Monday Links

Hmm, answer yesterday did not post.

Thanks for the thoughtful responses to a difficult issue, I suspect yours is a voice in the wilderness. Most of the time I read about hard-liners whose requirements and attitudes would force a minimal improvement at maximum disruption, but I’m sure I exaggerate also.

Research on new technologies would be preferable. The Segway technology has led to stair climbing wheelchairs, for example, which could be heavily subsided by our govt. at a fraction of the cost of much ADA policing. But instead of looking for new ways to solve the problem, we throw money at the lowest-common-denominator-ization of the environment.

But then, the issue is so fraught with landmines, I mean, how do you argue against “accessibility” even if there’s merit in the argument?

As you say. devil’s in the details. I would say that buildings should be subject to different standards based on size and maybe even on typology–it’s obviously easier to design accessibility into a large apartment building or a ranch-style house than a new brownstone.

And we need to get away from the concept that everyone is alike and their needs are equally valid. If you’re disabled, you’re different. Just as if I had a condition that makes me unable to stand the cold and therefore I couldn’t live in NY, maybe we should consider that a dense, older, urban place like NYC is just going to be less accessible…as what makes this place attractive and aesthetically pleasing is often the antithesis of accessible design.

And consider simpler solutions…the kneeling bus, for example, a complex, expensive, breakdown prone, slow disaster. How much easier would it have been if we built a concrete sidewalk ramp so wheelchairs could roll on a standard bus? And it would be a boon to older people as well.

Finally, back to the NYT article; it’s so misleading, not the least because the apartment shown is clearly not accessible in any way…range instead of cook top, no sink cutout, etc.

Ah, perhaps something to disagree about, bxgrl. While it’s laudable to have disabled standards for everything from houses to parks, I must say the rigidity with which disabled advocates prevent or force change, abetted by the ADA rules, is not in the best interests of the community.

Ramps are good; forcing them to deface the facade of an 18th century building is bad. Preventing the placement of public toilets for decades because they didn’t exactly match ADA standards (NYC, San Francisco) is poor policy. Having to design outdoor spaces, including parks, as dully as possible because we should allow for the disabled, is ridiculous.

And as for townhouses without stoops…what can I say? Why, for example, is the under-stoop entrance (if at grade,) not considered adequate?

Finally, note the cleverly-posed NY Time picture with the lady in the wheelchair contorted to load the d/w. If she had entered the kitchen backwards, there’d be no issue.