Choosing between enclosed and open designs is more important than you might think when working with vertical travel solutions. Of course, cost and appearance matter, but how they function within the space, who uses them, and what can support them in the build is what makes the choice critical. Cabin lifts and open platform lifts solve the same problem, but in radically different ways.

Thus, the choice often comes down to two specific constructions and operable realities: building regulations, which are complicated by user needs, indoor vs outdoor location, and cost. Yet what works really well for one lift in one build may be a disaster in another; a modern glass cabin that fits right into a contemporary office block may be overkill in a small workshop, while an open platform that works well in a residential application fails a commercial one in the public eye.

Understanding the Basic Differences

The fundamental difference is simple. An open platform lift is just that; an open platform with low walls or barriers on the edges that moves vertically. There isn’t even a real door in the sense of a cabin lift door but rather a safety barrier or gate. There’s an exposed mechanism. A cabin lift comes with walls and a roof; it’s a fully enclosed project with traditional lift doors.

That one element creates a cascade of differences. As the name implies, enclosed designs provide better protection from the weather. They block sound from entry and create a more insulated atmosphere for passengers. Open platforms are lighter, take up less visual presence, and typically cost less to install and maintain.

Weather and Location Considerations

This is where many decisions related to construction are made. Will the lift need to go outside, partially or fully exposed to the weather? Open platforms are viable outdoors but require weatherproofed mechanisms and non-slip materials for platforms due to wear and tear from rain, snow, and overall atmospheric fluctuation.

For fully exposed applications, cabin lifts would be more sustainable in the long term. The enclosed mechanism protects passengers from the elements and mitigates wear and tear on internal components; if a passenger is in an exposed location, the design will likely be subjected to wind and rain, not to mention extreme temperatures. While this builds a safety barrier against such concerns, it adds weight and structural requirements that the building must be able to bear.

Indoors is a different story; when everything is climate controlled inside a building, there’s more concern for space, aesthetics and function than there is for the regulations of weather-based options. Open platforms can look exceptionally chic when housed inside modern buildings (industrial exposure is popular).

Space and Structural Requirements

The footprint differs greatly between the two options. Open platforms generally take less overall space as there’s no cabin structure to worry about; instead, a shaft can be more limited in scope, and in some cases, not required as long as there’s enough clear height and safety barriers.

Enclosed designs assume more space; it’s not just the platform size itself that must be included but the entire dimensions of the cabin plus clearances for doors and safety systems. While this may not seem like a huge difference, it could be a dealbreaker in renovations or instances where every square meter counts.

Additionally, there’s weight to contend with that many contractors overlook until it’s time for installation. A complete cabin adds tremendous weight to the operation, which requires stronger support systems and potentially more extensive foundation work. Open platforms add less push to load-bearing capacities; while this simplifies installation, it provides less opportunity to gain as much accessibility as possible for all types of builds.

Regulatory and Safety Standards

Building regulations approach these systems differently, and they might dictate your choice before every other consideration comes into play. Public buildings and commercial entities often have stricter accessibility demands that favor enclosed designs. The reasoning stems from passenger comfort (vulnerable users not being able to use these on their own) as well as security measures for fire safety protocols.

Open platforms utilize gates or barriers that prevent entry when the platform is in motion; these safety measures are completely safe when installed and maintained properly but operate unlike standard elevator doors. Some regulations dictate enclosed spaces for passenger lifts in certain buildings where vulnerable users can only use them alone (think: assisted living facilities, if they cannot use it by themselves, how could they outside of a cabin?).

There are regulations regarding fire safety codes that also tip the balance one way or another; enclosed cabins may require additional fire-rated materials and ventilation systems (more complex and cost-inhibiting); open platforms have easier fire safety considerations but may not work well where protected areas exit the building in lift shaft interfacing areas.

User Experience and Accessibility

Let’s be honest; there will be people who feel comfortable using an open platform while others will not. An enclosed cabin feels familiar, as if they were taken from an elevator, and that provides comfort and privacy; an open platform lacks these qualities but enables users to see out during travel, which may reduce anxiety in those prone to it inside small spaces.

For wheelchair users and those with mobility devices, both options work fine; however, specifics matter. Enclosed cabins are easier to enter during inclement weather; once inside (where there is generally more maneuvering space), it’s easier to get moving as well when coupled with automatic doors. Open platforms usually have less of an edge height-wise, making rolling on easier without any extra security measures; however, sometimes users feel less safe due to exposure without walls.

However, accessing large objects is often easier with open platforms due to having no door frames with which to contend; this can be valuable in commercial settings where regular equipment/furniture deliveries or transfers happen using this service regularly.

Cost and Maintenance Realities

Where it gets expensive, or at least where it renders numbers differently enough, is where truly divergent numbers exist between options. Open platforms are generally 20-30% less expensive to purchase/install than equivalent enclosed systems; between ease of building and costs incurred through weight considerations, and simplicity, the reduced material equals reduced labor time for installation efforts overall compared with what an enclosed system might require.

However, purchase price is only part of the equation (though seldom does it capture everything). Maintenance costs throughout lift life can shift this equation considerably; enclosed cabins protect mechanical components from dust/debris/weather which might mean less maintenance; open platforms expose their assemblies to more of the environment which could increase or decrease wear/tear depending on what’s initially anticipated from the maintenance schedule established.

Energy expenditures fluctuate as well; an enclosed system is heavier – meaning it requires more electricity/power overtime due to weight, whereas an open platform can operate lighter/less demandingly over time, the kicker being over 15-20 years of use, it doesn’t do much on its own merit when other factors come into play over time (and are almost never a financially considered factor on their own).

Making the Right Choice for Your Project

In retrospect, there’s no better option overall; there’s a best fit for particular circumstances that makes sense. New commercial builds with plenty of space allowed or high aesthetic demands since they need to encompass compliance usually lean toward the enclosed solution more readily available over next few years without issue.

Existing residential retrofits or industrial applications often find open platforms more manageable as increasingly cost-effective solutions. Think about what type of building it will be most often served by, the purpose, and who will be using it most often internally as well as externally (if applicable). Think about if those elements will expose it to weather extremes or harsh conditions as well. Consider accessibility code options ahead of time, assume nothing will automatically pass code regardless without scrutiny first, and be realistic about budget constraints down the line for maintenance components.

The best determinations come from weighing everything together sensibly, not just one consideration at face value without regard for all others involved. What works great in one build may be horrendous next door even if they look similar from the outside, which is why getting specialist feedback during planning stages avoids headaches, and money, down the line.