|
Winter 2004 Practicing Planner Copyright by American Planning Association
By Joel Casselman One of the significant demographic shifts in the United States in the past two decades has been the increasing proportions of people with disabilities. The Census of 2000 indicates that approximately 20 percent of the American population has a disability of some nature. 1 This increase can be partially attributed to medical advances that allow people born with disabilities to live longer lives and that allow the victims of illnesses and accidents to continue living, albeit with a disability. A second and more significant reason is the increasing number of seniors in society. The 2000 Census indicated 12 percent of all Americans are over the age of 65. By 2030, this figure could be as high as 20 percent to 25 percent of the overall American population. 2 This increase in the population of seniors is accompanied by an increase in the number of people with disabilities. The Census of 2000 indicates that 41.9 percent of all seniors (those age 65 and over) have some form of disability, with approximately 28 percent having a physical disability. 3 Seniors who suffer a temporary disability due to an injury take longer to recover. It must be understood that having a physical disability does not necessarily mean being forced to use a wheelchair or power scooter. Many people with disabilities are ambulatory but have difficulty managing stairs or walking long distances. A variety of legislative approaches has accompanied this increase in persons with disabilities, including those that call for designing and constructing built environments sensitive to people with disabilities. The most prominent piece of legislation is the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Passed in 1990, ADA calls for, among other things, "accessibility to places of public accommodation and commercial facilities by individuals with disabilities." A similar piece of legislation is the Fair Housing Act Amendments. Passed in 1988 as an expansion of the Civil Right Act, this law calls for all new or substantially rehabilitated multifamily housing (i.e., housing with four or more units) to be built with accessible features (i.e., accessible entrances, doors, corridors, reinforced bathroom walls, usable kitchens and bathroom, and accessible climate controls). 4 Home Sweet Home? Although these laws require accessible features in public places and multifamily housing units, they do not call for accessibility in one important part of the built environment: the single-family home. When juxtaposed with the fact that 69 percent of all housing units in the United States are single-family homes, many Americans are living in homes not designed for people with disabilities. The increasing number of people with disabilities brought on by the increase in the number of seniors will only serve to exacerbate this situation. "It's not just unwise, but unacceptable that new homes continue to be built with basic barriers, given how easy it is to build basic access in the great majority of new homes, coupled with the harshness lack of access inflicts on so many people's lives," says Eleanor Smith, founder of Concrete Change, an Atlanta-based disability lobbying organization that promotes basic home access. A study conducted by the American Association of Retired Persons shows that 90 percent of people ages 65 and over want to continue living in their current residence as long as possible. The study also shows that, at present, there are more than one million households with a resident over the age of 65 with a disability in accommodations that lack accessible features. Furthermore, people with disabilities who live in accessible homes (or retirement facilities or similar residences) still need to access the homes of their relatives, friends and neighbors. 5 "Visiting friends and extended family is so much a part of a full life," says Smith, "and basic home access goes beyond visiting. It's also about the home of a person who develops a disability. Without basic access in place, architecture forces severe choices: the disruption and grief of moving out of one's community; expensive renovation — if the home is even amenable to renovation; or existing as a virtual prisoner in an unsafe, unhealthy house." Designing for Visitability One solution to the quandaries described above is a form of accessible housing design known as "visitability." The term was first used in North America in 1990 by Concrete Change. It was apparently first used in Europe to define basic home access, although its origins are uncertain. 6 Visitability calls for all new homes — both single-family and multifamily — to be designed and built with basic level access. As the name suggests, a primary purpose of this design is to allow people with disabilities to independently access the homes of their nondisabled peers. The design also allows the nondisabled to continue residing in their homes should they develop a disability. Basic features of visitability include: at least one level, no-step entrance, accessible doorways on the entry-level floor with a clear width of at least 32 inches (34 inches preferred), and a washroom on the entry-level floor. Other features include:
Unlike other forms of accessible design, visitability does not ensure complete residence accessibility. Rather, it ensures that the principal spaces in a building — the entrance, entry-level floor, and washroom facilities — are accessible to a person in a wheelchair. Other accessible features, such as a roll-in shower or accessible kitchen features, are not requirements for visitability. This design has many benefits for people with disabilities as well as the nondisabled. It allows people with disabilities to access the homes of others and the nondisabled to continue residing in their homes if they develop a disability — temporary or chronic — due to accident, illness, or injury. Homes with basic access features are also marketable to homebuyers with disabilities, who can then modify the home accordingly rather than face the costly expense of retrofitting a nonaccessible home or custom-building an accessible home. People undergoing physical rehabilitation from injury or illness can return home earlier, continuing their rehabilitation on an outpatient basis. Designing for visitability is also convenient to nondisabled persons who are using strollers or carriages, or moving furniture in and out of a home. Smaller people and children benefit from accessible light switches and climate controls. Housing units with visitability features are usually indistinguishable from those without such features. This type of design is also consistent with the concept of "universal design." Unlike early forms of accessible design, which often segregated people with disabilities, universal design involves the design of environments that can be used by a wide range of users, regardless of their age or level of ability. Flexhousing and Lifetime Homes Another form of housing similar to visitability is "FlexHousing." Developed by the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, FlexHouses are "built to adapt to the ever-changing needs of their occupants, including the onset of aging and the development of disabilities." In addition to visitable features, FlexHousing calls for a bedroom on the entry-level floor (which can easily be converted into a home office or storage space) and closets on each floor stacked one above the other (which allows for easy conversion to an elevator shaft. Yet another concept for providing accessible housing for the disabled is the "Lifetime Home" developed in the United Kingdom by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (a nonprofit British housing organization) and various British housing and disability groups. 7 This form of housing is mandatory for all social housing built in Wales and Northern Ireland. The idea of Lifetime Home is to meet the housing needs of people with disabilities without focusing exclusively on them. As is the case with FlexHousing, Lifetime Home is described as "properties built to a design which will meet the needs of an occupier throughout his or her lifetime." As with FlexHousing, Lifetime Home goes beyond visitability by requiring a bedroom on the entry-level floor, future space for an elevator, and wider stairways that can accommodate a chairlift should the need arise. Pay Now or Pay Later Concrete Change estimates that the costs of implementing such features at the time of construction are minimal. The cost of building a zero-step entrance is $150 and the cost of building wider doorways is $50 for the entire home. 8 The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation estimates the cost of installing reinforcements (to allow the future installation of grab bars) in washroom walls ranges from $50 to $90 ($38 to $68 U.S.). 9 The Rowntree Foundation estimates that the cost of implementing visitable features at the time of construction is no more than 200 pounds ($365 U.S). 10 When several visitable townhouse developments in Atlanta were built, the developer estimated that the costs of providing visitable features was no more than $25 per home. 11 In contrast, retrofitting a home to accommodate visitable features is costly. Concrete Change estimates the cost of adding a zero-step doorway to a pre-existing home is $1,000 and the cost of widening a doorway is $700 per doorway. 12 The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation estimates the cost of installing reinforcements in an existing bathroom is $530 Canadian ($400 U.S.). 13 In Macon County, Georgia, the cost of retrofitting existing units for visitability ranged from an estimated $7,500 to $15,000, depending on the age of the unit. 14 The first known local ordinance containing concepts of visitability was adopted in Atlanta in 1992. That ordinance, which applies to all single-family homes built with government funds, requires such homes to be built with a no-step entrance with a 32-inch opening, 32-inch doors with lever handles throughout the home, reinforcements in washroom walls to allow for the installation of grab bars, light switches and climate controls located between 15 inches and 48 inches from the floor, and corridors at least 36 inches wide. 15 Since the passage of that ordinance, other jurisdictions in the United States have followed suit, requiring homes built with public finds to have visitable features. These jurisdictions include: Iowa City, Iowa; Urbana, Illinois; Chicago; St. Petersburg, Florida; and the states of Georgia, Texas, Kansas and Minnesota. At present, the Inclusive Home Design Act has been presented before the U.S. Congress. If passed, this act will require all new single-family homes and townhouses built with federal funds to have visitable features. 16 Other jurisdictions in the U.S. have gone beyond the above mandates and required all new homes, built with or without public funds, to have visitable features. These jurisdictions are Bolingbrook and Naperville, Illinois; Pima County, Arizona; and the State of Vermont. The most comprehensive visitability legislation is the United Kingdom's Single Family Access Law. Passed in 1998, this law requires all new homes in the United Kingdom (England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland) to have visitable features. All of the ordinances in these jurisdictions require the minimum visitability features of a no-step entrance (with the exception of the State of Vermont), doorways that are wide enough to accommodate a wheelchair (32 inches), and a washroom on the entry-level floor. Some jurisdictions require features such as accessible light switches, electrical sockets and climate controls, reinforcements in washrooms for the installation of grab bars, and lever handles on doorways. Although these latter features contribute to making the home accessible, they are not required for visitability. From Planning for to Planning by A survey of visitability ordinances in the United States and United Kingdom conducted by the author shows one important commonality: The ordinances were not initiated by local governments, housing authorities, or planning agencies. They were implemented because of intense lobbying by organizations representing persons with disabilities, often alongside community activists and seniors' rights groups. This lobbying included testimony at public hearings and meetings and educational materials for the governments and the community at large, to inform them about the benefits of visitability and to counter arguments put forth by opponents. In addition to lobbying, the disability community has participated in the development of visitability ordinances by writing drafts and working with planning agencies to rewrite the building code to allow for visitability. 17 In some instances, the involvement of the disability community goes beyond lobbying and participation. In Atlanta, for instance, Concrete Change worked with a local chapter of Habitat for Humanity to build several visitable homes. In the United Kingdom, disability groups worked with various housing groups and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation to design and build "lifetime homes," which, as explained above, is housing to meet the needs of people with disabilities but without focusing on them exclusively. This involvement, particularly the activity of designing and building visitable homes, may lead to a new direction in planning processes that better involves marginalized groups. Much of the participation described above has gone beyond simply playing an advisory role. The disability community has acted as a partner in preparing ordinances requiring visitable homes and actually designing and building visitable homes. Historically, planning has been done for marginalized groups, without actually consulting them to determine their needs and concerns. More recently, however, the trend has been toward planning with these groups, with members of the groups being involved in the planning process. The heavy involvement of the disability community in implementing visitability may indicate that planning processes are evolving toward planning by the marginalized groups. The role of the planner in such a process is that of a facilitator or mediator, offering his or her knowledge of the planning process as part of a bottom-up process. The concept of planning by people with disabilities has long been a hallmark of the Independent Living Movement. That movement rests on the belief that people with disabilities have the right to have as much control over their lives as possible. The aim of Independent Living is to allow people with disabilities to integrate as fully as possible into their community, as opposed to institutionalization. This does not mean people with disabilities will always be living on their own; rather, they decide what type of assistance they receive, should such assistance be necessary. 18 A Common Enemy Another commonality encountered by visitability advocates is the opposition of the homebuilders industry to visitability ordinances. A survey of visitability ordinances, including the adoption processes, conducted by the author finds the local homebuilding industry is often staunchly opposed to visitability mandates. When an ordinance is proposed, the industry uses its power to oppose it, claiming the ordinance will increase construction and labor costs. After the passage of visitability ordinances, however, most homebuilders have simply accepted the new mandate and moved on. A small minority of homebuilders recognize visitability's financial and marketing benefits. In one jurisdiction, the builders industry fought (unsuccessfully) in the courts to have the ordinance overturned, claiming it was unconstitutional. 19 Further Directions Although visitability allows for people with disabilities to access the homes of their nondisabled peers, as this article has shown, it is by no means the only method of integrating people with disabilities into the built environment. People with disabilities share the same values as those who advocate the dense, pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use developments that are the hallmark of the New Urbanism. Auto-dependant urban sprawl creates a struggle for those with mobility and other disabilities. However, when many New Urbanist developments are built, their housing is inaccessible as well. This creates a scenario that is contradictory to the diverse intergenerational community that is supposedly the hallmark of the New Urbanism. To its credit, the Congress for the New Urbanism has agreed to endorse a visitability agenda to make New Urbanist housing accessible. 20 However, to simply have accessibility requirements when planners are unaware of the reason for these requirements does little, if anything, to raise the awareness of disability issues within the planning profession. If visitability and other forms of access legislation are to be truly effective, planners and other design professionals must be aware of the problems that people with disabilities (both physical and non-physical) face in accessing the built environment. This requires that planners increase their awareness of disability issues. Joel Casselman is a recent graduate of the Department of City Planning at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. jr_casselman@yahoo.com. Credits: The research conducted for this article was done
with the assistance of the G. Clarence Elliott Fellowship. Notes 1. Characteristics of the Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population by Age, Disability Status, and Type of Disability: 2000. (www.census.gov/hhes/www/disable/disabstat2k/table1.html) 2. Zola, Irving. 1989. Toward the Necessary Universalizing of a Disability Policy. Milibank Quarterly 67; 401-428. 3. Characteristics of the Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population by Age, Disability Status, and Type of Disability: 2000. (www.census.gov/hhes/www/disable/disabstat2k/table1.html) 4. Kochera, Andrew. 2002. Accessibility and Visitability Features in Single Family Homes: A Review of State and Local Activity. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Retired Persons. 5. Kochera 2002. 6. Eleanor Smith. 2002. (personal correspondence). 7. Dodd, Trevor. 1998. "Regulations, Standards, Designs and Plans," in Ruth Bull, ed., Housing Options for Disabled People. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers 8. Concrete Change, Inc. 2003. Visitability website: www.concretechange.org/cost.htm 9. Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation. 2000. Flexhousing: The Professionals Guide. Ottawa: CMHC. 10. Concrete Change, Inc. 2003. www.concretechange.org/uknews.htm 11. Overton, J. 2000. Visitability Improves Access for All. Housing Research Foundation. www/housingresearch.org/hrf 12. Concrete Change, Inc. 2003. Visitability website: www.concretechange.org/cost.htm 13. Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation. 2000. Flexhousing: The Professionals Guide. Ottawa: CMHC. 14. Overton, J. 2000. Visitability Improves Access for All. Housing Research Foundation. www/housingresearch.org/hrf 15. Concrete Change, Inc. www.concretechange.org/laws.htm. 16. Concrete Change, Inc. www.concretechange.org/laws.htm. 17. Casselman, Joel. 2003. Developing a Visitability Housing Policy for the Province of Manitoba. Unpublished Thesis, University of Manitoba. 18. Independent Living Resource Centre-ILRC. 2003. Mission Statement. 19. Casselman, Joel. 2003. Developing a Visitability Housing Policy for the Province of Manitoba. Unpublished Thesis, University of Manitoba. 20. Szold, Terry. 2002. What Difference Has the ADA Made? Planning 68, 4: 10-15. |
| |
Printer-Friendly Format
