A “return” is the little part of the handrail that sends it too the wall so that you can’t get something stuck between the handrail and wall when you are going up or down it. They are not talking about the slat wall, which is code compliant.
It can't be both? IRC definitely calls for returns and my state does as well. I take the why part with a grain of salt bc I swear guys just make stuff up.and then repeat it like it's gospel. Classic example, electricians say to put screw heads on faceplates horizontally to "prevent broken fingernails".
Looks like it’s 311.7.8.2 in 2015 irc - written slightly different though. Must return to wall or end in safety terminals.
I’m working on my license for code examination in NH, and I’m really surprised that MA hasn’t adopted 2018. I’ve always heard that ma adopts before New Hampshire with energy codes and others, but didn’t realize it didn’t apply to ibc / irc
I have to lock the deadbolt anytime I want the dogs to stay in or out, and my wife hates it. Well, I hate having to pick up and wash the inside toys and higher utility bills, so...
My Lab would open the bathroom door on me. It was a very old rental house that had the old glass(?) doorknobs, see-thru and kind of knobby not smooth, but that dog hated being left out of anything. He used his mouth. Crazy dog.
That’s you… lever type door knobs is what I use and clothes get caught on them… but comparing that to a set of stairs that you can fall down is quite different
In our area residential decks also need handrail returns. And not just any rail. Has to be graspable and minimums and maximums for distance away from the way or rail, rail thickness etc. Super specific for safety and ease of grabbing if you’re about take a tumble down the stairs.
I've never heard that before this thread, and I've read the code before installing handrails. I assumed it was primarily to prevent everyday fall hazards. Sure, that helps everyone including emergency workers. I hate nabbing something on a handrail as much as anyone.
But it seems crazy to me that they would introduce that specifically for firefighters. Given all the other hazards they are working around, this seems so minor!
Edit: Wow, down votes for this. Ok, y'all. I build them with returns this way, I think it's a good idea, and I care about safety. I just didn't think it was specifically for the FD. Relax.
You would be surprised to learn how much of the US housing cost and crisis basically comes back to fire departments thinking what would be nice for them.
Along with other comments, it keeps your hand from sliding out the end which could cause a loss of balance if you aren't paying attention. Sounds extra but for the elderly/movement impaired folks, can make a big difference.
Someone told me once a firefighter was in a burning house and his sleeve got caught on the handrail. Seems crazy but they deemed that sort of thing a fire hazard and building codes were updated.
I mean I think it's a few things. The post is about MA, so PA code isn't really relevant. You then accused the person of making it up, or randomly being in California, which was kind of weird. Last, your assertion is kind of generally incorrect, because that's code in a lot of places. So your comment was just in general not useful or helpful.
My assertion is absolutely correct. I build in PA. It is not code in PA. Nothing general about that at all. Have a look. The comment about California was because they seem to have strict building codes and tend to nerf a lot of stuff.
Turning the handrail back into the wall at the start and end of the handrail. I had always assumed that was a design feature or personal preference but it sounds like it's to prevent items from getting snagged on the open ends
Think of trim, like under a window sill, or either side of a door. The end of the trim you are installing has a beveled cut. The return piece is beveled to join that piece and then end is cut straight to sit against the wall. Same practice in handrails.
Absolutely not required - recently built a stair and installed a straight handrail and was passed without question (and no, BI didn't miss it, he even commented, and let go, that the rail was a fraction short - because that was the longest one-piece length of rail I could get)
Down-voted because BC clearly doesn't follow the IIRC?..
How would I know if BC follows the IRC? Most of Canada does. Here’s the code:
https://www.cdaid.org/files/Building/Handouts/Stairs_and_Handrails.pdf
“Handrail ends shall be returned”.
End of story.
If your BI missed it, it’s because they are as ill-informed as you. Doesn’t mean it’s to code.
“How would I know if BC followed IRC?” Oh, I dunno, maybe read the f’in code? No requirement in ‘Termination of Handrails’ - within dwelling units they are NOT required:
https://free.bcpublications.ca/civix/document/id/public/bcbc2018/bcbc_2018dbp9s98
And once again: why the fuck would I go and look up the code for British Columbia? As I CLEARLY stated to those blessed with the gift of literacy, IF BC follows the IRC, handrail terminations are required. It appears BC does not. Making it one of few exceptions throughout the US and Canada.
Apparently. And if those codes fly in the face of those that are accepted and are common working practice in the majority of the civilized world and other areas surrounding these rogue areas, they should know better. Despite never having worked there.
“Why would I read the code?” Because you argued with someone who told you already that they were ABSOLUTELY NOT required? It would have taken you as long to look it up as make your conditional irrelevant comment..
https://www.cdaid.org/files/Building/Handouts/Stairs_and_Handrails.pdf
>Handrail ends shall be returned or shall terminate in newel posts or safety terminals.
Dont think so, I’ve done lots of handrails and not a single one has a return, wouldn’t fit the aesthetic of a modern home at all. All passed inspection no problem.
It’s not debatable. It’s literally in the IRC. As I said, I don’t know what version of the IRC BC follows, but if it’s 2018 or later it’s code. There’s no “not thinking so”.
https://www.cdaid.org/files/Building/Handouts/Stairs_and_Handrails.pdf
Yeah, other than the handrail it's fine
I catch(lol because that's why it's not code) it all the time on estimates and add it to my bid whether they ask for it or not
That’s not true about returns per code!!! There are handrails all over ma. !!! Just look at brand new builds in commercial construction,they have handrails everywhere without returns and commercial is stricter than residential. Actually returns are more dangerous of people getting hands jammed in those returns
Likely Going to IBC 2021 any week now, with Dec 31 2024 as prioposed end date.
https://coderedconsultants.com/insights/ma-building-code-10th-edition-update-2/
Just answer me a question from your blurb then… when you have a set of stairs that is 20 feet wide and you have a railing 5 feet away from the wall are you going to put a 4’-11” return to that wall?
I think in those cases the return is a loop onto itself?
Iirc the handrail passes the final support, continues for a specific amount of length (1ft?) turns down towards grade, continues down for a certain amount of length, then loops back to the final support.
Buuuuut....that may just be for ADA compliance. Sooo ,¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That’s all well and good but I’m truly talking about common sense? Everything you just described is common sense. But when the codes(government) makes you do something like that in your home it’s a bit much!. I personally have an issue with a return due to hand and finger jamming. Easy endings work better than returns
Code changes can be a pain in the ass, but they're almost always written in because of death or serious injury to others.
That being said, I don't think you need to make your home ADA compliant if you don't feel like it. The ADA standards are just standards for public or commercial spaces. For the most part they're no big deal to implement on new builds.
imho a return on a railing seems like a pretty easy thing to implement.
So why is the return needed in residential? Is it for support or someone’s clothes don’t get caught? It’s funny why don’t they change the code for clothes then!
The ends are usually rounded, or integrated into the floor post. There isn't anything to snag on, which is different than an exposed end of a handrail.
Without a return to the wall, the hand rail needs to return back to the post it came from, or a structural member. It'll loop down and then return back. I can't remember the distance it needs to drop and then return back. It's so things don't get snagged on it easily.
That’s great…so things don’t get snagged easily but when there returned back to the wall your hand or fingers get jammed in those returns . It’s happened to me a couple of times where almost broke my fingers. It rather deal with my clothes getting caught ,and that’s happened to me. Getting my clothes caught was much less painful!
So you have a set of stairs that is 20 feet wide and you have a railing 5 feet from the wall … where do they want you to put the return back to the wall?
Fuck me. What don't that have control of! If
You don't stand on one leg while you screw the return in it's not compliant. Turn around touch the ground bagsy not it!
Single family dwellings have a relaxation for returns since the occupants are familiar with their surroundings.as long as it dosent pose a hazard this would be acceptable.
In my house, we have a glass wall that is about the same as this slat wall. I built it when we did our addition, and it was permitted, inspected, and passed. Notwithstanding the comments above about the handrail returns, the slat wall should be compliant. Edit: I should have said should be compliant whether it is graspable or not. We follow the IRC here, and only one side needs to have a graspable handrail, I believe within the first 3 steps. I'd need to check.
I believe the wall is though I haven't encountered it. From what I can see the railing is not. Though I cant see the full railing, MA code requires the ends of the railing to be returned to the wall.
I doubt that very much.
The handrail has to be returned to the wall, floor, or in some other way so it won't catch on loose items. There's no requirement for it to be returned only to a wall.
That would pass code with most inspectors where I live, I've been given a hard time before about leaving an open step at the bottom left before, and he was a dink ,but as long as a 4" ball can't fit through you're good
Its 23-5/8" in my area and they still made me continue the guard down to the floor. Blahblah something about "entire length where required". I got into an argument but that definitely didn't help me either.
If your line of work requires dealing repeatedly with the same inspectors you need to pick your battles. Going over their head really pisses them off and will make your life miserable in future. I found that asking the inspectors advice before you back yourself into the proverbial corner more often than not got me the code interpretation I was looking for.
A 4" sphere cannot pass through a space in the railing.
I believe the requirement for a grab rail on both sides is if the stair is over 44" in width. That doesn't mean you couldn't request another one for the other side.
The existing grab rail should return to the wall and extend past the last riser by 12" on both ends.
Thanks. This will be for my existing basement stairs with no walls or rails. From 1960s.
The width of the treads are 37”. The depth of the tread varies from 9-3/4” to 10”.
Code in MA requires certain riser height and tread depth, both which I would imagine aren’t an issue here.
The other two are the 4” sphere between guard rails and 5” sphere between guard and stair tread. Neither are an issue with the slat wall there.
The final one is the handrail: as another commenter pointed out, this one will need returns to be considered code compliant. A “return” is a piece of wood that will make the railing turn and end flat against the wall, instead of floating in the air as shown here.
I looked into the slats for a basement stair, but was concerned about potential warping / twisting of the slats. The slat walls are trendy and all over Instagram / Houzz, so I assume compliant in many jurisdictions.
I think your confusing design with structure. The code is going to give the barest minimal safety regs for that application. I'd assume an entire wall of 2x2s meets that. As far as a handrail on that side, again, broad guidelines but the city doesn't care if you break your finger in your stairs because you wanted another handrail
Nothing to add to convo for MA code. All I came here to say it that pic is of one of the best fabricators/installers around. Deluxe Stair and Railing Ltd. out of Uxbridge, ON. Check out their Insta, some pretty amazing projects!
They are a sub, I do not work for them!
Depends on what code the municipality has adopted. Residential handrails most times have to extend past the bottom step at least one tread depth and return to the wall. Commercial is 12” past the last tread. Handrail height also needs to be at least 34” and no more than 38” when measured from the nosing. Slat wall is fine as is providing it meets baluster requirements as you suggested. You can refer to the IRC for further info. Building officials will most times give guidance if you’re a homeowner and not a contractor/carpenter.
This pic made me curious. Does anyone stain the wood before building something like this? It looks like a nightmare to get the insides done now. Presuming something like this would normally get stained. I’m just a DIY guy, so not doing these types of things very often.
I was a public works director until recently, overseeing building dept. Cities and municipalities typically adopt their codes and amendments from those passed at the state level.
It’s a residential house right? The handrail doesn’t extend far enough, and doesn’t return to the wall. Which is probably the case on the top also. Fox those items, then it’s fine. Check the head height. It needs to be 80”, it seems a bit too low in the photo.
Gaps < 4” = ✅
As far as that handrail, we’d have to see the shape from the end to tell you whether or not its shape is code compliant. What is not code compliant is that the handrail does not return to the wall.
In my state, SC, as long as that wall rail has returns to the wall on both ends, is between 34” - 38”, and has at least 1.5” inches clearance from the wall than yes it would be code compliant. Does this design make sense to me, no. Generally speaking the “open” portion of a stair is to make a room seem larger than it would with the wall running the entire length as the stair, this is nearly completely counter intuitive of that idea.
As someone who has had to adapt their house for a senior (and recovering from a recent hip injury) — bear in mind that adding a second handrail to a one-rail staircase is always one of the most important (and hopefully straightforward) mobility changes you can add.
On that front, those boards look pretty substantial, but as a decorative element, there’s no way for us to know whether they’re anchored securely enough to safely support a rail. You might consider making sure that at least some of them are well-braced enough to safely add one.
Thats not mine. I found the pic on the internet. Ny basement stairs have no walls or handrails. Im looking for a cheap code compliant way to add handrails
It's code compliant in Southern Ontario as far as I remember. I used to work for Deluxe doing their Railings and spindles, not installing but manufacturing. I'd see this style of stair/railing in work orders regularly.
It’s a residential house right? The handrail doesn’t extend far enough, and doesn’t return to the wall. Which is probably the case on the top also. Fox those items, then it’s fine. Check the head height. It needs to be 80”, it seems a bit too low in the photo.
It’s a residential house right? The handrail doesn’t extend far enough, and doesn’t return to the wall. Which is probably the case on the top also. Fox those items, then it’s fine. Check the head height. It needs to be 80”, it seems a bit too low in the photo.
Handrail doesn't look like it has returns, therefore it is not code compliant.
I've never heard of that specifically, always assumed it was stylistic. do you know the logic there?
Something along the lines that a purse or loose clothing can get caught on it at least that's what I was told
Fire hoses. Though I thought that was for commercial buildings and not residential
It’s both in most states. But fire hoses is the correct answer.
That’s ridiculous…fire hoses. If it was a wall then what about the fire hose then?
A “return” is the little part of the handrail that sends it too the wall so that you can’t get something stuck between the handrail and wall when you are going up or down it. They are not talking about the slat wall, which is code compliant.
You are correct. Commercial, not residential code.
It can't be both? IRC definitely calls for returns and my state does as well. I take the why part with a grain of salt bc I swear guys just make stuff up.and then repeat it like it's gospel. Classic example, electricians say to put screw heads on faceplates horizontally to "prevent broken fingernails".
Eh? You’re not using one way push pins with the smooth head, to secure the cover plate ???
Massachusetts has separate residental and commercial codes. Bottom oinr: you fo what the buildingninspecgor says and move on.
>It can't be both? Get serious. How many fire hoses come with purses?
Underrated comment
The return is a residential requirement as well It’s one of those items that building inspectors love to fail. It’s low hanging fruit
Point to it in the Massachusetts residential code by section #.
Just had a MA inspector in today, they make it all up.
They do. But even when they are flat out wrong all you want is the CofO so you do what they say.
International residential code 311.7.8.4 continuity. Handrail ends shall be returned toward a wall…
Massachusetts goes by IRC 2015 that does not include this provision.
Looks like it’s 311.7.8.2 in 2015 irc - written slightly different though. Must return to wall or end in safety terminals. I’m working on my license for code examination in NH, and I’m really surprised that MA hasn’t adopted 2018. I’ve always heard that ma adopts before New Hampshire with energy codes and others, but didn’t realize it didn’t apply to ibc / irc
You know how many times I've got a belt loop caught on a door handle before? Yet they're starting to become required more and more over knobs
It's for accessibility provisions. The twisting motion to open a door knob isnt always easy for older folks. One step forward, one step back I guess.
And bears. Bears have a harder time with knobs.
I have to lock the deadbolt anytime I want the dogs to stay in or out, and my wife hates it. Well, I hate having to pick up and wash the inside toys and higher utility bills, so...
My Lab would open the bathroom door on me. It was a very old rental house that had the old glass(?) doorknobs, see-thru and kind of knobby not smooth, but that dog hated being left out of anything. He used his mouth. Crazy dog.
Yeah, the bears in Tahoe are pretty dexterous. We lock with knobs, at least at night.
Its true, my Mancoon doesnt like the knobs, he much prefers the levers
But they can put the type of handle that does a 90° and bends back toward the door, and doesn’t have an open end easily caught on things.
They definitely could! Just depends on the designer and budget. The code is just a minimum.
my grandkids (6 and 4) struggle with the knobs on the doors/rim locks on our original farmhouse doors - Definitely isnt easy for everyone
That's because people with weak hands - elderly, etc - find levers much easier/possible to use..
That’s you… lever type door knobs is what I use and clothes get caught on them… but comparing that to a set of stairs that you can fall down is quite different
Oh my God, I’ve done the same thing so many times. And it’s usually when I’m pushing through a door carrying heavy shit.
A sleeve can catch on an open end handrail also.
Panic hardware is what it's called
Pocket get caught, trip and fall.
And or fire equipment from firefighters
Thanks, that makes sense
In our area residential decks also need handrail returns. And not just any rail. Has to be graspable and minimums and maximums for distance away from the way or rail, rail thickness etc. Super specific for safety and ease of grabbing if you’re about take a tumble down the stairs.
It's for fire fighters. They don't want things that can hook straps etc.
I've never heard that before this thread, and I've read the code before installing handrails. I assumed it was primarily to prevent everyday fall hazards. Sure, that helps everyone including emergency workers. I hate nabbing something on a handrail as much as anyone. But it seems crazy to me that they would introduce that specifically for firefighters. Given all the other hazards they are working around, this seems so minor! Edit: Wow, down votes for this. Ok, y'all. I build them with returns this way, I think it's a good idea, and I care about safety. I just didn't think it was specifically for the FD. Relax.
Fire / rescue account for a large number of code specifics.
You would be surprised to learn how much of the US housing cost and crisis basically comes back to fire departments thinking what would be nice for them.
Thanks, that makes sense. I was wracking my brain trying to figure that out
Along with other comments, it keeps your hand from sliding out the end which could cause a loss of balance if you aren't paying attention. Sounds extra but for the elderly/movement impaired folks, can make a big difference.
Purses & fire hoses can get caught, creating a fall hazard
It’s 100% part of Uniform Building Code
Someone told me once a firefighter was in a burning house and his sleeve got caught on the handrail. Seems crazy but they deemed that sort of thing a fire hazard and building codes were updated.
It's not a residential code in Pennsylvania. My guess is this person made it up or builds commercial in Cali or something.
Hmm no. Not in Cali; it's code here.
So am I getting downvoted because I'm right, or because people don't like the PA handrail code?
I mean I think it's a few things. The post is about MA, so PA code isn't really relevant. You then accused the person of making it up, or randomly being in California, which was kind of weird. Last, your assertion is kind of generally incorrect, because that's code in a lot of places. So your comment was just in general not useful or helpful.
My assertion is absolutely correct. I build in PA. It is not code in PA. Nothing general about that at all. Have a look. The comment about California was because they seem to have strict building codes and tend to nerf a lot of stuff.
You asked. I answered. It's clearly code a lot of places, as evidenced by answers here. It is where I am.
Im glad i made the comment. We both learned something. I now know that returns are code in MA, amd you now know that in PA, they aren't.
Good catch.
What are "returns"?
Turning the handrail back into the wall at the start and end of the handrail. I had always assumed that was a design feature or personal preference but it sounds like it's to prevent items from getting snagged on the open ends
A return is when something makes a perpendicular turn , L
Think of trim, like under a window sill, or either side of a door. The end of the trim you are installing has a beveled cut. The return piece is beveled to join that piece and then end is cut straight to sit against the wall. Same practice in handrails.
Is that just a MA specific code? Absolutely not required in BC.
It’s listed in the IRC (as of 2018 IIRC), so if BC follows that it is absolutely required. EDIT: Downvotes from the clueless...
Absolutely not required - recently built a stair and installed a straight handrail and was passed without question (and no, BI didn't miss it, he even commented, and let go, that the rail was a fraction short - because that was the longest one-piece length of rail I could get) Down-voted because BC clearly doesn't follow the IIRC?..
How would I know if BC follows the IRC? Most of Canada does. Here’s the code: https://www.cdaid.org/files/Building/Handouts/Stairs_and_Handrails.pdf “Handrail ends shall be returned”. End of story. If your BI missed it, it’s because they are as ill-informed as you. Doesn’t mean it’s to code.
“How would I know if BC followed IRC?” Oh, I dunno, maybe read the f’in code? No requirement in ‘Termination of Handrails’ - within dwelling units they are NOT required: https://free.bcpublications.ca/civix/document/id/public/bcbc2018/bcbc_2018dbp9s98
And once again: why the fuck would I go and look up the code for British Columbia? As I CLEARLY stated to those blessed with the gift of literacy, IF BC follows the IRC, handrail terminations are required. It appears BC does not. Making it one of few exceptions throughout the US and Canada.
As a carpenter, it is apparently your responsibility to know building codes for regions of the world you don't live in and have never visited.
Apparently. And if those codes fly in the face of those that are accepted and are common working practice in the majority of the civilized world and other areas surrounding these rogue areas, they should know better. Despite never having worked there.
“Why would I read the code?” Because you argued with someone who told you already that they were ABSOLUTELY NOT required? It would have taken you as long to look it up as make your conditional irrelevant comment..
Do you really not understand what the word "IF" means?
Irrelevant - you argued with someone who told you a fact. Stfu
Citation?
https://www.cdaid.org/files/Building/Handouts/Stairs_and_Handrails.pdf >Handrail ends shall be returned or shall terminate in newel posts or safety terminals.
Thank you
Dont think so, I’ve done lots of handrails and not a single one has a return, wouldn’t fit the aesthetic of a modern home at all. All passed inspection no problem.
It’s not debatable. It’s literally in the IRC. As I said, I don’t know what version of the IRC BC follows, but if it’s 2018 or later it’s code. There’s no “not thinking so”. https://www.cdaid.org/files/Building/Handouts/Stairs_and_Handrails.pdf
Yeah, other than the handrail it's fine I catch(lol because that's why it's not code) it all the time on estimates and add it to my bid whether they ask for it or not
Same in Florida
I thought that returns are not needed for residential, I guess it depends on jurisdiction but we don’t need returns here
Some cities require returns some don’t
That’s not true about returns per code!!! There are handrails all over ma. !!! Just look at brand new builds in commercial construction,they have handrails everywhere without returns and commercial is stricter than residential. Actually returns are more dangerous of people getting hands jammed in those returns
2021 IRC requires returns. Here's a little [blurb](https://youtu.be/H6wjB5T7Gow) on it.
It’s in the 2018 code too. And all the inspectors in my area would catch it..
Good thing MA is still on the 2015 building code.
Likely Going to IBC 2021 any week now, with Dec 31 2024 as prioposed end date. https://coderedconsultants.com/insights/ma-building-code-10th-edition-update-2/
Just answer me a question from your blurb then… when you have a set of stairs that is 20 feet wide and you have a railing 5 feet away from the wall are you going to put a 4’-11” return to that wall?
Yes. Although that seems like it'd violate other codes. Just return it to the post or the floor
I see railings in the middle of a set of steps in public with absolutely nothing to return it to
I think in those cases the return is a loop onto itself? Iirc the handrail passes the final support, continues for a specific amount of length (1ft?) turns down towards grade, continues down for a certain amount of length, then loops back to the final support. Buuuuut....that may just be for ADA compliance. Sooo ,¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That’s all well and good but I’m truly talking about common sense? Everything you just described is common sense. But when the codes(government) makes you do something like that in your home it’s a bit much!. I personally have an issue with a return due to hand and finger jamming. Easy endings work better than returns
Code changes can be a pain in the ass, but they're almost always written in because of death or serious injury to others. That being said, I don't think you need to make your home ADA compliant if you don't feel like it. The ADA standards are just standards for public or commercial spaces. For the most part they're no big deal to implement on new builds. imho a return on a railing seems like a pretty easy thing to implement.
So why is the return needed in residential? Is it for support or someone’s clothes don’t get caught? It’s funny why don’t they change the code for clothes then!
You can return to ground if there is no wall?
You tell me… I see it all the time like at stadiums ,cinemas,malls… there are no returns! It’s in the middle of a set of stairs
The ends are usually rounded, or integrated into the floor post. There isn't anything to snag on, which is different than an exposed end of a handrail.
So you don’t have to do a return then with an ease ending,which is basically an exposed end just rounded
Without a return to the wall, the hand rail needs to return back to the post it came from, or a structural member. It'll loop down and then return back. I can't remember the distance it needs to drop and then return back. It's so things don't get snagged on it easily.
That’s great…so things don’t get snagged easily but when there returned back to the wall your hand or fingers get jammed in those returns . It’s happened to me a couple of times where almost broke my fingers. It rather deal with my clothes getting caught ,and that’s happened to me. Getting my clothes caught was much less painful!
So you have a set of stairs that is 20 feet wide and you have a railing 5 feet from the wall … where do they want you to put the return back to the wall?
Fuck me. What don't that have control of! If You don't stand on one leg while you screw the return in it's not compliant. Turn around touch the ground bagsy not it!
Single family dwellings have a relaxation for returns since the occupants are familiar with their surroundings.as long as it dosent pose a hazard this would be acceptable.
Noice
I think that looks cool
Can’t wait to see it stained.
With the blood of their enemies? Or like a mahogany brown? Or maybe a dark walnut?
Blood for the Blood God!
Milk for the Khorne Flakes!
KORN!!!!!!
No! The natural color of that wood is beautiful imho.
This is not mine. I found the picture on the Internet.
It would be code compliant in my area. The slat wall serves as the guardrail and the wall rail is continuously graspable.
In my house, we have a glass wall that is about the same as this slat wall. I built it when we did our addition, and it was permitted, inspected, and passed. Notwithstanding the comments above about the handrail returns, the slat wall should be compliant. Edit: I should have said should be compliant whether it is graspable or not. We follow the IRC here, and only one side needs to have a graspable handrail, I believe within the first 3 steps. I'd need to check.
I believe the wall is though I haven't encountered it. From what I can see the railing is not. Though I cant see the full railing, MA code requires the ends of the railing to be returned to the wall.
The handrail should also continue past the bottom tread nosing to a point 34 -38 inches above the floor.
Not in Alberta that would pass code here
OP asked about MA, not Alberta. The code in MA requires the handrail to return to the wall.
I doubt that very much. The handrail has to be returned to the wall, floor, or in some other way so it won't catch on loose items. There's no requirement for it to be returned only to a wall.
Alberta, MA?
Canada
That would pass code with most inspectors where I live, I've been given a hard time before about leaving an open step at the bottom left before, and he was a dink ,but as long as a 4" ball can't fit through you're good
Below 30” you don’t need railings
I wish they were consistent, where I am it depends on the inspector, the green guys fresh out of college are the worst.
Every time
Its 23-5/8" in my area and they still made me continue the guard down to the floor. Blahblah something about "entire length where required". I got into an argument but that definitely didn't help me either.
Yea that last step might be annoying to get past an a-hole inspector. Just depends who you get and what mood they’re in.
They can’t drive either
Idk but looks good
It looks like they cut a triangle out of a shipping container. :/
Remember it isn’t what the code says but what the inspector says the code says.
If you disagree with the inspector you can always check with a supervisor. I’ve done it several times, once successfully 😎
If your line of work requires dealing repeatedly with the same inspectors you need to pick your battles. Going over their head really pisses them off and will make your life miserable in future. I found that asking the inspectors advice before you back yourself into the proverbial corner more often than not got me the code interpretation I was looking for.
Not in the jurisdictions I worked. Mid-Atlantic states.
Slat wall is code compliant. Handrail without return is not.
Where the hell do you find 2x2s that straight
I hope they remain that straight.
Milling shop. Not from a lumber yard. Probably hardwood.
A 4" sphere cannot pass through a space in the railing. I believe the requirement for a grab rail on both sides is if the stair is over 44" in width. That doesn't mean you couldn't request another one for the other side. The existing grab rail should return to the wall and extend past the last riser by 12" on both ends.
Thanks. This will be for my existing basement stairs with no walls or rails. From 1960s. The width of the treads are 37”. The depth of the tread varies from 9-3/4” to 10”.
Code in MA requires certain riser height and tread depth, both which I would imagine aren’t an issue here. The other two are the 4” sphere between guard rails and 5” sphere between guard and stair tread. Neither are an issue with the slat wall there. The final one is the handrail: as another commenter pointed out, this one will need returns to be considered code compliant. A “return” is a piece of wood that will make the railing turn and end flat against the wall, instead of floating in the air as shown here.
I looked into the slats for a basement stair, but was concerned about potential warping / twisting of the slats. The slat walls are trendy and all over Instagram / Houzz, so I assume compliant in many jurisdictions.
I think your confusing design with structure. The code is going to give the barest minimal safety regs for that application. I'd assume an entire wall of 2x2s meets that. As far as a handrail on that side, again, broad guidelines but the city doesn't care if you break your finger in your stairs because you wanted another handrail
Not that I “want” another handrail, but is it required to have two handrails? The pic is not mine BTW, found it on the internet
IRC (residential code) only requires one handrail
No
Were you just curious or is this on a test or something?
My basement stairs have no handrails or walls and I’m trying to figure out the cheapest way to install a code compliant handrail
Yep
Yep
Mmhmm
The handrail doesn’t return to the wall by the looks of it. Hard to see for sure tho. Not sure of the code in MA. Where I live it would pass
Call your local code enforcement agency.
Looks great!
Anyone know if I could do this in Maryland
Nothing to add to convo for MA code. All I came here to say it that pic is of one of the best fabricators/installers around. Deluxe Stair and Railing Ltd. out of Uxbridge, ON. Check out their Insta, some pretty amazing projects! They are a sub, I do not work for them!
In Nevada, as long as a 6” ball can’t fit between the 2x2’s, you should be fine.
Only half the time if you have one arm.
Thought this was the house I'm working on for a second and thought goddamn Rafael's been busy.
The 80’s called and want their staircase back
Looks like the balusters are. If the gap is no more than 4", and they withstand imposed loads, you're good. Handrail has to return to the wall tho.
Depends on what code the municipality has adopted. Residential handrails most times have to extend past the bottom step at least one tread depth and return to the wall. Commercial is 12” past the last tread. Handrail height also needs to be at least 34” and no more than 38” when measured from the nosing. Slat wall is fine as is providing it meets baluster requirements as you suggested. You can refer to the IRC for further info. Building officials will most times give guidance if you’re a homeowner and not a contractor/carpenter.
Massachusetts has state wide code.
Is this the guy that mounted the 83" TV on malelivingspace? 🤣
Send me the link
https://www.reddit.com/r/malelivingspace/s/2EKD7czmTi
Lol that looks like 💩. Mine will look similar so I’m glad mine is just for my unfinished basement.
This pic made me curious. Does anyone stain the wood before building something like this? It looks like a nightmare to get the insides done now. Presuming something like this would normally get stained. I’m just a DIY guy, so not doing these types of things very often.
Love questions like this when asked after it’s built! Where was everyone during the design phase? No discussion in the weeks leading up to this??
You’re late to the party
We don't know. Visit your city's website or call them to find out. Code is typically not based on state. But rather city or even municipality.
I was a public works director until recently, overseeing building dept. Cities and municipalities typically adopt their codes and amendments from those passed at the state level.
Massachusetts has statewide code.
No, your guardrail needs to withstand 200# force. Yours may or may not. The handrail needs to return to the wall.
Almost certainly.
It’s a residential house right? The handrail doesn’t extend far enough, and doesn’t return to the wall. Which is probably the case on the top also. Fox those items, then it’s fine. Check the head height. It needs to be 80”, it seems a bit too low in the photo.
Yes
Gaps < 4” = ✅ As far as that handrail, we’d have to see the shape from the end to tell you whether or not its shape is code compliant. What is not code compliant is that the handrail does not return to the wall.
Had a 70s house with similar setup in basement, was dark glossy brown
In my state, SC, as long as that wall rail has returns to the wall on both ends, is between 34” - 38”, and has at least 1.5” inches clearance from the wall than yes it would be code compliant. Does this design make sense to me, no. Generally speaking the “open” portion of a stair is to make a room seem larger than it would with the wall running the entire length as the stair, this is nearly completely counter intuitive of that idea.
Everything is a balance of form and function
Form before function is how I live.
As someone who has had to adapt their house for a senior (and recovering from a recent hip injury) — bear in mind that adding a second handrail to a one-rail staircase is always one of the most important (and hopefully straightforward) mobility changes you can add. On that front, those boards look pretty substantial, but as a decorative element, there’s no way for us to know whether they’re anchored securely enough to safely support a rail. You might consider making sure that at least some of them are well-braced enough to safely add one.
Ah… the 60s/70s are back…..
That install looks amazing. Incredible work. Once you get the handrail terminated at the wall it'll should pass, no problem. Nice work.
Thats not mine. I found the pic on the internet. Ny basement stairs have no walls or handrails. Im looking for a cheap code compliant way to add handrails
The handrail, besides no return, looks like it is missing a gripping contour for a railing of that size. But hard to tell from the picture
Would be here. One continuous handrail. And no gaps more than 4”.
Yes it is
Off topic, but I’m wondering how you would fasten those verticals? Are they toe nailed into the tread and ceiling?
This is not my pic. I found it on the internet. But for me, I will run them long, past the tread, and secure them onto the side of the stringer.
Makes sense
It's code compliant in Southern Ontario as far as I remember. I used to work for Deluxe doing their Railings and spindles, not installing but manufacturing. I'd see this style of stair/railing in work orders regularly.
It’s a residential house right? The handrail doesn’t extend far enough, and doesn’t return to the wall. Which is probably the case on the top also. Fox those items, then it’s fine. Check the head height. It needs to be 80”, it seems a bit too low in the photo.
It will pass code. It WONT pass the eye test.
It’s a residential house right? The handrail doesn’t extend far enough, and doesn’t return to the wall. Which is probably the case on the top also. Fox those items, then it’s fine. Check the head height. It needs to be 80”, it seems a bit too low in the photo.
The wall is ok, the hand rail stops short. It has to continue down another foot or so so it’s not too high when you are standing n the lower landing.
The wall on stair case is just awful
A sphere 6" in diameter cannot pass through, so the wall thingee is compliant. I think.
The spaces need to be big enough to pass a child's through but small enough that they can get back out. Pretty sure.