How do you guys normally measure a stair-like this?

[RCA]

Per ANSI, you the stair counts on both floors. You measure as if there is a floor there, instead of a stair. You do deduct the area that's open to the lower level. Don't over think it.

To be exact, per the ANSI Z765-2013:

"However, the area of both stair treads and landings proceeding to the floor below is included in the finished area of the floor from which the stairs descend, not to exceed the area of the opening in the floor."

Further:

"Ceiling Height Requirements
To be included in finished square footage calculations, finished areas must have a ceiling height of at least 7 feet
(2.13 meters) except under beams, ducts, and other obstructions where the height may be 6 feet 4 inches (1.93
meters); under stairs where there is no specified height requirement; or where the ceiling is sloped. If a room’s
ceiling is sloped, at least one-half of the finished square footage in that room must have a vertical ceiling height of
at least 7 feet (2.13 meters); no portion of the finished area that has a height of less than 5 feet (1.52 meters) may
be included in finished square footage."

So, in conclusion:

1. The area of the stair is included in the floor it descends from only.
2. The area underneath the stairs is a bit complicated:
2a: If the area under the stairs is completely open - not a closed off room, then it all counts as living area.
2b: However if the area under the stairs has been converted to some kind of room, such as a closet, that is normally considered living area, and it will be sloped, at least one-half of the area must be 7 feet or higher and no portion to be included in the living area can be under 5 feet.

What the above means, is that in many cases, you will have to deduct 10-15+/- sf or so for the area below the stairs under 5 feet high, if it has been closed off as some kind of room. And, well, it may make the difference between your measured GLA and that of the tax assessor. NTI, but some us have preference for perfection and having all the beads in a row.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

ANSI pg 2 of 11 see: "Openings to the Floor below"

http://accuratehomemeasuring.com/images/ANSI_SINGLE_FAMILY_RESIDENTIAL_standard_ANSI_Z765-2003.pdf

 

[Tim The Enchanter]

This horse is definitely deceased.
It has run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible.

 

[RCA]

I love to point out contradictions in standards. Here is one ANSI Z765-2021, Page 2:

"3.5 Openings to the Floor Below
Openings to the floor below cannot be included in the square footage calculation. However, the area of both stairs treads and landings proceeding to the floor below is included in the finished area of the floor from thich the stairs descend, not to exceed the area of the opening in the floor."

"3.6 Above and Below-Grade Finished Areas
The above-grade finished square footage of a house is the sum of the finished areas on levels that are entirely above grade. The below-grade finished square footage of a house is the sum of the finished areas on levels that are whole or partly below grade."

So, according to 3.5, the area of a stair descending from the main floor to the basement must be considered as the area of the main above grade floor, or above-grade finished area. But, according to 3.6, since it is wholly below grade, it cannot be considered above grade, but only below grade.

One might understand a failure to see a contradiction arising from distant points in a standard. But here, we have 3.5, followed immediately by 3.6 which create a contradiction. You see the same thing in USPAP and other real estate standards.

From my point of view, the people writing these standards shouldn't. It is that obvious.

The only real estate standard that comes close to engineering standards in real estate is the IVS standard. It is pretty damn nice and clever to boot.

======
Are you smart enough to rewrite 3.5 and 3.6 so that there is no contradiction, yet the intended meaning is the same? Well of course, we can't be sure what the intended meaning is because we have a contradiction. You have to decide whether the area of stairs descending from the main floor to a below grade basement should or shouldn't be included in the above graded finished area, then rewrite the standard accordingly, so that it is not contradictory. [ I would argue since a below grade basement can flood and cover the stairs descending into it, that the stairs should not be included in the above grade area. ... You know a lot of the logic behind the discrimination against basements has to do with drainage and flow of water and sewage, yada yada yada. Just imagine a fire in a flooded basement and you have to escape the only way is up the stairs - but they are flooded? Hmmm, maybe that is a contradiction. Although, I'm sure I have seen it in a couple of submarine movies.

 

[andrew81]

I love to point out contradictions in standards. Here is one ANSI Z765-2021, Page 2:

"3.5 Openings to the Floor Below
Openings to the floor below cannot be included in the square footage calculation. However, the area of both stairs treads and landings proceeding to the floor below is included in the finished area of the floor from thich the stairs descend, not to exceed the area of the opening in the floor."

"3.6 Above and Below-Grade Finished Areas
The above-grade finished square footage of a house is the sum of the finished areas on levels that are entirely above grade. The below-grade finished square footage of a house is the sum of the finished areas on levels that are whole or partly below grade."

So, according to 3.5, the area of a stair descending from the main floor to the basement must be considered as the area of the main above grade floor, or above-grade finished area. But, according to 3.6, since it is wholly below grade, it cannot be considered above grade, but only below grade.

One might understand a failure to see a contradiction arising from distant points in a standard. But here, we have 3.5, followed immediately by 3.6 which create a contradiction. You see the same thing in USPAP and other real estate standards.

From my point of view, the people writing these standards shouldn't. It is that obvious.

The only real estate standard that comes close to engineering standards in real estate is the IVS standard. It is pretty damn nice and clever to boot.

======
Are you smart enough to rewrite 3.5 and 3.6 so that there is no contradiction, yet the intended meaning is the same? Well of course, we can't be sure what the intended meaning is because we have a contradiction. You have to decide whether the area of stairs descending from the main floor to a below grade basement should or shouldn't be included in the above graded finished area, then rewrite the standard accordingly, so that it is not contradictory. [ I would argue since a below grade basement can flood and cover the stairs descending into it, that the stairs should not be included in the above grade area. ... You know a lot of the logic behind the discrimination against basements has to do with drainage and flow of water and sewage, yada yada yada. Just imagine a fire in a flooded basement and you have to escape the only way is up the stairs - but they are flooded? Hmmm, maybe that is a contradiction. Although, I'm sure I have seen it in a couple of submarine movies.

No need to rewrite it because there is no contradiction. The stairs belong to the floor from which they descend. Since they descend from the main above grade finished area, the stairs are not considered whole or partly below grade.

 

[RCA]

No need to rewrite it because there is no contradiction. The stairs belong to the floor from which they descend. Since they descend from the main above grade finished area, the stairs are not considered whole or partly below grade.

Ha. The fact remains they are indeed below grade. Thus 3.6 says they cannot be considered above grade.

The error in you logic is that the stairs do not "belong" to any floor. If they "belong" to anything, they belong equally to both floors. But more appropriately the belong to the house.

No one has given in the ANSI standard any special definition to the term "belong". The stairs appropriately "belong" to the entire house because they are a "component" of the house. Each floor as many components that compose it. However, Stairs is not one of them, because stairs connect different floors.

Stairs are one of the traffic CONDUITS in the house. Another is hallways. Their purpose is to connect other components for purposes of traffic.

Writing standards requires the ability to think precisely.

Otherwise, all you will do is create a mess.

Note: Traffic conduit (stairs, hallways, vacuous "hubs", etc.) square footage should actually be separated out from living area. That is, traffic conduits should be treated as a separate component as they impact functional utility both positively and negatively. Poorly designed houses are often regarded as such because the architect screwed up in designing the conduits, giving them far more square footage than necessary, wasting space and increasing costs to do nothing more than create all sorts of problems (walk-through bedrooms, heat loss, ...........)..

You know, when the owners go banana's because they think I have undervalued their home with gigantic lengthy hallways that offer nothing but obstructions to to remodeling and unfilled promises.

Note 2: Heat and A/C air flows are impacted by traffic conduits. I see this occasionally and when I see the problem it is often quite obvious. Along the coast, A/C is usually not a problem. But as you move inland, you have scorching hot summers and cold winters. Wide "open below" stair areas that go straight up through 2 or 3 or more floors, means the warm/hot air flows upward quite rapidly and the cold air downards. Central Air often doesn't work beause of poor designing of the ducts - but also because the stair openings are larger than they need to be - perhaps in the name of architectural grandeur. It's one of those things you need to design in the structure upfront, so that the ducting makes sense in relation to everything else. But of course those damn remodeling upgrades can make a mess of the original plans. And that often happens. So, as a result, you see local air conditioners here and there.

 

[andrew81]

The standard uses the word "however" which is used to contrasts with or seems to contradict something that has been said previously.

Ok, you are correct, there is a contradiction. However, any reasonable person applying the standard understands its application and when applied the same every time will produce the same results.

 

[Zoe]

The standard uses the word "however" which is used to contrasts with or seems to contradict something that has been said previously.

Ok, you are correct, there is a contradiction. However, any reasonable person applying the standard understands its application and when applied the same every time will produce the same results.

Your gonna include in both basement and GLA above grade. No contradiction.

You will report it differently on a 1004 and give it market value according to appraisal methodology.

 

[Zoe]

Good LORD, I have to assume sometimes on basements on 1004 in my market. Almost all the houses built in early 1900's or late 1800's have small unfinished basements where the boiler was for radiator heat. Sometimes laundry is down there. Getting accurate measurements on them from reliable sources is very difficult.


They make great tornado shelters. That's the place to be in tornado. If water is standing in them, we have a problem.

 

[Tom D]

well, if we take out the stairs. then should we not take out some interior wall since that space cannot be used. so the 1st level interior walls have no GLA use?
i've left plain GLA reality, and now entered i'm a better anal measurer than you.