Spain’s population is 14 percent of that of the United States, and its gross domestic product is 6 percent of ours. Why is it that Spain has as many elevators?
Elevators facilitate density, allowing cities to reach heights previously impossible. They are also a miracle for accessibility. It’s worth thinking of the ability to climb stairs as a temporary privilege. Someone who is not yet disabled probably will be eventually, whether from injury, illness or old age. Despite this, many multistory buildings lack elevators. We are all familiar with the aging triple-decker or walkup apartment with no elevator. The average 25-year-old may be a little out of breath at the top of the stairs, but what about an elderly person, or a baby in a stroller? What are they meant to do?
You may have noticed that in new buildings, elevators have become gigantic. The international standard for elevators is to be large enough to accommodate someone in an oversized wheelchair with an attendant behind it. Here, elevators are twice that size, driven by a requirement to fit ambulance stretchers and to complete a three-point turn in a wheelchair.
Bigger is not always better, and U.S. elevator standards are out of step with international best practices. Despite gravity working at the same rate and physics working under the same rules in Europe and the United States, our elevator parts must be certified independently and built of different components. About 100 local boards and authorities impose additional requirements that are specific to certain cities, states or regions. This means European elevator makers see no value in competing in the American market.
All these factors make elevators quite expensive, especially in the United States. In 2024, a four-stop elevator cost $158,000 in New York City yet was $36,000 in high-income Switzerland. A renovation adding an elevator must house the structural, mechanical and life-safety systems for these machines, making the cost astronomical. These palatial, highly customized devices are incompatible with small or medium-sized construction. If we want to be a city of four- to six-story buildings, rather than 15– to 25-story buildings, we need smaller elevators and stairs scaled to the residents of these buildings. When elevators balloon the cost and footprint of a project, it results in the building being built without elevators – or not built at all.
In general, only the first floor of a small apartment building is required by law to be accessible. If cheaper elevators were legal, they could be standard in all new buildings, or even mandatory. As we replace, renovate and rebuild Massachusetts’ aging housing stock, accessibility should be a goal, and changing the way we think about elevators is a big step in that direction.
Such changes would also make retrofits possible. In Europe, it’s common to see older buildings fitted with a small elevator on the exterior, allowing the building to be made accessible at a far lower cost than tearing it down and rebuilding. This has the beneficial effect of preserving historic structures. Even deep-pocketed cities such as Somerville have found that they can’t afford to add elevators to their historic buildings, resulting in a need to build bigger and (even more) expensive replacements.
The state has the power to override the building codes that cause these inefficiencies. It is common for states to do so; Massachusetts uses this power to impose stricter energy efficiency requirements on construction. Should the political will exist, the governor and Legislature could pass a law easily to adopt international best practices for construction. Because the Americans with Disabilities Act is a federal law, it would still apply and ensure that elevators are large enough to accommodate wheelchair users.
Many people outside the construction industry believe that building codes are the result of professionals working to keep Americans safe and are “written in blood.” While this is true in many cases, these requirements are often written by laypeople or industry insiders, with little to no data to back them up and an incentive to bloat the cost (and profits resulting from) construction.
In 2006, a firefighter submitted a proposal to change the International Building Code. (Note: The United States calls its building codes “international,” but they are used only here and in Canada.) He wanted to require elevators to accommodate 7-foot stretchers. In the place on the form where the cost impact of the proposed change was asked, he wrote “None,” adding “Just think about if the patient was you.” The change was adopted. That firefighter probably was great at his job and cared about his community, but it’s unlikely that he was an expert on elevators or construction.
Nicholas Marchuk is a local author and engineer. His work is available at major retailers and on his website, nicholasmarchuk.com. Comments and questions can be directed to his contact form and may be responded to in this publication.
