Whether it's up to code depends on your specific state. It looks like it does meet code in my state. It's only because of space, if you don't want it, increase the rise of the stair or increase the overall length of the stair. I have 2 winder treads in my staircase (1880's farm house, very far from meeting current code) and it's dangerous so this looks like nothing to me. I almost kind of like it but I think that's only because I'm sentimental and may miss our crazy stairs when we build.

I have a turn like this at the bottom of my stairs - never found it to be an issue.

I "hid" my stairs (in existing house) in my butler's pantry and then necessitated starting up stairs, turning left and ascending. I actually like that I don't stare up the entire flight.

Certainly no code issues here.

Interesting! I needed a turn because otherwise the stairs would have ended about 1 foot from a wall - so I guess I had the overall length - but I am thinking the code may have changed because I am pretty sure my house does not meet it (built 1997!)

Ok JDS. I understand. Thank you.

This is the landing at the bottom of my basement stairs before it turns right and goes into the basement.

In a future home, can a stairway with two "winder treads" be built like my stairway... with a full sized landing instead of the winder treads? how is that accomplished? TY.

Jannicone...our first house built in 1988 had a stairway that was downright dangerous. A curving, awful thing. Tiny cracks of stairway near the rail. I can't even begin to count the number of times all of us fell down those stairs. We actually tore out the stairway and had it rebuilt...about a year before our house burned ;-)

National consensus codes for houses didn't exist before 1980 and the first IRC code was published in 2000 and they all restricted winders but many local codes did not and rural jurisdictions rarely had any codes.

A stair can have winders if they meet the code requirements but they would not be configured like the example photo where the upper winder is pulled forward onto the lower one which is simply an amateurish design error or an oversight that was fudged. The winder should have been at the turn and the normal treads before and after it should have been pulled back 6" from the turn.

Winders will not allow a set of stairs to fit where there is not enough space. There is almost never a reason to use them anymore.

These are landings -- what you're showing is a winder, and they're never a great idea; people tend to step on them with only a portion of the foot, and it's easy to fall, especially for elderly people:

I thought a split landing was when an ice cream desert with bananas falls in your lap.

Oh bad^^^

MarkBischak..I don't know if I should laugh or hit the gong :-)

JDS...

please look at this stairway. Is there any reason why the two winder stairs can't be eliminated and substituted with a full sized landing? Thank you.

Mrs. Pete...I want to avoid a stairway with winders at all cost. Some beautiful pics there.

Just remove the winder and add it at the top of the stairway. I always set the risers at landings 1/2 tread back from the landing (as shown on your plan) because it avoids a drop in the railing at the turn.

"Remove the winder and add it to the top of the stairway"...

i'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand. By doing this, does it keep the length of the stairway the same from the turn on up to the top? Are we losing one step at the landing and gaining one step at the top of the steps without changing the length or "steepness" of the stairway? Essentially the same amount of steps? Just adding one more on the second part of the stairway?

"I always set the risers at landings 1/2 tread back from the landing (as shown on your plan) because it avoids a drop in the railing at the turn."

i do not understand (no big surprise). Will you please explain this statement? I want to make sure I understand this. I had a stairway with a huge drop in the handrail. The first picture I posted in this thread has this. TY.

ILoveRed,

If you remove the winder, it comes down to room availability for the extra step somewhere else. In other words, you need certain amount of steps depending on ceiling height. You can't add another tread at the start of the stairs (you have an opening near by), so you will need to add it at the end. Do you have room? Can you post a picture of the whole stairs?

Martha...I emailed you the plan. Thanks for taking a look at it!

The slope of the stair is fixed. Like Naf said, if you remove a winder you must add a 10" tread at the top of the stairs. That makes the horizontal stair length 10" longer but you can shorten that run by 5 or 6" at the landing if necessary. If possible I recommend leaving the 5 or 6" offset at the landing because it allows the hand rail to turn without dropping. A railing must slope down at the same slope as the stars so to avoid a handrail drop the treads must be offset from each side of the corner by 5".

Thank you JDS. I understand.

Another way to deal with the handrail is to interrupt it with a newel post at the corner instead using a continuous handrail.

Yes, I can see how that would have looked nicer. Then would there be another Newell post below that one?

Just realized that is what my stair guy did at the bottom of my stairway. I never even noticed it. If I hadn't had a small Newell post there, I would have had the large handrail drop there as well.

very educational thread. Stairs are often one of the things that are not done right.

Here's how it should have been done ... more winders and wider at the railing.

http://stairs4u.com/code/images/minimum-winder-step-width.jpg

Lazy...that is a great illustration. Thank you. I wonder how wide the finished part is on the handrail side. It looks quite wide. I would still rather have a plain, square landing without any "winders" if given the choice. If any person could fall on a winder (even if well done), it would be me :-)

The diagram in the above link is schematically correct but larger than required by the IRC. It shows the walkline correctly at 12" from the narrow edge of the winder but the minimum tread dimension (without the nosing) exceeds the code minimum of 10" by 6" which is not the best design IMO.

The minimum code dimension at the narrow end of the winder tread is 6" but is shown larger in the diagram which, of course, is still legal. However, it is unwise to drastically change the slope of the stairs by increasing the tread size at the walk-line from 10" to 18". A better tread size for this stair winder configuration would be 13".

The use of oversized winders would defeat to the purpose of using winders since the ones in the diagram add almost 19" to the run of the stair. I would use that space to make the stair wider.

So, winders do not shorten a stair run and oversized winders add as much as 19" to the run of a stair for no improvement in the stair.

JDS...your explanation (along with the schematics) is very good. And helpful. TY.

Good discussion. Quick question. If you have a switchback stair, but split the landing, is that considered a winder? Just wondering if I would need the 6" min at the smallest part of the stair.

It's a year and a half old, but my money's on Mark for Saying of the Year...even if it was a year ago. Witty counts! :-)

@Kelly Taylor, I suspect you want a real answer...

What you show fits the definition of a landing because it is as wide as each flight of stairs in both directions, or at least 3' square. So, you have two landings with a riser between them, that should be the same height as all the other risers in the stairway - not a problem.

"Just wondering if I would need the 6" min at the smallest part of the stair." - I do not see where there is any part of your stair even close to 6", so the answer is no.

Maybe you are referring to this part of the conversation? "If possible I recommend leaving the 5 or 6" offset at the landing because it allows the hand rail to turn without dropping"