[Visitaccess] Visitaccess Digest, Vol 1, Issue 1

Thu Mar 29 12:24:01 EDT 2007

Hello Brian, 

Thanks for getting the discussion going. I'm not sure I understand the term "Overlook." Can you clarify what that means?

It occurs to me that many solutions depend greatly on the density that one is working at. Lower density allows greater first floor area and access. Higher is more difficult if covered attached parking is required in a town house type of project. Once we go into larger cities and look at mid and high rise development, there are elevators and it's not really the same discussion.

Can I assume that we are talking about a fairly typical NU community with a mix of detached sf homes and town houses? Are we looking at about 8 units per acre to 24 units per acre? These developments tend to be on alleys where the site is large enough, but smaller infill developments usually don't have that room. This brings up the issue of scale as well. 

I don't mean to complicate the issue, but solutions are different depending on these factors. Where I practice the cost of land and the cost of housing has gone completely insane. Right now a 3br town house with a one car garage that's not even 1200 sf can sell for $400,000.  That's not affordable to many. 

The only way we can keep prices that low is to have these very small footprints which do not allow a bedroom on the first floor. Our densities tend to be about 13 units per acre. My non-profit work is at about 18 - 22 units per acre. There we can provide access because parking is seperate in lots and allows more livable area at the ground floor. 

In order to have a more typical home subdivision, with detached homes and one or two car garages on 4,000 sf lots, we are generally at 8 units per acre. At that density it's very easy to provide access provided the homes are at grade. Each has a front porch with railings and plantings to define the semi private area at the entrance to compensate for not being a raised foundation.

So in summary I think we need to consider how to meet these goals based on a sliding scale of density and size of project to be considered.

Sincerely,

Katherine Austin
707-829-8257
 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: visitaccess-request at cnunext.org
> Send Visitaccess mailing list submissions to
> 	visitaccess at cnunext.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://mail.cnunext.org/mailman/listinfo/visitaccess_cnunext.org
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	visitaccess-request at cnunext.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	visitaccess-owner at cnunext.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Visitaccess digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. Approaches to FHA AGs (Bruce F. Donnelly)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:06:18 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "Bruce F. Donnelly" <bfd at accessplaces.com>
> Subject: [Visitaccess] Approaches to FHA AGs
> To: CNU VisitAccess <visitaccess at cnunext.org>
> Message-ID: <669413.11128.qm at web82811.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> 
> Since Laura asked for me to do something on it, I just
> posted the following on Pro-Urb, and I'm putting it
> out here because there's not complete overlap.  Yes,
> it's not to do with visitability, but it's for your
> information.
> 
> ----------
> 
> I think it?s time to ask for ideas from the list for
> approaches to accessibility issues.  I don?t know
> anyone in the Justice Department, so I am at a little
> bit of a loss as to how to proceed.
> 
> We have identified some areas of concern, and there
> are a couple of ways to organize them.  If we organize
> them by physical-design issue rather than by category
> (e.g. ?overlook? versus ?cost?) then the concerns
> become most tractable.
> 
> The issues that came up frequently (but in no
> particular order) are these:
> 
> 1.	Overlook
> 2.	Shallow frontages
> 3.	Mixed use with dwellings over commercial space
> 4.	Small floorplates / big bathrooms
> 5.	Building on slopes
> 6.	Small buildings (?amortizing? elevators, etc.)
> 7.	Expensive hardware, square footage ?lost? to
> stairs, halls
> 
> Now, of course, issues of cost come into each of
> those.  Many identified issues with the inflexible
> guidelines ? an oxymoron that points to a deep
> problem.  That inflexibility, however, is to do with
> the structure of the law and is not something that
> expertise with physical design is going to change. 
> Thus we might safely concentrate on the
> physical-design concerns above.  
> 
> So, how can we proceed?  My concern is that someone
> who does not already buy into the flip side of each of
> these physical design issues will not be sympathetic,
> and until we can make a case with examples, it would
> be premature to involve the DOJ & friends.  Each of
> the above begs a question:
> 1.	Why not just live with being at-grade?
> 2.	Why not set the dwellings back behind a lawn?
> 3.	Why not build the dwellings beside or behind the
> commercial space?
> 4.	Why not build units bigger on one floor ? such as
> garden apartments rather than townhouses?  
> 5.	Can?t you just take advantage of the clear
> exemption in the FHA AGs?
> 6.	What?s wrong with big buildings, big projects?
> 7.	Why not plan for accessibility from the beginning
> so you can find cost offsets?
> 
> So, the question is, how do we make a case?  It seems
> to me that the approach that worked with similar
> clashes with standards ? in standards for renovating
> buildings, context-sensitive design (or solutions) for
> roads, and zoning codes ? was to propose
> nearly-ready-to-use solutions, and then get
> authorities to adopt them as exceptions or
> alternatives.  How does that sound?
> 
> 
> Yours truly,
> 
> Bruce F. Donnelly
> 
> (216) 470-9348
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Visitaccess mailing list
> Visitaccess at cnunext.org
> http://mail.cnunext.org/mailman/listinfo/visitaccess_cnunext.org
> 
> 
> End of Visitaccess Digest, Vol 1, Issue 1
> *****************************************