[Visitaccess] ramps, inclined planes

Sun Jun 10 16:33:53 EDT 2007

No, they are not questions, and they are not concise because I wanted to
give as much flexibility in addressing them as I could.  

To (1), you respond,

ES> How many people are well enough to leave their home?

BD> No, not just how many.  Is the need rising?  (see below)  By the study
you posted, I assume you mean LaPlante's study.  LaPlante shows a
skyrocketing use of wheeled mobility devices, but can't ascribe it to aging
population or increased rates of survival.  In other words, it looks as if
people who might have simply used a cane before are now using wheeled
mobility devices.  In order to assert that they need that same skyrocketing
percentage of zero-step entrances in friends' houses, I need to find out.

ES> Something close to this can be obtained from the Census data on
disability.  You would look for people with mobility impairments of all
types and insure that you were looking at the non-institutionalized sample
and included the 65+ group. While this group may include people who cannot
leave their homes, there is no way to tell whether that is due to the fact
that they cannot walk stairs. You could probably find data on the percentage
of people who are bedridden among the non institutionalized population and
subtract that but then you would have to add in the number of people in
institutions that would not be there if their homes were accessible.  Since
there is no way to know that last piece, I suggest using the data without
subtracting the bedridden people who are probably a very small group. To be
conservative, I would assume that everyone who has trouble walking stairs
would use a walking aid or wheelchair. That data is in the report I already
sent. So, why not use that?

BD>  I suppose that I can't make this case, if there is no specific data.

To (2), you respond,

ES> How many people could benefit from an accessible environment by
improving their social life? 

BD>  No; do they suffer in significant numbers or percent?  This is not an
intangible.  An acquaintanceship study (as I suggested) would do it.  I'm
surprised that nobody has done one.  In other words, you go to a set of
houses that have zero-step entrances, and ask how many people they know on
their block, and then you go to a similar place without zero-step and ask
them.  

ES> Such data is not available. 

BD> Too bad.

To (3) I gather that this is just a marketing issue.  If it's going to be
handled by the market, it shouldn't be a regulatory issue -- or at least
that's what councilpeople will say.  Note, however, that the issue I raised
and what you answered were different.  Let me ask it more succinctly but
with less flexibility as to the answer:  

Will visitability make it more likely that people will be able to stay in
their homes as they age, or is it just for visitors?  In other words, if you
_don't_ require full accessibility, does it help people to age in place?  My
guess is that it would lessen the trauma, but not the ultimate need.  You
might be able to sponge-bathe out of a powder room and live in your living
room for a couple of years, but eventually you will want to make a permanent
change -- either to your bathroom or to your address.  

To (4), you responded that you already answered the question.  What I took
from your study (assuming you mean LaPlante's again) is that the use of
wheeled assistive technologies is very sensitive to changes in availability
and technology.  As I have been saying, the technologies are changing more
rapidly than people seem to "get."  It's like the internet in 1992.  

I think I understand the reliance on moral arguments.  The data is ambiguous
or unpersuasive.  To tell the truth, I find that extremely surprising, and I
strongly expect that exactly what I need is out there somewhere.  

Too static <-> “Life” <-> Too noisy
--Christopher Langton

Bruce F. Donnelly

216 470 9348

-----Original Message-----
From: Steinfeld, Edward [mailto:arced at buffalo.edu] 
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 12:52 PM
To: Bruce F. Donnelly; CNU VisitAccess
Subject: RE: [Visitaccess] ramps, inclined planes

These are not very concise questions. In fact, they are not questions but I
tried to address them as questions. See below. Also, note, that the data and
analysis I provided earlier can answer the questions you raise. 
NOTE EMAIL CHANGE BELOW

Edward Steinfeld, Arch. D., AIA
Professor of Architecture and Director
Center for Inclusive Design and Environmental Access School of Architecture
and Planning
University at Buffalo, State University of New York

Tel. 716 829 3485 (x327)
Fax. 716 829 3861
email address:arced at buffalo.edu
IDEA Center website: www.ap.buffalo.edu/idea 

________________________________

From: visitaccess-bounces at cnunext.org on behalf of Bruce F. Donnelly
Sent: Fri 6/8/2007 12:14 PM
To: 'CNU VisitAccess'
Subject: Re: [Visitaccess] ramps, inclined planes

Edward,

The data I need depends on what goal I have.  Wednesday, I was looking for
support for the idea that there would be a need, unmet by the market, for
zero-step entrances for dwellings on the ground floor.  It doesn't matter to
me (or the code) whether these are single-family units or not, except that
obviously multi-family units are already covered.  If the market were to
demand zero-step entries, I wouldn't have to do anything anyway.  Bear in
mind that the bathroom and doors inside are outside my purview.

So, I need statistics to support that conclusion.  This may be:
1.  Statistical evidence that the percentage of people who are well enough
to go visiting other people's homes, and who also require a zero-step
entrance, is increasing.

ES> How many people are well enough to leave their home?

Something close to this can be obtained from the Census data on disability.
You would look for people with mobility impairments of all types and insure
that you were looking at the non-institutionalized sample and included the
65+ group. While this group may include people who cannot leave their homes,
there is no way to tell whether that is due to the fact that they cannot
walk stairs. You could probably find data on the percentage of people who
are bedridden among the non institutionalized population and subtract that
but then you would have to add in the number of people in institutions that
would not be there if their homes were accessible.  Since there is no way to
know that last piece, I suggest using the data without subtracting the
bedridden people who are probably a very small group. To be conservative, I
would assume that everyone who has trouble walking stairs would use a
walking aid or wheelchair. That data is in the report I already sent. So,
why not use that?

2.  Evidence that people who need zero-step entrances suffer _in significant
numbers or percent_ from a truncated social life because of a lack of such
entrances.  This could either be a population statistic or a side-by-side
study of otherwise similar housing situations -- for example, a housing
complex in which one side of the street has stairs to units and the other
doesn't, and in which (presumably) people needing zero-step entrances are
more likely to visit the side without the stairs.  The more significant the
difference, the more persuasive I can be with that data.

ES> How many people could benefit from an accessible environment by
improving their social life? 

ES> Such data is not available. 

3.  Evidence that houses or townhouses will be called on, much more often
than most people think, to house someone who needs a zero-step entry.  This
is similar to an argument I've heard Eleanor make, but I need statistical
evidence.  It may have implications for taxes, by the way, but I need data
to show it.  Empty-nesters are sought after by communities that want to
maximize their intake of money through estate taxes and through real estate
taxes, while minimizing the expenditures that children generate.  It would
be a nice argument to make that a city should encourage housing that doesn't
force older people into apartments, which obviously fall under a different
tax regime.  This would be VERY hard to do, but it would take some evidence
that the benefits from mandating zero-step entries so that people would be
able to stay in their homes would outweigh the objections of developers, who
can always develop in a less restrictive environment.  Since some cities
have done this, a study comparing two different cities would do the trick.
Note that this goes beyond visitability, because while a visitor may not
need access to a shower or a bedroom, a resident will.

ES> Is there a market for homes that have an accessible first story?

Your phrasing of the issue is presented to address available statistical
data on the population at large but that is not necessary. This is a
marketing issue.  There is not any data on this question specifically but
there is on a related one. NAHB's lates market survey of the 50+ generation
indicates that over 60% want a one story home. That is a good indicator of a
definite market. If the home has a no step entry, a room that can be used as
a bedroom and full bathroom on the first floor, then it will clearly be
marketable to the 50+ market, which is growing rapidly.  AARP's research
demonstrated that 80% of the 50+ population wants to remain in their own
home as they age. Research has demonstrated that one of the principle
reasons for relocation is dealing with stairs. This indicates the value to a
community of building homes that can be lived in should one encounter a
disability. It avoids the need for relocation. 

4.  Evidence (which I may have missed) that the graying of the population
increases demand for zero-step entries both rises faster than medical
advances decrease it _and_ that this increase will be permanent.  I suspect
it isn't temporary, since developed nations tend to lose population unless
they have influxes.  Our fertility rate is pretty high for cultural reasons,
but as I understand it our population would gray pretty rapidly if it
weren't for immigration into the country -- both legal and illegal. 

ES> Will medical advances reduce disability in the future?

I wrote extensively on this before and the data is in our demographic
report. Please refer to those emails. The short of it is that while medical
advances is reducing the disability rate among older people, the number of
older people is increasing so rapidly that the number of people with
disabilities is also rapidly increasing. Thus, the percentage of the total
population with disabiloiities is expected to rise significantly.  Over the
long term, I think we can expect that, as longevity increases further, the
impact of medical intervention will simply retard the age of onset of
disability, not eliminate it. 

Please understand, I have assimilated the moral arguments for visitability,
but that is only one kind of argument.

Too static <-> "Life" <-> Too noisy
--Christopher Langton

Bruce F. Donnelly

216 470 9348

-----Original Message-----
From: visitaccess-bounces at cnunext.org
[mailto:visitaccess-bounces at cnunext.org] On Behalf Of Steinfeld, Edward
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 10:30 AM
To: CNU VisitAccess
Subject: Re: [Visitaccess] ramps, inclined planes

Burce: 

Can you clarify the precise information that you want? I have posted
information and referenced a report that addressed your questions. I confess
that I have not read every email posted here because I have was at a
conference for the last two days. But, in the messages I did read, I did not
see any questions that the data I provided didn't answer so I am not sure
what you still feel is missing. Please do not write long dialogues about
this because it is impossible to really understand what you are saying is
missing from such messages. I just want to know what the specific questions
are that have not been addressed with the data I provided. Then I can
respond or refer them to experts. 

You also have to be aware that there are methodological problems in
answering some questions. For example, there is no way to answer the
question "What is the probability that an individual will need a no step
entry over the course of their lifetime?" We just do not have longitudinal
data of this sort. We have data on the probability of having a disability at
any time in the lifespan so that has to substitute.

At the conference I attended, the latest data on prevalence of disability
was discussed. The current prevalence, using a mixture of different
definitions of disability is 1 out of 7 people. This includes all
impairments that limit body function, activity (e.g. walking stairs) or
participation in society (e.g. working). The presenter (co-author of the new
report entitled The Future of Disability in America, the Institute of
Medicine, National Academy of Sciences) pointed out that no one can avoid
experience with disability in some way when you then consider the number of
people connected to every other person, e.g. friends, neighbors and
relatives. I understand that numbers are persuasive but we need to avoid
thinking that every single design decision requires a statistical rationale.
The argument is not "how many" but what is the cost of not recognizing the
reality of disability as a universal experience. An economist at the
conference put it this way.....We should not be calculating the cost benefit
of accessibility because the benefit to society far outweighs the cost, even
with very conservative estimates. Instead, we should be calculating the cost
of NOT PROVIDING accessibility! 

Edward Steinfeld, Arch.D., AIA
Professor of Architecture and Director
Center for Inclusive Design and Environmental Access School of Architecture
and Planning
University at Buffalo, State University of New York

Tel. 716 829 3485 (x327)
Fax. 716 829 3861
email address:arced at buffalo.edu
IDEA Center website: www.ap.buffalo.edu/idea

-----Original Message-----
From: visitaccess-bounces at cnunext.org
[mailto:visitaccess-bounces at cnunext.org] On Behalf Of Thom Shepard
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 1:51 PM
To: Bruce F. Donnelly; 'CNU VisitAccess'
Subject: Re: [Visitaccess] ramps, inclined planes

Bruce,

Due to your specific situation I think it would be great for you to lead the

initiative you suggested below.  I think you would find quite a few
universities that love to do these kinds of number crunching research
studies as part of labs to give their students real world experience.  Your
personal experience with such a need with a specific person would give you a

lot of credibility in convincing a professor, or non-profit to undertake
such an effort, and its potential value.

I am sure after you can get them to collect and interpret this data that
Eleanor would be happy to make it accessible from her site.

Thom

Thom Shepard
thomshep at hotmail.com
Rural Urbanist

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce F. Donnelly" <bfd at accessplaces.com>
To: "'CNU VisitAccess'" <visitaccess at cnunext.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: [Visitaccess] ramps, inclined planes

Eleanor,

My point is NOT that I don't agree or that different people will be
persuaded by different evidence and anecdotes.  My point is that I was
meeting a specific person on a specific issue, and that I needed a certain
kind of data to persuade him.  That data wasn't there.  You ask how you can
get the message out better.  Well, for people like Bob Brown, you should
have persuasive data handy, and it has to be precisely relevant.

That's one thing you can provide to help make people "aware."

The good news is that nothing that I have done precludes visitability, even
though I require a "ground floor rise" for building types for which Design
Review customarily requires it.  The bad news is that I won't be able to get
a mandate for zero-step entries to ground floors until I ask for it, and I'm
not going to be able to ask for it until I have at least that duck in my
row.  (Bathrooms and doors will probably require a stand-alone ordinance.)

Please take this not as a critique, but as a request for specific, targeted
information from someone sympathetic.

Too static <-> "Life" <-> Too noisy
--Christopher Langton

Bruce F. Donnelly

216 470 9348

-----Original Message-----
From: Eleanor Smith [mailto:eleanors at mindspring.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 11:04 AM
To: 'Bruce F. Donnelly'
Subject: RE: [Visitaccess] ramps, inclined planes

Bruce,

Some people will not be persuaded, no matter how rigorous the data.
Others will be persuaded without the particular type of hard evidence
you are seeking. Some Visitability has come about through legislation,
though not a great deal yet.  Thus it's clear that some legislators have
been sufficiently persuaded that they passed Visitability laws,
including two areas that require basic access to every new house (with
exceptions from the zero step entrance for difficult sites, which have
been needed on less than 3% of sites):  Bolingbrook IL and Pima County
AZ have built more than 3,500 and 15,000 Visitable houses respectively.
Some judges have also been persuaded.   In the only case where a
visitability law was legally challenged, the challenge was overruled
both initially and in the appeal.   In response to that particular law
suit, the Arizona Court stated in their written opinion that "the
uncontested evidence established that approximately one percent of the
population is confined to wheelchairs, but the county points out that a
much larger percentage will suffer a disability at some point in their
lives. Although all age groups are affected by disability, the county
introduced evidence that approximately forty-one percent of people over
the age of sixty-five have some form of disability. Disability is a
growing problem both nationally and locally, and the county also
introduced evidence that Arizona's population of people over the age of
sixty is expected to triple by 2025. Although many of these disabled
people will not be confined to wheelchairs, the county concluded from
these figures that the number of people confined to wheelchairs is
rising. For these reasons, the county addressed a legitimate
governmental interest when it adopted a building code designed to
increase the number of homes accessible to those in wheelchairs."

I predict that, in the absence of widespread Visitability practice
through voluntary routes, law and policy will more and more set the
standard requiring access to houses.     This will happen partly because
community leaders notice the great amount of public money being spent on
retrofits.   Leaders also will begin to see more clearly the impact of
Visitable features--or the absence of those features-- on whether or not
older people can come home from the hospital after a stroke, fall, etc.
as opposed to going into an institution.    (60 % of nursing home
residents enter directly from hospitals.  64% of the cost of residing in
a nursing home is paid with public dollars.)    That is one reason why I
hope NUists will become much more proactive in voluntarily incorporating
well-designed Visitability into virtually all their built
reality/houses.

Eleanor

-----Original Message-----
From: visitaccess-bounces at cnunext.org
[mailto:visitaccess-bounces at cnunext.org] On Behalf Of Bruce F. Donnelly
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 8:44 AM
To: 'CNU VisitAccess'
Subject: Re: [Visitaccess] ramps, inclined planes

Eleanor,

A key partner on our project didn't want me to bring it up yesterday if
I
didn't have a statistical or market argument backed by rigorous,
persuasive
data.  I don't think I'll have another chance.

You've been asking for how to get the word out, I asked for something
specific, and I didn't get it.  You have to be prepared.

Too static <-> "Life" <-> Too noisy
--Christopher Langton

Bruce F. Donnelly

216 470 9348

-----Original Message-----
From: Eleanor Smith [mailto:eleanors at mindspring.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 9:39 AM
To: bfd at accessplaces.com; 'CNU VisitAccess'
Subject: RE: [Visitaccess] ramps, inclined planes

Bruce,

As prep, I suggest you go to the Concrete Change website, see the
hyperlink Make Change in right-hand column, click on section called
Responses to Opposition.   There you will see 15 common objections
advocates run up against and responses to the objections.   Take what
might be helpful.

Eleanor

"Every New Home Visitable"
www.concretechange.org

600 Dancing Fox Road
Decatur GA  30032

404-378-7455

-----Original Message-----
From: visitaccess-bounces at cnunext.org
[mailto:visitaccess-bounces at cnunext.org] On Behalf Of Bruce F. Donnelly
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 7:13 AM
To: CNU VisitAccess
Subject: Re: [Visitaccess] ramps, inclined planes

Katherine,

You don't know Bob Brown.  He will want a good reason
he can cite for Council.  This is a good, kind, but
pragmatic real person I am meeting at 2:00, not a
theoretical proposition.  Note, by the way, that this
is an overlay to be mapped only in certain locations,
not across the city.  Here's what I want to do:

1. I am obligated to set up requirements that fit new
buildings into the context.  This is our mandate.

2. I want to ensure that #1 does not preclude
visitability.

3. I want to require ground-floor access to dwellings.
 I'm not exactly sure how this will go.  The simplest
way is to say that if a dwelling has a floor on the
ground floor it must have a zero-step entry.  In this
case, simple is good.

4.  I CANNOT do anything that would make building in
these areas more difficult, especially making building
townhouses more difficult, or make them less
marketable.  There are two reasons for this, which I
detail below.

Because of this, I can only do so much.  If I try to
do too much, Bob will correctly say that it is a
matter for a separate law passed by Council.

#4 is for good reason, but it is complicated.
Although it is difficult going, I'm sure it's typical,
so please bear with me.

Obviously I can't make it harder to develop in these
areas in a general sense.  The rationale for doing the
coding in the first place is that I want to eliminate
the long back-and-forth that happens with design
review by including typical design review standards in
the code.

For example, if someone builds a drug store, the
design review committee may require an 8' opaque rear
fence that is in contradiction to the zoning code.  In
order to build it, the developer must first submit
drawings s/he KNOWS will be rejected, and then spend
time and money to get a variance.  Since the variance
usually requires some form of compromise, the
developer then has to go back to design review.  I'm
writing standards by which an 8' fence or wall is
permitted by, say, setting it back from the lot line,
and save the developer from the run-around.

Now, design review specifically looks at the rise of
the ground floor above the ground.  For residential
properties, this is mandatory.  Right now, one key
staff member is of the opinion that this precludes
visitability, and he is okay with that.

Meanwhile, we have the problem of dealing with
townhouses.  They are difficult to provide a zero-step
entrance to not just because it would probably be
through the rear because of design review, but because
a portion of the ground floor tends to be occupied by
parking.  Think about it.  If the rear of the ground
floor is occupied by parking, and the front is raised
from the street, only one of two things can happen.
First, there must be stairs from the garage to the
front room facing the street.  Second, the front room
facing the street can be depressed below grade, but
have a zero step entry from the garage.  Realizing
this, and because of precedents from other NU codes, I
prohibit parking within 20 feet of the front of the
building.  That requires a space between the front
wall and the garage that can be a rec room or a living
room, or whatever.

Separately, I also have to deal with another issue.
The code as I have written it supersedes the area
requirements of the underlying code.  That is, the
standards have, until now, required a certain sized
lot according to a formula.  I require something
entirely different, which requires enough space for
light and air between buildings, but does not set
ground coverage or a minimum lot area per unit.  This
matters because I _also_ require 400 square feet of
usable exterior area per unit, which can be on the
ground, on a balcony (porch), or on the roof.  Why is
this relevant?  It is because if that area can't be
provided at the roof, then for all practical purposes
it must take space from the rear that would otherwise
be used for parking or other building units.
Therefore, I expect that more developers will put
decks over garages, and push the garage back farther
toward the rear of the property, to open up more space
in the ground floor.

So, although I can't require a very deep ground floor,
I think this winds up encouraging it, and would create
a space that can include a bathroom.

So that is all to explain one half of the problem of
townhouses.  The other half is that they are just
about the only kind of building that has been proven
viable for replacing retail that is no longer in use
on main streets.  The main streets of Cleveland were
once lined almost end-to-end with retail, but the
neighborhoods cannot support that much retail.
Therefore, townhouses have been moving onto main
streets.  That's good, but if I write requirements
favoring apartment buildings, Council will balk.

One solution for townhouses would be to have a garage
at grade at least 30 feet back from the front of the
house.  Then, at the front wall, there is a porch or
stoop that is raised, and has a raised interior area
just inside it.  That raised area could sit
overlooking both the room inside _and_ the street, as
a sort of dais.  There can always be a separate door
at grade to the front, and there can be a zero-step
entry through the garage.  The front room, then, would
be flooded with light, and would have an extra-high
ceiling, because it is depressed below the level of
the raised porch.  Such a space could be deep and
still get lots of light because the windows would be
high.  By the way, each townhouse unit can be a
duplex.  If the ground floor unit is a separate one,
this allows the stoop or porch to be a halfway stop up
to the upstairs unit while still allowing the
ground-floor unit lots of light and zero step access.
Two things would kill this solution.  One would be to
require the _entire_ ground floor to be accessible.  I
think a raised area 6-8 feet deep at the front
can/should be excepted, but because otherwise a
landing halfway up to the upper unit would be
precluded.  The other would be to require that all
units in 1-3 unit buildings be accessible.  Obviously
you can't do the kind of up-and-down duplex unit that
is popular and _necessary_ in some parts of Cleveland
(because it helps pay the mortgage) if that happens.

--- KatherineAustin at comcast.net wrote:

> Dear Bruce,
>
> Good for you for your activism with your local
> government! I applaud you for that. Perhaps if you
> stress that flexibility is key and that there be
> room for a performance based review of designs, that
> would be sufficient. Allow architects to come up
> with creative solutions to meet the need and yet
> provide the look and feel that you are going for. My
> only concern with form based codes is that they can
> be too prescriptive and unintentionally prohibit
> creativity. I don't think it's necessary to quote
> any statistics to make that point.  Frankly, anyone
> with a family can get the idea of visitability. To
> me it's just a matter of realizing it is an issue
> and needs to be part of the thought process in
> design.
>
> No disrespect,
> Katherine
>  -------------- Original message
> ----------------------
> From: "Bruce F. Donnelly" <bfd at accessplaces.com>
> > Katherine,
> >
> > I'm counting on its not being an either-or
> proposition.  I am meeting with
> > Cleveland's Planning Director tomorrow on a
> form-based code.  I need to
> > figure out how to formulate this if I'm going to
> bring it up.  We have a
> > total 2-hour meeting, and have an enormous number
> of issues to cover.  So
> > far, I require a "Ground Floor Rise" (GFR) of
> dimensions chosen to fit each
> > built context, but (1) all of the residential
> entrances may "include or
> > consist of" a ramp; (2) the GFR only applies to
> the front façade, so the
> > floor level can be lower behind it; and (3) I want
> to encourage Visitability
> > by requiring a zero-step entrance somewhere and --
> I hope -- a ground-floor
> > restroom for houses and storefront houses.
> >
> > Yet, I can't count on much time.  If I get to
> mention it at all, I'll have
> > maybe 5 minutes total.  Statistics would help more
> than arguments based on
> > social justice.  Arguments that there is going to
> be a statistical need
> > would help.  Arguments that suggest that there is
> a market for such units
> > would help more.
> >
> > I am asking for stats for a reason, and dissing me
> doesn't give me one.
> >
> > Too static <-> "Life" <-> Too noisy
> > --Christopher Langton
> >
> > Bruce F. Donnelly
> >
> > 216 470 9348
> >
> > -----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
>
>

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

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

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

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

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

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