VISITABILITY -- MORE FREEDOM OF CHOICE

“We shape our dwellings…and later our dwellings shape us.” – Winston Churchill

Housing is the place we make our home, and home is a highly personal space where we make our lives. Home is an inextricable part of our identity. It becomes who we are and what we’re about.

 

Neither the ADA nor the Fair Housing Act requires accessible features in single-family homes built by private developers. Why does this matter? Because 69 percent of all housing units in the U.S. are single-family homes.

 

That means more than two-thirds of the housing in America is not required to be accessible to people with disabilities.

 

Visitability is an international movement to change home construction practices so that new homes offer three specific accessibility features. It’s similar to universal design, but very focused in scope and more about social reform. The three basic elements found in most visitability laws are:

• At least one zero-step entrance on an accessible route leading from a driveway or public sidewalk.
• All interior doors providing at least 31 ¾ inches (81 cm) of unobstructed passage space.
• At least a half bathroom on the main floor.
   
  Visitability is not about complete residence accessibility but access to principal spaces. Other features -- a roll-in shower or accessible kitchen features -- are typically not requirements found in visitability laws.
   
  In a study conducted by AARP, 90 percent of people ages 65 and over want to continue living in their current residence as long as possible; they want to age in place. In the U.S., more than one million households with a person with a disability over the age of 65 are inaccessible. As more Baby Boomers struggle with mobility, the numbers will only increase.
  BUILDER Online, a publication aimed at home builders, says U.S. Census data shows the number of Americans 65 and up will rise significantly between now and 2020. This means they’ll be an upswing in the desirability of aging-in-place home features accompanying the increase of multigenerational homes. Demand will only grow for residential designs that anticipate changes in health, vision or mobility. Such features ensure that homes are not only safe and comfortable, but also aesthetically pleasing.
  Such features include:

• Main living areas on the ground floor
• No steps between living areas
• Hallways at least 4 feet wide
• Interior doors 36-inches wide with levered hardware
   
  These features provide a basic shell of access to permit formerly non-disabled people to remain in their homes if they develop a disability, rather than forcing them to do expensive renovations, live in an inaccessible home which endangers their health and safety, or move from their community into a nursing home.
   
  Folks undergoing physical rehabilitation from an injury or illness can return home earlier, continuing their rehab on an outpatient basis. Designing for visitability is also convenient to people without disabilities who use strollers or carriages. It certainly makes it easier to move furniture or bring in a load of groceries.
   
  And true to its name, visitability make it easier for people who develop a mobility impairment to visit friends and extended family rather than having to turn down invitations, or not be invited at all.
   
  I can already hear the naysayers complaining that visitability equals utilitarian ugliness. Truth is, houses with visitability features are usually indistinguishable from those without them.
   
  Other objections? Check out 9 Myths and Facts About Visitability: http://concretechange.org/visitability/9-myths-and-facts-about-visitability/

UNIVERSAL DESIGN AND INCLUSIVITY, or will you let me in the dang door?

Some pioneers aren’t household names -- yet. You may not have heard of Ron Mace. He was an architect, product designer and educator whose approach to design challenged convention. He envisioned a world that was more user-friendly to everyone, and coined the term “universal design.”

Universal design is about making products and built environments that are both aesthetically pleasing and welcoming to all. Not just people with disabilities and older folks with mobility issues, but also speakers of other languages; parents pushing strollers; pedestrians on foot, bicycle or alternative mobility device; or people with temporary disabilities or recovering from injuries. Its core value is creating environments that can be used by a wide range of users, regardless of ability.

To boil it down to one word: inclusivity.

Sounds positive and egalitarian, right? Well, not to some design professionals out there.

There are some folks who believe universal design is overly restrictive, unfair – even downright dangerous. They say it’s too limiting, that it caters to the few at a cost to the majority. They believe that if universal design concepts are incorporated into building codes, we’ll end up with a world filled with ugly structures and streetscapes, a world where creativity is quashed by some sort of misguided attempt to include all members of society.

Perhaps they have a point. I mean, building and fire code requirements about plumbing and electricity and exits are pretty darn restrictive. We would probably have a much more attractive and inviting built environment if raw sewage could simply be piped out to open ditches. Or if wiring could be done any which way – fire hazards be damned -- and paths of egress took a back seat to creative design.

And why is access for people who aren’t five feet nine, 175 pounds and athletic so darned important anyway? Why should we care if people in wheelchairs can’t get to a workplace to earn a paycheck because there are steps at the entrance? What does it matter to the global economy if products are designed counter-intuitively, making them unmarketable where people don’t all speak the same language? Does it really make a difference if people can’t age in place in their homes or communities because they can no longer climb stairs?

I’ll let you be the judge.