Sorry, but this is very accusatory in tone... You've called me on it, so I will for you too, you aren't being reasonable in your initial post. You walked it back a bit, but I already wrote this so... Every building should offer step free accessible units yes, including here, but if the possibility of an elevator failure meaning it should be illegal... you are better off putting taunting fines/repercussions on broken down elevators to landlords, than advocating for restrictions on the housing in the first place.
I didn't say the possibility of an elevator failure should be illegal, I said the risk should be mitigated by requiring 2 elevators.
This, by the way is the same standard most existing buildings employ, and the same standard Metrolinx is adopting for all new rapid transit stations (2 elevators minimum), and the same standard the TTC will be moving to, over time. Easier Access phase 4 will begin the introduction of redundant elevators.
Hypothetically, I ask, why not enforce this onto single family homes and townhomes too?
For several reasons.
1) Conceptually, a single-family home is just that. The impact is limited to a single household, and the risk to that household, should any one member become impaired in their mobility is a much smaller risk that one resident among 10 or more units over six floors.
2) In the case of an SFH, operating as an SFH, it is generally possible for someone to at least temporarily live life on the ground floor (sleep on the couch), presuming there is a ground floor bathroom.
There is no partial, less than ideal solution for the sixth floor resident of an apartment building. They can't stay in the lobby for six weeks.
In an ideal world, we would have every space be accessible. The world is not ideal. But in creating buildings of a height where everyone concedes the need for an elevator (just try carrying several bags of groceries up six flights of stairs) we have a different obligation.
Single storey houses are very rare, and many include accessibility barriers anyways themselves (requiring chair lifts at the front door stairs for example). Home ownership shouldn't have a barrier of additional renovation costs to those who need it that is inherently ableism costs aside (and i'm saying this as someone who thinks such zoning should be abolished to begin with!) Nobody could ever build them in that senario, it's cost prohibitive and you probably would answer that the same. It's to say, I personally would rather see something built, then nothing, as it adds an elevators and accessible units to a property with none currently.
The odds on someone being trapped in the current building due to mobility impairment, given that there is no elevator there now, is rather remote.
Its certainly possible someone could be trapped out of their unit if they became mobility impaired, and that would be unfortunate, but its a limited scope impact, as a result of a pre-existing building.
Not a likely impact, caused by a new building.
If the something that is built needs an additional elevator, then advocate for one. The developer should be more than capable of buying out one additional property if they need to go bigger to make the numbers work.
By making it illegal to build with one elevator, I am requiring the owner to buy the adjacent property and build properly. I'm fine with 'telling' rather than 'asking' here.
Apartments are the only widely available option for people, especially since most are low income! If there was a larger focus on low-rise apartment properties, then elevator costs are brought down the chain as multiple people pay for one, so there could be two, there can be redundancy. That's not even to say this building deserves defense from an accessibility perspective, but fixing the rules doesn't mean additional restrictions, and we're all aware here that restrictive zoning was born out of racism, classism and ableism. I think you'd agree that those who to places like Japan for an answer (old population, many elevators) aren't seeing the full picture, but at the same time, many many elders live there, and many places around the world with the same modern amenities and don't suffer (even though some definently could benefit from better!). I'd avoid having an instinctive reaction to enact MORE restraints. My point is... That's what causes harm to communities, action with vague direction. It sounds good in theory, but in practice the community ends up worse off. This needs a larger discussion, not a dismissive one, and you know better than many that the city planning process is one that is about discussion, application by application.
See what I have to say below, but let me add, I don't come from money. i was the first in my family to graduate HS never mind university; I grew up in apartments and still live in one, albeit a pretty nice one.
I'm absolutely in favour or removing zoning restrictions based on tenure (ownership vs rental); and to be clear, I advocated for that, and its done.
Multiplexes and rental are now allowed everywhere.
Accessibility requirements for de facto mid-rises are no more optional than complying with the fire code.
If the argument is that people can't afford to live in a building where they don't have high risk of dying a fire, the answer is not to remove the requirement for smoke detectors, alarms, 2 paths of egress, or fire extinguishers. The answer is to raise their income, or making rent-geared-to-income housing available to them.
Minimum standards matter.
As my S/O lived the last year with this struggle due to a hazardous workplace incident, this is true. He was depressed being inside a lot, not being able to move. The house we rent in is elevated considerably from ground level, but that wasn't even the issue. The largest barrier for him was still the rest of the world. The TTC (even with elevators.), The Eaton Centre (the elevator layouts are bafflingly bad), everywhere was a stressful ordeal for him. But it highlighted to me that broad rulings don't help all those who are disabled equally. Ramps actually are a burden to people are crutches, I never considered that. It should be an ongoing conversation, as you said, everyone can and probably will face a disability at some point, so ideally all buildings have a safe guard in place for that. To me, this building won't work for most people in a wheelchair, but for there are others who could benefit, having an elevator that is reliable.
As someone whose mother lived in an apartment, and whose mother had a stroke and developed COPD in her old age as well, and required a rollator to get around; and who could not physically climb even 2 flights of stairs, yet lived on the second floor of a multi-storey building, I am acutely aware of the impact of choices in building design.
Rememeber the Ice storm? That caused a power failure in my mother's building. No elevators, and no lights in the stairs, since the building lacks a backup generator.
This didn't just trap my mother, a tenant of many decades who was able-bodied when she moved in..............
Her 4x per day homecare refused to attend her, as the care providers were unwilling to walk even one-storey up in an unlit staircase.
She required that care to live.
I had to drop my work, and go over and care for her.
There's a reason I'm passionate about this.
PS, I also want back up generators to be mandatory and they must be able to power at least one elevator.
www.toronto.ca
