[Visitaccess] Statistical data

[Bruce F. Donnelly]

Katherine, 

As I said last week, nothing I'm doing would preclude visitability.  It
wouldn't mandate it, either.  

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: Sunday, June 10, 2007 7:18 PM
To: Bruce F. Donnelly; 'CNU VisitAccess'
Subject: Re: [Visitaccess] Statistical data

Bruce,

Until such time as you have the statistics you feel you need, is it possible
to build into the Smart Code and any Form Based Code a mechanism that allows
flexibility in design if the designer is specifically intending to include
zero step entries for the purpose of both visitability and aging in place?
It seems that this would allow an interim solution and not preclude zero
step entries until such time as the need either becomes obvious or there are
statistics to demonstrate its need. Does it need to be an either/or
situation? I would think the goal of inclusiveness would make it possible if
not mandatory to have such flexibility in place. It should be an allowable
use in the Zoning Code and not require a variance. If needed it could have a
use permit required if that was necessary to trigger Design Review if that
was felt crucial in an historic neighborhood. The key is to not make it so
difficult to do that no one even tries.

Sincerely,

Kathy

PS. Ed, love the statement. Sorry you weren't able to make it.


 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Bruce F. Donnelly" <bfd at accessplaces.com>
> I'm afraid that my head is swimming from trying to apply statistics as
they
> were not meant to be.  I understand that there just bay be no precise data
> to support a position in favor of visitability -- either because of
> ambiguities or because nobody has crunched the numbers to get it.  You're
> right, though, that that is no reason not to advocate for the issue, but
it
> does mean that it will often have to be a stand-alone value-based
argument.
> In other words, "we do this because it is right," not "we do this because
it
> has X benefits."
> 
> Someone asked me whether I would be interested in helping a community to
> support its use of the SmartCode within its comprehensive plan.  The Comp
> plan sets out goals that the zoning is meant to support, and there has to
be
> a rational nexus between the comp plan and the zoning.  It has to be
> well-considered and supportable, though not necessarily iron-clad.  I
often
> require studies to make the links.  In other words, if the comp plan calls
> for walkability, and the SmartCode requires sidewalks, it's a no-brainer.
> But if the comp plan calls for reduced vehicle miles traveled, and the
> SmartCode requires sidewalks, I need a study that will show that sidewalks
> help reduce VMT.  As it happens, there are such studies, and I will cite
> them.  Unfortunately, I am much more familiar with planning literature
than
> accessibility literature.  
> 
> Right now, the only visitability argument that I can make is like the
nexus
> between sidewalks and walkability.  It is obvious that with a zero-step
> entry a person in a wheelchair will be more able to visit than without it.
> However, the argument that I would have to make for Bob Brown is that it
is
> justified by the goals set forth in the 2020 plan, and I can't draw that
> nexus with the available statistics.  I _can_ say it would be a good thing
> to do.  
> 
> Too static <-> “Life” <-> Too noisy
> --Christopher Langton
>  
> Bruce F. Donnelly
>  
> 216 470 9348
> 
>