Search is underway for accord on ‘visitability’

Leading figures in the Congress for the New Urbanism are trying to overcome a simmering conflict with advocates of the disabled. For more than two years, groups such as the Disability Rights Action Coalition for Housing (DRACH) have complained that people with infirmities have trouble entering many houses in new urbanist developments because the porches, entrances, and first floors are elevated above street level (see Sept. 2002 New Urban News). Now a CNU working group is quietly trying to resolve the issue without sacrificing important urban design aims. Ray Gindroz, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and other leaders of CNU have been discussing the problem with representatives of disability rights groups, trying to reach an agreement that would satisfy both sides. “We’re trying to come up with a plan to increase the prominence of ‘visitability’ issues,” said David Hudson at CNU headquarters in Chicago. Illustrations posted on the CNU website will probably be changed to display some house designs that feature at-grade entrances. As part of the discussions, CNU representatives have been meeting with Access Living, a Chicago-based organization that recently succeeded in getting the City of Chicago to adopt accessibility and visitability standards for some newly built housing in the city. Exactly what may result from CNU’s discussions with Access Living and other disability rights proponents is unclear. “There isn’t any grand plan at this point,” Hudson said. He noted that CNU is not endorsing “universal [mandatory] standards” for design. Instead, CNU is likely to promote voluntary “best practices” that deliver visitability. “We’re just asking that you [CNU] educate your members about the concept and implement it wherever feasible,” said Darrell Price, housing policy coordinator for Access Living, cofounder of DRACH. “We don’t want the sun and the stars.” The two key requests of the disability groups are: • One “zero-step entrance” at each home. The step-free entrance may be located on the front, back, or side of the home — wherever topography suggests, said Eleanor Smith, founder of Concrete Change, an Atlanta-based disability rights group. That entrance should be reachable from a firm surface such as a sidewalk or driveway. • A half-bathroom on the first floor, with a door at least 32 inches wide, so that a disabled person would have access to a bathroom while visiting. Distinct from accessibility Visitability, also known as “inclusive home design,” is not as far-reaching as “accessibility.” Accessibility requirements generally demand bathrooms large enough for a person to comfortably turn a wheelchair in them, and that the entire dwelling, not just the first floor, accommodate the needs of a disabled person. The visitability issue arose because new urbanists often build houses with first floors and front porches raised three feet or so above the streets and sidewalks. High first floors allow houses to be placed close to the sidewalks and streets without putting the interiors on display to passersby. Designers explain that if houses were required to be built at the same level as the streets and sidewalks, the residents’ privacy would be compromised — unless the houses were set far back from the public way. Steve Mouzon of PlaceMakers noted that few people enjoy occupying a porch unless it’s higher than the passing pedestrians. Smith, at Concrete Change, said, “Typical new urbanist neighborhoods are dominated by new homes that make it unwise — or impossible — for elderly or disabled people to move in, and impossible for many existing residents to remain in their neighborhood if they develop an impairment.” Steps at every entrance and narrow bathroom doors are barriers that “harshly impact the lives of not just wheelchair users but also those who use walkers or have limited mobility because of weakness, stiffness, or poor balance,” Smith asserted. She urged planners and designers to “take positive action on the great majority of lots” where zero-step entrances are doable, and “not to wait for a law or a large, coordinated CNU initiative.” As of 2002, nearly 3 million people used a wheelchair and another 9 million used a cane, crutches, or a walker, according to census figures cited by Smith. The number of people over 70 years old is rapidly increasing, and modern medical procedures are also keeping alive many more people who lose their mobility as a result of brain injuries. In recognition of these difficulties, municipalities and states have started requiring “visitability” or other access requirements in some or all new housing in their jurisdiction — especially if the dwellings are government-subsidized. At the CNU annual conference in Chicago in June, a panel discussed the issue. Afterward, intense debate cropped up on Pro-Urb, the new urbanist Internet discussion group. Bruce F. Donnelly, a planning consultant in Shaker Heights, Ohio, said that if entries without steps become mandatory, it will be impossible to construct buildings that have some of their units half submerged and other units half a level up above the ground or higher. Elevators are too expensive for most small buildings containing just a few units, Pro-Urb participants observed. Some predicted that visitability demands could make it hard to build rowhouses and walkup apartments. Some Pro-Urb correspondents agreed with Smith that visitability ought to be strongly pursued. One hope is that if new urbanists make common cause with the disabled, the two groups may form a stronger combined front against sprawl — a form of development poorly suited to people who don’t drive. Murphy Antoine of Torti Gallas and Partners in Silver Spring, Maryland, said his firm, influenced by the requirements of the federal HOPE VI public housing redevelopment program, has been trying to develop housing types that provide visitability but also fit the context. The goal, he said, is “to find common ground.” u