[Visitaccess] Visitaccess Digest, Vol 1, Issue 1

[Bruce F. Donnelly]

It's Bruce, please.  See below.

--- KatherineAustin at comcast.net wrote:

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


By overlook, I mean being above the sidewalk (or
whatever walkway) and being up a little -- not a full
story -- so that people seated inside or on a porch
are at least at eye level with pedestrians.  That
means if you're in a wheelchair, you don't have to
look up at passers-by, and it means that it's hard to
look into a dwelling (etc.) casually from the
sidewalk.

> 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.

Right.  In the Transect, T3 isn't hard, T4 and parts
of T5 are.  T6 is easy again.  Then again, T4 has the
greatest variety of building types.

> 
> Can I assume that we are talking about a fairly
> typical NU community with a mix of detached sf homes
> and town houses? 

Not really.  It doesn't matter if it's a new community
or old, just that it has that mix.  Don't forget that
we plan for properties turning over, so what may start
out as a greenfield community may have houses and
townhouses subdivided or used for new uses.

> Are we looking at about 8 units per
> acre to 24 units per acre? 

Roughly, hard to say.  Maybe as low as 5.  Are you
talking net or gross?

> 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. 

Right.  Again, when it is new it may be "large
enough," but in 20 years it will likely be ready for
infill.

> I don't mean to complicate the issue, 

That train left the station 17 years ago.

> 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. 

"Insane" is unsustainable, and may crash before we're
done anyway.

> 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. 

We need this sort of thing documented.  There may be
(expensive, maybe unreliable) solutions like
elevators.

> 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. 

That's the crux of the problem.  8DUA at-grade in
ordinary houses without overlook means sacrificing the
ability to enjoy both community and privacy at the
same time...and that's what we're all about.

> 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.

Does it fully compensate?  Unless the plantings are
tall enough to cut off vision, you won't have privacy,
and if they are tall enough you won't have community. 
John Anderson of Chico California shared a
cross-section on a list that showed a driveway rising
to give grade-level entry at the back.  Perhaps it is
possible to share ramps up between every two townhouse
units, and give stair access to rear over-the-garage
units from the back of the unit too.

> 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.

Absolutely.  Can you formulate it in terms of T-zones
rather than density and document it?

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


Yours truly,

Bruce F. Donnelly

(216) 470-9348