Visitability, Universal Design& Residential Enviornments

L. Scott LissnerADA Coordinator Ohio State University

ADA-OSU@OSU.EDU Http://ADA.OSU.EDU

Defining the Problem

Housing communities in

Atlanta and Decatur, GA

v.

Many homes and neighborhoods are inaccessible or

“off-limits” to a large part of the population.

– 5% of U.S. population used some kind of mobility device in 1994, approximately 14 million persons (U.S. Census, 2000).

– 3% of Americans lived in homes with any kind of accessibility features, although almost 30% of families contained at least one member with a disability (Kaye, 1997).

– Over one-million households that have a resident with a disability have unmet housing needs (Kochera, 2002).

Impact of Basic Barriers on People with

Mobility Impairments:

– Social isolation– Compromised health and safety– Premature institutionalization

This current problem will only increase over time…

Aging of the Population:

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001

Rise in Disabilities: U.S. Disability Rate by Age

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

65-69 70-74 75-79 80+

Percent with Any Disability

Percent with Severe Disability

Pe

rce

nt

of

Po

pu

lati

on

Federal legislation does not apply to single family housing– The Fair Housing Act Accessibility Guidelines (FHAAG) cover only

multifamily dwelling units.

– Townhouses and single family detached homes are not covered by the FHAAG.

Housing community in Atlanta, GA

Courtesy of CNU

19961991

Obesity Trends* Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 1991, 1996, 2004

(*BMI 30, or about 30 lbs overweight for 5’4” person)

No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% ≥25%

2004

Source: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, CDC.

Models of Disability• Medical Model

– Based on diagnosis – Resides in the individual

• Social Model– Based on interaction between conditions of

people & conditions of the environment– Resides in the interaction

Which is more relevant for a designer?

Body Functions&

Structures

Activities &

Participation

Environmental Factors

Barriers

Facilitators

Functions

Structures

Capacity

Performance

Health Condition (disorder/disease)

Interaction of Concepts www.who.int/classification/icf

Environmental Factors

Personal Factors

Body function & structure

Impairment

ActivityLimitation

ParticipationRestriction

Universal Design is:• Market driven• A process not a goal• Minimizing incompatibilities between conditions of people

and their environment• About form and function• Incorporates awareness of all users needs• Comfortable & safe for widest possible range of potential

users• Inclusive• Requires the mindful creativity of the designer

Universal Design is not:• Compliance with minimum accessibility regulations• Adding on a ramp or accessible features• One size fits all

Equitable Use

Flexibilityin Use

Simple and Intuitive Use

Perceptible Information

Size and Space for Approach and Use

Low Physical Effort

Tolerance for Error

The Principles work most effectively when used together

What is Visitability?

What is Visitability?

In 1986, Concrete Change sought to make new homes “accessible enough” for a visitor with a disability.

This concept was called “visitability”.

Three Principles of Visitability

1. Social participation is a civil right

Visiting other people’s homes is

as important to people with

mobility limitations as it is to other

people

2. Access is cost-effective if planned in advance

New Construction Retrofitting

Zero-Step Entrance $150 $1,000

Widen Interior Doors $50 $700

Total Cost$300

(or 1/3 cost of a bay window)

$7,500-$15,000 per unit, for older units

Source: Overton, 2000; Concrete

Change

3. Simplicity promotes implementation (Rodgers, 2002)

Attributes of Innovation that Enhance its Adoption Rate:

1. Relative Advantage

2. Compatibility

3. Complexity

4. Trialability

5. Observability

Visitability Features One zero step entrance on an accessible path of travel 32 inches of clear opening at doorways and accessible circulation

throughout the floor plan Basic access to at least one bath or half bath on the ground floor

Step-less entrance Bathroom access

Accessible circulation

Variation in Visitability Programs

Jurisdiction• State• Local• Federal

Scope• Three visitability features• Additional features

Enforcement• Mandatory – (Publicly Funded Housing, All New Homes)

• Voluntary – (Cash Incentives, Awareness Campaigns, Certification Programs)

Mandatory Voluntary

Publicly Funded Housing All New Homes Builder Incentives Consumer Incentives

Texas (1999) Florida (1989) Illinois (2002) Georgia (1999)

Georgia (2000) Vermont (2000) Pennsylvania (2004) Virginia (1999) 

Minnesota (2001)   Georgia (2002)   

Kansas (2002)     

Kentucky (2003)     

 

Oregon (2003)

Michigan (2006)     

 

Types of State Visitability Programs:

Mandatory Voluntary

Publicly Funded Housing

All New Homes Cash IncentivesAwareness Campaigns and

Certification Programs

Atlanta, GA (1992) Naperville, IL (2002)Freehold Borough, NJ (1997)

Irvine, CA (1999)

Austin, TX (1998) Pima County, AZ (2002) Southampton, NY (2002) San Mateo County (2001)

Urbana, IL (2000) Bolingbrook, IL (2003) Southampton, NY (2002) Visalia, CA (2001)

Fort Worth, TX (2000)   Escanaba, MI (2003) Albuquerque, NM (2001)

Long Beach, CA (2002)   Houston, TX (2004) Onondaga County (2002)

San Antonio, TX (2002)     Syracuse, NY (2003)

Iowa City, IA (2002)      Sacramento, CA (2003) 

Chicago, IL (2003)      Prescott Valley, AZ (2005) 

St. Petersburg, FL (2004)

Toledo, OH (2005)

Auburn, NY (2005)

Scranton, PA (2005)

Arvada, CO (2005)

Types of Local Visitability Programs

Federal Visitability Bill

U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D.-Ill.) first introduced H.R. 2353, The Inclusive Home Design Act, in June 2003. On March 17, 2005, she reintroduced the Inclusive Home Design Act. For the 109th Congress, the bill number will be HR 1441.

"It defies logic to build new homes that block people out when it's so easy and cheap to build new homes that let people in," says Schakowsky.

The bill currently has 36 cosponsors and is in committees.

Rep. Jan. Schakowsky

Important Barriers and Policy Issues

Surrounding UD Neighborhoods

Housing community in

Decatur, GA

Lack of cost information

Problems with groups organizing initiative

Legal restrictions

Opposition from homebuilders

Delayed by political process

Reasons Cited for Lack of Implementation

Value Conflicts: Equity vs. Livability

Primary Purpose: Social Participation vs. Aging in Place

Level of Access: Basic vs. Full

Type of Program: Mandatory vs. Voluntary

Courtesy of CNU

Policy Issues