[Visitaccess] Statistical data

[Bruce F. Donnelly]

I can’t answer that in the abstract, but here are some for-instances.

Together with representatives from two community development corporations,
we have coded four frontages.  Three of them encourage storefronts.  We code
by building type, and only certain building types would need visitability.
Obviously, some will be under ADA, some under FHAAG, and some under
visitability.  The ones that would require or benefit from visitability are
Townhouse Row, Storefront House, Storefront Apartment House, House, and
Apartment House.  Of course the “apartment” types are only under
visitability if they have 1-3 dwelling units.  Of these, I would only
require visitability in the dwelling units of three –Townhouse Row, House,
and Apartment House (1-3 units).  I would encourage building the other two –
Storefront House and Storefront Apartment House as flex space so that units
upstairs can be connected to the units below them.  There are, however, too
many combinations of all these to require that every unit in each building
type be visitable.  

Therefore, I would require that any dwelling that has a habitable space on
the ground floor, including a retail or flex space, should be visitable on
that ground floor.  I wouldn't require that every dwelling in a 1-3 unit
building be visitable.  An apartment over a garage wouldn't be outlawed, and
neither would be an up-and-down duplex.  

By visitable, of course, I mean a zero-step entry _somewhere,_ a powder room
or bathroom on the ground floor, and 32-inch doors on the ground floor.
That is certainly possible in each of the building types.  The one point of
difficulty might be that I require a ground floor rise at the front of some
building types.  That, however, ONLY applies to the part of the structure
closest to the street.  It can be a little raised platform within a tall
room -- like the arrangement seen in innumerable sitcoms.

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: Monday, June 11, 2007 1:22 PM
To: Bruce F. Donnelly
Subject: Re: [Visitaccess] Statistical data

And it wouldn't be difficult to do?
Kathy
 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Bruce F. Donnelly" <bfd at accessplaces.com>
> 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
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Visitaccess mailing list
> Visitaccess at cnunext.org
> http://mail.cnunext.org/mailman/listinfo/visitaccess_cnunext.org