imagining-of-suburban-delight/
I think this is still subscriber only, but I’ll copy the text in later if needed.
I would be interested in others reaction to the concept and the planning.
Northern Light
Superstar
I'll do a piece looking at it later in greater detail.
But in short, not particularly workable or desirable. Don't get me wrong, the AI renders look lovely.
But as 'new build' suburbia they would still be sprawl, conceptually they don't address the need for transit, or for walkable grocery/retail. Its just render porn.
The examples they give from the U.S. are unaffordable pseudo-gated communities where everyone has two (or more cars), and no one takes transit.
Its this sort of disconnection from reality that drives me nuts.
Could some of the ideas be used? Sure........ but if you want to end sprawl, the first thing you have to do is stop sprawling.
That means you're going to need to achieve this version of an 'idyll' by re-doing an existing suburban community. Any retrofit that preserves the majority of houses in their current locations and the bulk of the existing road layout will be nothing more
than lipstick or very superficial change.
Leveling the bulk of a current, extant subdivision, keeping just a smattering of existing homes, in good condition to preserve architectural variety and save some waste, while layout an entirely different road grid and mixing in smaller homes, 4-plexes, lowrise apartments, neighbourhood retail and adding major retail and midrise at the periphery or along a new central street would require sweeping expropriation and likely a material public subsidy.
That doesn't make it a bad idea........... this concept is largely unachievable non-sense.
afransen
Senior Member
I came across this video about a urban expansion near Amsterdam. Some thoughts about architecture and built form.
evandyk
Senior Member
I think Naama Blonder understands the challenges of creating the subdivillage in terms of layout and architecture.
But I'm not sure the subdivillage is what a lot of people in North America want. There's obviously huge demand for truly walkable neighbourhoods in cities where you can live without a car, which is why a two bedroom condo in a good neighbourhood starts at a million bucks and a house starts at 1.5. And there's obviously huge demand for big houses with yards in the suburbs, which is why a house in King City also starts at a million bucks. I'm not sure there's demand for a suburb that is mostly the same, but everything is smaller, even if your kid can ride their bike to school. And you can't make it dense enough that it approximates walkable neighbourhoods if everybody is in single family homes.
But I'm not sure the subdivillage is what a lot of people in North America want. There's obviously huge demand for truly walkable neighbourhoods in cities where you can live without a car, which is why a two bedroom condo in a good neighbourhood starts at a million bucks and a house starts at 1.5. And there's obviously huge demand for big houses with yards in the suburbs, which is why a house in King City also starts at a million bucks. I'm not sure there's demand for a suburb that is mostly the same, but everything is smaller, even if your kid can ride their bike to school. And you can't make it dense enough that it approximates walkable neighbourhoods if everybody is in single family homes.
just east of the creek
Senior Member
Well i wondered what an 'architourist' was? The ideal of the concept is nice, a neighbourhood that does not feature a parking lot in front of every resident. And does not induce sprawl. But I appreciate your points, and unless I am Napoleon III and you are Haussmann (or vice versa), the dictatorial clout needed to go in and rebuild whole neighbourhoods is one that looks better after a good single malt or two.....
Northern Light
Superstar
Most people would get those references outside of UT like forum (Nap III, and H ) ..... LOL
But I will say...... I may have heard the Napoleon moniker before.
***
I think re-building some existing subdivisions is actually feasible enough to be considered when sober............but yes, the politics might be a tad messy, and it wouldn't come cheap either.
rdaner
Senior Member
chrisw
Active Member
Ontario plans to impose new planning rules on municipalities to boost housing | Globalnews.ca
The government is relying on a series of changes, like reducing studies developers have to undertake and standardizing development charges, in a bid to speed up homebuilding.
globalnews.ca
Some excerpts
According to internal government documents, obtained by Global News, the province is looking to standardize development charges levied by municipalities to pay for infrastructure that supports new developments.
To eliminate the patchwork of policy, the government’s legislation would encourage municipalities to reduce development charges.
The bill would allow developers to delay payments until the unit has been occupied (as opposed to paying when the permit is issued), and give builders the option to pay the lowest development charge available at the time of payment.
It would also make it harder for municipalities to store the development charges in long-term reserve accounts and make them spend them faster.
As part of the development charge changes, Global News has learned the government is considering creating a credit-based system, allowing home builders to earn credits for certain public infrastructure projects that could then be applied to future development charges.
The legislation also gives the Ford government a direct say in the development approvals process and places limits on how many studies a municipality could request from a developer.
If the study falls outside the scope of the city’s official plans, the municipality would be restricted from requesting it. The law would also give the province the power to dictate whether a city’s official plans could be changed to require additional studies or reports.
The legislation would also give the Ford government the ability to pare down the list of requirements for a development application, establish which studies would be required and force municipalities to accept certified studies presented by the developer.
Northern Light
Superstar
Ontario plans to impose new planning rules on municipalities to boost housing | Globalnews.ca
The government is relying on a series of changes, like reducing studies developers have to undertake and standardizing development charges, in a bid to speed up homebuilding.
Some excerpts
According to internal government documents, obtained by Global News, the province is looking to standardize development charges levied by municipalities to pay for infrastructure that supports new developments.
To eliminate the patchwork of policy, the government’s legislation would encourage municipalities to reduce development charges.
The bill would allow developers to delay payments until the unit has been occupied (as opposed to paying when the permit is issued), and give builders the option to pay the lowest development charge available at the time of payment.
It would also make it harder for municipalities to store the development charges in long-term reserve accounts and make them spend them faster.
As part of the development charge changes, Global News has learned the government is considering creating a credit-based system, allowing home builders to earn credits for certain public infrastructure projects that could then be applied to future development charges.
The legislation also gives the Ford government a direct say in the development approvals process and places limits on how many studies a municipality could request from a developer.
If the study falls outside the scope of the city’s official plans, the municipality would be restricted from requesting it. The law would also give the province the power to dictate whether a city’s official plans could be changed to require additional studies or reports.
The legislation would also give the Ford government the ability to pare down the list of requirements for a development application, establish which studies would be required and force municipalities to accept certified studies presented by the developer.
Too invasive and micro-managey.
Cities, without any of these rules used to charge far less in development charges.
But they also used to benefit from public housing being provincially funded and transit 50% subsidized.
Its silly to imagine these charges came out of a vacuum. They appear because cities have large capital deficits, even with the current charges.
Developers have seen any number of rules relaxed and policies made frankly out of as much substance as 'Swiss Cheese' which it to say, holes here, there and everywhere.
On top of which, the shortage of housing is a problem created by permitted/incentivizing excessive (and fake) foreign students, TFWS, and by liberally permitting short-term rentals.
This is a way of distracting from the substantive issues.
Last edited: