Unintended consequences of piecemeal building code changes

If you are wondering why the price of housing hasn’t gone down yet, despite all of the work of our many layers of government, I want to give a couple of examples of how policy is affecting the cost of housing and show how well-meaning policies can often work at cross purposes.

In the news last week was the announcement that the B.C. Building Code was changing to allow single egress stairways in buildings of up to six stories. On the surface, the change should be good, and should push costs lower and streamline housing construction.

At the same time, new accessibility regulations that will come into effect in March require 100% of units to be adaptable for people with disabilities.

While both initiatives are intended to improve the housing landscape in British Columbia, they illustrate a broader issue with government intervention—when policies are not harmonized, they can end up making housing more expensive, not more affordable.

Let’s first look at the single egress stairways. The province’s decision to remove the requirement for a second staircase is framed as a way to reduce building costs, particularly for mid-rise buildings up to six stories and to increase housing density on smaller lots. In theory, this change allows developers to use space more efficiently, freeing up more room for additional units or larger layouts, which can be particularly beneficial in urban areas where land is at a premium?.

However, the policy comes with risks. Safety experts, including those in the fire service community, have raised concerns about emergency evacuations. In the event of a fire or other emergency, having only one staircase limits the options for residents to exit safely.

Even with enhanced safety measures like sprinklers and smoke-management systems, a single exit can create bottlenecks during an evacuation, leaving residents—especially those on higher floors—vulnerable. That is particularly troubling for individuals with mobility challenges, who rely on accessible means of egress, often through elevators with standby power.

In an emergency, where elevators may be unusable, the only option would be the staircase—a major barrier for those with physical disabilities?.

On the flip side, the B.C. Building Code now also mandates that starting in March 2025, all new residential units must be fully adaptable for people with disabilities. That means every unit in a new building, regardless of which story, will require modifications such as larger rooms, lowered outlets and accessible bathrooms to ensure individuals with disabilities can comfortably live there?.

While that is undoubtedly a positive step toward inclusivity, it comes with significant financial implications. Industry experts estimate the changes could add tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of each new unit.

That is why prices keep going up. For a housing market already under strain, these added costs could delay new projects and ultimately push prices higher, counteracting the cost-saving measures intended by reducing stairway requirements.

What we see here are two well-intentioned policies that, when taken together, highlight a broader issue in government planning—rules and regulations, when not properly aligned, can create more problems than they solve.

The goal of both policies—affordable, accessible housing—gets muddied when one policy aims to cut costs and another increases them. Eliminating a stairwell may save $50,000 but making 100% of the units adaptable could add $1 million. Eliminating a stairwell may lower costs, but may put people at risk in an emergency, especially those with disabilities.

As someone who has spent a great deal of time advocating for affordable housing and smart growth in British Columbia, I believe it is crucial we carefully consider the unintended consequences of these changes. Yes, we need more housing and we need it fast. But we also need housing that is safe, accessible and affordable for all British Columbians.

By relaxing safety standards on one side and raising costs on the other, we run the risk of achieving neither.

Instead of implementing piecemeal regulations, government should focus on a more cohesive strategy that balances affordability, safety and accessibility. That could include offering incentives or grants to developers to help offset the increased costs of making all units adaptable or reconsidering the safety implications of reducing stairwells in mid-rise buildings.

In the rush to address the housing crisis, we must avoid creating policies that, in the long run, only make housing less accessible and more expensive for everyone. A thoughtful, balanced approach is the only way to ensure that we are building a province where everyone—regardless of their abilities—has access to safe, affordable homes.

My question to you this week is this:

Should government be increasing or decreasing housing regulations to lower the cost of housing?

I love hearing from you and read every email. Please email me at [email protected] or call the office at 250-712-3620.

Renee Merrifield is the BC United MLA for Kelowna-Mission.

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.