Reality Check from the Homebuilder's Sales Floor

Editor’s Note: Accessible housing is an important, but controversial issue. The Spring issue of the Planning Comm'rs Journal features an article by Jordana Maisel, Visitability: A Major "No-Step" Towards Inclusive Housing, which advocates for providing accessible housing. [if you're not a Planning Comm'rs Journal subscriber, the full six page article can be ordered and downloaded; the first three pages are available at no charge].

To provide another  perspective, PCJ Editorial Advisory Board member Wayne Lemmon offers his thoughts:

Why is there resistance to embracing standards and allocations for enhanced accessibility homes on the part of homebuilders?

From a design and engineering point of view, hardware installations, such as door handles, grab-bar blocking, different positions for light switches, and similar items are easily handled at very low cost. The costs for making a new home conform to accessibility standards can be relatively nominal if designed into the home plans from the onset.

There are two main issues that concern builders. One is the no-step entry path. In areas of the country where ground slopes and varied topography are more common, this becomes even more difficult to achieve.

Let me cite just one example of this type of problem. We were recently considering a land parcel for development that had a high water table. In order to prevent wet and flooding basements, we would have to keep the basement level above the ground water level, which in turn meant that the first floor would have to be about four feet above the pre-construction grade level. Had a mandatory zero-step requirement been in place in this situation, the entire development would be unapprovable. Obstacles such as these occur on a site-by-site basis, and a blanket regulation that applies to all new developments cannot anticipate every such problem. 

The other main issue is simply this: virtually zero demand for accessible units has yet to appear in many homebuilders’ sales offices. For all of the people who may appear in wheelchairs at public hearings in support of such measures, hardly any are actually showing up on the sales floor.

The resistance to fixed allocations of accessible units is not from the nominal additional costs that most of these enhancements incur. The problem is that folks who do not need these accommodations simply do not want them in their new home. As a moderate volume homebuilder, our experience with homes that we have been required to build with accessibility improvements has been that these homes are left as the last to sell in the project, and are ultimately sold at discount to purchasers who do not want the enhancements. One of the first things these purchasers typically do is remove the accessibility enhancements.  Overall, we have not, to date, seen a demand for this kind of housing.

The “to date” phrase in the last sentence is important to keep in mind. Yes, the baby-boomer generation is starting to age into their 50’s and 60’s. But today’s 60-year-olds are vibrant, productive, and not much different from folks ten years younger in terms of accessibility needs. Significant numbers of persons needing accessibility accommodations are just not there yet.

From a builder’s perspective, implementing regulations that mandate hard numbers or fixed percentages of units that must have accessibility enhancements is simply not working. That approach requires the builder to construct a generally unmarketable product.

So, alternatively, what might work? Here are some ideas:

1. One critical distinction is between requiring the actual construction of accessibility enhanced units vs. requiring the availability of accessibility enhancements on request. This would mean that structural, finishing, and hardware options would be pre-designed and ready to implement, but not actually built unless requested by the purchaser. This would prevent the builder from being saddled with problematic inventory, but still be able to respond to needs when they actually appear.

2. Affordable housing programs have succeeded where builders are granted density bonuses in return for building below-market priced homes. A similar approach might work with accessibility enhanced homes. In addition, focusing accessibility enhancements as a “piggy-back” feature within affordable housing programs might be particularly well-received. If, as we suspect, households needing accessibility enhancements are simultaneously dealing with financial constraints, a double-barrel approach of affordability and accessibility could represent a breakthrough for the accessibility-challenged market.

3. One final approach is to make use of a certification program, comparable to the Energy Star program (where a builder is allowed to use the Energy Star logo in his advertisements and brochures if his homes have met a set of standards for energy conservation). A certification and logo for “Accessibility Enhancements Available” would be awarded to residential developments where the builder demonstrates the availability of access enhancements at nominal cost.

If your community wishes to consider accessibility standards, enact measures that have sufficient flexibility to adjust to site-by-site considerations and that respond to the real level of need as demonstrated in your area builders’ sales offices.

Wayne Lemmon is Director of Market Research for a regional homebuilder. He has 30 years of experience with national real estate consulting firms and development organizations. Lemmon authored Proformas 101 in PCJ #65 (Winter 2007) and The New "Active Adult" Housing in PCJ #51 (Summer 2003). He lives in Somers, New York.

Comments

[Eleanor Smith, from Concrete Change]

The fact that some construction sites are not amenable to zero-step entrances is recognized by Visitability ordinances through specific language permitting exceptions. “Wherever feasible” is the guide, for ordinances and other initiatives. Hilly sites permit locating the entrance at the front, side or back. Of thousands of houses impacted by ordinances so far, in a wide variety of states, less than 5% of sites have needed exemptions.

As to demand, I wonder if Mr. Lemmon is thinking of more extensive access requirements unrelated to Visitability when he says buyers shun them. New York has no Visitability ordinances because of regulatory barriers mentioned in Ms. Maisel’s article; in locales across the country where the few basics are required, they are so integrated into design that many buyers do not notice them, while buyers and renters with mobility impairments (and their loved ones) see and welcome the access. I also question the assertion that there are not significant numbers of people needing access. Surely barriers harshly affect wheelchair users, but basic access is also crucial for people who use walkers, or are impeded by stiffness, weakness or balance problems—and to non-disabled people who assist mobility-impaired relatives or friends, or simply want to enjoy a social life alongside them. People with disabilities can more easily remain vibrant and productive when barriers are not placed in the way.

Each new house, standing throughout future decades, is likely to house nine or more families--either presenting barriers that require expensive renovation, isolate families with disabilities, and increase institutionalization or welcoming mobility-impaired guests and facilitating remaining at home if disability occurs.

The voluntary checklist and the certification alternatives Mr. Lemmon suggests have been tried extensively with little result; the suggestion to award greater density as a trade-off for requiring access may be a fruitful route in some situations. Builders and planners who see the need for widespread, positive change in home construction practices will use many strategies as they put their minds to it, and I look forward to creative action discussed in this journal and others.

[Betsey Krumholz]

I recently had a phone conversation with Jordana Maisel, author of the Visitability article in the Planning Commissioners Journal.

Here are some of her comments that relate to several points Wayne Lemmon raises:

On “marketability”:

"I think that’s often the biggest misconception –- people often confuse visitability and they think immediately of accessibility features that are perhaps not so aesthetically pleasing in a house.

But when we say visitability, we think of basic home access -- which is a lower level of something called universal design. That is, designing for people of all abilities regardless -- if they are older or younger, a family member, if you’re pregnant, if you’re right-handed, left-handed ... . Good design can benefit all people.

That’s what visitability really strives for. It is not “accessibility” with necessarily ugly grab bars and ramps outside. Visitability, if it’s thought of in advance, can really be unnoticeable to the naked eye ... and the features that are included can benefit all people, regardless ... carrying groceries into the house without worrying about a step, carrying the huge TV’s that people are now buying, etc. The features that are included in visitability can benefit the wide spectrum of the population, not just people with disabilities or people with mobility impairments."

------------------------
On "new" construction:

"Visitability strives for new construction. That’s something we need to think about now in order to prepare for the future -- so while there might not be a large demand on the buyer’s side right now, I think a lot of that has to do with the lack of education that consumers now have.

They don’t know that they can ask for such features or that these types of things are out there, or that they’re not ready to think about their future needs. The consumer really needs to be educated: on what is out there, what will their needs be, and what are the cost differentials between planning ahead and having to do this later down the road."