Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Code Single Stair topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Experts and builders back commission to study legalizing mid‑rise single‑stair housing
Summary
Witnesses told the Joint Committee on Housing that studying single‑stair mid‑rise buildings could reduce costs and enable more family‑sized units on small urban lots; several research organizations and fire‑safety experts said the evidence shows modern single‑stair designs can be safe when paired with sprinklers and other protections.
Supporters told the Joint Committee on Housing the state should commission a technical study to evaluate legalizing modern mid‑rise single‑stair residential buildings (H.1542 / S.964).
Advocates said allowing thoughtfully designed single‑stair buildings of four to six stories would lower construction costs, increase the number of family‑sized units on small infill lots, and better align building types with New England neighborhood fabrics. They urged a study commission of architects, fire officials, building officials, housing advocates and municipal staff to analyze safety measures, floor‑plate limits, sprinkler and smoke‑control requirements, and other technical controls.
Luke Schuster, executive director of Boston Indicators, described a multi‑partner report that found building‑code staircase rules contribute to limiting the types of multifamily housing built. Sam Naylor, a licensed architect and an author of the report, said the change is “fundamentally about modernizing our building code to allow for a type of multifamily building that is best suited to family‑sized apartments, small urban lots, and incremental missing middle development.”
Technical testimony focused on existing safety evidence from jurisdictions that have allowed single‑stair mid‑rise buildings. Pew Charitable Trusts research manager Siva Raminski summarized comparative findings: in cities such as New York and Seattle, modern single‑stair buildings require sprinklers and other protections and have not shown higher overall residential fire‑fatality rates than other multifamily housing. Raminski told the committee those findings “show that modern single‑stair buildings in New York, which has about 4,400 such buildings, had an overall rate of fire deaths indistinguishable from other residential buildings.”
Industry groups and small developers said the second required egress stair adds both direct cost (witnesses estimated roughly a 10% increase to overall construction cost or about $250,000–$300,000 on example small projects) and lost rentable area in smaller buildings. Builders’ groups and the Home Builders and Remodelers Association supported the commission approach so the technical code changes would proceed through established code‑adoption channels.
Opponents at the hearing were limited; several witnesses emphasized the need for a rigorous, stakeholder‑driven study rather than immediate code changes. Proponents asked the committee to fund the commission with a modest appropriation (witnesses discussed an illustrative study budget of roughly $250,000) and to align the study with Massachusetts’ code adoption processes so technical specifications could later be considered by the State Board of Building Regulations and Standards.
The committee did not take action during the hearing. Supporters told members they would submit the cited reports and technical appendices for committee review.
