Presentation on theme: "Visitability, Universal Design & Residential Enviornments L. Scott Lissner ADA Coordinator Ohio State University"— Presentation transcript:
Visitability, Universal Design & Residential Enviornments L. Scott Lissner ADA Coordinator Ohio State University ADA-OSU@OSU.EDU Http://ADA.OSU.EDU
Defining the Problem Housing communities in Atlanta and Decatur, GA v.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…
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 - 6970 - 7475-7980 + Percent with Any Disability Percent with Severe Disabilit y Percent of Population
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, GACourtesy of CNU
1996 1991 Obesity Trends* Among U.S. Adults BRFSS, 1991, 1996, 2004 (*BMI 30, or about 30 lbs overweight for 54 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 &StructuresActivities&Participation Environmental Factors BarriersFacilitators FunctionsStructuresCapacityPerformance
Health Condition ( disorder/disease ) Interaction of Concepts Interaction of Concepts www.who.int/classification/icf Environmental Factors Personal Factors Body function & structure Impairment ActivityLimitation Participation 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 Flexibility in 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
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 peoples 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 ConstructionRetrofitting 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)
MandatoryVoluntary Publicly Funded Housing All New HomesBuilder IncentivesConsumer 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:
MandatoryVoluntary Publicly Funded Housing All New HomesCash Incentives Awareness 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