Earlier this morning I talked about general accessibility in the built environment as a civil right. In this session you may have the impression that I try to propagate accessibility on the basis of its alleged profitability to society as a whole. It would be very dangerous indeed to attempt to prove that all human and civil rights are profitable to the general taxpayer. It would be an interesting experiment to show how few of our rights would pass this economic criterion. The purpose of the type of analysis presented in the case study is not primarily to evaluate whether elevators should be installed or not, but to analyze whether the resources we are spending today and tomorrow are put to their best use.
Institutional care is very expensive and the quality of life for the residents is low.
Elderly and disabled people want to live in their familiar environments, but need accessible housing to be able to have that choice. To install elevators in old buildings costs money, to build and maintain institutions also costs money. Senior citizens and physically disabled persons are over-represented among the tenants of apartments without access to elevators. Installing an elevator in a three or four story apartment house will increase the break-even rent by approximately 50 to 70 SEK per sq m housing area and year in the absence of any subsidies. The need for these services is decreased by accessible housing.