Why are mid-rise elevators 3X as expensive in the US and Canada, compared to Europe?
Stephen Smith: large cabins, labour, regulatory standards
The extraordinarily high cost of elevators in North America. Stephen Smith, Center for Building in North America, May 2024.
Installing an elevator in a new mid-rise building is about 3X as expensive in the US and Canada as in Western Europe. Parts and operating costs are similarly expensive. As a result, it’s much more common for small apartment buildings in Europe to have elevators. In the US and Canada, elevators are typically shared by many apartments as a way to reduce the cost; this makes them more prone to breakdowns, because they’re used more heavily.
Smith identifies three major factors driving the cost difference:
The size of the elevator cabin. In Western Europe, an elevator cabin accommodating a wheelchair is 1.1m x 1.4m, with a capacity of 630 kg, and one accommodating a stretcher is 1.1m x 2.1m, with a capacity of 1000 kg. In both cases, you enter facing forward, and then back out without turning around; buttons are on the side of the car. In the US, an elevator cabin is typically required to accommodate both a wheelchair which can turn around and a full-length stretcher, resulting in cabins which are about 2X as large, with a capacity of about 3500 pounds (about 1600 kg).
Labour. In Europe, there’s more workers with vocational training (technical education). And EU freedom of movement makes it easy for workers to move to another country temporarily when a lot of new elevators are being installed. Installation is more straightforward than maintenance, and also subject to boom-and-bust cycles. In North America, the International Union of Elevator Constructors ensures that there’s a limited number of jobs with high wages. (“In the past, the finer details of successfully joining the union were only available through word-of-mouth, strongly favoring those with family or friends in the trade. Nowadays, the Internet and forums like Reddit’s r/elevators have demystified the process for those adept at doing online research, so nepotism is less of a necessity.”)
Technical standards. “The United States and Canada are some of the only countries in the world that have not harmonized with European technical codes and standards regarding elevators, walling us off from the global market for parts.”
Recommendations for reform, with discussion.
More on US cabin sizes
As Smith notes, US cabin-size regulations have been formed on a rather casual basis, without real cost-benefit analysis.
The 2,000- to 2,500-lb. cars now required in the United States to accommodate wheelchair users are roughly as large as the 1,000-kg cars in Europe built to accommodate stretchers, but due to the shape of the cabin – more square than a narrow and deep European car – typically do not accommodate a stretcher of the size dictated by code in a fully reclined position. The modern American code requirements to accommodate a stretcher in buildings of at least four (or, in some cases, three) stories with elevators were inherited from the old Uniform Building Code, where the requirement was added in the 1988 edition. At the time, the code required accommodation of a stretcher measuring 24 in. × 76 in., or 6 ft., 4 in. in depth, which was then copied into the first edition, in 2000, of the International Building Code.
In the 2006 edition of the IBC, the length of the stretcher to be accommodated was raised to 84 in., or 7 ft. (2.13 m). The code change was proposed by a member of the Glendale Fire Department, in Arizona, where there are still very few apartment buildings with elevators. The firefighter who proposed it said that he was concerned that a sports arena being constructed would have elevators that would not accommodate his local emergency responders’ stretchers extended into a fully flat position. The cost impact was stated simply as “None.” “Just think about if the patient was you,” the proponent concluded in his reason statement. There was some debate and tweaking of the language that year and in a subsequent version at the urging of the elevator industry, but the proposal ultimately survived in a modified form, incrementally increasing the capacity of multifamily elevators to today’s typical 3,500 lbs.
Why regulations based on size are better than regulations based on performance:
The stretcher requirement has at times led to confusion among authorities having jurisdiction, because the exact dimensions of the elevator cabin that can accommodate a stretcher are not explicitly stated in the code. In Europe, building codes are generally written to require 1.1 m × 2.1 m cabins where stretchers are meant to be accommodated, but America’s IBC merely states that elevator cabins “shall be of such a size and arrangement to accommodate an ambulance stretcher 24 inches by 84 inches (610 mm by 2134 mm) with not less than 5-inch (127 mm) radius corners, in the horizontal, open position.” Since the wheelchair turning requirement requires more square cabs, while stretchers are long, the most space-efficient way to accommodate stretchers is usually diagonally, sometimes requiring multi-part maneuvers, as noted in example drawings in the IBC commentary. Elevator industry professionals have described frustrating conversations with fire officials over whether stretchers will ift inside of cars, with one person describing an incident involving a mock-up of a stretcher using a refrigerator box to try to convince an official that a cabin meets code.
Besides the greater cost of the installation, there’s also the cost of the additional space required:
In most zoning codes and land use regimes, developers face a direct tradeoff between space occupied by elevators and space that can otherwise be rented or sold. Of six major U.S. jurisdictions reviewed (New York City; Los Angeles; Portland, OR; Philadelphia; Arlington County, VA; and Jersey City, NJ), all either require developers to count space occupied by elevators towards their total allowed floor area, or regulate building size in such a way that only accounts for a building’s outer walls. This means that every square foot occupied by an elevator shaft and the elevator inside of it comes at the opportunity cost of whatever the prevailing price for land is, as measured per buildable square foot.
Based on the architectural planning specifications provided by Otis, Schindler, and Kone for their typical code minimum models on each continent, assuming a constant 8-inch thickness for hoistway walls, elevator shafts take up almost twice as much space in North America (around 76 sq. ft.) as in Europe (41 sq. ft.). The cost impact is dramatic: for a six-story building, if the price of land is $150 per buildable square foot (typical for urban land in large coastal cities), the opportunity cost of an elevator shaft built to European specifications is $37,000, as opposed to $69,000 in North America.
More
Why are housing costs so high? The elevator can explain why. Stephen Smith, New York Times, July 2024.
How new elevator rules can help fix the housing crisis in North America. John Lorinc, Corporate Knights, August 2024.
Movin’ on up? The low ceiling of North American elevator standards. California YIMBY.
How elevator rules cost us homes: an interview with Stephen Smith. Missing Middle Podcast, June 2024.
Previously: harmonizing elevator regulations.
Joseph Heath on cost-benefit analysis.