Upload
gianni-waxman
View
217
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Visitability, Universal Design& Residential Enviornments
L. Scott LissnerADA Coordinator Ohio State University
[email protected] Http://ADA.OSU.EDU
Defining the Problem
Housing communities in
Atlanta and Decatur, GA
v.
Many homes and neighborhoods are inaccessible or
“off-limits” to a large part of the population.
– 5% of U.S. population used some kind of mobility device in 1994, approximately 14 million persons (U.S. Census, 2000).
– 3% of Americans lived in homes with any kind of accessibility features, although almost 30% of families contained at least one member with a disability (Kaye, 1997).
– Over one-million households that have a resident with a disability have unmet housing needs (Kochera, 2002).
Impact of Basic Barriers on People with
Mobility Impairments:
– Social isolation– Compromised health and safety– Premature institutionalization
This current problem will only increase over time…
Aging of the Population:
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001
Rise in Disabilities: U.S. Disability Rate by Age
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
65-69 70-74 75-79 80+
Percent with Any Disability
Percent with Severe Disability
Pe
rce
nt
of
Po
pu
lati
on
Federal legislation does not apply to single family housing– The Fair Housing Act Accessibility Guidelines (FHAAG) cover only
multifamily dwelling units.
– Townhouses and single family detached homes are not covered by the FHAAG.
Housing community in Atlanta, GA
Courtesy of CNU
19961991
Obesity Trends* Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 1991, 1996, 2004
(*BMI 30, or about 30 lbs overweight for 5’4” person)
No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% ≥25%
2004
Source: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, CDC.
Models of Disability• Medical Model
– Based on diagnosis – Resides in the individual
• Social Model– Based on interaction between conditions of
people & conditions of the environment– Resides in the interaction
Which is more relevant for a designer?
Body Functions&
Structures
Activities &
Participation
Environmental Factors
Barriers
Facilitators
Functions
Structures
Capacity
Performance
Health Condition (disorder/disease)
Interaction of Concepts www.who.int/classification/icf
Environmental Factors
Personal Factors
Body function & structure
Impairment
ActivityLimitation
ParticipationRestriction
Universal Design is:• Market driven• A process not a goal• Minimizing incompatibilities between conditions of people
and their environment• About form and function• Incorporates awareness of all users needs• Comfortable & safe for widest possible range of potential
users• Inclusive• Requires the mindful creativity of the designer
Universal Design is not:• Compliance with minimum accessibility regulations• Adding on a ramp or accessible features• One size fits all
Equitable Use
Flexibilityin Use
Simple and Intuitive Use
Perceptible Information
Size and Space for Approach and Use
Low Physical Effort
Tolerance for Error
The Principles work most effectively when used together
What is Visitability?
What is Visitability?
In 1986, Concrete Change sought to make new homes “accessible enough” for a visitor with a disability.
This concept was called “visitability”.
Three Principles of Visitability
1. Social participation is a civil right
Visiting other people’s homes is
as important to people with
mobility limitations as it is to other
people
2. Access is cost-effective if planned in advance
New Construction Retrofitting
Zero-Step Entrance $150 $1,000
Widen Interior Doors $50 $700
Total Cost$300
(or 1/3 cost of a bay window)
$7,500-$15,000 per unit, for older units
Source: Overton, 2000; Concrete
Change
3. Simplicity promotes implementation (Rodgers, 2002)
Attributes of Innovation that Enhance its Adoption Rate:
1. Relative Advantage
2. Compatibility
3. Complexity
4. Trialability
5. Observability
Visitability Features One zero step entrance on an accessible path of travel 32 inches of clear opening at doorways and accessible circulation
throughout the floor plan Basic access to at least one bath or half bath on the ground floor
Step-less entrance Bathroom access
Accessible circulation
Variation in Visitability Programs
Jurisdiction• State• Local• Federal
Scope• Three visitability features• Additional features
Enforcement• Mandatory – (Publicly Funded Housing, All New Homes)
• Voluntary – (Cash Incentives, Awareness Campaigns, Certification Programs)
Mandatory Voluntary
Publicly Funded Housing All New Homes Builder Incentives Consumer Incentives
Texas (1999) Florida (1989) Illinois (2002) Georgia (1999)
Georgia (2000) Vermont (2000) Pennsylvania (2004) Virginia (1999)
Minnesota (2001) Georgia (2002)
Kansas (2002)
Kentucky (2003)
Oregon (2003)
Michigan (2006)
Types of State Visitability Programs:
Mandatory Voluntary
Publicly Funded Housing
All New Homes Cash IncentivesAwareness Campaigns and
Certification Programs
Atlanta, GA (1992) Naperville, IL (2002)Freehold Borough, NJ (1997)
Irvine, CA (1999)
Austin, TX (1998) Pima County, AZ (2002) Southampton, NY (2002) San Mateo County (2001)
Urbana, IL (2000) Bolingbrook, IL (2003) Southampton, NY (2002) Visalia, CA (2001)
Fort Worth, TX (2000) Escanaba, MI (2003) Albuquerque, NM (2001)
Long Beach, CA (2002) Houston, TX (2004) Onondaga County (2002)
San Antonio, TX (2002) Syracuse, NY (2003)
Iowa City, IA (2002) Sacramento, CA (2003)
Chicago, IL (2003) Prescott Valley, AZ (2005)
St. Petersburg, FL (2004)
Toledo, OH (2005)
Auburn, NY (2005)
Scranton, PA (2005)
Arvada, CO (2005)
Types of Local Visitability Programs
Federal Visitability Bill
U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D.-Ill.) first introduced H.R. 2353, The Inclusive Home Design Act, in June 2003. On March 17, 2005, she reintroduced the Inclusive Home Design Act. For the 109th Congress, the bill number will be HR 1441.
"It defies logic to build new homes that block people out when it's so easy and cheap to build new homes that let people in," says Schakowsky.
The bill currently has 36 cosponsors and is in committees.
Rep. Jan. Schakowsky
Important Barriers and Policy Issues
Surrounding UD Neighborhoods
Housing community in
Decatur, GA
Lack of cost information
Problems with groups organizing initiative
Legal restrictions
Opposition from homebuilders
Delayed by political process
Reasons Cited for Lack of Implementation
Value Conflicts: Equity vs. Livability
Primary Purpose: Social Participation vs. Aging in Place
Level of Access: Basic vs. Full
Type of Program: Mandatory vs. Voluntary
Courtesy of CNU
Policy Issues