Re: [GBlist] EcoCondos in Montreal / Accessible housing

[susannah@cyber-dyne.com]

Whew, where to start? 
:-)

Renting or buying a home that's already accessible is not generally an
option in most U.S. markets, assuming one also needs to meet other
criteria such as neighborhood, style, price, size, etc.  What people
generally end up doing is renting or buying a place, and then doing
extensive remodeling before they move in.  For those who can't
afford it, there is not generally any funding available to help, except
local funding in well-off areas.  AFAIK, there are no national
programs.  Those who can't afford extensive remodeling end up having
to live in segregated federally-funded housing, even if they could have
afforded to purchase their own home without the extensive remodel. 
Most residents in such housing are not only disabled, but also
elderly.  You can imagine that for a family with young children, and
one disabled child or parent, it is difficult to live in a neighborhood
without other young children, and in an apartment building were all the
neighbors are elderly.  (Please don't interpret this as implying
that I don't like elderly people -- I do.  But some of them might
not find their lifestyles compatible with young children.)

Single-stories or elevators are not the only economical ways to build
housing that's accessible.  There is a standard that's less rigorous
than fully accessible, often called "visitable".  The idea
is that your disabled friends can visit, or if you break your leg you
don't have to move in with your (potentially uncompatible)
mother.   Most but not all of the ground floor, particularly
the entrance, common areas, one bedroom and one bathroom, are
accessible.  There may be other bedrooms upstairs, a basement or
attic, etc. that are not accessible.  Some cities of the U.S.
require that all new construction be visitable -- I think Atlanta is
one.  They have reported that this adds an average of $0 to new home
construction.  Remodeling after-the-fact, is of course considerably
more expensive.

The green part:  While there do exist a few people who will have
perfect health and no injuries until they read reach a ripe age, and a
few others who will die young, most people will have one or more periods
of a year or longer, in young adulthood or middle age, when they are laid
up -- a back injury, or mono, or a complex leg fracture, for
example.  Is it really realistic to expect people to move out of
their homes,  into subsidized housing, and then back into a new
house after they recover?  That's our current system, but it doesn't
seem like a particularly green or efficient use of resources to me. 
For folks with a permanent disability, is it realistic or green to do an
extensive remodel every time they move?

I do believe that our history of segregation in this country gives us a
very unrealistic view of how many people are disabled at a given time --
the old "out of sight, out of mind" effect.  This may
mislead designers into the impression that building with disabled people
in mind benefits only a tiny fraction of the population.  There is
also a common, but mistaken, belief that disabled people's living needs
are all taken care of by the government or by health insurance.  In
the building arena, these ideas may be translated into beliefs that there
is already enough accessible housing available, or that all disabled
people are over 65, or that they don't have young kids or jobs,
etc.  Of course becoming temporarily disabled oneself, or having a
close family member who does, cures at least some of these illusions
:-).

I saved the most controversial bit for last.  A building, apartment,
or house that isn't visitable is a building that has an invisible sign
posted: "Disabled folks not allowed".  I wonder if twenty
years from now we'll look at such buildings the way we now look at water
fountains with "whites only" signs.  With all the loud,
proud baby boomers rapidly aging, stranger things have 
happened.