|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Visit-ability | ©IDEA Center , 2004 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Contents | Costs of Visit-ability | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cost of Visit-ability Research on Costs
Screen reader users click here to play video
Figure 8: The original model used for Habitat homes in Buffalo, NY. Steps at both the front and side entrance prevent it from being Visit-able.
Figure 9: The revised model used for Habitat homes in Buffalo, NY. The new Visit-able house is a bit larger and now has a ramp leading to the side entrance.
Rochester Case Study
Figure 10: The Rochester home before construction. The multiple steps to the entrance prevent it from meeting Visit-ability's requirements.
Figure 11: The new Visit-able Rochester home after the ramp's installation. |
Research
on Costs There are studies that have estimated the cost of accessibility, but there is no recent published study on single-family homes. In fact, the literature provides only one example of a modest three bedroom single-family house. That example came from the late 70s and the total construction cost of the home was less than $15,000, so it is not a very relevant example today (Schroeder and Steinfeld, 1979). The most current study called The Cost of Accessible Housing by Steven Winter Associates (1993) was published by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. This study focused on the cost impact of the Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines (FHAG) on multi-family projects. Eight existing projects constructed by private developers were studied and redesigned to meet the Guidelines. Then, the developers estimated the cost of the redesigned projects. It was estimated that the cost of making multi-family housing comply with the Guidelines was .28% of total construction costs for the dwelling unit costs (excluding site development and community facilities) and .33% for total project costs. This general conclusion of less than 1% is in line with other studies that have examined the impact of accessibility to public buildings. Visit-ability does not require as many accessibility features as the FHAG. Nevertheless, there is some general information that is useful in the HUD Study. First, out of 38 unit plans studied, only 3 had to be increased in floor area with an average increase of 12 square feet. Second, the cost of accessibility varied significantly from project to project. The topography of the site and design of the buildings created real differences in cost impact. Third, where units were designed to a low standard (very small spaces), the cost impact of accessibility was higher. Thus, although accessibility requires rethinking the design of dwelling unit plans, it does not often lead to the need for increased area, which is a major factor in increased cost. It is clear that other design goals interact with the goal of providing Visit-ability. These goals may include, but are not limited to, the type of house plan desired, the level of efficiency desired in space planning and the constraints of natural topography as well as building codes, planning guidelines and zoning ordinances which govern the design and use of the land. For these reasons, it is always easy to find a case where making an existing design Visit-able will lead to increased costs. But it does not make sense to even average in these worst case scenarios. Rather, Visit-ability can and should be omitted in those few houses where it does not make economic sense. Often, the cost impact of adding accessible features can be balanced by finding other ways to reduce costs. But when other priorities are also important, that approach may not be acceptable to the owner or builder. Another difficulty in estimating cost impact is that changes to designs are not usually based on one design objective. The act of revising a floor plan could introduce other features that are not directly Visit-able features but are simply improvements to the circulation, appearance or livability of the home. In other words, when changes are made to a design in the real world, those changes usually will address issues beyond only Visit-ability. Cost Impact Also, we were able to compare the cost of Visit-able Habitat homes built in Buffalo, New York and Rochester, New York against the cost of the previous designs that the two organizations were using. These homes are very efficient in the use of space and serve as good case studies because they represent the most difficult situations. A hypothetical case study, illustrated in Table 1, provides estimated costs for typical features of Visit-ability. The original design is a modest 1500 square foot ranch style model with two baths and three bedrooms, approximately 30 feet wide and 50 feet long, constructed of wood with siding and the floor level raised off the ground by 18 in. There is a wood deck and an entrance at the rear. The front entrance has a wood porch with two stairs at the front, approximately centered in the length of the home. The porch has a one-step entry to the interior floor level but the rear deck is at the same level as the interior. Ventilation to the basement is provided through four basement windows with window wells to prevent water from entering. The house has a full storm drainage system around the foundation. The lot is 125 feet deep and 80 feet wide. Table 1
Description: This three-column table provides information on the various costs involved in making a home Visit-able, including creating a no-step entry, providing accessible doors and having an accessible bathroom. This table shows that many design changes, including increasing hallway widths and increasing a bathroom's size, may not cost anything. This case study demonstrates that the cost of Visit-ability for a modest home of typical design is clearly affordable within the scope of most homebuilding projects. In addition, the advantages of the Visit-ability features definitely balance out the costs. The design changes that are necessary would only have a positive influence on marketability. Visit-ability would make the home more desirable for families with small children or grandparents who might visit,and older households in general. Even the ramp option would be easy to make attractive. Given the cost of a house like the hypothetical model, the increased costs would not be noticeable in the monthly mortgage payment. Case Studies of Low Cost
Houses The photos on the left show before and after designs for the Habitat model used in Buffalo, NY. Photographs of the original design and the Visit-able design are shown below. The new home design is about 1150 square feet, about 50 square feet larger than the original. The original plan is about 50 square feet larger than Habitat International’s guideline of 1050 square feet. It cost approximately $1500 more to build the Visit-able model. The Visit-able house plan has two main differences from the original that led to the increased cost: It is 47 square feet larger and there is a ramp to the second exterior doorway. Are these two items attributable to meeting the goal of Visit-ability? We think not. We think they are also attributable to improved livability and design for an adverse climate. First, the extra area is simply a decision to add a bit more room to the dwelling. The 47 square feet could have been trimmed off the plan by reducing the length of the home by two feet. The Visit-able plan actually has a lot more space in the kitchen and dining area than the original plan, but the bedrooms and bathroom are almost exactly the same size. Second, the ramp was used to overcome the difference in height from grade to the first floor level. There is no rule that requires the house to be so high above grade. There are other less costly approaches that could have been used to provide a no-step entry. The lots in Buffalo are deep. A driveway about 35 feet long with a slope from 3-5% would have been enough to bring the grade to the level of the first floor. The land could have been graded to accomplish this. But the Habitat designers wanted to keep all four sides of the house 18 inches above grade to insure that snow would not leak into the basement through the basement windows. This meant keeping the site relatively level. They also preferred not to build window wells, which would be required if the house was sunk further into the ground. This decision was made as a construction decision based on climate, not on Visit-ability. Another construction consideration was the use of concrete footings around the entire ramp. In Buffalo, footings have to be 4-feet deep. Building footings all around the ramp increases material and labor costs. There are other ways to construct the ramp that could eliminate the concrete footings. By using footings, however, the long-term durability of the ramp is better, which benefits low-income owners significantly. If we subtract the cost of additional space in living and dining areas and the cost of concrete footings versus a less costly ramp design, the difference in cost between the two designs would be reduced to a negligible amount. Therefore, the additional cost for the new design cannot be interpreted simply as the cost of adding Visit-ability. In the process of redesign, the Buffalo Chapter included features that made the home nicer to live in, reduced maintenance costs over the long term and served as a better response to the heavy snows in the region. Owners prefer the ramp because it makes it easier to carry packages, bicycles and other things into the house and to access the basement. They prefer having more living space inside. Consequently, the value of the home was increased by making it more livable and maintenance free at the same time that it was made Visit-able. 2. Rochester case study The new Visit-able design has a driveway that slopes up gradually to the rear of the lot where there is a short wooden ramp to the back porch. The ramp is supported by the back porch structure, one piling in the center of the ramp and a concrete pad at the bottom. The Rochester Chapter was not as concerned as the Buffalo Chapter about lowering the basement. They typically construct window wells for basement windows. To achieve Visit-ability, a half bath was added at the entry area. The overall size of the house is identical to the original. From a livability perspective, the new design has three major advantages to the original model. First, it is has a second bathroom which increases privacy for the family because guests do not have to go upstairs. It also makes scheduling access to the bathrooms easier for a family with children. In the old design, there was a lot of extra space at the entry. In the new model, this space was used to add the half bathroom, an important upgrade in quality. As in the Buffalo example, the ramp adds significant convenience for bringing things in and out of the home. The new model costs about $1200 more than the older model. The Flower City Chapter attributes most of the cost to the additional half bath in the home. They believe it was money well spent. They reported that there was no additional cost for grading the site differently. As in the first case study, only a negligible amount can be attributed to Visit-ability in this example. The result of the redesign, sparked by the goal of achieving Visit-ability, resulted in a more livable home. Cost vs. Value When comparing costs between non-Visit-able
and Visit-able designs, it is important that the essential features
of Visit-ability are not confused with other design improvements.
One must understand the choices designers make about layout, construction
quality, construction methods, aesthetics and other issues and how
those choices add to the cost of the home. Although other improvements
may be desirable and advisable to include in Visit-able homes, one
cannot use them as an argument against Visit-ability. There can be
significant increases in value due to design changes from the perspective
of safety, aesthetics, livability, long-term maintenance and other
factors. Where improvements are made during the process of creating
Visit-ability (as in the Flower City example) one has to weigh the
additional benefits of those improvements against the costs. For example,
in market rate housing, the addition of a half bath could easily be
recouped by a slightly higher selling price. Although the ramp at
the rear has an associated cost, it also has a value to the owners.
Amortizing $1200 over the course of a 30-year mortgage would not significantly
affect the purchasing decision. The two case studies demonstrate that
although there may be cost differences associated with the new designs,
the value of the improvements more than compensates for their cost.
Ultimately, it is the value of the house and what people are willing
to pay for it that is the most important concern from a cost point
of view, not just the bottom line cost increases.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
