[Visitaccess] A Pattern Book of Visitability

[Thom Shepard]

I think a lot of the arguments over raised porches and architectural style 
will mostly create divisiveness and in fact discourage the implementation of 
visitability.

If one can show that really great places, including porches and steps, can 
all be built without sacrificing visitablity then who can argue.

I in fact would love to see the person who requires visitablity access 
sitting on the front porch in the middle of the community knowing that they 
had easy access to this "community place".

In fact if you are designing at the neighborhood level with this in mind I 
think in fact New Urbanism can be extremely visitable friendly.  The aspects 
of ally's and block I think allow for a lot of options, not just the street 
fronting front door, which for a lot of people isn't even their "main door".

I think the problem is people are thinking of retrofitting to the buildings 
and town plans they have been building instead of looking for solutions if 
they were to start from scratch.

In the same way New Urbanism had to go back to the basics and study why 
urbanism worked I think those interested in visitability need to study great 
urbanism around the world and look for innovative solutions that can be 
detailed, photographed, sketched.

A Pattern Book of Visitability

I think would do more, to say that their isn't one solution.  There are many 
and when you look to the larger scale of community they can be easier to 
implement.
By showing the many examples possible, both in existing places, and even 
with sketches that show how places could have easily been modified when 
designed, and even design a whole model village, one with terrain and maybe 
one primarily flat, this could be come a guidebook that hopefully a designer 
would seek to strive for.  The completely visitable community that most 
would not realize was.

When ever I think of this I think of the house in Glenwood Park, A CNU 
Charter award winner.  It has a second floor porch that overlooks the park 
at the center of the community.  The mother in law suite is nicely tucked 
under the entryway and if it is not could easily be visitable.  The second 
floor, due to terrain, is even with the ally behind the home, which is also 
connected to the "village center".  Thus from much of the parking, or 
walking from one of the flats, or coffee shop, this would be the most 
accessible side.  And yet their is an awkward one foot rise to the back 
door.  In fact I think this could be a more attractive second entrance, 
since I suspect it will be used more, and would be a great example of 
visitability.

We can all start by photographing examples where visitability is already 
there (especially if it is transparent), looking at existing built places, 
especially well planned NU and look for opportunities visitability could 
have easily been added but was not.  We need clear examples of alternatives, 
so that someone can pick up a book and see how visitability can fit into 
many different types of projects and get them thinking about it before they 
start.  Something we can hand to developers or designers and challenge them 
to set a new standard.

Seems like the PBofV would a be the kind of project that could be funded 
with a grant.

If you could convince designers that they can do visitablity a good bit of 
effort but little sacrifice of the design elements they want to utilize, who 
would fight it.  Use great architecture and design so no one has to build a 
ramp that does not fit the building or community.  That way when you said 
visitability they would think great design as well, not having to eliminate 
part of their design palate.

Thom Shepard
thomshep at hotmail.com
Rural Urbanist


-----Original Message-----
From: katherineaustin at comcast.net [mailto:katherineaustin at comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 4:10 PM
To: bfd at accessplaces.com
Subject: Re: [Visitaccess] ramps, inclined planes

Yes Elanor, I agree with you completely. This back and forth with Bruce is a
waste of time. Let's get to the meat of the subject and find ways to make it
happen where it can and raise awareness among planners and architects about
the issue.

I am not advocating zero step entrances in existing 300 year old town house
neighborhoods of eastern seaboard cities. I am concerned with new
developments being planned and developed every day. While we don't need to
mandate zero step entrances, neither do we need to mandate raised front
porches that prohibit access.

There are huge cultural differences from state to state, city to city in
this country with different housing types appropriate to the local climate
and topography. We can learn much from historic building methods in these
areas that predate air-conditioning and elevators. At the same time, we
shouldn't ignore current technology AND social awareness. I don't believe
for instance we should continue to build separate bathrooms for people of
color in public places just because they were done that way 100 years ago,
if you get my drift.

It is only personal opinion that front porches and stoops must be raised to
be useful. That's just plain nonsense! The historical article I distributed
to folks on this list about the history of the American Front Porch was very
clear on it's origin and demise. It also showed examples of dirt floor front
porches. The demise had to do with change in technology and social behavior
NOT anything to do with design or or elimination of porches!

Instead of hanging on to past images of a perfect world, lets grow up and
move on and do what right for goodness sake!!!!

Gloves off,
Kathy Austin

>
> --- Eleanor Smith <eleanors at mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > I have never seen anyone walking up steps with a
> > walker.  There is not
> > enough room to place a walker on a riser.  If
> > someone who uses a walker
> > is walking up a stairway, it would appear that some
> > helper is carrying
> > the walker up or down the stairs for the person.
> >
> > The world is full of inclined planes and must remain
> > so.  The person who
> > cannot walk up or push a manual wheelchair up an
> > incline of 12%, which
> > includes many city sidewalks and the great majority
> > of curb cuts,  will
> > not go out alone into the world for long without
> > being stopped by earth
> > geometry and the human-made inclines that follow or
> > somewhat modify that
> > geometry (but not to the point of leveling it--which
> > is neither possible
> > nor desirable).   If a 1:12 slope is physically
> > impossible or harmful
> > for a person with a mobility impairment, they will
> > go out in a manual
> > wheelchair, with someone who can push them if they
> > cannot push
> > themselves.   Many people at that point will buy a
> > scooter or power
> > chair for those times when they intend to engage the
> > world outside their
> > home.
> >
> > >From a broader perspective, I personally am not
> > very interested in
> > engaging in debates about whether basic access to
> > virtually all new
> > homes, with a zero step entrance and wide interior
> > doors as sine qua
> > non, is desirable.  I take that as a given for this
> > Visitability list.
> > It's my hope that much of the dialog will center on
> > finding and
> > publicizing NU existing projects that demonstrate
> > good Visitable design;
> > noting quite openly NU projects that missed
> > opportunities to do that;
> > advocating and educating to specific NUists we know
> > who are currently
> > developing residential projects that they design
> > with basic access; and
> > suggesting/acting to effect ways that CNU can
> > advance Visitability/UD
> > more explicitly and consistently within the
> > organization.   Interested
> > to hear what others on this list are looking for.
> >
> > Eleanor
> >
>


_______________________________________________
Visitaccess mailing list
Visitaccess at cnunext.org
http://mail.cnunext.org/mailman/listinfo/visitaccess_cnunext.org