|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Visit-ability | ©IDEA Center , 2004 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Contents | Why Hasn't Visit-ability Gained Wider Acceptance? | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Why Hasn't Visit-ability Gained Wider Acceptance? Myth #1
Table 2: This colored bar
graph indicates that people’s ability to perform activities
becomes more limited as they age. While men and women differ in their
limitations at varying ages, at age 65-74 males are more limited than
females, but at 75+ females have more limitations than males.
Figure 6: A Visit-able home, with its beautifully landscaped entrance, illustrates that a Visit-able home can also be aesthetically pleasing.
Figure 7: An apartment building built on a steep-sloping plot of land. A no-step entrance is still achievable.
|
Concrete Change has identified several myths, which, because they are accepted as common knowledge, prevent Visit-ability from being more widely adopted. Myth #1: Full Access to
Housing is Already Mandated by Existing Laws Not so. Under the Federal Fair Housing Act Accessibility Guidelines, all multi-family dwelling units in elevator equipped apartment buildings and ground floor units in walk-up apartment buildings have to be accessible. There are seven basic access requirements under the Act, but townhouses and single-family detached homes are not covered by its regulations. The Architectural Barriers Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended (29 U.S.C. sec 794) and Title II of the ADA as well as many state laws, require housing built with public funding to be accessible. But there is usually only a minimum requirement of 5% of the total units in a building or project. These laws are not applied to dwelling units financed by mortgages insured through federal programs. Thus, although there are existing laws that mandate accessibility, most new housing constructed (single-family homes) is not covered. Myth #2: The Percentage
Mentality Those who believe that there should be accessible housing only for “those who need it” fail to realize that: - visiting other people’s homes is as important to people with disabilities as it is to other people - those homes already built on a Visit-able floor plan are easier to adapt to full accessibility when the need arises - such homes allow residents to remain in a neighborhood and community despite the fact that their needs for additional access change as they age Visit-able housing is also best suited to serve the whole community, since any member of the community can experience a disability and need accessible features, whether that need is short term or permanent. Myth #3: The Equal Importance
Fallacy No. They are not. Visit-ability in certain homes is meant to augment not substitute for fully accessible housing elsewhere in neighborhoods. For the short-term visitor, the two most important needs are getting in and out of the home independently and fitting through the interior doors comfortably. An important concern for those planning to stay for more than a short visit is access to a ground floor bathroom. Myth #4: Aesthetic Concerns To the contrary. In many cases, Visit-able homes are indistinguishable from conventional designs. Ideally, Visit-able features are integrated into the design and are not noticeable. In fact, many consumers view them as an attractive asset because of their increased usability. Myth #5: Expense Not true. Visit-ability is most easily achieved if it is incorporated into the housing design at the planning stage. When this occurs, the expense of producing Visit-able features as part of any reasonable plan is negligible. In addition, the extra space necessary to include such features is insignificant. Of course, the expense of renovating to create Visit-able homes would be a lot higher than this. And once a home is Visit-able, making it fully accessible in the future would cost far less.
Description: The above table shows the minimal costs involved in making homes Visit-able. Increasing a door width, adding a lever handle, reducing a threshold and blocking bathroom walls each costs less than twenty dollars. Myth #6: Siting Constraints Once again, not true, as the following photo illustrates. When using the lay of the land to advantage, a sloping lot is often easier to work with than a flat lot. In the photo on the left, access to the rear of the building, at the high side, provides Visit-able dwelling units without changing the front side of the building at all. It also provides access to two levels on which to build those Visit-able units. Whereas, only one level would have been feasible if access were provided only at the front of the building. Myth #7: Design Constraints Building with a basement or crawl space does not make a zero-step entrance infeasible. The grade of the surrounding land can be adjusted to eliminate steps without requiring a ramp. Depending on the site conditions, this may require a deeper basement to bring the first floor level closer to grade. For example, instead of 24 inches between grade and the first floor, the basement floor elevation can be lowered 12 inches more and the site graded up 12 inches around the entrance. This will eliminate the need for any steps or ramps. The grade around the other sides of the house can be 12 inches below or more from the grade at the entrance. The same approach can be used with a crawl space. Another approach is to add a ramp at one entry. A good place for the ramp is at the rear of the building. The driveway can be sloped gradually up. From the rear of the driveway, the ramp can run up to a deck. This sloped driveway reduces the length of the ramp. A no-step entry can be provided from the deck.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
