Postoccupancy Evaluation of Universally Accessible Multifamily Housing Units

  • Patricia L. Falta
Part of the Plenum Series in Rehabilitation and Health book series (SSRH)

Abstract

Since 1981, Société Logique, a nonprofit housing corporation founded by persons with physical limitations, has been designing, building, and operating universally accessible multifamily housing units in Montréal, Québec. The founding members felt that the current practice of providing a certain number (or percentage) of specially adapted apartments in any one building did not offer a long-term solution to assuring that persons with disabilities have access to truly integrated housing. The existing approach had a narrow application since it focused on only one functional limitation—a wheelchair user—and the adapted features were not appropriate for able-bodied persons. Such a concept not only perpetuates the us-and-them syndrome but is also inefficient and uneconomical to administer and operate.

Keywords

Income Assure Smoke Dine Univer 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Bibliography

  1. *Accessible Housing Bulletin 1: Making housing more accessible to more Canadians. (1982a). Ottawa: Canadian Housing Design Council.Google Scholar
  2. *Accessible Housing Bulletin 2: Setting your “sites” on good access. (1982b). Ottawa: Canadian Housing Design Council.Google Scholar
  3. *Accessible Housing Bulletin 3: “Inside” information on good access. (1983). Ottawa: Canadian Housing Design Council.Google Scholar
  4. *Barrier-free design: A national standard of Canada (CAN/CSA-B651-M90). (1990). Toronto: Canadian Standards Association. (revised 1995)Google Scholar
  5. *Cost of accessible housing: An analysis of the estimated cost of compliance with the Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines and ANSI A-117.1. (1993). Washington: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and ResearcGoogle Scholar
  6. Critères de performance en accessibilité universelle. (1994). Montréal: Société Logique.Google Scholar
  7. *Eligible modifications for residential rehabilitation assistance program for disabled persons: A guide for RRAP delivery agents. (1990). Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (revised 1991)Google Scholar
  8. *Fair Housing Amendments Act: Adapt to a better design. (nd). Jackson Heights, Queens, NY: Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Association.Google Scholar
  9. *Falta, L. P. (1984). Accessible housing costs (unpublished report). Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.Google Scholar
  10. *Falta, L. P. (1983). Barrier-free design for disabled persons: Evaluation framework for assessing the quality of accessibility in public buildings. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association (pp. 198–214). Lincoln: University of Nebraska.Google Scholar
  11. Falta, L. P., & Kreiss, S. (1990). Étude comparative des coûts de construction des logements adaptés et des logements universellement accessibles (unpublished report). Montréal: Société Logique.Google Scholar
  12. *Habitations Petras: 44 unités de logement universellement accessibles. (1992). Montréal: Société Logique.Google Scholar
  13. Hickling, RBO Architects, and Société Logique. (1994). Focus groups to examine barrier-free and adaptable housing design. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.Google Scholar
  14. *Housing Choices for Canadians with Disabilities (LNH 6620). (1992). Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.Google Scholar
  15. *Kushner, C., Falta, P. L., & Aitkens, A. (1983). Making your home accessible: A disabled consumer’s guide. Ottawa: Consumer and Corporate Affairs of Canada.Google Scholar
  16. *Lifchez, R., & Winslow, B. (1977). Design for independent living: The environment and physically disabled people. New York: Whitney Library of Design.Google Scholar
  17. *Maintaining seniors’ independence: A guide to home adaptations. (1989). Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.Google Scholar
  18. *A modification checklist: Accessibility using RRAP for disabled persons. (1986). Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.Google Scholar
  19. *Open house: Guide. (nd). Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.Google Scholar
  20. *Preiser, W., Rabinowitz, H., & White, E. (1988). Post-occupancy evaluation. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  21. *Simon, A., Aitkens, A., et al. (1988). Housing an aging population: Guidelines for development and design. Ottawa: National Advisory Council on Aging.Google Scholar
  22. Société Logique, Richard, P., & Falta, P. L. (1995). Design solutions for accessible and adaptable housing: Performance criteria and architectural characteristics. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.Google Scholar
  23. *Zeisel, J., Welch, P., & Demos, S. (1977). Low-rise elevator housing for older people: Behavioral criteria for design. Washington: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.Google Scholar
  24. *Zeisel, J., Welch, P., Epp, G., & Demos, S. (1983). Mid-rise elevator housing for older people: Behavioral criteria for design. Washington: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.Google Scholar
  25. Zeisel, J. (1981). Inquiry by design. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patricia L. Falta
    • 1
  1. 1.School of ArchitectureUniversité de MontréalQuébecCanada

Personalised recommendations