Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centeron Universal Design at Buffalo
School of Architecture and PlanningUniversity at BuffaloThe State University of New YorkBuffalo, NY 14214-3087
Visit-abilityan approach to Universal Design in housing
People and Places Series
>Visit-ability is anaffordable,sustainable andinclusive designapproach forintegrating basicaccessibility featuresinto all newly builthomes and housing.
Steven TruesdaleEdward Steinfeld, Arch.D. RERC on Universal Design at Buffalo
Contributors:
Eleanor SmithConcrete Change
Danise Levine, M.Arch.RERC on Universal Design at Buffalo
William BartlettFlower City Habitat for Humanity
Ron TalboysRichard YencerBuffalo Habitat for Humanity
VISIT-ABILITY: AN APPROACH TO UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN HOUSING
A Publication of:Rehabilitation Engineering ResearchCenter (RERC) on Universal DesignSchool of Architecture and Planning 378 Hayes HallUniversity at BuffaloBuffalo, New York 14214
Art Direction and Editing:Alex Bitterman, M.Arch.
Graphic Production:Andrea KalaydjianYichun HsiehLaurie YarnesCenter for Assistive TechnologyKimball TowerUniversity at BuffaloBuffalo, New York 14214
IntroductionVisit-ability is an affordable,sustainable and inclusive designapproach for integrating basicaccessibility features into all newlybuilt homes and housing.
To be considered Visit-able, homesneed:
• one zero-step entrance on anaccessible path of travel
• doorways that are 32 inchesclear throughout the floor plan
• basic access to at least a halfbath on the main floor
The Visit-ability movement is basedon the conviction that inclusion ofbasic architectural access features inall new homes is a civil and humanright and improves livability for all.
The purpose of this booklet is to promote and inform communityaction projects that support thedevelopment of Visit-able housing.Universal design on the communitylevel permits full access to socialparticipation in community affairsand interaction with neighbors. Visit-ability is an important steptoward making universal access tocommunity life a reality.
This booklet provides a basic understanding of the concept of Visit-ability, including good practiceexamples and cost estimates forVisit-able features. It describesadvocacy strategies for developing Visit-ability projects in local commu-nities. Contact information for organ-izations that can assist in promotingthem is also provided.
Visit-Ability
1 I visitability
1
Figure 2
We wish to convince readers thatwhoever they are, they alreadyshare at least some of the needs andmany of the goals of advocacygroups across the country–housingthat is welcoming, convenient andusable by every community member.
The Elements of Visit-ability
• An entrance without a step orthreshold that is on an accessi-ble path of travel from thestreet, sidewalk or driveway.An accessible path of travel hasno steps, is at least 36 incheswide and is not steeper than1:20 (5% grade) for walkwaysor 1:12 for ramps.
• Throughout the ground floor,doorways designed to provide32 inches of clear space andhallways that have at least 36inches of clear width.
• Basic access to a half bath orfull bath on the ground floor. As defined here, basic accesssimply denotes sufficient depthwithin the bathroom for a person in a wheelchair to enter, and close the door. Basic access to a full bath ispreferable to a half bath.
History and Philosophy
Passing by a new Habitat forHumanity housing development inAtlanta in 1986, Eleanor Smith suddenly wondered whether anyonehad thought to make the housesaccessible. Her consciousness aboutuniversal access had been raised byworking with the national advocacygroup ADAPT on a program for get-ting lifts on all new buses. This workled to the new insight that the houses
2 I visitability
Figure 1
being built were no different thanwhat she had seen for years andhad never questioned. Later that day she read a news story reportingthat several of the Habitat homes she had passed had been speciallydesigned for residents with disabili-ties. She realized that because theadaptations needed had to bespecifically requested by the incoming resident, only a few of thehomes being constructed would beaccessible and the people with disabilities who lived in them wouldnot be able to visit their neighbors.
Eleanor had a connection with a local group of eight communityadvocates with disabilities. She interested them in the problem she'didentified. The group (which laternamed their initiative "ConcreteChange") approached Habitat forHumanity, as well as several other
not-for-profits involved in buildinglow income homes, and suggestedthe development of a set of stan-dard accessibility features in everyhome produced. At first they calledthe set of features "basic homeaccess" but later adopted the term"Visit-ability" after hearing aboutthe term being used in England for a similar concept. Through thegroup's persistence and the Habitatboard's willingness to listen, the firstseven Visit-able Habitat homes in theAtlanta area were built in 1990.
Clearly, in terms of providing physi-cal access to housing, Visit-abilityadvocates seek to take an importantstep forward beyond standard housing design and particularly forsingle-family detached houses andtownhouses (row houses), which arenot covered by the Fair Housing Act.It might seem to some who are new
3 I visitability
to the idea that Visit-ability advo-cates are settling for less than theyshould in not seeking full access. But, the majority of builders andhomeowners alike see no need forany access to homes at all, exceptfor those built for a specific occu-pant with a disability. When askedabout the difference between pursuing Visit-ability as a designstandard and pursuing a highergoal (i.e,. a fully accessible or universally designed home) Eleanortakes a pragmatic perspective:
"What I'm after here is radically changing the way allnew houses are built ... and ifyou're going to do that, youcan't have a long list ofdemands."
And about not advocating for fullaccess, here again, Eleanor is firm:
Figure 3
"What I'm passionate about isgetting those basic changesmade as quickly and broadly as possible, and in doing that,I'm looking at the reality of what(housing) is going up, not what (theoretically) should be...there are a lot of grassroots efforts out there who'vedone really well ... and we'relooking to build a bridge bet-ween those grass roots (efforts)and the limited number of pro-fessionals we've found who areexcited about the concept ofVisit-ability and about theprospect of seeing it move very quickly from being an idea to being ‘applied Visit-ability’ or, in other words, bricks and mortar."
4 I visitability
Contemporary Housing Design
In advocating the use of Visit-abilityin housing development, it is impor-tant to understand contemporary sin-gle-family housing design approach-es. This section will briefly describefour: new urbanist, standard, acces-sible, and universally designedhomes.
New Urbanism is an urban designconcept gaining great popularity,which seeks to re-create the features of older urban neighbor-hoods by building pedestrian oriented communities with high-density low-rise housing and mixeduse planning. Single family housingin New Urbanist communities come inseveral forms; the most common aretownhouses, attached double housesor single-family detached units with
5 I visitability
New Urbanist design need notremain a true impediment to build-ing a Visit-able home. Ramps andgrade changes from front to backcan be used as a means to providezero step entrances while keepingthe first floor of the home abovegrade. Moreover, there are otherdesign approaches that can providethe privacy desired without increas-ing the size of the front yard.
New Urbanism has many positiveattributes from an access perspec-tive. New Urbanist design principlesinclude the use of narrower roadsand thoroughfares, both to create a"walkable" community and to heighten the sense of "neighborli-ness." These features can be verybeneficial to people with disabilitiesas well as other residents. In fact,the New Urbanists have advanced
the practice of planning new housingby emphasizing the importance ofthe public environment--of streetsand pedestrian pathways in creatinga humane neighborhood. They seekto increase the potential that trueneighborhoods will develop. Thiscommunity planning approach hasbeen lacking in most accessible hous-ing design, which focuses only on thehome and private property.
Standard single family housing isbuilt according to traditional specifi-cations, without special attentiongiven to access. Little attention isgiven to the development of neigh-borhoods and public walkways,other than what is required byauthorities and considered the normin the region. Unlike New Urbanism,there is no specific concern aboutraising the first floor of the home
small front yards and narrow alleysbetween them. The first floors areusually well above grade and afront porch and stairs are standardfeatures. The raised main floor compensates for the privacy lost byreducing the depth of the front yardto a minimum. The increased densityand mixed uses allows more moneyto be devoted to community ameni-ties and reduces dependence onautomobiles.
The key problem for accessibility inNew Urbanism is the practice ofbuilding most houses with their firstfloors above grade. If built withoutaccess features, New Urbanist housing is less inviting, both in perception and in fact, for those with mobility impairments. Theraised porches and prominent stairson the front of this housing increaseinaccessibility.
Figure 4
6 I visitability
above grade level. That is done forreasons other than the social goals of New Urbanism. Often it is due toprevailing norms and in other cases,there is a belief (whether correct ornot) that homes will flood if notraised high above grade. Most stan-dard housing is built as detachedunits, not townhouses, and in singleuse developments without any commercial facilities.
Accessible Housing is standardhousing, which uses adaptive technol-ogy and design, such as ramps, lowered cabinets, and roll-in showers.Generally, adaptations made underthe heading "accessible housing" areintended for households that havefamily members who use wheelchairs.In addition, because the term "accessible" is often tied to the legalrequirement/concept of access, the
features of accessible housing aregenerally viewed as being part of awhole package, not based on whatworks best. The focus is on compli-ance with accessibility standards. Infact, some contractors hired to buildaccessible housing have been reti-cent to use creative alternatives towhat they know will be compliant.This attitude can severely limit thechoices available to persons withdisabilities, and (as we hope thereader will come to realize) to thewhole community.
Another major flaw within the con-cept of accessible housing design isthat it often ignores aesthetic con-cerns in favor of purely functionaldesign and equipment. Both, ofcourse, are important, but becauseaccessible features and equipmentare in less demand, products are
7 I visitability
often not available in the variedselection of non-accessible compo-nents. Nice looking accessible products are often hard to find, more expensive and take longer toobtain. The prices of such productstend to be inflated and poor availability results in constructiondelays.
Universally designed homes aredesigned to provide improved func-tion for all possible residents, ratherthan providing specific adaptationsthat only help people with disabili-ties. Universally designed homes provide features that are equallyadvantageous to children, left-handed fathers, extra large andextra small residents, young couplesand seniors (both single and mar-ried). Universally designed housesideally go beyond the minimum
requirements of codes and stan-dards. For example, a universallydesigned home may have more thanone accessible bathroom and morethan one accessible entrance. Inaddition to access for mobility-impaired residents, it might alsohave flooring, acoustics and otherfeatures that facilitate use by peo-ple who are visually impaired.
Because universal design is intendedfor all citizens, aesthetics play animportant role in the concept. Toreach a mass market, universaldesign must be attractive. The massmarketing of universal design features, however, makes them theo-retically more readily available andaffordable. Thus universal design isquite different than simple codecompliance.
Some advocates argue that advocacy efforts would be betterdevoted to promoting universaldesign in housing, rather than Visit-ability. But our view is that universaldesign is a continuously evolvingprocess, rather than a journeytowards a single design "destina-tion." The number of universallydesigned products currently available is still small.
Consensus standards as to what constitutes universal design in housing have not yet been devel-oped and many argue that it wouldbe unwise to do so because it couldstifle this innovative spirit.
Visit-ability, although less than theideal for a universally designedhome, is actually universal designpracticed through community andneighborhood planning. It ensures
Figure 6
Figure 5
8 I visitability
that a basic level of accessibility will be provided in all housing and it opens opportunities for participa-tion in community life. Visit-ability isa universal design goal that can beachieved today on a widespreadbasis. Advocates should certainlypromote a greater scope of univer-sal design wherever possible, butthey should certainly not settle forless than the basic features of Visit-ability.
The Advantages ofVisit-ability
Along the continuum of access opportunities presented by this list of contemporary housing strategies,Visit-ability lies at the midpoint.Visit-ability is clearly a much lesscomprehensive standard than eitheraccessibility or universal design. That
being said, however, the RERC onUniversal Design at Buffalo viewsVisit-ability as a major first steptoward universal design on theneighborhood level, since the ease ofapplying Visit-ability is so muchgreater. At least during the foresee-able future, far more Visit-ablehomes will be constructed in mostneighborhoods than accessible orfully universally designed homes.
Visit-ability focuses on the threestructural features most essential fora person with mobility impairmentsto visit or live in a home at leasttemporarily and possibly even per-manently, depending on an individ-ual's needs. If included during designand planning, these features areextremely cost-efficient and provideadvantages (and often added value)to non-disabled consumers as well.
9 I visitability
Like Concrete Change, we believethat much of the responsibility forseeing Visit-ability promoted in thecommunity will rest squarely withhousing advocates and consumers.Whether that consumer is an individual, a housing developer or a government agency, they mustrealize that Visit-ability is a viableoption and actively work to see itinstituted.
While in some municipalities, Visit-ability is enforced by ordinances that cover most housing built withpublic funds, it is important to stressthat for the most part, Visit-ability is still a voluntary standard that canbe used in any type of housing notyet covered by accessibility regula-tions. In many cases, a plan toinclude Visit-able units can also bean asset in finding and securing
public funding for construction of ahousing project.
Visit-ability does not represent asubstitute for the legal mandate offull accessibility. Rather, Visit-abilityexpands the application of acces-sible design in a wider range ofhousing. It makes houses relativelyeasy to adapt in the future, allowingcurrent residents to remain in theirhomes as they age, rather thanbeing forced to move as more features become necessary to maintain functional independence.
Visit-ability also provides benefits toa wide range of users, includingthose with disabilities, their nuclearfamily, extended family, friends, andrelatives who may, from time to time,need to use wheelchairs or otheradaptive equipment.
If we accept these arguments, themovement towards inclusion of Visit-able features in all new single-family housing seems to be awin/win proposition and it raises the question…
"Why hasn't Visit-abilitygained wider acceptance?"
10 I visitability
Figure 9
Figure 7 Figure 8
11 I visitability
Concrete Change has identified several myths, which, because theyare accepted as "common knowl-edge," prevent Visit-ability frombeing more widely adopted.
1. Full Access to Housing isAlready Mandated byExisting Laws – The ADA andother laws mandate accessibilityin all housing.
Not so. Under the Federal FairHousing Act Accessibility Guidelines,all multi-family dwelling units in ele-vator equipped apartment buildingsand ground floor units in walk-upapartment buildings have to beaccessible. There are seven basicaccess requirements under the Act,but townhouses and single-familydetached homes are not covered byits regulations. The Architectural
The Myths
Barriers Act, Section 504 of theRehabilitation Act of 1973 asamended (29 USC sec 794) andTitle II of the ADA as well as manystate laws, require housing built with public funding to be accessible,but there is usually only a minimumrequirement of 5% of the total unitsin a building or project. These lawsare not applied to dwelling unitsfinanced by mortgages insuredthrough Federal programs. Thus,although there are existing laws that mandate accessibility, most new housing constructed (single-family homes) is not covered.
2. The Percentage – MentalityThe percentage of homes withaccess should be roughly equalto the percentage of people whocurrently have disabilities.
2
12 I visitability
Those who believe that there shouldbe accessible housing only for "thosewho need it" fail to realize that:
• visiting other people's homes isas important to people withfunctional limitations as it is toother people
• those homes already built on aVisit-able floor plan are easierto adapt to full accessibilitywhen the need arises
• such homes allow residents toremain in a neighborhood andcommunity despite the fact thattheir needs for additionalaccess change as they age
Visit-able housing is also best suitedto serve the whole community, sinceany member of the community canexperience a disability and need
accessible features whether thatneed is short term or permanent – at any time.
3. The Equal Importance FallacyAll the required features in typical access codes are of equal importance, from the height of the mirror(s) to thewidth of the doors.
No, they're not. Visit-ability in certain homes is meant to augment,not substitute for fully accessiblehousing elsewhere in neighborhoods.
For the short-term visitor, the twomost important needs are getting inand out of the home independentlyand fitting through the interior doorscomfortably. An especially impor-tant concern for those planning tostay for any more than a short visit isaccess to a ground floor bathroom.
4. Aesthetic ConcernsVisit-ability features are unattractive.
To the contrary. In many cases, Visit-able homes are indistinguish-able from conventional designs.Ideally, Visit-able features are inte-grated into the design and are notnoticeable. In fact, many consumersview them as an attractive assetbecause of their increased usability.
5. Expense The expense of including Visit-able featuresis high.
Not true. Visit-ability is most easilyachieved if it is incorporated into the housing design at the planningstage. When this occurs, theexpense of producing Visit-able features as part of any reasonableplan is negligible. In addition, the
Figure 11
13 I visitability
extra space necessary to includesuch features is insignificant. Ofcourse, the expense of renovating to create Visit-able homes would bea lot higher than this. And once ahome is Visit-able, making it fullyaccessible in the future would costfar less.
6. Siting Constraints A zero-stepentrance is feasible only on a flatlot.
Once again, not true, as Figures 10and 11 illustrate.
When using the lay of the land toadvantage, a sloping lot is ofteneven easier to work with than a flatlot.
In Figure 11, access to the rear ofthis building, at the high side, pro-vides Visit-able dwelling units with-
out changing the front side of the building at all. It also providesaccess to two levels on which tobuild those Visit-able units whereasonly one level would have beenfeasible if access were providedonly at the front of the building.
7. Design Constraints A zero-step entrance is only feasiblewhen building on a concreteslab.
Building with a basement or crawlspace does not make a zero-stepentrance infeasible. The grade of the surrounding land can beadjusted to eliminate steps withoutrequiring a ramp. Depending on thesite conditions, this may require adeeper basement to bring the firstfloor level closer to grade. Forexample, instead of 24 inchesbetween grade and the first floor,
Figure 10
Figure 12
14 I visitability
the basement floor elevation can belowered 12 inches more and the sitegraded up 12 inches around theentrance. This will eliminate the needfor any steps or ramps. The gradearound the other sides of the housecan be 12 inches below or morefrom the grade at the entrance. Thesame approach can be used with acrawl space.
Another approach is to add a ramp at one entry. A good place for the ramp is at the rear of thebuilding. The driveway can besloped gradually up. From the rearof the driveway, the ramp can run up to a deck. This sloped drivewayreduces the length of the ramp. Ano-step entry can be provided fromthe deck.
Figure 13
15 I visitability
Costs of Visit-Ability
Research on Costs
The cost of Visit-ability is not significant when compared to thecost of building an entire house and developing the home site, butfor those who are not informed,there may be many misconceptionsabout how inexpensive it really is. In addition, each dialogue about the cost of Visit-ability is oftenbased on assumptions about homedesign that are not necessarilyabsolute. In this section, we presentinformation to help overcome mis-conceptions and show how thoseassumptions can affect the costimpact.
There are studies that have estimat-ed the cost of accessibility but thereis no recent published study on single-family homes. In fact, the published literature provides only
one example of a modest threebedroom single-family house. Thatexample came from the late 1970sand the total construction cost of the home was less than $15,000, so it is not a very relevant exampletoday (Schroeder and Steinfeld,1979).
The most current study, called TheCost of Accessible Housing, bySteven Winter Associates (1993),was published by the USDepartment of Housing and UrbanDevelopment. This study focused onthe cost impact of the Fair HousingAccessibility Guidelines (FHAG) onmulti-family projects. Eight existingprojects constructed by privatedevelopers were studied andredesigned to meet the Guidelines.The developers then estimated thecost of the redesigned projects. Itwas estimated that the cost of
3
Figure 15
Figure 14
16 I visitability
making multi-family housing complywith the Guidelines was .28% oftotal construction costs for thedwelling unit part (excluding sitedevelopment and community facili-ties) and .33% for total project costs. This general conclusion of lessthan 1% is in line with other studiesthat have examined the impact ofaccessibility to public buildings.
Visit-ability does not require asmany accessibility features as theFHAG, nevertheless, there is somegeneral information that is useful inthe HUD study. First, out of 38 unitplans studied, only 3 had to beincreased in floor area and the average increase was 12 squarefeet. Second, the cost of accessibilityvaried significantly from project toproject. The topography of the siteand design of the buildings createdreal differences in cost impact.
Third, where units were designed toa low standard (very small spaces),the cost impact of accessibility washigher. Thus, although accessibilityrequires rethinking the design ofdwelling unit plans, it does not oftenlead to the need for increased area,a major factor in increased cost.
It is clear that other design goalsinteract with the goal of providingVisit-ability. These goals may includebut are not limited to the type ofhouse plan desired, the level of efficiency desired in space planningand the constraints of natural topo-graphy as well as building codes,planning guidelines and zoning ordinances which govern the designand use of the land. For these reasons, it is always easy to find a case where making an existingdesign Visit-able will lead toincreased costs. But it does not make
17 I visitability
sense to even average in "worst case scenarios." Rather, Visit-abilitycan and should be omitted in thosefew houses where it doesn't makeeconomic sense.
Often, the cost impact of addingaccessible features can be balancedby finding other ways to reducecosts. But, when there are other pri-orities that are also important, thatapproach may not be acceptable tothe owner or builder.
Another difficulty in estimating costimpact is that changes to designs are not usually based on one designobjective. The act of revising a floorplan could introduce other featuresthat are not directly Visit-able features but are simply improve-ments to the circulation, appearanceor livability of the home. In otherwords, when changes are made to
a design in the real world, thosechanges usually will address issuesbeyond only Visit-ability.
Cost Impact
To thoroughly examine the costimpact of Visit-ability, it is necessaryto study a wide range of projectsand use a systematic approach toredesign and cost estimation, like thestudy that HUD commissioned on theFHAG. This was impossible for us todo within the scope of this booklet.However, we were able to identifytypical components of Visit-abilityand have a contractor estimate theircost.
We also were able to compare thecost of Visit-able Habitat homes builtin Buffalo, NY and Rochester, NYagainst the cost of the previousdesigns that the two organizations
were using. Because these homes arevery efficient in the use of space,they serve as good case studies as they represent difficultsituaions.
The table illustration of a case studyhouse provides estimated costs fortypical features of Visit-ability. Wehave assumed an "original design"that is a modest 1500 square footranch style model with two bathsand three bedrooms, approximately30 feet wide and 50 feet long, constructed of wood with siding and the floor level raised off theoriginal elevation of the site by 18inches. There is a wood deck and aback entrance at the rear with afront entrance with a wood porchwith two stairs at the front, approx-imately centered in the length of the home. The porch has a one-stepentry to the interior floor level but
18 I visitability
Design changes from Alternate A
Itemized costs
Comments
• Grade site to provide driveway slope of 5% and elevation change of 1’-0”
No cost • This is the preferred option, according to the contractor we consulted. The fill from the basement excavation could be used to grade the site. The cost of the grading would be offset by eliminating the need to remove the excavated soil from the site.
• Eliminate wood stairway and handrails at rear deck
$300 – $500 Credit
• Provide 6 foot long wooden ramp with two handrails to the rear deck with railings on both sides, supported by the deck at the top end and a concrete pad at the bottom end
Less than $500
I. No step entry
• Concrete front terrace level with interior floor with a slight pitch for drainage
No difference in cost
• Widen 5 hinged doors to 32 in. clear min. $25 • Exterior doors are usually already wide enough
• 5$ each/door, material costs only labor is the same
• Increase width of bedroom hallway from 36 in. to 42 in.
No cost – same wall length and total area
• Width of hallway would be sufficient at 36 in. if doors were all on sides of hallway
II. Accessible doors
• Cut 3 in. off the width of all bedrooms and add 6 in. to hallway width.
No cost
• Add approximately 10 Square feet in one bathroom to allow door to close when wheelchair is in the room
No cost – compensated by slightly reduced area elsewhere
• Many bathroom designs will not need additional space, just reorganization of the fixtures.
III. Access to one bathroom
• Reduce living room, dining area by 10 Square feet.
No cost • Most houses will have enough space to accomplish this trade-off without any impact on livability
the deck is at the same level as theinterior. Ventilation to the basementis provided through four basementwindows with window wells to keepwater from entering. The house has afull storm drainage system aroundthe foundation. The lot is 125 feetdeep and 80 feet wide.
The case study demonstrates that the cost of Visit-ability, for a modesthome of typical design, is clearlyaffordable within the scope of mosthomebuilding projects. In addition,the advantages of the Visit-abilityfeatures definitely balance out thecosts. The design changes that arenecessary would only have a positive influence on marketability.
Visit-ability would make the homemore desirable for families withsmall children, families that had
grandparents who might visit andolder households in general. Giventhe cost of a house like the hypo-thetical model, the increased costswould not be noticeable in themonthly mortgage payment. In our analysis of the Habitat experience, we discovered thatrevising a design that already exists could result in very differentoutcomes, depending on how manychanges from the original are considered desirable. In part thisdepends on how satisfied thedesigners are with the originalmodel and how many changes theyare willing to introduce. In bothBuffalo and Rochester, the HabitatChapters redesigned their basicmodel. In both cases, the redesignimproved general livability con-siderably. It then became impossibleto separate out the actual cost of
19 I visitability
Visit-ability features. One thing isclear however: the cost differenceresulted in increased value; the result was an improved home design,and, the new owners are quite satisfied.
20 I visitability
Buffalo Case Study
Figures 16 and 17 show before andafter designs for the Habitat modelused in Buffalo. Figure 16 shows theoriginal design and Figure 17 showsthe Visit-able design. The new homedesign is about 1150 square feet,about 50 square feet larger in areathan the original. The original planis about 50 square feet larger thanHabitat International’s guideline of1050 square feet. It cost approxi-mately $1500 more for the Chapterto build the Visit-able model.
The Visit-able house plan has threemain differences from the originalthat led to the increased cost: It is 47square feet larger; there is a secondexterior door at the vestibule at theside entry; there is a ramp to thatdoorway. However, are these threeitems all attributable to meeting thegoal of Visit-ability? We think not.
We think they are also attributableto improved livability and design foran adverse climate.
First, the extra area is simply a decision to add a bit more room tothe dwelling. The 47 square feetcould have been trimmed off theplan by reducing the length of thehome by two feet. The Visit-ableplan actually has a lot more space in the kitchen and dining area thanthe original plan, but the bedroomsand bathroom are almost exactly the same size.
Second, the side entrance is a popu-lar feature among Habitat clients.More often than not it is the pre-ferred means of entering the housebecause it provides direct access tothe kitchen and basement. It alsoprovides a transitional spacebetween the exterior and interior forbringing in groceries, taking off
Figure 16
Figure 17
21 I visitability
Figure 18 (left) and 19 (right) coats and boots in the winter, etc. In
the original version, the side doorbrought clients to an intermediatelanding between the kitchen andbasement, which meant that entry tothe ground floor level was possibleonly by climbing 3 steps. The addi-tion of a ramp and relocation of thebasement stairs made the side entrymore usable for everyone.
Third, the ramp was used to over-come the difference in height from
grade to the first floor level. There is no rule that requires the house tobe so high above grade. There areother less costly approaches thatcould have been used to provide ano-step entry. The lots in Buffalo aredeep. A driveway about 35 feetlong with a slope from 3-5% wouldhave been enough to bring thegrade to the level of the first floor.The land could have been graded to accomplish this. But the Habitat
42’
22 I visitability
designers wanted to keep all foursides of the house 18 inches abovegrade to insure that snow would notleak into the basement through thebasement windows. This meant keeping the site relatively level. They also preferred not to build window wells, which would berequired if the house was sunk stillfurther into the ground. This decisionwas made as a construction decisionbased on climate, not because ofVisit-ability.
Another construction considerationwas the use of concrete footings tosupport the railing. In Buffalo, footings must be 4-feet deep.Building all of the footings adds alot more in material costs. There are other ways to construct the railing that could eliminate most of the footings. Byusing footings, however, the long-term durability of the ramp is
better, which benefits the low-income owners significantly. If we subtract the cost of the additional space in living and diningareas, the cost of the secondentrance and the difference in thecost of concrete footings versus a less costly ramp design, the differ-ence in cost between the two designswould be reduced to a negligibleamount as in our hypothetical exam-ple above. Therefore, the additionalcost for the new design cannot beinterpreted simply as the cost ofadding Visit-ability. In the process of redesign, the Buffalo Chapterincluded features that made thehome nicer to live in, reduced maint-enance costs over the long term andserved as a better response to theheavy snows in the region. Ownersprefer the second entry and theramp because it makes it easier tocarry packages, bicycles and otherthings into the house and also to
access the basement. They certainlyprefer having more living spaceinside. Consequently, the value of the home was increased by making it more livable and maintenance free at the same time that it wasmade Visit-able.
Rochester Case Study
Figures 20 and 21 show before andafter photos from the Flower CityHabitat Chapter in Rochester. Unlikethe one-story design used in Buffalo,the Rochester Chapter usesa two-story wood frame designbecause it fits better with the existing housing stock in the city.Rochester has stricter planning guidelines than Buffalo with a strong emphasis on preserving thevisual character of neighborhoods.
The new Visit-able design has adriveway that slopes up gradually to
23 I visitability
the rear of the lot where there is ashort wooden ramp to the backporch. The ramp is supported by theback porch structure, one piling inthe center of the ramp and a concrete pad at the bottom. TheRochester Chapter was not as concerned as the Buffalo Chapterabout lowering the basement. Theytypically construct window wells forthe basement windows. To achieveVisit-ability, a half bath was addedat the entry area. The overall sizeof the house is identical to the original.
From a livability perspective, thenew design has three major advan-tages to the original model. First, itis has a second bathroom, whichincreases privacy for the familybecause guests do not have to goupstairs. This also makes schedulingaccess to the bathrooms easier for a family with children. In the old
design, there was a lot of extraspace at the entry. In the new model, this space was used to addthe half bathroom, an importantupgrade in quality. As in the Buffaloexample, the ramp adds significantconvenience for bringing things inand out of the home.
The new model cost about $1200more than the old. The Flower CityChapter attributes most of the costto the additional half bath in thehome and they believe it was money well spent. They reportedthat there was no additional cost for grading the site differently. They also reported no additionalcost to dig the basement deeper. As in the first case study, only a negligible amount can be attrib-uted to Visit-ability in this exampleand the result of the redesign,sparked by the goal of achievingVisit-ability, resulted in a more livable home.
Figure 20
Figure 21
When comparing costs between non-Visit-able and Visit-able designs,then, it is important that the essentialfeatures of Visit-ability are not con-fused with other design improve-ments. One must understand thechoices designers make about layout,construction quality, constructionmethods, aesthetics and other issuesand how those choices add to thecost of the home. Although otherimprovements may well be desirableand advisable to include in Visit-able homes, one cannot use them asan argument against Visit-ability. There can be significant increases invalue due to design changes fromthe perspective of safety, aesthetics,livability, long-term maintenance andother factors. Where improvementsare made during the process of creating Visit-ability, as in the Flower City example, one has to
24 I visitability
Cost Versus Value
Clearly it is not always easy to separate out the costs of Visit-abilityfrom the costs of achieving otherdesign goals in real construction projects. Other than in hypotheticalexamples, there are likely to beother differences between an origi-nal design without Visit-ability andthe Visit-able model, and designersand builders will all have their ownpreferred ways of doing things thatdetermines what decisions aboutmaterials and construction quality will be made in the end. If, for example, the Buffalo Chapter hadadopted the same features thatRochester did--lowering the base-ment, grading the driveway andeliminating footings – it is likely thatthere would have been no increasedcost at all for their Visit-able home.
weigh the additional benefits ofthose improvements against thecosts. For example, in market ratehousing, the addition of a half bathcould easily be recouped by aslightly higher selling price. Althoughthe ramp at the rear has an associ-ated cost, it also has a value to the owners. Amortizing $1200 over the course of a 30-year mortgagewould not significantly affect thepurchasing decision. The two casestudies demonstrate that althoughthere may be cost differences associated with the new designs, the value of the improvements more than compensates for theircost. Ultimately, it is the value of the house and what people are willing to pay for it that is the most important concern from a costpoint of view, not just the bottomline cost increases.
25 I visitability
Case Study 1 — Infill Housing
The Summerhill neighborhood iswhere some of the first Visit-ablehomes were built under Atlanta's1992 Visit-ability ordinance. (seefigures 4, 10, and 13) These are single-family homes selling for approximately $150,000 to$225,000. Waivers of utility impactfees were granted to many of thehouseholds based on income guide-lines. This public subsidy requiredthe owners to build Visit-able homes. Approximately 25 houses in the area incorporated the Visit-ability requirements.
Because the homes are in a preser-vation district, building the firstfloors well above grade wasrequired to fit with the existingneighborhood context. All of thehomes have a high front porch with
Case Studies
several steps, and access wasachieved via a wooden ramp leading to a back or side deck.Residents who had Visit-able homesand were not currently disabled inany way reported that rampedaccess and other Visit-able featureswere an asset to them in their daily lives and would have beendesirable as design options regard-less of the ordinance. The rampmade it easier for them to carrygroceries, bicycles and other heavyburdens in and out. There are, however, many new houses in theneighborhood that do not haveaccessible entrances. This occurredbecause the city either allowed some builders to slip past the ordinance, or because they areapplying the ordinance only to thehomes whose households qualify fora waiver of "impact fees" (for utili-ties) based on income.
4
26 I visitability
Case Study 2 — CentennialVillage
Centennial Village is an inner city,Hope VI Public Housing Authorityproject located near Georgia Tech.in Atlanta. Many townhouses werebuilt at three levels of rents: publicassistance, income – based slidingscale, and market rate.
Although the initial set of townhouseswas not Visit-able (Figure 22),Concrete Change succeeded in convincing the Atlanta HousingAuthority to modify their design,which originally included only therequired 5% accessible units.
Ground floor units in the latterphases of the project all have zerostep entries and wide bathroomdoors. A design with two-story town-
houses stacked over single story unitswas adopted to accomplish this goal(Figure 23).
It is important to note that these zero step entrances were achievedon sloping terrain by using creativeplanning and grading of the site.
Parking in the back has direct access to the units on grade. Theentries are nicely designed to define a personal territory for eachunit without raised porches. Streetaccess to some ground floor unitsrequires the use of stairs, but anaccessible path is provided by asidewalk behind a retaining wall(Figure 24). The path and wall created more private open space in front of the ground floor units.
This example demonstrates that Visit-ability requires a new thought
Figure 22
Figure 23
27 I visitability
process. One should not ask, "Howcan I put a compliant ramp on thishouse?" but rather, "How can Iarrive at the outcome I desire, while dealing successfully with theconstraints of the project?"
Case Study 3 — Villages at EastLake
This is another Hope VI developmenton the outskirts of Atlanta. A verylarge project built in two phases, itprovides a good contrast betweenan unfortunate lack of access and an excellent provision of access.Phase I consisted of two-story townhouses. It initially contained only therequired 5% accessible units, leavingthe remaining 60+ town houses withtwo steps up into each home (Figure25).
It was discouraging to ConcreteChange members that these town
homes went up after Visit-ability wasachieved at Centennial Homes, soadvocates organized complaintsabout this oversight and Visit-abilitywas provided in the second part ofPhase I. Over 60 town houses, allhaving zero step entrances and ground–floor half baths withwide doors were constructed. Phase II offers even more commend-able access, including both the 5%full access required by law andwidespread Visit-ability. The building types are a combination of stacked flats designed to appearfrom the outside as multi-storiedtown homes as well as numerous single story duplexes.
Case Study 4 — Habitat forHumanity
Concrete Change also worked withthe Atlanta Habitat for Humanitychapter to build single-family
Figure 24
Figure 25
Figure 26
28 I visitability
Visit-able units. Visit-able featureswere designed to "blend in" with the neighborhood so that access wasprovided without visual impact. Ifproperly achieved, Visit-ability isright in line with one of the goals ofuniversal design – social integration.Visit-ability creates housing that blurs the line between who hasaccessible housing and who has housing that is designed simply forimproved livability.
The Candler Park Neighborhood contains over 20 of the more than300 Visit-able homes the Atlantaaffiliate of Habitat for Humanity hasconstructed to date since first beingpersuaded by Concrete Change tobuild all new homes with Visit-ablefeatures (1989). These very afford-able homes, built partially with
volunteer labor, cost approximately$35,000 – $50,000. They all havezero-step entrances achieved eitherby grading/berming a sidewalk upto a porch or by constructing a shortwooden deck-like ramp. All havecrawl spaces. Access was achievedon a wide variety of terrains, fromlevel to steeply inclined.
As described previously, the RERC on Universal Design at Buffalo hasworked successfully with two localWestern New York chapters ofHabitat for Humanity.
The Habitat chapter in Buffalo wasgenerally enthusiastic about the idea of building accessible homes,but planned on doing so only if aclient currently needed it. The RERCconvinced them to try building Visit-
Figure 27
29 I visitability
able homes as an option for allclients. We helped the chapterredesign their basic model to beVisit-able. Although they initiallyplanned to build only one Visit-ablehome as an experiment during thesummer of 2000, all their clientschose the new plan over the original.What started out as a demonstrationof the benefits of Visit-able featuresbecame three Visit-able units – builtwith the enthusiastic support of thehomeowners. Three more were builtin 2001.
In the spring of 2000, the exec-utive director of the Flower CityChapter of Habitat for Humanity in Rochester, New York attended ahousing conference at which Edward Steinfeld made a presenta-tion on Visit-ability. Prior to the conference, the Flower City Chapterhad been working with advocates at the Center for Disability Rights in
Rochester to design and build accessible homes for specific clients.This contact with the RERC built uponthe previous advocacy efforts andextended the application of accessibility, in the form of Visit-ability, to all new homes builtby the Chapter. After the boarddecided to adopt Visit-ability, thedirector of the Flower City HabitatChapter visited the RERC onUniversal Design at Buffalo, wherehe learned more about the conceptof Visit-ability. Over a period of a few weeks, a new plan for a Visit-able house was developed andreviewed by Center staff. After afew iterations and reviews, theFlower City Chapter adopted thedesign for all its new homes.
Case Study 5 - Co-HousingCommunity, Decatur, GA
This project represents perhaps the
best example of universal designbecause it includes neighborhoodplanning as well as home design.
East Lake Commons is a privatelydeveloped co-housing community inDecatur, where Eleanor Smith andone other wheelchair user live, along with non-disabled neighborsranging in age from a few months to 85 years old. The 64 attachedtown-homes and 3 single-level homes all have zero step frontentrances and 60 are equipped with wide bathroom doors. Visit-ability was adopted by the originalmembers of the group and it hasbecome a universal feature of allhouses built in the community.
No one has problems accessing either public or private spaces within the development. The advan-tages and experience of full accessare shared by all rather than
Figure 31
Figure 29
30 I visitability
causing the social segregation thatresults from partial accessibility.
Figures 28 through 31 illustratethe flexibility of Visit-ability as ahousing design strategy. The ownersof the house in Figure 29 wanted itraised high off the ground. One ofthe owners of the house in Figure 30 uses a wheelchair, so they had it built on grade. The townhouses inFigure 31 are Visit-able with accessfrom the pedestrian path side andhave rental apartments that areaccessible from the rear. Theseapartments are designed to provideeither rental income or serve asgranny flats for aging parents. The central community dining halland recreation building is also fullyaccessible.
Figure 28
Figure 30
31 I visitability
32 I visitability
This section contains a set of strategies for implementing Visit-ability. These strategies are onlyideas for action, not prescriptions.Each one of them requires creativeapplication and should not beviewed as fixed in concrete.
If advocating Visit-ability is some-thing of interest, the first step is toget in touch with the "movement,"and find out what's going on currently. Do this by contactingEleanor Smith, Steven Truesdale, orone of the organizations listed on thecontact list in the Appendix. If thereis a local project in mind, it is best totap into the network of people whohave experience. This will reduce thelearning curve and help make theproject more effective.
Advocacy Strategies
Sec. 504, Rehabilitation Act of1973 (Amended & Re-certified,1992)
Originally touted as the "disabledperson's Bill of Rights," Section 504guarantees the accessibility of anyprogram receiving federal funds.Section 504 requires that only 5% of all units in a project have fullaccessibility. That percentage can be supplemented by providing Visit-ability in all of the remaining units.Visit-ability can also be promoted as a proactive method to reduce theeventual cost and disruption of making accommodations for a person with a disability, should they become necessary later.
Home of Your Own (HOYO)
HOYO is a federal program thatassists persons with disabilities in
5
Figure 33
Figure 32
33 I visitability
purchasing and financing privatehomes. Because federal monies areused to make down payments, andto guarantee mortgage payments inthis program, incentives built into theprogram to include Visit-able designcan be activated (dependent on theproject).
Hope VI
The Hope VI program is a publichousing modernization programadministered by the US Departmentof Housing and Urban Development(HUD) with an emphasis on reducingdensity and creating mixed incomedevelopments. Since the inception ofthe program, funds have beenawarded to a total of 130 HousingAuthorities in 34 states, the Districtof Columbia, Puerto Rico, and theVirgin Islands. The awards for fiscalyear 1999-2000 funded demolition
of almost 97,000 public housingunits and will produce over 61,000 revitalized dwellings.
The program concentrates onreplacing or completely renovating"severely distressed" housing units in large public housing projects,while at the same time creatingmixed income communities.
Competitive proposals are made by private developers to build projects on sites of old public hous-ing projects. The program providesincentives for developers to includeVisit-ability for townhouses and single-family homes.
Consolidated HousingAffordability Strategy Plan
The CHAS requirements support the development (by counties,
Figure 35
Figure 34
34 I visitability
municipalities or consortiums ofmunicipalities) of annual housingaffordability plans, tying receipt ofcertain federal funds to approval of the yearly plan. This process,which includes public comment, provides an opportunity for Visit-ability advocates to have input andmake real changes that have a lasting effect.
Areas not served by municipal publichousing authorities are covered in astatewide plan. By working for theinclusion of Visit-ability incentiveswithin each community or state'sannual CHAS Plan, advocates canhelp change housing policy.
In each jurisdiction seeking to qualify for federal housing fundsfrom HUD a CHAS consolidated plan for federal compliance must be filed. HUD is required by law
to solicit public testimony on its performance and its plans for future programs. By providing oversight to ensure that full compli-ance with the federal law is maintained, advocates can helpensure that newly developed housing projects include both fullyaccessible and Visit-able units.
In cases where Visit-able and accessible units have not beenincluded in projects, it is essential for advocates to provide written and publicly spoken testimony onachieving equity in housing opportunities.
You can view your local community'sCHAS Plan on the Web through theHUD website. HUD also produces aCD-ROM with all CHAS plans acrossthe nation.
Sympathetic Developers
One of the best ways to encourageVisit-ability is to provide recognitionand economic support for both non-profit and profit making devel-opers and builders who are currently knowledgeable about Visit-ability as well as those willingto learn about Visit-ability and itsrequirements in response to custom-ers requests. This means helping them to get projects, recommendingthem to homebuyers and buying their homes or renting their apart-ments. Local advocacy groups canalso provide public recognition fordevelopers who adopt Visit-abilityand help promote such projects asexamples of convenient and safehousing.
35 I visitability
Parade of Homes and Home Shows
"Parades of homes" and modelhomes constructed for home showsare collaborations between builders,developers and realtors. In aparade of homes, a group ofbuilders are organized by realestate developers to build severalhomes in one sub-development.These homes are then open to thepublic for tours. Home shows areexpositions organized by regionalhomebuilders organizations to exhibit building products and publicize home builder services. Fees are often charged for publictours of model homes or to enterhome shows. Often the parade ofhomes and home show models feature innovative ideas.
Figure 36
36 I visitability
The Americans with Disabilities Actdoes not cover housing. But paradesof homes and home show modelsmay be considered public accommo-dations, where the general public is"invited or expected to attend forreasons of commerce, recreation, orassembly..." Title III of the ADA mandates access, at least in part, toall public accommodations. This factmay open the door for Visit-abilityadvocates for collaborations withsponsors to assure the inclusion of atleast Visit-able designs.
Demonstrations serve as educationaltools for both the building industryand the public. Seminars and work-shops can be conducted in conjunctionwith these demonstrations.
City-to-City Training
There are many ways to educatepeople about the advantages of
Visit-ability. Target audiences aregroups of consumers and advocateswho themselves have disabilities (or would find Visit-ability advanta-geous for another reason), housingnetworks and professionals theyinteract with (i.e., Section 8 andSection 202 housing coordinatorslocally and statewide), local devel-opers, landlords, and realtors. Asmore and more Visit-able housingbecomes realized within the commu-nity, training that promotes generalawareness within neighborhoodsmight also be included.
Plan Books
These reference books are preparedby private companies for sale anddistribution to housing builders anddevelopers. Visit-ability advocatescan make a significant impact in thesingle-family market by convincingand helping providers of plan books
Figure 37
Figure 38
to incorporate Visit-able models. The plan books describe the designsand provide some illustrations.Builders select the designs they wantfrom the book and then order theplans for the ones they want to build.Consumers also use these books tofind plans they like and bring themto attention of the builders they hire.
It is surprising how few companiesprovide most of the home plans used in the home building industry,particularly to small builders whodon't have the resources to developtheir own designs. If these companiescan be persuaded to include Visit-able models in their books, thedemand for and supply of Visit-able homes will grow.
If all home plans in these books were Visit-able designs, some argue,the battle for making Visit-ability
37 I visitability
the norm would almost be won.There has been some investigation of this possibility. It turns out, how-ever, that changing all the plans in the current books is an extremelytime consuming and costly proposi-tion. It is more realistic to target onlythe most popular plans for modifica-tion and to introduce enough newVisit-able plans so that, over time,demand will increase the proportionof plans that will be Visit-able.
Manufactured Housing
Mobile and modular homes currentlyaccount for more than one-third ofall housing in the United States. Inmany rural areas, manufacturedhousing is the most common form ofconstruction. Advocates can workwith manufacturers, either individual-ly or as an industry, to introduceVisit-ability in product lines.
Suggestions for specific actions inthis market include:
• Running training programsfor companies producing manufactured housing
• Organizing presentations and discussion on Visit-abilityfeatures through manu-facturer/consumer forums
• Developing sessions at nationalconventions of manufacturedhousing organizations.
Enforcing Existing Codes andOrdinances
Ensuring required accessibility andVisit-ability is a continuous battle.Developers interested in circum-venting accessibility regulations (for specific purposes) often seek
38 I visitability
variances for each phase of a project not in compliance with currentlaws. Often officials reviewing proposed projects are not knowl-edgeable enough to identify lack ofcompliance with accessibility codesand are pressured by politicians toallow variances where there is noneed for them.
Advocates can play a major role in educating officials and supportingtheir efforts to implement existingregulations. Through continuous contact and attendance at codereview meetings where variances are granted, advocates can becomean important force in the process ofproject review. Variance hearingsare public and occur on a regularschedule (and usually within localcommunities or on a regional basis).The public can submit testimony andargue against granting variances.
In this work, organizing the involve-ment and assistance of disabilityadvocacy groups is very effectivebecause these groups can bringmany people to public meetings. This show of force gets the messageacross that there is someone watch-ing and will reduce the number ofunnecessary variances granted. After officials realize that advocatesare helping them to do their job better, they often will develop acooperative relationship with theadvocacy groups, keeping theminformed of developments and asking for their assistance in makingdecisions. This will only happen ifthe advocates are well informed and constructive in their approach.
Financial Incentives
From an advocate's perspective,using tax credits and other financial
incentives to reward contractors,developers, and builders for theinclusion of Visit-able design features may not seem like goodsense. Not only does Visit-abledesign already provide its ownrewards by making homes moremarketable, more sustainable andmore desirable, but the argumentcan also be made that providingmore than these rewards is actuallycounterproductive. Such basic access to society is not seen byadvocates as a favor but as a right. If incentives are provided,builders may demand them beforeincorporating Visit-able features,essentially getting paid to do it.
The goal of Visit-ability advocates is not merely the re-education ofbuilders, developers and contractors.Rather, as Eleanor Smith would say,the goal is "bricks and mortar,"
39 I visitability
seeing Visit-able features and housing materialize in the market-place. Therefore, the inclusion of tax and other incentives for buildersand developers who include Visit-able housing within their projectsshould not be discounted as aresource and a tool, especially if it works on the long term by helping to demonstrate Visit-ability to com-munities which would otherwise notexperience it. Sunset provisionslinked to adoption of Visit-abilityordinances are one good approachto using incentives because they stimulate adoption of the concept but do not have a long-term negative impact.
Legal Action
Despite the fact that hard and fastrights to Visit-ability features in housing are yet in their infancy,
lawsuits can be an effective tool fordemonstrating the inequities in thecurrent housing market. When thegoal is cooperation and participa-tion in changing housing policy, lawsuits can also be counter-productive for three reasons:
• They are by nature adversarialand detract from one of theprimary philosophical goals ofVisit-ability, which is to build acommunity and overcome the"us versus them" mentality.
• Litigation takes time, and whilecourt cases go on, non-Visit-able homes continue to bebuilt.
• Whereas negotiation andadvocacy are an ongoingprocesses, a court ruling can be construed as final.
Where lawsuits are pursued, however, the effectiveness of thecontemplated actions must be evaluated, so that each litigationattempted has the maximum chanceof succeeding. It should be notedthat there has to be a legal basisfor a lawsuit. Where there are noVisit-ability ordinances, there is noviolation of a law due to the lack of Visit-ability. Visit-ability mightcome into play as a remedy for aFair Housing, Section 504 or ADAviolation.
Developers can be offered theoption of providing Visit-ability to new projects as partial compen-sation for violating accessibilitycodes in previous projects, where an extensive renovation of thoseprojects may not be feasible (e.g.condominiums owned by their occupants).
40 I visitability
Regulatory and LegislativeAdvocacy
A primary method of advocacy forVisit-ability is legislative advocacy,that is, amending current housing lawor writing new laws to require theconstruction of Visit-able units.
One of the most direct approaches is to promote specific changes tobuilding codes and zoning ordinances.
Efforts are underway to revise theInternational Code Council modelcode for single-family homes toinclude a no-step entry requirement.Changing model codes is a lengthyand time-consuming process. In thiscase, the International Code Councilholds public hearings around thecountry where advocates can supportor oppose provisions on the agendas.
This process requires careful preparation and submissions prior to announced deadlines. Often,attempts to change model coderequirements are less successful thanefforts to change legislation becausethe model codes are developed byprofessional bodies who are notdependent on votes to maintain their positions.
In the legislature, support can beobtained from members who shareperspectives on the issue and want to help their constituents. The processof legislative advocacy, however, isalso an especially difficult one.Most elected representatives havetheir own beliefs about housingand/or about disability, which mayor may not be well informed. It istherefore important, during anyadvocacy effort, to stress the universal design aspects of
Visit-ability. Advocates who canshow that Visit-ability provides generalized design advantages tothe entire community will be morelikely to convert supporters for thelegislation among citizens who can then help convince local representatives.
Another strategy for winningapproval of legislative initiatives is the development of two bills atlocal or state levels, rather than one.The first would cover projects funded by public funds and the second would cover privately funded projects. There are two reasons for this strategy. The first is to bring the issue to a wider audience. Focusing on publicly funded projects does not raiseawareness in the wider communitybut the argument for Visit-ability iseasier to make in the public sector.
41 I visitability
Having a companion bill for the private sector extends the debate toall citizens and builders even thoughit may be a much harder bill to getpassed. Second, developing twoproposals provides the flexibility foradvocates to negotiate a compromiseby withdrawing the private sector billif there is a lot of opposition to thepublic sector proposal. The privatesector bill can always be broughtback in the future.
Representatives in alliance with thehousing industry, which generallyopposes all attempts to regulatehousing, vigorously contested arecently proposed Texas state ordinance. Advocates in favor ofVisit-ability had to come to the Visit-ability debate in Texas armed withspecific facts to refute, point bypoint, the arguments raised on both
the cost and the space needed toprovide Visit-ability.
It is important that advocates organize and prepare well for such debates. Establishing coalitionswith other interest groups, like tenant associations or neighborhoodredevelopment associations, NewUrbanists and sustainable develop-ment groups, can help to gain wide-spread support. It is critical to plantestimony by many groups of peopleto demonstrate that there is wide-spread interest. Lining up membersof the legislature who have membersof their families who are disabled isa valuable tactic as well, becausethey are more likely to understandthe value of such legislation.
If you are interested in pursuing legislative housing advocacy, there
are many groups that can be ofassistance. Chief among these areConcrete Change, local and regionalIndependent Living Centers (morethan 400 nationwide) and theDisability Rights Action Coalition for Housing chapters.
If you are new to advocacy for legislation, we highly recommendthat you coordinate your efforts with one of these organizations,which have substantial experience in this area. Most of them organizelegislative initiatives each year.Associations of Independent LivingCenters, for example, generallydevelop an annual LegislativeAgenda to inform representatives of the needs and priorities that arecurrent with disabled constituencies.
42 I visitability
Figure 39 Figure 40
43 I visitability
Visit-ability is more than a goodidea, more than a nice extra, morethan a marketing ploy. The abilityto age in place in one's own home,as well as the ability to visit one'sneighbors and become part of thecommunity, should be seen as a civiland a human right.
In writing this booklet, it is not ourintention to suggest (or attempt tomandate) that all people should live in homes that conform to a specific standard. Instead, Visit-ability advocates believe that byrevising our model of housing toaddress the needs of a wider population, doors can be opened,both literally and figuratively, topeople who have had very restrictedhousing options. The vast majority ofexisting housing will never be madeVisit-able or accessible. By focusingon the construction of new Visit-able
Conclusion
housing, we can increase the choicesavailable in our neighborhoods.
We hope that the information in this book has informed you of thebenefits of accessible housing,whether you are a person with adisability or not. If you have a disability, accessibility is sometimesabsolutely necessary for physicalsafety and usability, for convenience,and for security. If you do not havea disability, we urge you to realizethat the word "Visit-ability" is notanother change in politically correctlanguage. Visit-ability is a designstandard that can serve the needs,preferences and abilities of a broad cross-section of society that is currently not served by "standard"housing designs. Chances are thisexpanded cross-section contains you,or someone within your family andyour broader social network.
5
44 I visitability
We believe that Visit-ability makessense for everyone-and that is why it is consistent with the goal of universal design. As a housing strat-egy, Visit-ability allows more choice, flexibility, and options for more people and makes it possible tobecome good friends and neighborswith other people seen and inter-acted with during the course of each day. After reading this booklet, we hope that you join us in viewing this as an important steptoward making our world accessibleand usable for all.
Sources cited:
Schroeder, Steven; Steinfeld,Edward; et.al. The Estimated Cost ofAccessibility. Washington DC: USDepartment of Housing and UrbanDevelopment, Spring, 1979
Steven Winter Associates. The Costof Accessible Housing. WashingtonDC: US Department of Housing andUrban Development, 1993.
45 I visitability
Below is a list of organizations that canhelp readers to obtain more informationand find local resources on Visit-ability.
Christmas in April 1536 Sixteenth St. NWWashington, DC 20036-1402Tel: 202-483-9083www.rebuildingtogether.org
A national volunteer organization whosemission is to preserve and revitalizelow-income housing and communities.
Concrete ChangeEleanor SmithExecutive Director600 Dancing Fox RoadDecatur, GA 30032Tel: 404-378-7455E-mail: [email protected]
A grass roots advocacy organizationproviding leadership in the developmentand dissemination of Visit-ability. TheirWeb site provides information on allaspects of Visit-ability including theactual text of enacted and proposedlocal and state ordinances.
Disability Rights Action Coalition forHousing (DRACH)501 SW Jackson, Suite 100-BTopeka, KS 66803 Tel: 913-233-4572 E-mail: [email protected]
An organization of housing advocateswho have an interest in improving policy on housing for people withdisabilities. The group works with government agencies and legislativebodies to improve access to housing and increase funding.
Habitat for Humanity, International121 Habitat St.Americus, GA 31709Tel: 229-924-6935, ext. 2551 or 2552E-mail: [email protected]
A leading developer of low cost homesusing volunteer labor. The board ofdirectors has endorsed the concept thatall Habitat houses should incorporatebasic features of Visit-ability and theorganization provides technical assistance to local chapters in accessible design.
National Council on IndependentLiving1916 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 209Arlington, VA 22201Tel: 703 525 3406TTY: 703 525 4153E-mail: [email protected]
AppendixA
46 I visitability
An excellent source of information onindependent living and independent living centers. Their Web site has links to most of the major organizations concerned with disability issues.
National Home of Your Own AllianceInstitute on Disability/UAPUniversity of New Hampshire7 Leavitt Lane, Suite 101Durham, NH 03824-3522 Toll free number: 800-220-8770TTY: 603-862-4320www.alliance.unh.edu
This organization provides technicalassistance and information to help people with disabilities obtain a homeof their own. They are currently workingin 23 states.
Rehabilitation Engineering ResearchCenter (RERC) on Universal Design atBuffaloSchool of Architecture and Planning State University of New York at BuffaloBuffalo, NY 14214-3087Tel: 716-829-3485, ext. 329Toll free number: 877-237-4219 x 329E-mail: [email protected]/~rercud
Funded by the National Institute ofDisability and Rehabilitation Research(NIDRR), the Center promotes universaldesign through research, product devel-opment, education and information dis-semination. The Visit-ability Initiative isa project of the Center in cooperationwith Concrete Change. The RERCadministers the Visit-ability-list, a computer discussion list devoted to Visit-ability issues. Instructions for join-ing are available on the center's website under "FAQ."
Rehabilitation Engineering ResearchCenter (RERC) on Universal Design atRaleigh NC State University School of Design Box 8613 219 Oberlin RoadRaleigh, NC 27695-8613Tel/TTY: 919-515-3082 Info Line: 800-647-6777E-mail: [email protected]@ncsu.edu/cud
Also funded by NIDRR, the Center promotes universal design throughresearch, product development, education and information and provides technical assistance to localorganizations on Visit-ability and accessibility in general.
47 I visitability
RESNA 1700 North Moore StreetArlington, VA 22209Tel: 703-524-6686 E-mail: [email protected] www.resna.org
RESNA, the Rehabilitation Engineeringand Assistive Technology Society ofNorth America, provides assistance toTech Act programs across the country.RESNA has an extensive Web site withinformation on housing policy related todisability rights.
U.S. Department of Housing andUrban Development Programs451 7th Street S.W.,Washington, DC 20410Tel: (202) 708-1112 TTY: (202) 708-1455www.hud.gov
HUD distributes an excellent bookletcalled Strategies for ProvidingAccessibility and Visit-ability for HOPE VI and Mixed Finance Homeownership.The Department also administers theComprehensive Housing Assistance Plan process and the HOPE VI Program.Regional HUD offices provide information and technical assistance.All public housing authorities receivefunding from HUD.
48 I visitability
Acknowledgements & Credits
Special Thanks to participants inthe Visit-ability Initiative:
Alberto Barrera, Mark DyerChris Hilderbrant, Jean LangedorfJake Pauls, Darrel PricePat Puckett, Renee RiddleJimmi Schrode, Karen TamleyBecca Vaughn
Photos courtesy of:Edward SteinfeldDanise LevineJake PaulsFlower City Habitat
Figures 36 and 38 appear courtesyof Paul Levy, Universal DesignHousing Network.
Disclaimer:
The Rehabilitation EngineeringResearch Center (RERC) on UniversalDesign at Buffalo is a project of theCenter for Inclusive Design andEnvironmental Access (IDEA). Fundingis provided under a grant,H133E99005, from the US. department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research.
The contents of this resource weredeveloped as a product of the RERCon Universal Design at Buffalo'sVisit-ability Initiative. The informationcontained herein, however, does notnecessarily represent the policy ofthe Department of Education. Thosereading/using this booklet should notassume endorsement by the Federalgovernment.
