At the end of this message is a LINK to the on-line edition of my latest
universal-design-related article for "Ragged Edge" magazine.
"Ragged Edge" is a print magazine, the leading U.S. magazine of news &
opinion for the disabled communities -- known in its secondary on-line
edition by both that name and as "The Electric Edge"; in its earlier
incarnation it was the much-praised "Disability Rag & Resource"
magazine, under the same editor. (It's worth subscribing to, to get all
the news articles at the start of the month (instead of waiting for
their delayed appearance on-line) and to see some topics in greater
coverage.) My earlier articles for them can be found in their on-line
archive at www.raggededgemagazine.com (Nov.-Dec. '98 cover story on the
first international universal design conference and the status of
universal design education, and Mar.-April '99 on a UD exhibit at the
National Museum of Design / Cooper-Hewitt Museum in NYC.)
---
The new article sums up the urban planning public discussions that have
taken place in the nine months since the destruction of the World Trade
Center area in New York City, as they relate to the right of equal
access and use of the built environment.
In a city where there is nearly no enforcement of either the local
accessibility code nor of the Americans with Disabilities Act's Access
Guidelines, (since the mid-90's, architects can even opt for
"self-certification" with code-compliance, meaning that the Buildings
Dept. doesn't even look at the plans any more) -- some people with
disabilities are calling for more than compiance with weak
loop-hole-ridden codes in the urban planning of the WTC area; we're
calling for (gasp!) equal access and equal usability of everything.
(Example of non-enforcement -- a new city-built bridge over West Street
just a couple of blocks north of the World Trade Center, built by the
city primarily to serve nearby Stuyvesant High School - had its 2
elevators locked for it's first several years while the Board of
Education and the city government argued over who was going to pay the
operational expenses.)
The article reviews how people with diabilities are doing, navigating
the unprecedentedly large & innovative public input process that has
sprung up for the planning of the World Trade Center site and the
surrounding area.
The input process began as unofficial but primarily organised by
significant players -- the Regional Planning Assn. and three
universities (one of which, my alma mater where I got my first
professional architectural degree; Pratt Institute) with scores of civic
groups also involved. Later, with recent funding help for a giant
public input meeting of about 4,300 people - from the two orgs that will
be doing the reconstruction, it has morphed into something closer to a
semi-official public-input process which may or may not involve a third
huge high-tech public input meeting next year.
The outcome seems to be so far, that the process works best for
identifying the top three or four most popular planning prioritites of
the general public; it works less well for documenting minority concerns
like wanting fully non-discriminatory design and planning -- above-code
levels of accessibility & usability, and favoring unsegregated and
unstigmatizing solutions,
That above-code standard might include things like (1.) standardising
pedestrian ramp layout as two per corner, instead of the city's current
mixture of one or two per corner which is confusing to blind people. It
might include (2.) saying that no public dollars will assist any
construction using inferior and stigmatising 'limited use - limited
access / LU-LA" lifts, which the ADAAG & local law permits. That might
include (3.) withholding public assistance from plans for an art museum
at the nearby east end of Wall Street (often discussed as part of the
overall rejeuvenation of Lower Manhattan), until the museum shows how
the preliminary design model's stepped barriers to equal access to the
water's edge that would confront people who cannot climb steps would be
remedied.
Enjoy the read; comments welcome.
---
By year's end I hope to have a scholarly article incorporating this
material in a larger context including historic context, ready for
submitting to journals or to any anthologies currently in preparation
(UD / architectural / urban studies / urban design / urban planning)
that I may hear of I am just as interested in cross-fertilizing this
information and getting it out to the larger world by publication in
journals / anthologies / conference presentations in adjacent or
overlapping disciplines, as I am in publishing it in the Universal
Design field.
But I tend to only hear of Calls for Papers in the Universal Design
field.
-----> I would welcome any tips for other "Calls for Papers" that anyone
on the Accessibuilt list may hear of, that I might submit the upcoming
scholarly paper on this material to.
---
If anyone would like to use this article linked below for teaching
purposes, feel free (but with 2 conditions -- please do 2 things for
me: Clearly mark it as "Copyright (c) 2002 by Jim L. Davis, all rights
reserved" on all photocopies, and please snail-mail me a copy of the
whole readings packet, the course description & syllabus of the course
it's being used in). Any feedback on how students understood it or
didn't, would also be of great interest. Thanks.
Jim Davis
---
Contact Info:
Jim L. Davis
P.O.B. 9452, Elmora Station
Elizabeth, NJ 07202-0452
USA
Home: (908) 820--8677
Cellular: (347) 528--6832
(voice mail, on both numbers)
Alternate e-mail address:
[log in to unmask]
----------End of Message----------
Archives for the Accessibuilt discussion list are located at
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/accessibuilt.html
You can JOIN or Leave the list from this web page as well
http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/extra/wtcinput081502.html
----------End of Message----------
Archives for the Accessibuilt discussion list are located at
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/accessibuilt.html
You can JOIN or Leave the list from this web page as well
|
