Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Single Stair Study topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Experts and advocates back study to legalize mid‑rise single‑stair buildings in Massachusetts
Summary
Witnesses from Boston Indicators, Pew, local developers and public safety groups told the Joint Committee on Housing that a legislative study commission should evaluate allowing 4–6 story single‑stair residential buildings, citing potential cost savings and comparable safety records in other jurisdictions.
A coalition of policy researchers, architects, developers and public safety experts urged the Joint Committee on Housing to establish a study commission to evaluate legalizing mid‑rise single‑stair residential buildings (bills, including H1542/S964).
Key testimony and takeaways: Luke Schuster, executive director of Boston Indicators, said layering of outdated building code requirements — notably the two‑stair rule for most buildings over three stories — increases cost and limits the types of housing that can pencil on small urban lots. He and coauthor Sam Naylor recommended a structured study so Massachusetts can evaluate a code change with stakeholder input.
Pew Charitable Trusts presented empirical analysis and said modern single‑stair buildings have fire fatality rates indistinguishable from other multifamily buildings in U.S. cities that now allow them; the Pew witness also reported that removing a second stair can reduce construction costs by roughly 10 percent and increase unit floor area by 7–9 percent in some designs. Several developers and small builders said a second stair can add roughly $250,000–$300,000 to the cost of a modest four‑story project and that the extra stair occupied sellable or rentable area on small infill sites.
Public safety and code experts explained the technical questions the study should address — height limits, floor‑plate size, smoke control and sprinkler coverage — and recommended the study route rather than immediate code changes so the issue can be vetted and Massachusetts tradeoffs documented.
What supporters asked for: Witnesses urged the committee to fund a measured study (witnesses referenced an allocation of about $250,000 for a commission) and to proceed through a transparent stakeholder process including fire safety experts, architects and municipal building officials.
Limits and next steps: The hearing featured diverse testimony for and against aspects of the change; no code amendment was enacted at the hearing and no committee vote was recorded.
