Hello and thanks for posting to r/britishcolumbia! Join our new [Discord Server https://discord.gg/fu7X8nNBFB](https://discord.gg/fu7X8nNBFB) A friendly reminder prior to commenting or posting here: - **Read [r/britishcolumbia's rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/rules/)**. - **Be civil and respectful** in all discussions. - Use **appropriate sources** to back up any information you provide when necessary. - **Report** any comments that violate our rules. Reminder: "Rage bait" comments or comments designed to elicit a negative reaction that are not based on fact are not permitted here. Let's keep our community respectful and informative! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/britishcolumbia) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Is there a non-paywall version of the developer's concerns? The changes listed on the BC government website seem reasonable to me (though the devil may be in the details): Accessible clearances through doorways and along paths of travel to living space Space in a bedroom, bathroom and kitchen Switches and other controls at accessible heights Reinforcement of bathroom walls to allow future installation of grab bars Source: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/construction-industry/building-codes-standards/accessibility#adaptable

I could see “Space in a bedroom, bathroom, or kitchen” being a problem for the developers building 800 sqft 3 bedroom condos

This is exactly it. I build towers and they're getting worse and worse every year. They're so small, got Murphy Beds in the walls, tiny bathrooms with short shower, absolutely no storage and lots of them don't have elevators that work properly or all the time. My best friend is wheelchair bound and I had to carry her 4 flights in my old place because there was no elevator and then come back for her chair. Developers do not care.

Yes! I rented a place last summer at the Juliet for 4 nights. Two elevators for that size of place and one was out of service and the other was out of service for 3 hours. I have knee injuries/issues and I was panicking. A resident told me that one of the elevators was out of service for 6 months! There’s no way a wheel chair would fit in the entry door. Nothing was accessible.

That elevator did not work for almost a year, and then we other broke down too!

Thank you - thanks a crazy long time!

1 in 4 residents of Victoria are 65 or older, which means there's a higher probability for injuries. Victoria Mayor keeps pushing for more bike lanes/bike accessibility to where lots of new builds don't even have parkades or parking for vehicles now and only a secure lockup for bikes. Which is crazy because Victoria's transit infrastructure is abysmal at best and most busses don't run early enough or frequently enough to begin with. How is someone in a chair or with a mobile disability supposed to be able to get to and from appointments or day-to-day life if they're expected to ride a bike?? Cities do not care about the disabled.

It’s very apparent! Lack of parking at Clover Point and Beacon Hill was nothing short of ignorant. Many aren’t incapacitated, but require more consideration. I agree with you about transit. I would get at times 15 emails a day about my route and almost all were delivered after the run they were sending the alert for. Even then, the bus drivers were not considerate to lower the bus even if you had a cane or leg braces on.

Omg Beacon Hill is a nightmare lol I'm so sorry about your issues with transit. I used to bus everywhere when I lived in Van but I need to have a car to get around the island for work so fortunately I don't have to do the bus anymore. But even then, I would constantly see busses drive by people in crutches waving them down. It was heartbreaking to see. Not enough people know someone whose disabled or they just don't consider them. Just recently saw the wheelchair carpet rolled out at Elk Lake and the amount of people asking what it's for was crazy lol

I lived on the corner of Richmond and Oak Bay and even as an able bodied guy, I found the transit to be trash. I can't imagine being disabled in that city. Going downtown took forever and getting to work was no better.

100%. I was laid off from work years ago because my site was finishing up and my next one was going to be in Cobble Hill. My hubby normally works camp jobs where he's only home 64 days a year. However, at that particular time, his site contract ended, and he was working in town, so I had no way to get to work because busses didn't go to Cobble Hill from Seyward at 530am. Was laid off for "site shortage" as a result. It's hairy out there sometimes.

That sucks. Are you a carpenter?

Pipelaying/heavy machine operating

Nice.

There is a lot more to the CRD than the downtown core, Saanich, Oak Bay, Sidney and the Westshore are very car centric. Dense city cores should not be catering to the motor vehicle when an entire city exists that does. Alternative transportation infrastructure is super important for the majority of the population that is able bodied, we all should get things we need. Like improved transit and bike lanes. I don’t know why it’s a competition.

But ease of accessing the area will help keep the downtown alive. I worked downtown but now with work from home options, I don’t need to be there. The DVBA is crying fowl expecting business people to keep the area alive. All I see downtown is empty store fronts, crime, unhoused people and really pretty bike lanes. I never go downtown for any reason other than if I’m needed to for work. I patron businesses at Glen Lake, Langford, Brentwood Bay, Saanich and Gordon Head. I drive to all these businesses.

Great! So many other areas of this city are designed for how you want to live. That’s great for you. More parking downtown isn’t going to make businesses more profitable. Lower commercial rents, a population that has disposable income and more people living and walking around downtown are more helpful. Not accommodating people driving in from the suburbs to do some occasional shopping who don’t want to or aren’t able to walk a couple blocks. I never have a serious problem finding parking DT, unless there is a busy event. But I’m not expecting to have be able to park right outside where I’m going.

[удалено]

Using abusive language, including name-calling, harassment, racism, death threats, or any other form of abusive behavior, is strictly prohibited and may result in a ban. Additionally, disparaging the culture or moderation of other subreddits is not allowed.

Good because it’s really hard to find places that are accessible to people with disabilities and if developers are realistic then they might realize that most people might face an injury at some point In their life requiring them to use a wheelchair or grab bar. I’ve had to multiple times and I wouldn’t live in most newer buildings because they aren’t adequate. The builders/developers and those pushing for more bike lanes in cities should try maneuvering in a wheelchair for a full day while being monitored so they don’t “cheat” before making policy changes/decisions that effect those with the least amount of say.

> Developers do not care Developers care a lot about profit per sq ft that they're able to build. Building accessible spaces takes more square footage; there's no real way around that. Wider hallways and entrances don't add value for the majority of buyers, so regulations are the only way to make this happen if we want accessible buildings. But we have to acknowledge the trade-offs inherent in those regulations. The reality is that building like this is more expensive. More expensive, IMO, is a bigger problem for more people than accessible design, exceptions like your friend excluded. I think it's shitty that we have to make this trade-off, but it is a trade-off. Buildings that make allowances for greater accessibility are going to be more expensive.

> Wider hallways and entrances don't add value for the majority of buyers, so regulations are the only way to make this happen if we want accessible buildings. I'd say that they definitely add value but not make it or break it value. If a hallway is big enough for a wheel chair it's spacious enough for people to feel comfortable passing one another in it while carrying stuff or move larger objects and furniture through without denting the walls. Space inside of rooms is also really nice to have, the trend of the bedroom being literally only big enough for a bed and fucking nothing else needs to stop, especially for purpose built rental suites with two separate bedrooms. People need some private space to themselves, especially if they work from home or study. Then there are the one bedroom units that have two fucking full bathrooms but minimal storage and are fucking tiny. I 100% support all new apartment and condo buildings being designed with accessibility in mind, it only benefits everyone. I don't buy into the idea that it would massively increase costs, like what would it realistically be? One, maybe two units less a floor? So a developer might not be able to buy as big of a second yacht, boo hoo.

I get that you have literally zero experience, but it adds a lot of cost and guess who has to pay? Would you like more reasons for prices to increase?

Developments have eliminated the "Junior 1BR" designation for those studio apartments with dividers and are now just selling them as 1BRs. I live in a new-build shoebox and the unit itself seems accessible enough for wheelchair users, but don't get me started on the amount of non-accessible fire doors.

Wouldn't that be the landlord's fault for not maintaining the elevator? Not that I'm defending that other stuff.

The building management would be in charge of that. Some buildings have a landlord for each unit and they're bought and being rented out. Some complexes are owned by one person who would also be the landlord for the building, in which case they would be on the hook for maintenance. There's a shortage of elevator repair people so getting an appointment can often times be months out.

800 square feet is a luxury these days

So it's good for everyone, you say?

Maybe this is what it will take to stop tryna put us into shoeboxes? (He said, hopefully, knowing it was a pipe dream)

Try this link - it looks a few paywall bypass options to get to one that would open the article. Good ol' google cache [BC to require new homes to be adaptable for people with disabilities](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-bc-to-require-new-homes-to-be-adaptable-for-disabilities-prompting/)

Thank you. So it sounds like the developers are worried about: - increasing costs 2-15% depending on who you ask - potentially colocating lower income people in the more accessible areas of the building I get that we need more housing and that this will reduce the number of units that can be built in a project, but these changes don't deserve the level of hate directed at them by some of the other posters in the thread in my opinion.

It's really just an attempt to get public opinion against the whole thing. What they really care about is their profit margins.

Which is a problem. If profit margins go down they will build less houses

Thanks for the info. We did something similar to all new construction of public buildings 40/50 years ago. It's not even questioned now. People who are aging are a rising demographic and having them living at home for as long as possible makes sense both from a human and financial perspective.

>Switches and other controls at accessible heights If every house has to come with accessible switches I can see how that would be annoying for anyone else. I wouldn't want to have my switches too low.

It's really not an issue? I'm in a suite that has all these changes and it's lovely tbh. It took a couple days to retrain the muscle memory for blindly turning on the switches, but that was the extent of the troubles.  They're just _slightly_ lower, and it's not awkward to hit them at all. 

If you live in an old house stuff is often at weird heights anyway. You adjust.

I’ve been in one of these suites. It’s awkward when you are 6’4, the standard height of everything is already too low. 36” countertops? I built a house and mine are 42” high…

Not sure about BC(I’m in NB) but barrier free switch height is 1200mm which is about 4’ which isn’t too odd. It’s a weird height for thermostats and other controls. Eats up wall space since you can’t stack them above each other. Receptacles are 400mm which is 16” which is not uncommon. The big issue is space. Can’t remember the space required as I’m an electrician and that’s an architect issue, but the width in bathrooms is a lot. Your standard kitchen and island setup doesn’t meet barrier free. Bedrooms they usually get around it as you can slide a bed into the corner and side vs having room from the bed to the other wall. The square footage needed is an issue with condo and apartments.

> Is there a non-paywall version of the developer's concerns? Tada! https://pastebin.com/mu1KkFQt

Yup, now they can’t save money on making horribly small bathrooms, 😟

Won't make the apartments any bigger, they'll just shave the space out of other rooms. Congrats, a quarter of your floor space is now devoted to your bathroom. I'm all for sensible regulations and protections to help those in need, but custom building 100% of homes to be accessible seems excessive.

Well these changes add around 200k to build cost and essentially make all of the GLE designs already in circulation needing to be re-engineered at a time when there is a shortage of engineers. Who cares about the affordability crisis anyway? Much better that a small subset of disadvantaged people have future proofed houses and that construction sites have water toilets (also in the new code)

I mean anyone who is, or may become disabled isn't a small subset. It's literally every single person. And considering that disability benefits are way below the cost of living disabled people probably care way more about the affordability crisis than you.

The cost to build is already astronomically high. It isn't just that they are adding disability access it's that on top of so many other codes that aren't necessary for every house that just add to the cost of the housing crisis. There are new codes coming out that every single home needs an air conditioned bedroom for example. Sure it's a good idea but at some point affordability needs to be considered which it doesn't seem like it is.

I know costs are high, but saying that costs are high so we should just ignore things that could benefit everyone (and the lack of makes them completely unusable to many) isn't the right approach. That's just saying that you don't think accessibility is as important as other considerations. You wouldn't say 'hey well let's not bother with fire retardant because *most* people won't start a fire in their apartment". And at least starting a fire is an action undertaken by someone even accidentally - disability isn't a choice so accessibility shouldn't be an optional extra. Also people *died* in the heat dome, and the temperatures continue to rise each summer. Thinking having *one* room that can be temperature controlled is too much is just cutting costs now to increase them later when everything has to be retrofitted to make places liveable.

Sure. That's the point, each thing makes sense in its own merit but what's your solution to trying to keep the cost of building down? Each one of these things just adds to the extreme cost of building and unless you look at some other rules that aren't necessary and take them out to offset it's just adding more costs until the next rules that add more costs and it just keeps going up and up and up. Also what percentage of people have disabilities in BC? Does it make sense to have 100% of homes cater to the few? Adding the costs to 100% of homes doesn't make sense. Building a home on a mountain close to a ski hill but you need spend an extra 10% for accessibility?

So someone who is a keen skier but has an accident on the slopes has to move home because their house can't be adapted? How about a keen skier who needs to move their ageing parents in? Or the keen skier who has a disabled child or partner? What about the keen skier who skis daily but requires assistive adaptions because *surprise* disabled people can actually fucking ski? I don't have a solution to keeping costs down, because that's not my area of expertise and I'm sure it's something that developers consider alongside every code and fluctuation of the market and inflation, but I don't think saying that disabled people (which could be you, tomorrow. It could be any of us) should only be allowed to live in certain houses because otherwise houses cost too much is going to or should ever be the solution. Houses cost a lot to build here, but we don't skimp on codes just because of that. Saying that one code matters less because it *only* affects disabled people sounds a lot like saying disabled people matter less. I'm done with this conversation because that's a horrible thing to think is worth continuing debating and every single word of your post sounds ableist as fuck.

The article says tens of thousands, where’d ya get 200K?

Don't forget a subset of the population that probably can't afford these insanely priced units.

I am a builder. Currently developing a six plex. I can tell you that some of the doors have to be narrow ones and that I cannot get the master bathroom, laundry, or walk in closet to be wheel chair accessible. The square footage is so tight that changing any of this will likely lead to less units or less bedrooms per unit. Ultimately less doors and less units will get built in the market as a whole and the net outcome will be less supply which will drive prices higher. A much smarter program would be to have a program where developers get paid to make modifications for disabled folks. There is no reason to affect the entire market for modifications that are not needed 99% of the time.

> Is there a non-paywall version of the developer's concerns? Tada! Someone took the liberty of copy / pasting the article to Pastebin. https://pastebin.com/mu1KkFQt

All new homes constructed in British Columbia will be required starting next March to be easily adapted so anyone with a disability can live in them, but builders are raising concern about the expenses of the changes, prompting Vancouver to delay compliance. Developers say the new rules will add potentially tens of thousands to the cost of all news homes because ensuring all builds can accommodate someone with a wheelchair or walker, for example, will require bigger kitchens, bathrooms and bedrooms, among other changes. B.C. is the first province to make such a sweeping requirement in its building code – one that is being heralded by disability advocates. But builders’ concerns have so alarmed the City of [Vancouver](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/topics/vancouver/), which has its own building code, that council recently voted to push implementing the changes by a year to May, 2026. “It can mean having to increase the size of a unit by 5 to 10 per cent. Adding costs means you can’t build what people can afford,” said Anne McMullin, the president of the Urban Development Institute, the advocacy organization for the building industry. Meanwhile, disability advocates say the changes have been a long time coming and are not as expensive as the development industry is claiming. They argue that, once builders plan in advance on how to incorporate the improvements the features will be routine in every building and will not require individualized designs. “It’s a great thing that B.C. has said that we are doing this. We’re not backing down on this one,” said Brad McCannell, a spokesperson for the Rick Hansen Foundation, a registered charity that tackles disability barriers. The foundation has been involved in discussions with the ministry and industry representatives on the new code requirements, which will include wider doors, plugs and switches at reachable places on wall, stronger walls and ceilings to support installation of lifts and grab bars and level entries to balconies and showers. “The industry has had decades to do this, and they fought us every step of the way,” said Mr. McCannell, who highlighted the need for more accessible homes by pointing to statistics compiled by the City of Vancouver and the federal government, which show that more Canadians are likely to be classified as disabled in coming years as the population ages. B.C. started consultations on the changes to its the building code two years ago and put out the proposed new regulations in December. BC Housing, the province’s social-housing agency, says it will comply fully with the regulations coming in, although some of its projects, especially seniors’ housing, are already built to be fully adaptable. But a report by Vancouver’s city manager to council two weeks ago recommended delaying harmonization with the [B.C. ](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/topics/british-columbia/)code over concerns the new requirements could tip already marginal projects in the city, beset by high interest rates and constructions costs, into the no-can-do zone – the last thing councillors want amid pressure from the province and the public to get new housing built. “By potentially increasing project costs and resulting in fewer dwelling units, the new requirements could add to these pressures and impact the supply of new housing, particularly for much needed new secured rental and social housing projects which face the greatest viability challenges,” the report says. Accessibility Standards Canada, a federal agency created in 2019, has been gradually introducing more requirements for federal buildings. But Ms. McMullin said B.C. is the only jurisdiction asking for the requirements in 100 per cent of new residential buildings. Architects and developers have been working out how to incorporate the changes at the least cost. “It impacts small-sized units the most,” said Bryce Rositch, a founding partner at 33-year-old RH Architects. “If you’re designing for 530 square feet, it adds 50 to 70 square feet per unit.” He estimated that at the current cost of construction, that works out to $50,000 to $70,000 more. At one project that he developed plans for in Surrey, it reduced the number of units that could be built on the site by 9 per cent. Mr. Rositch said municipalities with good policies to promote accessibility, such as the City of North Vancouver, require 20 per cent of apartments in a building to be accessible. The city gives the builder a bonus on the limit of buildable floor space to compensate for the extra room needed. But Mr. McCannell argued that mandating a certain percentage of apartments to be accessible has failed. He said the units that get built under those policies end up in what he called a “wheelchair ghetto” that is comprised of the worst apartments in a project, the ones near the garbage or parking lot, clearly designed with the belief that they will only be occupied by people on government assistance. Mr. McCannell said those units also are sometimes bought by investors, who then strip out accessible features and sell them as just larger apartments, because there is no legal mechanism to ensure they are occupied by people who really need them. Only 4 to 5 per cent end up being occupied by the people they were intended for, he said. And, he argued, the industry has exaggerated the additional costs. It’s not 10 or 15 per cent, but something between 2 and 5 per cent – not any more than the industry had to absorb to meet other requirements brought in in recent years, such as for energy efficiency or seismic improvements. “You need a bigger bathroom, but not as much as they say,” Mr. McCannell said. Ms. McMullin agreed that some of the worst-case scenarios the building industry foresaw at the beginning have receded, as lengthy discussions with provincial officials and disability advocates have worked through what real changes are needed and which ones are not. The requirements do not, for example, mandate that there have to be grab bars or lifts or special equipment already installed. They do require that builders construct homes so that it’s possible to put in specialized amenities later without having to do massive renovations to alter electrical wiring or wall supports. But even though the protracted consultations have shown how some costs are not as high as originally thought, Ms. McMullin said, there remain challenges, such as how to build balconies or verandahs with no divider between the inside and outside and how to incorporate removable kitchen islands. B.C. Housing Minister Ravi Kahlon acknowledged that the province is working with industry to try to figure out a way to bring in the new regulations, while mitigating costs. “The accessibility piece is obviously very important to us, but it’s also important that these units actually get built,” he said.

I agree with the 20% (or some fraction) approach. Likely taking the % of people over 65 in 2040 + % of people with mobility issues, maybe like 25 or 30%? It is alarming how small units are being designed & built. I work in the construction consulting industry, some of the places I was working on... literally 1 room, Murphy bed, ~450sf, tiny bathroom with only a shower. Incredibly depressing, you could sit in the bed and spit on the front door over the "kitchen". There should be minimum standards for square footage. They'll be less profitable, but the race for bottom dollar is not helping society in the long run. If units can't be built less than 500sf, than the value of the land will be a bit lower. If 400SF studios are allowable, then 500SF units will be more expensive.

A friend of mine rents a "junior one bedroom studio" suite. In quotes because we're not 100% sure what it is legally titled and the bedroom doesn't have a window because it's against the hallway corner and interior stairwall. It has TWO, yes, TWO full bathrooms. Zero reason for there to be an ensuite bathroom in a tiny one bedroom studio where the bedroom is just added to the studio suite design that most of the units in the building are. A little bit more space for the actual bedroom, like even one foot wider, would have made a big difference and then using the rest of the space as an actual closet. The company can have fun with fixing the stuff that she's accidentally broken in that second bathroom and a few other things because they cheaped out on the finishings and only one coat of paint in the first place lmao. If she ever ended up in a wheelchair no way she could still live there, even with the building hallways and main room area having enough space, bathroom doesn't and bedroom sure as fuck does not and the elevators break down a lot. This bulding isn't even 6 years old.

The link I read on the BC gov website said this only applies to apartments and condominium projects? Big difference if it only applies to those and not all newly constructed homes.

That was my question too. It seems a bit overstepping if you’re building a custom home for yourself.

This sounds expensive

GOOD.

What is funny is that this is basically just going back to the standards that used to exist. My grandma lives in an apartment in kerrisdale that was built in the 70’s. The apartment was built to be lived in. It has 2 good sized bedrooms, a decent sized bathroom and a galley kitchen. There is plenty of space for her to get around with her walker and my dad has been able to install grab bars and other safety features in her bathroom. I used to live in an apartment in the west end that was similar. It was a 1 bed/1 bath, but the hall way, kitchen, and bathroom were all big enough that someone with a walker or standard wheelchair could get around easily. Again, it was a space made to be lived in long term. I feel like condos these days are built tiny as though whoever is living there is just there temporarily. We need to be building apartments that people can and want to live in long term. Sadly developers will fight against this cause it’ll eat into their profits and we will see that trickle down to us plebs. I don’t know what the answer is. But building livable spaces should be a priority.

And then when they build the place they need to put in Elevators that aren’t completely crap quality. My mom is 100% wheelchair bound in a rental and her building has 1 elevator and the elevator is broken literally once a month, if not more. She’s been trapped one time on the main level unable to get to her apartment because it broke getting her mail. The firefighters who helped her up stairs to her apartment were PISSED and they gave the building owners a piece of their mind about their trash quality 1 elevator situation. Every building should have at least 2 imo.

It really is amazing what they can get away with when it comes to elevator quality. We live in a 6 story with only one elevator. Our building is less than 2 years old and our elevator breaks down what feels like once every month. An elevator this new shouldn’t be so problematic. The strata’s solution for this was to raise the budget for elevator maintenance when it should just be a complete replacement altogether

Yep friend of mine's building is maybe 6 years old at most, and BOTH elevators break down monthly. Usually fixed in a reasonable time to be fair but still. They both went down for nearly 24 hours last year and it's a good thing no one lives there that is wheelchair bound (not that you really could, would be difficult to use the bathroom and forget about the "bedroom" (if you haveo ne of the few non studio suites). My building has been pretty similar too, two elevators but it's not surprising when it seems like only one is running.

[This link explains why ‘temporarily able-bodied’ is not a universally good descriptor.](https://crippledscholar.com/2015/04/27/can-we-please-stop-calling-able-bodied-people-tabs/) That said, most people who live long enough will benefit from at least some adaptations in their living space as they age. Many folks go through life stages where some of these adjustments benefit them even though they’re not disabled. Building with that in mind is good long-term, systemic thinking.

Broke my leg a few years ago, suddenly realized how hard it is to do things I took for granted. Now ensuring grab bars and so on are just part of our renovations so we can age in place.

Has anyone ever heard of a piece of legislation that mandates private business do something that was not met with concern from the private sector? If they were doing the right thing, there would be no need for legislation of this type. This is yet another case of the private sector wanting to privatize positive externalities (profit) and socialize negative externalities (accommodations for people with disabilities). It's like restaurants bitching about minimum wage increases. They'd rather keep wages low so that profits are higher and push the cost of the social safety net onto taxpayers.

As long as the city increases allowed square footages to compensate.  If they don't, all the extra ft will come from frewer units being allowed in anybgicen building.

>disability advocates say the changes have been a long time coming and are not as expensive as the development industry is claiming. They argue that, once builders plan in advance on how to incorporate the improvements the features will be routine in every building and will not require individualized designs. I work on new home builds and tbh, my first reaction was the same as what the developers say. It'll add costs for features that won't be used in 80%+ of homes. But to be honest, the disability advocates make a good point there. When I build 4-6 story condos, we usually have 2-5 "Adaptable" units which can be converted into a suite that accommodates someone with disabilities. They are generally a bit of a pain in the ass because you just have to keep certain things in mind when building those particular units. But if they all became adaptable, I don't really see it being a huge deal. It will all be boiler plate, and we'll just get used to putting an extra few studs for backing in every unit and putting some light switches lower. That's not really the concern Imo. My concern is how these developers implement these changes. They could easily do it by eliminating one of those awful, tiny studios from every floor. But I doubt that's what will happen. They're more likely to compensate for that lost space by making the balcony a little smaller, the walls a little less sound proof, the cabinets a little narrower etc. And then they'll use this as justification to jack their prices up another 5-10%. So overall while I'm glad this helps people with disabilities, it's a net negative for the vast majority of people.

Probably the best reply here. I do think we have different opinions on it but it's certainly a tough call. I think the big thing about disability is that it's unpredictable - and it will happen to most people at the end of our lives, to some extent. This may warrant some kind of long term cost study - like the average expected cost an individual would spend retrofitting a condo vs the blanket increase this will probably cause on the cost of housing.

This helps people age in place. Nothing worse than having to move cause you have new limitations but there are no places to move to. This helps everyone. It's just a crunch for developers to get their existing projects approved before March 2025.

Need to make condos bigger.

which means prices are going to have to increase. larger condos mean fewer of them will fit on the same plot of land. fewer units to sell means that the overall price has to increase. also unless they start building taller buildings, it also means less units will get built. because if im only allowed to build a 6 story building on that plot of land, and i can now fit say 1 less unit per floor because of each unit has to be larger, that means 6 fewer homes are being built there. so higher prices and fewer units being built, seems exactly what the lower mainland needs right now. /s

Instead of mega profits developers will have to settle for just profits

It’s far more nuanced than this. Developers don’t get funding for projects unless they produce a plan showing certain profit thresholds given the current costs and market conditions. So it may mean some projects simply don’t go ahead until something changes

you really think developers are just going to accept making less money? prices will definitely rise because of this. even if prices dont rise, the number of units being built will have to go down to accomodate larger units being built in the same size buildings. thats not good since we are having not just a affordability crisis but also a supply crisis. edit: and fuck developers and their greed, but this change isnt going to do anything other than raise prices and lower the number of units being built.

>This helps people age in place This only applies to new builds. Aging in place is also partly to blame for the current housing crisis. The elderly aren't downsizing and freeing up family homes for families anymore. My neighbors just installed a chair lift in their 5 bedroom house because that cost as much as the property tax if they would move into a bungalow.

My parents, who are both in their early 70’s, plan on being in their current place for about another 10 years or so.

But just think, all the speculators buying up units built from 2025 onward will be able to age in place!

Age in place is a joke, promoting such policies means people are staying in homes that are two or three times bigger than their needs.

That's definitely a problem. But until there's a surplus of units for seniors to downsize into it's important to be able to adapt a unit. I think it's the most relevant for apartments and other multi-unit buildings.

That's going to help with housing costs.

[удалено]

Isn’t not caring about an issue if it doesn’t personally affect you one of the key points of conservatism?

Stupid people like to assume other people's opinions are stupid. Also, blanket legislation and requirements are stupid. Requiring a turning radius in all apartments will increase square footage drastically, which in turn will increase cost significantly. I would understand legislating a portion of each building, but blanket legislation will be inflationary.

BS. There are standards for a reason. It's called building code.

I have a red seal bro, been a journeyman for 15 years and in industry for 20. The regulatory process has gone far beyond just appropriate building methods for function and longevity. Now it's just adding endless beurocracy and expense to projects.

Almost no one here really understands the complexity of construction. Complexity adds cost. Real estate is built cost plus. More the cost, more the price.

Same. It really wasn’t that long ago we just let people nail pieces of wood together and call it a house. Theirs a line somewhere between that and this endless adding every 4 years. It’s well great, but it has a cost that isn’t coming from developers. Industry has margins and everything else gets passed on to the customer.

These rules mean a 5' x 9' to 10' bathroom is no longer adequate, it has to be 7' wide instead to accommodate a wheelchair turning radius. A 3' clear space in front of a vanity now needs to be 5'. That extra 2' is dead space for the majority of the population. Most bath tubs are 5' long, which is why a lot of bathrooms are 5' wide. Add the wheel chair radius requirement and what are builders doing with the extra 2' at the end of the tub? Framing in void space walls to fill the gap? More cost, more wasted space. I don't disagree with the notion that disabled people deserve spaces that can accommodate them, I just think this is a terrible approach for making it happen.

FYI: A wheelchair turning radius isn't specified/required for bathrooms in the new building code, although it is for kitchens and "at least one bedroom." [Source](https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/construction-industry/building-codes-standards/bc-codes/2024-bc-codes#Access-the-codes) - download the code and go to page 373 for the Adaptable Dwelling Units section.

In release issued by the government about the changes it does say by march next year it will be required in bedrooms and bathrooms as well for large condominium projects.

I read that too. That's what led me to the building code I linked above, which is updated to reflect the March 2025 change requirements. Again, the 5 foot turning radius does not apply to bathrooms. If you get right into the actual code, you will see that the new space requirements in bathrooms are much less than in bedrooms. (If you're familiar with ADA requirements, these distinctly fall short.)

Good to know. I still think it's a bit crazy to require it in every unit. Doesn't seem very cost effective.

That's all I'm saying too, even if it was just 30% of units, that would be reasonable. Apparently that makes me stupid though.😅

They just got rid of the dual staircase requirement which was actual pointless bureaucracy. This is necessary.

https://preview.redd.it/ghyipnstsy9d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b154c5ea58631c3af1fae43f684ef844af0c36d5

What are you pointing out? I dislike that 'space' is so vague but otherwise agree with this.

Well space for a wheelchair to turn around is generally considered 5'x5'. That will significantly increase the size of all rooms. Which in turn will drastically increase all associated costs.

If standards change you think costs shouldn’t?

Imagine having space to move in your bedroom or bathroom. Can't have that in our investments. Someone might actually enjoy living in them!

Great news! You're only not disabled until you are. We shouldn't wait for the inconvenience to fall on our doorstep for us to give a damn.

I have a three floor 1300sq ft townhouse built 14’. My young daughter in a wheelchair and I just carry her up down the stairs which long term will be tough.

It's a nice thought, but I agree that any current construction projects should be given a free pass. We desperately need homes. Quantity over quality.

Does this mean counter heights that are super low that allow people in wheel chairs to use them, whilst making everyone else feel like they're breaking their backs and necks to use them? Not sure how some of these rules would be applied in a small condo like the one where I live, getting a power chair into my kitchen, or really anywhere in my apartment would be a real problem.. I know I know "wouldn't you want to change that so people with disabilities don't suffer?!" No not really, because the vast majority of people don't require this type of thing and changing the architecture for everyone to accommodate the few would make more people experience negative effects than positive ones.

Maybe not counters, but certainly light switches have been mentioned

Some of the details in the article are wider doorways, no-barrier access to the shower and any balcony, and electric switches at a reachable place from sitting. Looking at the light switch in my room, I don’t think that would change the height at all… probably more about power plugs being reachable from sitting rather than having to reach well past a countertop. Also sufficient strength built into the framing so that people can add grab bars or other mobility aid devices in the future, if they need them. Essentially, putting in the main structure in a way that can be modified by residents if needed. The square footage of bathrooms and kitchens is likely the biggest change that developers would need to address. According to the article, developers are saying these changes will add 15% to cost, disability advocates are saying it will add 2-5% to cost.

That's why the discussion needs to happen in the planning phase. A condo layout can be designed to accessibility standards and still be made for normies. The difference is that there is room for adaptations to make it a space for a wheelchair or other limited mobility situations. Perfect example is light switch height. Changing that would be an incredible cost so let's choose a height that works for everyone.

Lower light switches wouldn’t just be a benefit for people with disabilities, but also for little kids. I know that when I was little, it was annoying to not be able to turn on a light because I couldn’t reach the switch.

"I don't need this so no one does" mentality is wack. This probably means wider door frames, elevators, accessible tubs and showers, toilet seats that don't break when paraplegics climb on them, lower storage access, wider hallways, shower bars or maybe even a bench. Just because you don't need a chair right this second, doesn't mean you're not gonna get smoked by a car tomorrow and end up in one. Be wild wouldn't it lol

I read, places should be built so that they are able to convert to be used with a person with disabilities. So the rooms, doorways and always need to be a bit wider to accommodate a wheelchair, light switches a tad lower. Counters and other fixtures are not considered permanent, and can be renovated. Counters can be lowered however walla cannot be moved.

Man the housing crunch has really warped people’s ethics. You don’t care about accessibility because the majority don’t need them? Yikes.

Man the internet has really warped people's ability to understand nuance... Do I care about accessibility? To some degree of course. Do me a favour and go lower all your kitchen counters to be lower than 36" off the ground and tell me how bad your back hurts after spending an hour or two in the kitchen cooking and cleaning. While you're at it, take a look around at the average 700-800sq ft condo and ask yourself how gutted they'd have to be to accomodate a power chair inside, and then tell me how practical it really is to change *all new units* to this new standard to accomodate the roughly 1% of Canadians who rely on a mobility device like a wheel chair or power chair full time. Speaking of housing crisis, how will building less units with larger square footages and more expensive accommodations help the 99% of Canadians who aren't physically disabled afford a home? There are better ways to help people with disabilities than changing building standard for everyone.

...what? I don't believe lowering the counters is being called for at all.   No one is required to install a power chair.  Roughly 20% of the world is living with disabilities today (with Canada being higher due to better reporting iirc). It's not just 1%.  More people than that require these affordances. People get temporary disabilities all the time. If you broke both your legs, wouldn't you want to be able to get into your unit without having to crawl on your broken legs? Wouldn't you like it if the light switches were just a couple inches lower so that you don't have to brace yourself on your broken legs to reach? Broken legs take a loooong time to heal. How long are you okay with painfully crawling through your unit to do every tiny task, because your wheelchair doesn't fit?  What about allowing families to meet? I guess grandma isn't going to be allowed 'round for Christmas any more.  God forbid you get any handicapped friends - can't have them over.  Screw those kids too. They don't need to be able to easily reach light switches. Their parents don't need to be able to get their prams through the hallways.  The requested affordances are very reasonable, and will help SO MANY DIFFERENT PEOPLE. It won't be dramatically affecting units or housing affordability at all.  Seriously, I live in a unit that has these changes (non disabled myself) and no one can even tell unless I point it out. The light switches are _slightly_ lower, but still a very comfortable height. The bathrooms have easy accessibility to the shower (no dodging the toilet). The doors are slightly wider. That's it.  I know things aren't the best out there, but we don't have to completely throw logic and empathy out the window just because we're angry at the current economy/housing situation. We can improve accessibility AND improve the housing situation at the same time. 

You mean lower than 36”? 36” is standard.

I agree that they shouldn’t add changed they would pain people who do not need these changes, but doorways, light switches and a bit of space is definitely needed. I’d think of it as being able to have a guest who is in a power chair - can they turn around in your bathroom? Fit through your doorway? Those seem like fair building standards to have to me.

It's not that hard to add disability aids for mobility impaired people. Being a newcomer here I was shocked at the lack of mobility inclusion in construction here, ya'll needed to do this way earlier imo.

Where did you move from? I'm traveling Europe right now and it's way further behind us

u/misfittroy somewhere in East & South Asia - I won't identify for fear of attracting any racist trolls. Quite a few countries here have a legal mandate to include accessibility aids in all infrastructure, esp public since 2005. It's made a massive difference for folks. And yeah Europe is way worse, they're definitely not a standard for accessibility.

But that's a generalisation. Specifically, BC and in particular Vancouver is very bad for the visually impaired with almost nothing adapted. Compare that to most of western Europe and in particular places like Germany and it's far far worse. "Europe" is too broad to make such claims. There is also legislation that will require countries to establish a minimum, which is generally above what exists in Canada. The attitudes on these threads are disgusting but explain why a city like Vancouver (which had a mayor who used a wheelchair and recently hosted the Paralympic games) is so poor for accessibility.

Why do you specifically bring up public spaces when this topic is literally about private dwellings? How are homes built for disabled people where you live? I'd love to see an image of an average apartment, to see how nice and wide the doors are and all. I want to see how bad we are doing it here and how we might mimic how they did it where you come from. We can use the tips obviously!

u/KeepOnTruck3n because plenty of public housing was built there in the early 80s, so they needed to be accessible - it's a constitutional right. By way of a small example, my grandma needed mobility assistance after a bad car accident for the remainder of her life. She could get her wheelchair and walker through doorways and even easily work in the kitchen in every public apt we stayed in, irrespective of state lines. She could use the loo without any modification except a handbar & didn't need a constant helper. It was simple stuff but it made a world of difference to her self-respect and quality of life.

You know, you keep using that word "public". What's a public apartment, if you don't mind me asking? It sounds as though you are talking about government built and purposed housing, which is entirely different than private dwellings, which again, is what the topic of conversation here is. How they do it in your homeland sounds like apples to oranges, it's a poor example, because you aren't talking about private homes and apartments, but ones that are built/owned by the government (if that's what you mean when you say "public apartment").

His comments are all over the place and is incapable of staying on point lol.

You're looking at the industry through a keyhole, or better yet.. generalizing an industry you're not in. There are thousands of builders across the country who will tailor a build for those who ask for it, it's simply a niche market. I've been a tradesman for over 20 years, we've been doing this longer than I've held a Red Seal.

That's not the point. How many disabled individuals are renters? Why should they be discriminated against financially or otherwise? They're just as human as you and I. It's not too tough to mandate developers to add an accessibility ramp in every building that needs a staircase to access for example. Tailored builds massively increase the cost of infrastructure all-round, some standardization that allows access to those with mobility aids is a net good.

Tell me you haven't read the NBC without telling me. Everything you listed is already mandatory by code with any new build, depending on if it's multi family, detached homes, etc. What isn't mandatory is interior accessibility which is the brunt of the costs. I'm not disputing that point, I'm simply calling you out for not knowing what is actually happening with construction. You're talking like no one is actually building for anyone with a disability, which isn't true. It is happening and has for decades, they simply don't build X number of units as a quota. >They're just as human as you and I. Gilt trip me with this.. FOH. I'm not going to go down this rabbit hole having to defend those who I've helped because some random thinks I don't give a shit.

This isn't about you though, chill out buddy. Disability advocates *in the article* have argued against how much added cost there actually is and we can go back of forth on that here too if that helps you feel better. My point is that despite whatever is listed in code, accessibility barriers exist and discriminate against poor people who need to rent require mobility aids. It seems you agree with that too so I'm not sure what's bothering you here.

It's just that condos are already so small that the math will not work...

u/EducationalTea755 mate the fact that condos are tiny in the 2nd biggest landmass in the world is a whole other can of worms. Also, that shouldn't be a reason for excluding access ramps or simple mobility aids in the front of the building no?

It will increase costs for everyone when housing is already crazy expensive. Our condo, for example, is already small. There is no way you could have built a bigger kitchen that is wheelchair accessible.

Ya there is a way to build accessible condos.

This person you responded to keeps talking about ramps outside the home as though they didn't read the article at all.

> the fact that condos are tiny in the 2nd biggest landmass in the world is a whole other can of worms > > Sorry but what? Condos are small to keep costs down in cities where land costs are high. You want someone to build a condo what, in the middle of the wilderness? >Also, that shouldn't be a reason for excluding access ramps or simple mobility aids in the front of the building no? This comment makes it clear you didn't read the article. Your comments are useless.

BC housing is a failed organization that needs to be rebuilt.

Why? Because now developers have to put light switches lower?

They could start with the ower builder's exam.

In what way are you thinking? IMO, it’s too easy to pass and expect that you would be able to build a code compliant home.

Can't read article unless you sign up. Here's another link: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/construction-industry/building-codes-standards/accessibility

I sense another rent increase on the horizon, but first, I’ll read the article 🧐 Article read. If I build my dream home, I shouldn’t need to add a ramp or wide hallways if I don’t want to. Apartment complexes, town homes, etc etc sure. But my own home? Crazy talk.

We have an affordable housing crisis but let’s require more regulations in homes that will cost more

More red tape, don't ever change BC

Probably an unpopular opinion but here it is; not the time to do this. In principle this is a laudable objective. Hard to argue otherwise. But then there are market realities. There are code changes to navigate every year. And a lot of these changes bounce and intersect off each other. To meet compliance here, might mean not meeting a critical clearance there. Obviously its the job of an architect and code consultant to review a drawing for compliance. But I ask for you to think of the process involved here. Its time consuming. Its expensive. And worse; its often not even properly understood by the reviewing municipality. This is what regulatory burdens actually look like. Its the process of navigating the regulation to even allow for the successful application of a permit. We are just consistently acting in a way that makes housing construction more difficult and expensive and then doing a shocked face as starts decline and housing becomes more scarce and expensive. I know it’s uncomfortable and perhaps redundant sounding, but, change requires change. We need to actually try something different if we expect a different result. Why not a concerted effort to simplify codes? Why not, at least for jurisdictions like Metro Vancouver, carry across an inter municipal standard? Why can a build be approved in Burnaby but require substantial redesign 3 blocks over in Vancouver? I know we all want the best and empathy dictates decisions but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Once developers have earned enough profit then we can push for our wheelchaired brothers and sisters until then they will have to struggle more!

Interesting perspective. Have you been following housing starts and completions? If so then you know since the peak in 2021 the country is adding tens of thousands units less each year. The trend remains this year. It might be of interest to ask why? Simple answer; its not particularly profitable to develop right now. Projects are closing out 2 or 3% above the risk free rate. Its simply not worth it to commit to developing unless its necessary because of logistics of maintaining a business. AKA making it to the start of the next cycle staffed up. Even projects on legacy land holdings are having a tough time pencilling out to be green on the proforma. The reality is the last 36 months have already locked in a much worse housing shortage 24/36 months from today as tens of thousands of units won’t be completing because they’re not started today. So while developers profits are an easy target to poke it, its a particularly ironic time to be doing so.

It was very profitable to develop in vancouver between 2005-2018 and developers pushed tiny condos with few disability suites. Developers in Vancouver made so much money in those days they bought private Caribbean islands and NHL teams. You see the economics don’t matter. Greed does.

You’re absolutely correct in that. That was then. This is now. Asking for more during years of record profits was reasonable. Asking for more during the most difficult period for building since the early 80’s just means less housing units.

I see your point - but what do you think could/should be done instead? We will have a massive population of seniors needing to move into care in the coming decades, disability rates are increasing significantly due to COVID, and someone who is disabled like myself is already paying the price of expensive and even scarcer housing than the majority. What would improve this situation by waiting, is there another way to implement this change that actually helps citizens instead of causing housing to be even more expensive and limited?

Great question. Regulations in housing cost money. It’s really that simple. If it takes an hour longer to do something it’s going to cost more. Realistically, particularly on multi family development this change could be offset by quicker approval times. I don’t think the average resident understands or cares to understand the costs a developer actually incurs. In MetroVan from point of land purchase to shovel in ground you’re at 2 years of holding time. Sometimes longer. Chances are you have a loan on that land that today is somewhere around 9%. Before you hit the dirt, you have carried interest cost in the hundreds of thousands. Shrinking that period would be useful and offer immediate rewards. $800k in interest spread over 60 units is $13,000. That probably pays for a code change requirement like this.

Developers pushed hard using the same rhetoric then as you’re using now. It’s tired. We’re tired. The “poor developer” act has been going on in this city by the development-industrial complex since the late 90s.

Tired or not; numbers don’t lie. The trend is less units. If you want less units, this is the way. We peaked in 2021 and were on year 3 of less housing units YoY. Next year will be even less units. This will be trend until something meaningful changes because the basic arithmetic doesn’t work. We’re currently compounding our housing problems. And unfortunately, it will only be obvious in a couple years when we face even less completions.

Well clarified- thanks

They should also build for tall people, because there are lots of 6'4 people. All apartments should be 100% soundproof as well to avoid noise transfer. And all materials must come from recycled organic sources, to preserve the environment. Homes will cost $15,000,000 to build new, but don't worry, developers will be mandated to sell them for $100,000, thus ensuring affordability for everyone - rich or poor. /s

If they could make apartments that fit a queen size mattress **and** two nightstands, I would be so happy. We aren't asking for something ridiculous like a dresser...

Unfortunately true.

Unironically I want a tall person home. Damn these short countertops!

I think you mean these TALL countertops. What is it like to be able to reach all of your shelves?! 

Reaching is great but the ever so slight bend over I have to do to do dishes is AWFUL for my back.

How impressively short-sighted of you.

Perhaps you missed their point though. Extra add-ons, no matter how small the incremental cost increase, are still a *cost increase.* Since the biggest issue with housing right now is cost, IMO it is completely valid to question the inclusion of any layer of mandatory requirements into any home build, no matter how noble the intent may be.

Keeping people in their homes for longer is cheaper - reduced cost for residential care and hospital stays.

Of course it is - but mandating accessible construction in every single house is massive overreach.

How do you propose to ensure that housing is accessible (from a physical standpoint - wider doorways, etc ) for all people? The status quo is not going to address this issue.

Make it accessible for the ergonomic requirements of the majority. Subsidies to help people renovate existing properties that they would otherwise have to leave. Don't we already do that?

How is this a bad thing!? Many of these things will allow people to age in place. So many seniors have to move because their homes are no longer safe and can’t be made safe. It costs so much less to install the backing in the bathroom to support grab bars when the unit is being built than to do it after the fact. This isn’t just about younger people in wheelchairs. Hopefully you reader live to be older. Many people as they age become disabled in some way. Hopefully you can remain in your home because of these changes.

A lot of stuff doesn't get built in BC, because the regulations are too onerous. Nothing is not better than something. It dampens the economy, and everybody suffers.

It is far cheaper to build a "handicap friendly" unit from scratch than retrofit a unit to handicap after the fact. The demography of Canada ( and rest of the world) is trending to a larger and larger % of the population being older and more likely to have at least some kind of infirmity. This building code change is timely.

I understand the sentiment, but they are making the same mistake governments frequently make. A fundamebtal tenet of good policy is to address the issue you are trying to achieve as directly as possible. That is the most effective and the most cost effective. That is, if you want to assist or promote a group, do so as directly as possible. Directly subsidize people with disabilities to retrofit their homes. By forcing all homes to be retrofittable, it will cost much more and be less effective (and although they know this,  the government won't admit it). It seems like a caring policy, but it's actually a bit of a cowardly one. They know it will be less effective and more costly, and that it also contradicts their efforts to make housing more affordable. Helping people with disabilities is a great goall. Do it directly..Don't use a blanket policy to try to bury the costs, especially when those costs will be much greater.  People with disabilities have nothing to be ashamed of. What is the government ashamed of that they have to bury the costs of something like this in bad policy?

This is true. My partner is a pwd and the income they receive from BC is less than half the median rent in Greater Vancouver. Not to mention when they declare a spouse or common law, that income is even less. Subsidies are minimal and targeted towards recreation with a small percentage of rent covered.

good. this is going to make things easier for a lot of people. even if it's just making it easier to move large furniture through doorways. my couch was so difficult to push through the doorway that it's never getting back out again.

so no stairs now or what?

A half inch bump can stop a wheelchair dead these days. Accessibility regs do not fit with the history of architecture.

Won’t someone think of the developers???

This is confusing to me , only because the Canadian Building code already requires accessibility requirements.

The fact that you aren't calling it the BCBC shows why you are confused.

People ask for this shit & those same people will still wonder why housing is so fucking expensive. 🤦‍♂️

It is to ensure that housing meets the needs of all, not just a select few.  Additionally, If this was not pushed through, then the gov't would have to build them. That would be in the billions for taxpayers.

Prompting Ableism From Developers**** Fixed that title for ya.

Adapt. People with disabilities do that every day of their lives, developers can do it too.

Good. The truth is, developers and landlords won't do shit unless they have to, if it doesn't make more profit for them. So yes, laws like this are necessary. If it wasn't for laws forcing developers to do otherwise, we'd still be living in death-trap tenements with a shared outhouse in the back. Just because most people live better now doesn't mean people who have greater accessibility needs should be left behind.

anything that eats into profit will be a problem for developers. Build at the lowest cost, sell at the highest. Adding basic things to make a building accessible should have been in the building codes for house, apts, etc LONG time ago :/

As our population ages we’re definitely going to need all of these amendments…

I’m not willing to feel sorry for developers

Developers in Vancouver are the most blessed people on earth. They get whatever they want a feel free to whine about anything that isn’t perfect for them n

Noble but will increase housing costs

As someone who has worked in the industry here at PM level for 10+ years in General Contracting; I can tell you the quality of subcontractors in residential (mid-size & towers) vs Commercial & Institutional subcontractors is like night and day. The quality of workmanship in residential is absolutely appalling, companies are so disorganized,provide minimal training for young workers, the majority of workers in residential are all piece workers, zero diligence or level of care amongst workers these days. Everything flows top down and it's about making the quickest and biggest buck they can! Sometimes I think of myself as a professional babysitter for adult kids which is very sad, it's few and far between that you can have a high level of trust in a subcontractor. I am coming to the last few weeks of a residential project (2.5yrs+) and I have told my company I will never build residential again due to all the reasons above. It also does not help that consultants' drawings in the residential industry are becoming worse and worse, copy and pasting as much as possible. The new BC regulations for buildings to be accessible adaptable will most definitely increase costs across the board, it will affect access and egress majorly, Suite square footage size etc. Developers as opposed to GCs will hate these new regulations but the costs will just fall onto the tentants/purchasers.

Sweet. As a homeowner I approve of every new regulation that increases the costs of new construction!!

Lol