I wrote this in an email response on September 18th:
"I conservatively estimate tens of billions of dollars in damages if class-action litigation is initiated by the hundreds of thousands of Canadians with mobility disabilities and the millions of Canadians who face various limitations in their activities of daily living due to building code policy that negatively impacts their health and safety in their homes, as well as denies them their human rights in most housing. Building code policy has ignored Section 15 Equality Rights in housing for persons with disabilities since 1985, which are enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Building code policy has also been ignoring disability rights found in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which Canada ratified in 2010. And the greatest liability to building code policy is that they've often chosen to ignore or refute domestic and global evidence-based research brought forward in many Code Change Requests during code development and updates. Whether we consider access, use or egress failures in housing, building code policy is directly responsible for health and safety impacts to individuals in their homes (which include preventable injuries and premature deaths). As well, ineffective statistical data on disability that primarily relies on self-reporting and invalid & unreliable methods of data collection are compounding the crisis that persons with activity limitations and disabilities face in housing. The above examples of negligence in building code policy would most certainly make it liable to remedy in our court system resulting in no less than tens of billions of dollars in damages if class-action litigation is initiated. Given that Ontario has roughly one-third of our nation's population, such an impact to our provincial economy would be far more significant than implementing the simple and low-cost features of VisitAbility to all new housing rather than only offering it in 15% of units in Group C Major Occupancy buildings [OBC 3.8.2.1 (5) to (8)]. Doing so would ensure human rights and improve the health, safety and sustainability of housing for a growing proportion of Canadians who desperately need adequate housing options that meet their current and future needs. The existing and growing accessible housing crisis can no longer be ignored by our governments, including the government of Ontario."
Tuesday, September 24, 2019
Monday, June 10, 2019
Inclusion, sustainability and health & safety in new residential development
I recently commented on Twitter that the City of Ottawa affordable housing sector has had environmental, economic and social sustainability figured out for years; the proof is in the projects that have been built in the last few years, like Salus Clementine and The Haven to name two. But I'd love to see this type of innovation transferred over to the private housing sector, especially passive house techniques (net zero) and Universal Design (VisitAbility being the minimum acceptable standard but more features would be advisable).
In reading the City of Ottawa Official Plan discussion paper for housing, as well as Ontario's More Homes, More Choice Housing Supply Action Plan, I'm not seeing a satisfactory level of prompt and effective leadership when focusing in on Inclusionary Zoning and Universal Design. The Province of Ontario started allowing Inclusionary Zoning in 2018 but I have yet to hear of one municipality leading in it. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation published a great report about IZ that clearly showed its positive impact on increasing affordable housing stock in jurisdictions that acted on it, some were decades ago. Unfortunately, we're not there yet. We're also not there yet on Universal Design even though our National Housing Strategy has recognized housing a human right (2017) and is looking to ensure it in Bill C-98, the National Housing Strategy Act. When discussing housing as a human right and adequate housing, I often highlight the fact that both our Ontario Building Code and the National Building Code of Canada continue to exempt houses from barrier-free design requirements (Part 9 of building code deals with houses and small buildings, which is the bulk of new residential development. Architectural barriers continue to be created daily in new housing because of this exemption, a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities).
Recommendations for inclusion, sustainability and health & safety:
-Change Official Plans and Zoning by-laws to move forward more aggressively with 6 storey wood-frame residential construction anywhere in a community, especially ones serviced by transit routes (to increase density & intensification and to improve sustainability). Wood is more cost-effective than concrete and steel and certainly more sustainable. And fire prevention is far better than it was 50 years ago.
-These six storey multi-units must be mixed-use by ensuring that the main floor has retail and services, rather than constantly having to travel all over our communities to get the things we need/want. They must also be mixed income (thanks to inclusionary zoning, which would require a percentage of units to meet affordability criteria within any new development rather than be in segregated affordable housing projects). They must also be universally designed to ensure that our homes meet the needs of everyone, regardless of age or level of ability. They must also offer a variety of 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units because not everyone needs a bachelor, 1 or 2 bedroom unit.
-They must be resilient as we've seen far too many environmental disasters destroy homes and lives. They must be either net zero or passive house for energy-efficiency. And finally, they must be safe (indoor air quality; fire resistance; great lighting; and other logical features to reduce injuries and deaths)
As the news and social media headlines have shown, Ontario isn't immune to the global affordability crisis and I can assure you that we're not immune to the global accessibility crisis either. Both are already happening here and this is why I suggest the recommendations above (and others thrown in for good measure). We can't keep designing and building housing the way we have been and expect it to sort itself out by market demand. It isn't logical to continue down this dysfunctional path, innovation in housing is desperately needed for private development. Our building codes need to move away from minimum standards and encourage best practices that are readily available globally. It just isn't acceptable to continue with minimum standards in housing and think that being reactive to problems is a sustainable mindset to continue. Cost inevitably comes up as an excuse on a regular basis to quash best practices (that's evidence-based best practices) but history has shown us that being reactive to poor design and policies costs us far more. Ask the insurance industry, claims relating to homes cost billions per year; as consumers, this is reflected in the higher premiums that we pay.
That's my two cents worth for today. All the best.
In reading the City of Ottawa Official Plan discussion paper for housing, as well as Ontario's More Homes, More Choice Housing Supply Action Plan, I'm not seeing a satisfactory level of prompt and effective leadership when focusing in on Inclusionary Zoning and Universal Design. The Province of Ontario started allowing Inclusionary Zoning in 2018 but I have yet to hear of one municipality leading in it. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation published a great report about IZ that clearly showed its positive impact on increasing affordable housing stock in jurisdictions that acted on it, some were decades ago. Unfortunately, we're not there yet. We're also not there yet on Universal Design even though our National Housing Strategy has recognized housing a human right (2017) and is looking to ensure it in Bill C-98, the National Housing Strategy Act. When discussing housing as a human right and adequate housing, I often highlight the fact that both our Ontario Building Code and the National Building Code of Canada continue to exempt houses from barrier-free design requirements (Part 9 of building code deals with houses and small buildings, which is the bulk of new residential development. Architectural barriers continue to be created daily in new housing because of this exemption, a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities).
Recommendations for inclusion, sustainability and health & safety:
-Change Official Plans and Zoning by-laws to move forward more aggressively with 6 storey wood-frame residential construction anywhere in a community, especially ones serviced by transit routes (to increase density & intensification and to improve sustainability). Wood is more cost-effective than concrete and steel and certainly more sustainable. And fire prevention is far better than it was 50 years ago.
-These six storey multi-units must be mixed-use by ensuring that the main floor has retail and services, rather than constantly having to travel all over our communities to get the things we need/want. They must also be mixed income (thanks to inclusionary zoning, which would require a percentage of units to meet affordability criteria within any new development rather than be in segregated affordable housing projects). They must also be universally designed to ensure that our homes meet the needs of everyone, regardless of age or level of ability. They must also offer a variety of 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units because not everyone needs a bachelor, 1 or 2 bedroom unit.
-They must be resilient as we've seen far too many environmental disasters destroy homes and lives. They must be either net zero or passive house for energy-efficiency. And finally, they must be safe (indoor air quality; fire resistance; great lighting; and other logical features to reduce injuries and deaths)
As the news and social media headlines have shown, Ontario isn't immune to the global affordability crisis and I can assure you that we're not immune to the global accessibility crisis either. Both are already happening here and this is why I suggest the recommendations above (and others thrown in for good measure). We can't keep designing and building housing the way we have been and expect it to sort itself out by market demand. It isn't logical to continue down this dysfunctional path, innovation in housing is desperately needed for private development. Our building codes need to move away from minimum standards and encourage best practices that are readily available globally. It just isn't acceptable to continue with minimum standards in housing and think that being reactive to problems is a sustainable mindset to continue. Cost inevitably comes up as an excuse on a regular basis to quash best practices (that's evidence-based best practices) but history has shown us that being reactive to poor design and policies costs us far more. Ask the insurance industry, claims relating to homes cost billions per year; as consumers, this is reflected in the higher premiums that we pay.
That's my two cents worth for today. All the best.
Saturday, May 11, 2019
Housing has turned into this corrupt insanity only serving the healthy and wealthy.
It's difficult to be optimistic about housing when you hear and read everything that's going on in both the rental and ownership of housing. Housing prices and rents have gone into the stratosphere, gobbling up an ever-growing percentage of net income. The sheer amount of information available on Twitter alone, as an example, is both shocking and discouraging. Building code, zoning and land use policies; complex financing/mortgage schemes; money laundering into real estate; political donations by landlords & developers; inequitable taxation in favour of the wealthy...it’s a corrupt mess on a global scale. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing, Ms Leilani Farha, is a global expert on housing who has been ringing the alarm on this chaos in her reports to the Human Rights Council and in an excellent documentary currently circulating in film festivals (http://pushthefilm.com/). People of all walks of life are struggling to find or keep adequate housing and it's getting worse by the month as prices continue to soar unabated.
It wasn't long ago that the dream of many people was to land a full-time job, have a family and own a home. All of this has changed: full-time permanent positions (benefits and pensions too) disappear regularly at the sake of profits, marriages are failing at alarming levels or not happening at all, those who have children can barely afford to provide for their needs (often basic needs) in far too many cases. And owning a home is becoming a fiction, as is finding rents that aren't going to rob you of what little you have left after the various taxes and user fees (that we've all seen creep upwards and well above salary increases).
But back to housing. I said the following in an email this morning "Housing has turned into this corrupt insanity only serving the healthy and wealthy." Look through some of my Twitter activity and you'll get that message loud and clear. There's already lots of media attention about the global affordability crisis and the efforts of various governments to combat it, unsuccessfully, because we're dealing with TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS in the largest business in the world, housing. Pension funds, real estate investment trusts, big banks and organized crime, the wealth by these key players in housing is insurmountable. As is the political will by some elected officials who justify political donations from some of those sources of wealth.
Look around at prices and what's being built these days: aesthetically pleasing homes that far too often have building code violations or other unacceptable issues, at a time when prices are far out of reach to working-class and middle-class households. Even dual-income households find themselves unable to qualify for a mortgage or struggling to pay rent after all other deductions are accounted for.
My concern has always been with architectural barriers that are perpetuated in building code at a time when the world is aging/ageing and persons with activity limitations (and various disabilities) are on the rise. Again, we're putting out new inventory that applies to a shrinking percentage of buyers. If you aren't wealthy and healthy, then you're on your own with what's left out there. Or homelessness that's reached alarming levels everywhere.
The solution? The exact opposite of what's been happening in the last thirty or forty years. Some countries are far better off with their inventory of affordable and accessible housing, perhaps it's time to learn from their strategies. The elephant in the room are the lawyers, bankers and accountants (our white collar criminals) who have played a key role in creating the climate that we're currently facing and the utter lack of ethics and common decency involved, all based on corporate or selfish greed. Of course I'm a bleeding heart socialist, I've made my living assisting adults with disabilities for more than two decades and have seen first hand their struggles with affordability and accessibility but they're far from the only ones. Documentaries like Push are exposing this nightmare to the masses and fuelling a revolution in housing that's already begun.
We're heading into interesting times, I'm very curious to see what the next 24 months bring to the surface in this corrupt insanity that we call housing.
It wasn't long ago that the dream of many people was to land a full-time job, have a family and own a home. All of this has changed: full-time permanent positions (benefits and pensions too) disappear regularly at the sake of profits, marriages are failing at alarming levels or not happening at all, those who have children can barely afford to provide for their needs (often basic needs) in far too many cases. And owning a home is becoming a fiction, as is finding rents that aren't going to rob you of what little you have left after the various taxes and user fees (that we've all seen creep upwards and well above salary increases).
But back to housing. I said the following in an email this morning "Housing has turned into this corrupt insanity only serving the healthy and wealthy." Look through some of my Twitter activity and you'll get that message loud and clear. There's already lots of media attention about the global affordability crisis and the efforts of various governments to combat it, unsuccessfully, because we're dealing with TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS in the largest business in the world, housing. Pension funds, real estate investment trusts, big banks and organized crime, the wealth by these key players in housing is insurmountable. As is the political will by some elected officials who justify political donations from some of those sources of wealth.
Look around at prices and what's being built these days: aesthetically pleasing homes that far too often have building code violations or other unacceptable issues, at a time when prices are far out of reach to working-class and middle-class households. Even dual-income households find themselves unable to qualify for a mortgage or struggling to pay rent after all other deductions are accounted for.
My concern has always been with architectural barriers that are perpetuated in building code at a time when the world is aging/ageing and persons with activity limitations (and various disabilities) are on the rise. Again, we're putting out new inventory that applies to a shrinking percentage of buyers. If you aren't wealthy and healthy, then you're on your own with what's left out there. Or homelessness that's reached alarming levels everywhere.
The solution? The exact opposite of what's been happening in the last thirty or forty years. Some countries are far better off with their inventory of affordable and accessible housing, perhaps it's time to learn from their strategies. The elephant in the room are the lawyers, bankers and accountants (our white collar criminals) who have played a key role in creating the climate that we're currently facing and the utter lack of ethics and common decency involved, all based on corporate or selfish greed. Of course I'm a bleeding heart socialist, I've made my living assisting adults with disabilities for more than two decades and have seen first hand their struggles with affordability and accessibility but they're far from the only ones. Documentaries like Push are exposing this nightmare to the masses and fuelling a revolution in housing that's already begun.
We're heading into interesting times, I'm very curious to see what the next 24 months bring to the surface in this corrupt insanity that we call housing.
Wednesday, April 17, 2019
United Nations State visit to Canada, April 2-12, 2019 by Ms Catalina Devandas Aguilar, UN Special Rapporteur to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Excerpts below are taken from the video available at http://www.cpac.ca/en/programs/headline-politics/episodes/65969897
02:09-02:23
"...My main finding is that Canada urgently needs to transform (its) system, that systemic change is needed to ensure that people with disabilities can enjoy their human rights on an equal basis with others."
02:30-02:40
"I have noticed that there are significant shortcomings in the way that the federal, provincial and territorial governments implement the rights of persons with disabilities."
02:40-02:50
"In many cases, persons with disabilities have to initiate very lengthy and onerous legal procedures to get their rights recognized."
03:30-03:52
"One thing that is lacking is a comprehensive human rights-based approach in the responses that the governments are giving to this population and this needs to be changed in line with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities that has been ratified by Canada."
03:53-04:35
"I am deeply concerned, moving to an issue that is fundamental, that is the independent living of persons with disabilities within their communities, and I'm deeply concerned that many persons with disabilities are presented with no other choice except the placement in residential institutions like nursing homes and group homes, and it is important that the country break these segregated approaches and move to inclusive policies that provide the necessary support for persons with disabilities to live independently in their communities. This should be recognized as a human right and not merely as a social assistance program."
06:20-06:42
"...I'm also highly concerned about the specific challenges faced by Indigenous people with disabilities because they are over-represented in the population that face poverty, exclusion and discrimination and that overcoming this structural discrimination is essential to building an inclusive and equal society in Canada."
07:10-07:30
"One of the concerns that I have is that we need to look at the situation of persons with disabilities also residing for long term in psychiatric facilities."
10:05-11:26
"As I said, I think that one of the main challenges of Canada is particularly the provision of home support. Home support that allows persons with disabilities to live independently and to perform all their daily activities in the community with autonomy, and these, there are severe and significant discrepancies across the country in how persons with disabilities are receiving that support. That support is not considered to be an entitlement, it's more like a program that is social assistance and it's tapped. You know, you have funding taps, you have long waiting lists to receive that kind of support, and as a result, in many cases when there are high support needs, people with disabilities by default being sent to residential facilities, which is a fact, I think a risk, that Canada is engaging in a process of re-institutionalization of persons with disabilities and this is something that really needs to be addressed urgently to make sure that services are provided in the community, that support is available for persons with disabilities so that you avoid situations in which nursing homes or home groups or other kind of residential facilities are the only and default option for persons with disabilities. And yes, it is against the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, particularly Article 19."
17:31-18:53
"Yes, with Indigenous populations indeed, Indigenous persons with disabilities, I think that there are dramatic challenges to be addressed and their access to services in a timely manner, and services that are culturally sensitive, that would avoid the risk of assimilation. Many persons with disabilities living on reserve can only access services by leaving their communities, which presents additional challenges. And I do appreciate that Bill C-81 is probably going to, there's going to be an opportunity to discuss with First Nations governments on how to advance, and if, and how, this Bill applies to Indigenous persons with disabilities. What my recommendation is that in that regard, is that it is important that all authorities involved in that process make sure that this process is done in the most efficient, and as fast as possible, to ensure that the needs of persons with disabilities in the Indigenous community are protected as well."
19:30-21:20 Solutions for support in the community are discussed:
-community-based services
-independent (individualized) funding
-remove caps on hours
-increase hours of support in the community for high needs individuals rather than default to institutionalization.
ONE SOLUTION FOR SUPPORT IN THE COMMUNITY THAT WASN'T DISCUSSED WAS THE NEED FOR UNIVERSAL DESIGN FEATURES IN HOUSING. BARRIERS IN HOUSING OFTEN LEAD TO UNSAFE HOME CIRCUMSTANCES, OR IN MORE EXTREME SITUATIONS, TO PREMATURE INSTITUTIONALIZATION BECAUSE HOME ENVIRONMENTS AREN'T TYPICALLY WELCOMING TO A DECLINE IN ABILITIES NOR TO DISABILITIES. RESPONSIBILITY FOR THESE BARRIERS IN LARGE PART RELATE TO BUILDING CODES THAT PERPETUATE THESE BARRIERS IN HOUSING.
A report on Canada will be submitted to the Human Rights Council in March 2020. This will be the second report highlighting the shortcomings of the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Canada, the first one available at:
https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRPD%2fC%2fCAN%2fCO%2f1&Lang=en
The initial report on Canada, as well as this State visit, should be a wake-up call to Canada...we must do far better for Canadians with disabilities. We are obligated to do so in the CRPD as well as in our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Excerpts below are taken from the video available at http://www.cpac.ca/en/programs/headline-politics/episodes/65969897
02:09-02:23
"...My main finding is that Canada urgently needs to transform (its) system, that systemic change is needed to ensure that people with disabilities can enjoy their human rights on an equal basis with others."
02:30-02:40
"I have noticed that there are significant shortcomings in the way that the federal, provincial and territorial governments implement the rights of persons with disabilities."
02:40-02:50
"In many cases, persons with disabilities have to initiate very lengthy and onerous legal procedures to get their rights recognized."
03:30-03:52
"One thing that is lacking is a comprehensive human rights-based approach in the responses that the governments are giving to this population and this needs to be changed in line with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities that has been ratified by Canada."
03:53-04:35
"I am deeply concerned, moving to an issue that is fundamental, that is the independent living of persons with disabilities within their communities, and I'm deeply concerned that many persons with disabilities are presented with no other choice except the placement in residential institutions like nursing homes and group homes, and it is important that the country break these segregated approaches and move to inclusive policies that provide the necessary support for persons with disabilities to live independently in their communities. This should be recognized as a human right and not merely as a social assistance program."
06:20-06:42
"...I'm also highly concerned about the specific challenges faced by Indigenous people with disabilities because they are over-represented in the population that face poverty, exclusion and discrimination and that overcoming this structural discrimination is essential to building an inclusive and equal society in Canada."
07:10-07:30
"One of the concerns that I have is that we need to look at the situation of persons with disabilities also residing for long term in psychiatric facilities."
10:05-11:26
"As I said, I think that one of the main challenges of Canada is particularly the provision of home support. Home support that allows persons with disabilities to live independently and to perform all their daily activities in the community with autonomy, and these, there are severe and significant discrepancies across the country in how persons with disabilities are receiving that support. That support is not considered to be an entitlement, it's more like a program that is social assistance and it's tapped. You know, you have funding taps, you have long waiting lists to receive that kind of support, and as a result, in many cases when there are high support needs, people with disabilities by default being sent to residential facilities, which is a fact, I think a risk, that Canada is engaging in a process of re-institutionalization of persons with disabilities and this is something that really needs to be addressed urgently to make sure that services are provided in the community, that support is available for persons with disabilities so that you avoid situations in which nursing homes or home groups or other kind of residential facilities are the only and default option for persons with disabilities. And yes, it is against the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, particularly Article 19."
17:31-18:53
"Yes, with Indigenous populations indeed, Indigenous persons with disabilities, I think that there are dramatic challenges to be addressed and their access to services in a timely manner, and services that are culturally sensitive, that would avoid the risk of assimilation. Many persons with disabilities living on reserve can only access services by leaving their communities, which presents additional challenges. And I do appreciate that Bill C-81 is probably going to, there's going to be an opportunity to discuss with First Nations governments on how to advance, and if, and how, this Bill applies to Indigenous persons with disabilities. What my recommendation is that in that regard, is that it is important that all authorities involved in that process make sure that this process is done in the most efficient, and as fast as possible, to ensure that the needs of persons with disabilities in the Indigenous community are protected as well."
19:30-21:20 Solutions for support in the community are discussed:
-community-based services
-independent (individualized) funding
-remove caps on hours
-increase hours of support in the community for high needs individuals rather than default to institutionalization.
ONE SOLUTION FOR SUPPORT IN THE COMMUNITY THAT WASN'T DISCUSSED WAS THE NEED FOR UNIVERSAL DESIGN FEATURES IN HOUSING. BARRIERS IN HOUSING OFTEN LEAD TO UNSAFE HOME CIRCUMSTANCES, OR IN MORE EXTREME SITUATIONS, TO PREMATURE INSTITUTIONALIZATION BECAUSE HOME ENVIRONMENTS AREN'T TYPICALLY WELCOMING TO A DECLINE IN ABILITIES NOR TO DISABILITIES. RESPONSIBILITY FOR THESE BARRIERS IN LARGE PART RELATE TO BUILDING CODES THAT PERPETUATE THESE BARRIERS IN HOUSING.
A report on Canada will be submitted to the Human Rights Council in March 2020. This will be the second report highlighting the shortcomings of the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Canada, the first one available at:
https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRPD%2fC%2fCAN%2fCO%2f1&Lang=en
The initial report on Canada, as well as this State visit, should be a wake-up call to Canada...we must do far better for Canadians with disabilities. We are obligated to do so in the CRPD as well as in our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Wednesday, April 10, 2019
Today's Accessibility Town Hall, Queen's Park
MY 3-MINUTE PRESENTATION WILL FOCUS ON ARCHITECTURAL BARRIERS IN HOUSING THAT EXCLUDE PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
The intended goal of the AODA has been to achieve accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities but one sector where we've failed miserably is housing. I think it's despicable that we're now into our 14th year of the AODA yet no standard has been created for housing; we're intentionally ignoring our human rights' obligations in housing. Worse than that, the "Initial Proposed Accessible Built Environment Standard" dated June 2009 died in 2011 due to intense lobbying against it; Chapter 13 already contained recommendations for housing. This 272-page draft document would have prevented new barriers in housing had it been implemented 10 years ago rather than eliminated. It might have actually decreased the accessible housing crisis that we're now facing.
As it stands, the Ontario Building Code continues to exempt nearly all private housing from barrier-free design requirements in section 3.8.1.1; the only exception is that 15% of units in new apartment buildings are required to be VisitAble, which is the most basic & affordable form of barrier removal in housing. This discriminatory building code policy condones architectural barriers that exclude persons with mobility disabilities from most housing. The unfortunate result is that anyone who needs housing more suited to their changing abilities has no choice but to search for a suitable renovation contractor...or build a custom home...both of which are expensive propositions.
The myths surrounding barrier removal in housing include the following: it's ugly, it's too expensive, it's too complicated or there's no demand for it. All of these myths are false. It's not ugly, I've personally seen beautiful design in Winnipeg and also in Bolingbrook, Illinois. The cost is far more reasonable in new construction because renovating for accessibility can be up to 20 times more expensive. It's not too complicated because best practices already exist nationwide, home builders simply need to learn from their colleagues who have already done it. And regarding demand, I know there is because we have millions of baby boomers who are already seniors & experiencing a decline in their abilities...and hundreds of thousands of Canadians with a variety of mobility disabilities.
But there is hope. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation already has decades of experience with barrier removal in housing, one example being their FlexHousing program going back to the early 1990s. As well, the Canadian Standards Association has a section about housing in their B651 accessibility standards. And there are a number of accessibility professionals eager to guide home builders through the process of barrier removal.
What we need is strong leadership to move forward with human rights in housing, to ensure that architectural barriers are prevented as part of our AODA ambitions. We need housing to be welcoming, safe and sustainable...Ontarians with disabilities deserve far better than our current practice of ableism and exclusion. We must act to eliminate the exemption of housing from barrier-free design requirements in Ontario Building Code section 3.8.1.1.
THANK YOU.
Sunday, July 15, 2018
This morning's email to Minister Jean-Yves Duclos
Minister Duclos;
I'm writing in response to yesterday's News Release regarding your presentation of Canada's Voluntary National Review at the United Nations High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development on Tuesday, July 17th. I'm quite concerned that SDG 11 doesn't mention Universal Design of new dwellings even though our National Housing Strategy specifically makes reference to Universal Design. When mentioning Social Inclusion, Fairness, Equality, Livable, Sustainable and Safe on page 84 of the VNR, my mind automatically thinks of Universal Design:
a) Universal Design and Social Inclusion: building new dwellings with Universal Design ensures social inclusion by welcoming everyone into dwellings, irrespective of disability. The negative impact of architectural barriers is significant; Canadians with mobility disabilities are excluded from the majority of new dwellings because building codes continue to exempt homes from barrier-free design requirements in section 3.8.1.1, a violation of 33 years of Equality Rights in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [delayed to 1985 in section 32 (2)]. I submitted Code Change Request 964 for VisitAbility of new dwellings to the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes on June 30, 2015 because I felt that it was the most economical and simple way to achieve inclusion for Canadians with disabilities in new dwellings. Three years later, this CCR is still in its infancy due to long delays by the Executive Committee, the Use and Egress Committee and the Housing and Small Buildings Committee in reviewing my CCR.
b) Universal Design and Fairness & Equality: how does the National Building Code of Canada, the National Housing Strategy and Canada's efforts with SDG 11 hope to achieve fairness and equality if we continue to condone systemic discrimination in new dwellings with the exemption found in building code section 3.8.1.1? By excluding a growing percentage of Canadians with mobility disabilities from our new dwellings (because there's a correlation between aging and an increase in disability rates), we eliminate any fairness or equality (let alone the many Canadians with mobility disabilities who aren't seniors because all ages are faced with mobility disabilities).
c) Universal Design and Livability: new dwellings with Universal Design make these homes far more livable across the life span of each home, which often impacts multiple families across more than one generation (if you think of how many occupants each home has in its life span of many decades).
d) Universal Design and Sustainability: Sustainability is a significant area of interest of mine as it relates to Universal Design. If we make reference to the New Urban Agenda 2030 and its Social, Environmental and Financial Sustainability, Universal Design has a positive impact on all three:
i) Social Sustainability: Universal Design of new dwellings would ensure social inclusion of all Canadians by welcoming everyone into any new home. The benefits of social interaction and inclusion for Canadians with mobility disabilities in universally designed new dwellings in significant, let's think of family gatherings where a member of a family with a mobility disability cannot participate because of architectural barriers resulting from our current building codes.
ii) Environmental Sustainability: having to modify a home to suit a person's changing abilities is very carbon intensive. There were the Green House Gases for the original construction, the GHG relating to the demolition and disposal of the original construction, and the GHG for the renovations for the required modifications to suit the person's changing abilities. Not considering Universal Design in the planning stage of any new dwelling has a negative impact on our already fragile environment.
iii) Financial Sustainability: the United Nations has shown that Universal Design in new development only adds one percent of additional cost so it's very economical when planned into a new dwelling. Research from Australia indicates that modifying a home for accessibility can cost up to twenty times more than doing so during the planning stage of a new dwelling. The financial implications of incorporating Universal Design during the planning stage of a new dwelling is significant enough to not be overlooked.
e) Universal Design and Safety: the Public Health Agency of Canada has indicated that seniors' falls in their homes costs our public health system approximately one billion dollars per year (and it also has a devastating impact on their quality of life post-injury). Universal Design of new dwellings creates a much safer environment, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation research involved in FlexHousing in the 1990s proved this long ago. The adaptability of FlexHousing is based on a number of Universal Design features being incorporated into a home; doing so in a new home decreases the GHG effect of adapting it later on when abilities change.
Page 84 of the Voluntary National Review has the "Rising to the challenge" heading which then speaks of sustainable homes. I hope that my points made above have clarified the positive impacts of Universal Design on Social Inclusion, Fairness, Equality, Livability, Sustainability and Safety. I would be pleased to offer supporting documents if any part of my email needs clarification. I would also be honored to discuss this further if any of your team members at ESDC are interested in the many benefits of Universal Design in new dwellings as part of our National Housing Strategy. In order to champion the advancement of the 2030 Agenda, it is my humble belief that Minister Kirsty Duncan must be included with the eight other ministers that have been given this task by the Right Honourable Prime Minister Justin Trudeau if we intend to leave no one behind, including Canadians with mobility disabilities.
Here's the link to yesterday's News Release:
Here's the link to the Voluntary National Review that Minister Duclos will be presenting on Tuesday at the United Nations HLPF meeting (refer to pages 83 to 89 for SDG 11).
Tuesday, June 20, 2017
Canada's Building Code development process...it's broken
As a proponent of an active Code Change Request with Canada's National Building Code, I'm confident in saying that our building code development process is broken (federal and provincial/territorial). My Code Change Request 964 for VisitAbility of new dwellings was submitted on June 30, 2015 yet nearly two years later there's much left to be done by the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes to even come close to considering it for their 2020 update. I shouldn't be surprised though because another CCR on dimensions of stairs took decades to complete.
Here's a prime example in Ontario. On January 1/15, Ontario Building Code section 3.8.2.1 (5) started requiring 15% of apartments to be VisitAble (basic/cheapest/easiest form of barrier-free design features known globally). My research on issued building permits in the City of Ottawa has revealed a disturbing trend in loopholes to OBC 3.8.2.1 (5) based on the fact that "apartment" isn't defined in the building code (nor is semi-detached, duplex, triplex, townhouse, or rowhouse), it's left up to the municipalities to define and enforce compliance for these different types of housing. What's happened in Ottawa is that a building (see photo) can be called a "stacked dwelling" to be exempted from the 15% requirement. I have also challenged the issue of 600 square meters of building area (6,458 sq ft) requiring compliance to section 3.8 for Barrier-Free Design but the Ontario Building Code definition of building area is broad enough to permit exemptions for that reason too. So either the OBC doesn't define housing types, or creates broad definitions that create exemptions, it's a mess that continues our shameful history of ignoring human rights in housing, even though our Ontario Human Rights Code is supposed to have primacy over our building code. I guess it's all rhetoric when home builders start their lobbying, always crying poor or complaining that it will kill off their industry (but it's ok to keep ignoring equality rights of persons with disabilities/activity limitations).
Here's a prime example in Ontario. On January 1/15, Ontario Building Code section 3.8.2.1 (5) started requiring 15% of apartments to be VisitAble (basic/cheapest/easiest form of barrier-free design features known globally). My research on issued building permits in the City of Ottawa has revealed a disturbing trend in loopholes to OBC 3.8.2.1 (5) based on the fact that "apartment" isn't defined in the building code (nor is semi-detached, duplex, triplex, townhouse, or rowhouse), it's left up to the municipalities to define and enforce compliance for these different types of housing. What's happened in Ottawa is that a building (see photo) can be called a "stacked dwelling" to be exempted from the 15% requirement. I have also challenged the issue of 600 square meters of building area (6,458 sq ft) requiring compliance to section 3.8 for Barrier-Free Design but the Ontario Building Code definition of building area is broad enough to permit exemptions for that reason too. So either the OBC doesn't define housing types, or creates broad definitions that create exemptions, it's a mess that continues our shameful history of ignoring human rights in housing, even though our Ontario Human Rights Code is supposed to have primacy over our building code. I guess it's all rhetoric when home builders start their lobbying, always crying poor or complaining that it will kill off their industry (but it's ok to keep ignoring equality rights of persons with disabilities/activity limitations).
Check out the definition of stacked dwelling according to City of Ottawa zoning. "Independent entrance to the interior" doesn't seem to be the case for the building on the right because there are roughly 13 exterior doors for 19 units, some have a shared exterior door as the covered entranceways reveal in the photo above.
I emailed an Ontario Code Development Coordinator and was told the following:
My response today was the following:
"Ms Smith;
I'm confused by your email. You're telling me that I would need to submit a CCR, wasting countless public tax dollars, and wait until 2022 to possibly have "apartment" defined, something that should have already happened decades ago? To then further deflect it to the NBC, which would delay it even longer, leaves me questioning the millions of dollars that go into the code development process. I am speechless."
I shouldn't be surprised though, Ontario has continued with Tarion (our failed home warranty program) even though there's been a formal review of its many problems. Consumers have a lousy home warranty program, building code is being manipulated by municipalities to create loopholes to compliance, and Ontario seems perfectly content in ignoring the most basic element, defining what exactly an apartment is (and other types of housing). Without a clear definition of "apartment" in our building code, it's allowing a number of projects in Ontario to avoid compliance to OBC 3.8.2.1 (5).
There's even a video on YouTube about building code violations of accessibility requirements in a new building funded by public dollars, it's a disgusting mess that no one seems willing to acknowledge. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRmVBmOy6xg&t=6s
I'm willing to provide specifics if anyone is interested, just reach out to me on social media and we can arrange it by email. I'm completely disgusted with the poor leadership shown in Ontario, a province that states that it will be fully accessible by January 1, 2025 (see https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/05a11). Housing, where all of us spend the greatest portion of any day, is apparently off-limits for an accessible Ontario. I guess our Human Rights Code is a hoax then, there's no right to Occupancy of Accommodation when our only dwelling type in Ontario that requires VisitAbility has seen quite a few "stacked dwelling" exemptions in Ottawa, it's simply ridiculous and unacceptable.
I suspect that I've provided sufficient proof that our code development process is broken, and that there's no desire to improve it apparently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)