36" deep risers will force you to make 2 steps for each riser, which is a rather awkward way to walk. I don't normally design monumental risers, so I'm not sure the best maximum off the top of my head, but something you can do comfortably in one step will work better. You can probably google stair tread depth to get some ideas. Also, generally the deeper the tread, the shallower the riser.

Without even seeing a picture of the area, I vote for the landing. It's ever so much more graceful to leisurly stroll up or down a few steps, pause at the landing, and then continue(*), as opposed to grimly plugging straight up or down the stairs.

(*)In the meantime, before the pool opens, you can practice leisurely strolling with a tall cool drink in one hand, then stopping and turning back to cast a come hither look over your shoulder while saying "care to join me?"

Melissa,

Your husband is trying to reinvent the wheel and is mucking it up. Steps are nothing new. They have been around for centuries and were developed to accommodate people. (I emphasize the word people.) Irene is being polite when she calls your husband's steps 'awkward'. Trust me -- you would absolutely HATE them!

The proper riser and tread relationship for stairs has been firmly established to be: Twice the riser plus the tread equals 26 inches. An 8 inch riser should have a tread of 10 inches (8 + 8 + 10 = 26).

Quite frankly, 8 inches is an awfully tall riser. The only time that I use an 8 inch riser is in industrial locations where the workers need the additional clearance for meta-tarsal shoes. I always strive to keep the rise under 7 inches because it is so much easier and more comfortable to navigate -- just watch little kids and the elderly struggle with tall step risers. Ask yourself where do most falls around the home occur? The steps, of course.

There is an interesting little anecdote about stairs in the classic book by Thomas Church, Gardens Are For People. At an unnamed cotillion, 13 out of 16 debutantes tripped into the arms of their escorts while making their grand entrance down the stairs. The steps were constructed with 5 inch risers to accommodate a graceful arrival. After the event, it was discovered that the steps had 5 inch risers and 12 inch treads (5 + 5 + 12 = 22). If they had constructed steps using the proper 16 inch tread (5 + 5 + 14 = 26), the girls would have floated down the steps as if on a cloud. Instead, those steps which ignored the rule, caused most of the young ladies to belly-flop into an embarrassment they will never forget.

In many ways, you may really be missing the boat here. It sounds like you have a wonderful pool area that could lend further elegance to your home. Why not consider a graceful stone walkway that tapers down to the pool deck without any steps at all? The cost should be about the same or even less. Talk about an opportunity for elegance!

IronBelly

Of course, the correct addition formula is:
(5 + 5 + 16 = 26) not (5 + 5 + 14 = 26)

I was thinking about the 4 additional inches and I guess my brain just defaulted.

Sorry for any confusion.

IB

If you are in an area with zoning and building codes you better check and see what you are allowed to do. If not look at Time Savers or another architect/building handbook that will give you the proper dimension of exterior steps, and how many steps between landings. I think exterior steps have different riser to tread ratio? Listen to Ironbelly.

Would this ratio change if the steps were even wider? Then they become more of a set of landings?

WE have natural stone steps planned and the LA suggested 7" risers with steps 3 and 3 ft wide. total of 4 steps.

I think this suggestion was in part for the look of the steps. Wider steps don't make them look wquite so steep. On wider steps this might not make much difference, but on a narrower steps - wider might look better?

I don't really know - just thinking out loud.

The ratio of riser to tread has to do more with the ease of using the steps, and safety, than with design.

That is, a deeper tread is more smoothly walked with a shorter riser. A shallower tread is more easily walked with a higher riser.

The ratio is well researched.

The object is to help prevent stumbling and tripping.

If you're only having five steps, I would probably make them all consistent and running together (i.e. no "pause" in between). Personally, I've experienced tripping down stairs in a lecture hall where they alternated landings and steps, (one each). Even though they're clearly there, I find that my feet are programmed to expect one step to follow the next. Having to watch your feet while walking down stairs tends to be a pain.

-Audric

The riser to tread ratio doesn't change regardless of the width of the steps. As IronBelly posted above 2R+T=25-28", and additionally I was taught, the ideal is 25". Regarding width, as with walks, 4.5' wide is minimum for two people to comfortably walk abreast, 5' better, and wider as appropriate for design preference. If the total rise does not need to be accomplished in a short run, an elegant ratio might be 4" rise & 18" tread or 5" X 16". 6" X 14" is comfortable when that ratio is advisable, 7" X 12" works when you need it. Of course these are all to the 25" ideal, the 25-28" variability is oftentimes useful.

When I design steps with landings, I like to make the landing run, or distance, a multiple of the homeowner's natural stride. I don't know if there are set standards or ratios for landings.

As for codes -

Zoning doesn't address stairs, normally. Building codes are the appropriate place to look. Normally, they have a maximum riser height, and sometimes a minimum. They will also have a minimum tread depth, but I don't think I've noticed a maximum anywhere. They don't talk about the formula IB quoted, tho generally they end up mandating something close to it. (And that is the formula I learned in school, fwiw, I just couldn't remember it off the top of my head.) Around here, codes vary with the maximum riser being anywhere from 7" to 8", and sometimes 9" for existing buildings (and I've been in buildings with 9" risers and 10" treads). The tread depth minimum is usually 11". Landing depth requirements range from 3' to 5', depending on the situation.

(And of course, now that you mention codes, I do hope the OP is going through the proper channels to get the appropriate permits and permissions...)

I just came back from City hall (in Canada). They do have a min and max for the riser (I beleive it was between 5 and 8"). Steps need to have a consistent riser and tread on all steps - ie it can't vary from step to step - which could be a problem with natural stone - don't know how fussy they are.

A landing has to be 3ft or more - less is considered a step. So you can't have a 2.5 ft landing and steps with a normal tread, because the landing is now a step and all steps would need to be 2.5 ft.

If there are more than 3 steps, you must have some type of side railing on at least one side of the steps. This is also true for wide steps.

They also have a rule that anything over 24" high above grade needs a railing. That is the drop off from the step or landing is 24" down to grade.

Not sure what happens if you have 4 steps under 24"?

I took in drawings of my plan to get approval, and it took some time. some of these rules are either not well known or not clearly defined. But I sure would hate to put in all those steps and have the City not pass the project.

An insurance company may also take exception to non standard steps and refuse to insure until they are fixed.

The stair ratio that I was taught in landscape design classes was also the 2R + T= 25-28 inches, rather than IB's set 26 inches. The only other thing I would add is that stairs are least dangerous when there are at least two risers to a set of stairs. Having just one riser is always more likely to cause tripping, avoid it is possible.

Consider what is happening around the steps. The OP is talking about stone steps that are going to push out 14' away from the house that is only 30' wide. The rest of the layout has to absorb those steps and the circulation from those steps to other activities has to be considered.

There are two sets of french doors. If they are both to have steps extending 14' out from the 30' wide house what is to become of the area between the steps? What kind of space is created by the relation of the house, the two sets of steps, and the pool? It just seems to me that the steps are becoming disproportional to the space.

This situation is one that has very clear points of origin and multiple points of destination in the way people will circulate between the multiple activities that take place in and around a pool area.

I think that the layout stands to gain or lose a lot more by the length of the steps than by the aesthetic of the tread length. I would also caution that the speed of circulation around a pool is faster than at the front door of a Georgia manor and that feet are often wet.

You'll have kids running to and from the pool (some may even go inside to use the bathroom), the potential to have to react to emergencies (or perceived ones), movement of food in and out (whether prepared in or out), phones and doorbells ring, ... and typically the attention and focus of the pool space is much more on the pool and its backdrop than on the house.

What I'm saying is that it seems that the aesthetic value of the steps is much more heavily weighted in this case than other considerations of how the steps impact the use of the space. Hopefully, that is not the case.

Design the steps fast, easy, and safe and then apply aesthetic values to the design of them. Right now it seems that the aesthetic is picked out and now the search is on to make them safe.

Andrew we know so little about the overall project that it is only possible to answer the question about step dimensions in general terms. If we knew, for instance, the distance between bottom step and pool or what else is back there or had a photo to work on it would make for a more interesting thread. We have no context whatsoever so the standard formulae for exterior steps is the only answer.

Steps... Grrrr... I really have no love for any steps at all. I strive to eliminate them whenever possible. In my ideal fantasy kingdom, I would decree that major design points be deducted for every step installed.

I fully realize that there are sites where steps can't be avoided. However, on a great many projects, using only a little forethought and planning, many could be designed away. Yes On many existing landscapes, eliminating all steps would be like Grandpa used to say, "Trying to get back to hay before it went through the horse." However, how many can actually say that they make a concerted effort to design steps out of a project? Why not? Has design lapsed into the mire of Âthis is the way we have always done itÂ?

In a very real way, every time you introduce another step into a landscape, you have introduced another hazard. Is that good design? On the flip side of this issue; if and when health issues decree steps must be eliminated, we are left to gaze upon some ugly old ramp cobbled together to meet ADA standards. Wow that was planning for the future!

IronBelly

Level changes add interest and steps can make a strong architectural statement. And yes they can be a hazard.

I agree with those statements, Tibs. However, level changes, dependent upon how they were planned for, does not mean that the design needs to automatically default to "steps". Sure, steps are a the standard, quick solution but are they always the best solution? Or ... was that even taken into consideration?

As to a strong architectural statement ... ponder that for a moment and ask yourself if that is a good statement? Traditional, yes ... but good? I'm not so sure. I know that steps worked for Scarlet O'Hara, but how well do they work for mothers carring things like infants, food trays or groceries? How about Granny, pregnant women, little kids, strollers, wheel barrows or (God forbid!) a real, live person with an ambulatory disability -- which statisically, most of us will have at least temporarily during some portion of our lives. Then of course, we should ask ourselves if we have removed steps through the process of thoughful design, will steps even be missed at all? I can confidently say that at my home, they are not missed at all. In fact, the home both functions better and the aesthetics are much improved.

If the original design takes this into consideration from the get-go, as I said earlier in this thread, "Talk about an opportunity for elegance!"

IronBelly

IB,
Eliminating steps as a design mantra! How interesting, and to my mind, boring...This would tend to presume designing for sites that are more or less level, something that obviously doesn't work in many areas of the country.

Steps can often have religious or cultural significance, and are often used in places like Bali to deter evil spirits from free entry into a garden or dwelling, where most all garden entries will force one into climbing up a few steps, entering, and then descending into the enclosed garden, even when the site is virtually flat. Steps are also often used in a Japanese garden context to force a change of views, or focus attention by slowing one down to take in the experience at that point in the garden.

I was looking through some books at our excellent local book store, Builder's Booksource here on 4th St in Berkeley yesterday evening, and stumbled across a book on Organic Architecture that featured work on Frank Lloyd Wright and son, with particular emphasis on their 1920's work in Los Angeles. Every single project had massive amounts of steps, and often featured interior rooms with changes of levels within them to designate changes of function and mood. I especially liked a bedroom that located the bed at a 4 foot change in level with the steps located right at the bed. Maybe not for everyone, and especially restless sleepers prone to accidentally rolling out of bed, but it had the charm of being in a tree house and looking down upon the world.

I personally will always find a hillside garden with steps more interesting than a flat garden, and hillsides also provide many more opportunities for views, changes of perspective, and more opportunities for planting combinations, as well as opportunities to use plants that arch, drape and cascade in ways that a flat garden doesn't. Even in virtually flat sites such as Viscaya in southwest Florida, the use of steps up and down and framed views of water make an essentially flat site much more visually interesting. As well, walking up and down steps everyday also works wonders on a common American predicament, the flabby *ss! I wouldn't want to live in a world without steps, even when they don't appear to be necessary!

I hope the OP does submit pictures of the intended application of these massively wide proposed stairs down to the pool, as perhaps the photos will make a case for why Laag's logic either does or does not apply. At the opposite extreme of these proposed super sized steps, the mayan temples in the jungles of Guatemala and southern Mexico are their opposite, so impossibly narrow and steep, that they give one vertigo in climbing up to the top, but evoke a powerful visual presence as well as exertion to make it up and down, clearly intended to stimulate feelings that can only be guessed at 100's of years later.

Melissa is probably half way through a bottle of gin by now trying to understand what it was she said to bring this on. Such a simple question, five too high steps or five too high step and a landing which is the best option she asks and here we are talking about Scarlet O'Hara,weight problems and wheelbarrow access! Talk about lack of focus. This is after the Euclid challenge mind you of trying to figure the geometry of five steps disconnected from any human use, I might have a tot myself at this point. Finally we have to decide between steps nowhere or steps everywhere, ayeii!

My guess would be that Melissa left the building about the third or fourth post.

If I understood the general idea the form of the project would be as below ....

{{gwi:6957}}

Flat areas that are narrow and long suggest to me pathways. The wide steps to me are but narrow paths running side to side, beginning nowhere and going nowhere. You can walk along them, but up and down will be cumbersome, and they are not wide enough for any other use.

A good design to me would divide the vertical into 6 risers of 6.5 inches. Do two 5-6' wide step areas to each side, with 3 steps, a wider flat, then 3 more steps. Between the two step series, the pool apron jumps up 20'' to the flat, then at the back of the flat another 20" jump to house grade.

The wider flat has use for table and chairs. The 20" benches can serve as extra seating.

I like a garden/landscape to have a vertical element. My own yard started as one big slope. A number of retaining walls now have established flat areas across the lot, with steps connecting. I like steps. But I will concede to IB, my design is such that by using the two drives, the street, and three grass ramps, there is no part that can't be reached without going up steps. It's longer to go around, but I'm not going to fight a mower, wheelborrow, or cart up steps.

Having recently visited my son in San Francisco, I figured that my postualation might draw you out, David. ;-)

Another time, another thread...

IronBelly

Just came up the steps to my office. Riser = 7.5, and tread = 10. A perfect 25.

But the steps are very ackward. The treads are much too short for by size 12 feet.

Awkward? {{gwi:6956}}. Both stairs and a ramp and the same time - and I think the "stair" function suffers for the sake of the ramp. Not only do the riser heights vary, but depending where you walk down the stramp as stairs, you sometimes have to step up a step to continue stepping down.

-Audric

"Just came up the steps to my office. Riser = 7.5, and tread = 10. A perfect 25.
But the steps are very ackward. The treads are much too short for by size 12 feet."

... and that is how he became known as Mad Tripper

Its funny how we get visual images of how people look that we have not yet met. I'll be happy to let go the Tommy Chong look alike that I had in my head for Madtripper.

Dan,
If you really wrote that "no steps" design mantra while thinking of me in particular, it worked, but how could you have known? I tend to spend alot of time designing around stairs, out of necessity, but would really relish an opportunity to jettison the building codes and do something totally whimsical. On that note, I would highly suggest that those seeking whimsy seek out Edward James's fantasy constructions in the jungles of San Luis Potosi, Mexico known as Las Pozas. The web site at www.junglegossip.com is a good first introduction...