|
Future o{ Telco Hotels
<br />Telco hot~t~ ~re e×perienc~§ §row~ in d~e Unked S~. ~
<br />have ~xp~ded b~ond a ~ew major cid~ [o m~icip~6~
<br />~ve nor previomly d~c wi~ ~is l~d ~e. "The September t 1
<br />event is reposed to have incr~ed inrer=r in telecom space ~
<br />Ad~m," ~cicor not=. "Mmy compri= seem ro now believe
<br />confining ~eir &tn ~d co~uNmfion ~c~d= in one [omdon
<br />m~ ~em ~nemble to gsrem ~s~b~c=, ~ such, ~ere ~
<br />reposed ro be interest in telecom space ~ Ad~m" Cid= w~ need
<br />ro integrate relco hore~ into ~eir currem lind-me plmng
<br />s~tegim ~d zoning r~atiom. Defidfions ~d toting
<br />req~remen= for relco horeh depend l=gely on ~e cont~r. Su~
<br />h~on = building confi~adon, lomrion wi~n a m~idp~,
<br />p=~ng demmd, ~c cong~don, md acfivi~ ar steer l~et ~e
<br />impo~r ~ ~s=sing how m r~are telco horeh.
<br />
<br />For More Information:
<br />
<br />Need more information on this new phenomenon? APA
<br />has just released PAS Report No. 505, T~tecom Hoteh:A
<br />Planners Guide, b~' Jennifer Evans-Cowley. Cowl~:y is
<br />currently an assistant professor of City and Regional
<br />Planning ar the Austin Knowlton School of~'chitecmre
<br />ar Ohio State University. The 24-page report, available
<br />through the Planners Book Service, costs $34.
<br />
<br />NEWS E~RIEFS
<br />
<br />V|sitability Issues Drive
<br />Building Code Changes
<br />
<br />WHEREAS, people over 65 are the fastest growing sector of the
<br />American population and life expectancies continue to increase;
<br />
<br />WHEREAS,whether due to injury or age, there is a great
<br />likelihood for all of us at some time in our life, to suffer a
<br />temporary or permanen£ condition that iimir~ mobility or r. he
<br />ability m perform daily tasks of living...
<br />
<br /> SO begins the "Inclusive Home Design Ordinance" passed
<br /> by the Pima County, Arizona, Board of Supervisors on
<br /> February 5. On the very same day, the city' of Naperville,
<br /> illinois, adopted an ordinance with similar provisions. Both
<br /> amend secrions of their respective building codes, mandating
<br /> inclusive design features for the disabled or those with
<br /> restricted mobility in newly constructed dwelling units.
<br /> Regulations containing such provisions are often referred to
<br /> as %isitability" ordinances.
<br /> Concrete Change, an international association promoting
<br />visirability for the disabled, defines visitability as the ability
<br />of disabled or mobility-restricted persons to visit any
<br />. residence. According to Eleanor Smith, founder of Concrete
<br /> Change, visitability does nor require a long list of design
<br /> features. Rather, the visirabiliry movement is trying to create
<br /> a groundswell of support for the most basic access ro
<br /> dwelling units or, as Smith terms it, "where the shoe pinches
<br /> the hardest," addressing the most basic health and safety
<br /> issues the disabled [:ace. For instance, they experience
<br /> extreme social isolation as a result of not being able ro visit
<br /> friends and relatives whose homes cannot accommodate
<br /> persons in wheelchairs. On a more basic level, :t person in a
<br />
<br />serious accident:may have t0 enter a nursing home because
<br />he or she cannot even gain access to or move around a
<br />standard home. Visitable homes include three basic features:
<br />
<br />· One zero-step entry to the dwelling,
<br />
<br />· Interior doors with 32 inches of:clear passage space, and
<br />
<br />· Ar least one bathroom on the main floor.
<br />
<br /> The Naperville and Nma County ordinances contain
<br />these features in varying degrees. They are also nor the first
<br />of their kind. Adanra, Austin, and'Champaign, Illinois, all
<br />pa~sed visitabiliry ordinances years ago that require inclusive .'
<br />design features for projects' using public fund~. Vermont
<br />passed a visirability statute applying to residential housing in
<br />April 2000. Texa~ and Georgia require similar measures.
<br />What sets Pima County and Naperville apart, with the
<br />exception of Vermont, is that they require these features for
<br />privately construcred homes. Most other jurisdictions require
<br />inclusive design features only fo5 projects using public fund~.
<br />Pima County's ordinance passed on a 3-2 vote at the behest
<br />of advocstes who had cried for years to pass similar measures
<br />at the municipul level, bur found the county board of
<br />supervisors more amenable. Naperville's ordinance passed on
<br />a 7-to-I vote. One of N.aperville's strongest advocates was a
<br />local developer who a/so happens to be disabled.
<br /> The main objections concern costs and property rights.
<br />Builders fear the requirements will add to housing construction
<br />costs. Advocates assert that ~e costs are minimal. Concrete
<br />Change estimates costs of $300 for no-step entries and interior
<br />doorways. However, estimates vary. Builders claim the costs
<br />could.be $1,000 or more. Smith acknowledges that the costs on
<br />some sires may be more expensive, and finat it is not even
<br />appropriate on some sites where'slopes are excessi.ve. Sdll, she
<br />maintains that 95 percent of the tots should be able m
<br />accommodate the changes.at minimum costs. Objections raised
<br />concern property rights addressed when rights for one group
<br />impedes the tights of fine majority.
<br /> Despite these objections, Pima County, Naperville, and'
<br />other communities have decided to move forward with the
<br />changes. Pima County adopred the 2000 International.
<br />Building Code by reference, with local amendments' to
<br />certain sections of the 1998 American National Standard
<br />Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities Code (ANSI
<br />standards) by reference, in contrast, Naperville added three
<br />paragraphs direcrty ro its building code. The following is a
<br />summary o£ the features required by the Pima County and
<br />Naperville ordinances; ir is not exhaustive.
<br />
<br />pima CountY, Arixona
<br />The "Inclusive Home Design Ordinance" applies to new
<br />construction 0falI dwelling units where plans have been submirted
<br />to the building department for approvali Plans for dwelling unirz
<br />already certified prior to i= enactment are exempt from the
<br />provision until, the date of their next recerdfication. Dwelling units
<br />include detached one-, two-, or three-family dwellings with one
<br />occupiable floor ar grade level. The Pima County ordinance allows
<br />building officials to waive any specific provision if the applicant
<br />provides clear and convincing evidence chat the cost of compliance
<br />exceeds $200 due co ~errain or other unusual circumstances on a
<br />particular site.
<br /> Accessible Entrance. The Pima County ordinance requires
<br />finat there shall' be ar lea~t one accessible entrance on an
<br />
<br /> 233
<br />5
<br />
<br />
<br />
|