[nilsbunger]

This is why we can't have nice things. Huge additional costs and design constraints because of

* 2-exit-stairwell requirement

* elevator laws

* parking laws

Article contrasts with an apartment building in Denmark to show what could be possible.

[idle_zealot]

2 exit stairs makes sense, so long as one of those can be a fire escape. I think a lot of places banned those though because they're "ugly".

Elevator laws make sense so long as they apply to general areas and not every single building. It would really suck for the majority of builders to decide to cost-skimp and skip elevators, effectively locking disabled people out of dense living.

Parking laws need to be removed and replaced with minimum transit requirements. Provided transit options are accommodating for disabled people (which is totally possible, all the buses around me do it) then the only thing hurt (read: no longer subsidized) by making parking optional are car manufacturers, dealers, and gas companies.

[jedberg]

> Elevator laws make sense

It's not the elevator requirement that is the problem, it's that they have to be very big. Can't use the small elevators that fit inside a stairwell for example.

[sokoloff]

Who gets to be the builder who is allowed to be one of the minority to not have to put an elevator into a building where only a majority must have it?

[kevinburke]

You've got this backwards - big elevators with union labor mean that they're an expensive undertaking that only large multifamily buildings can afford.

Smaller, more affordable elevators mean that they're less of a luxury item. You could put an elevator in your house, or retrofit an older apartment with an elevator, much more easily. This is incredibly common in other countries