Samantha Didrichsen, MSED.

I would first like to preface by saying that I have enjoyed my time in Buffalo and have much love for the city, especially downtown, where my little family lives. But this August 18th, I was scheduled for a type of foot surgery that would leave me medically disabled for approximately two months as I healed. And because of this, I became worried about my level of independence and accessibility to resources in my community, including my own apartment building. I was immediately concerned about the fact that there isn’t a true ramp or barrier-free entrance to my building. We have a removeable wooden ramp for only one of the entrances (residents only) and that’s about it. There are multiple concerns that I’ve had with this building in terms of independence and design, and this one particular entrance has had me in a tizzy. How was I supposed to pick up the ramp (either outside or inside for myself), set it up, open the door, and safely use it with its steep incline, all while not putting any weight on my injured foot if I used my crutches or while I used my knee scooter? At the time of this posting, I’ve only used that entrance three times since coming home from my surgery, and I can tell you that there is no way that I could independently enter and leave this building. I have always needed some level of support in every step of entering and leaving.

These are issues that many of us able-bodied persons don’t think about unless you are involved in special education or disability studies. Without completely giving away where I live, I will say that living in a historic building in downtown Buffalo holds commonality with many of the other historic and vintage residences and buildings in the area: they are poorly retrofitted if at all.

Many of the historic buildings meet what are considered the bare minimum requirements for people with disabilities and those with medical needs. In a 1981 published book by the U.S Department of Commerce titled, “Accessible Buildings for the Disabled: A Review of Research Needs”, an evaluation was conducted on current accessibility standards and a conference was held to discuss them. Some things of note from the results pointed out that commenters felt that any document that discusses guidelines should be, “as short as possible, stating minimum or maximum requirements only” and that, “the document should be written in enforceable language.” (Adler & Pierman, 1981, pg. 16).

The biggest point that stood out to me was the following (Adler & Pierman, 1981, pg. 16):

“How the Guidelines are to be applied to remodeling, retrofitting, rehabilitation and historic preservation should be clarified. These areas present far more problems of implementation than does new construction.”

Can we say that any possible solutions that came from this meeting of minds successfully helped to refine retrofitting of historic and old buildings? Maybe for some, but not for all, and certainly not in downtown Buffalo. When initially built, many buildings weren’t built with people with disabilities in mind, and so now we’re playing catch-up with what’s already here with structures that hold historical value that can’t be rebuilt. They must be retrofitted.

However, this leads us to another point that must be addressed: accessibility vs. universal design. For example, just because an entrance is accessible because of a long ramp, it doesn’t mean that it’s made life easier for all that need it (5 Problems with Accessibility (And How Universal Design Fixes Them), 2018). Sometimes those ramps are long and winding and use a lot of energy just to go up and down. Also, sometimes those ramps lead to a completely separate entrance on the side of the building, or even in the back. Plus, they can honestly be unseemly in their appearance and hard to maintain. How does this respect the life and dignity of those that use them?

Universal design from the get-go would eliminate this type of struggle by considering the needs of all users by creating things such as no-step entrances and automatic doors. This is why universal design is much better than “accessibility” in terms of supporting everyone.

This brings us back, though, to the problem at hand of retrofitting historic buildings. If universal design is so much easier, why isn’t it being used to retrofit buildings? Well, there is currently poor education and dissemination in this area towards building managers. A study showed that building managers perceived universal design to equate to disability design, and thus only targeting people with disabilities and not the rest of the building’s users (Kadir et al., 2012). They also believed that their building was accessible to visitors, when maybe this wasn’t the case.

A separate study proposed multiple solutions to this problem by laying down the foundation for further research to construct enhanced strategies for historic buildings and universal design (Kristl et al., 2020). The study explained that the basis for better strategies includes high quality universal design training within higher education programs targeting those who are interested in architecture so as to emphasize barrier-free access, inclusive environments and sustainability. Decision-making should also be done through a multidisciplinary, holistic approach to consider all ideas and to preserve historical value of buildings (Kristl et al., 2020).

Tomorrow I begin classes again for my second year in my PhD program at the University at Buffalo, where I will be taking all of my classes online and conducting my assistantship responsibilities virtually as well. I’ve also offered my early intervention families virtual sessions during my recovery. For this, I am all very thankful, as I don’t intend to leave this building by myself until I’m able to put some weight on my foot. It’s not like I’d be able to leave, anyway. I leave you with this quote (Wentz et al., 2011):

“The failure to address issues of accessibility for persons with physical, sensory, and cognitive disabilities ultimately threatens to segregate people with disabilities as the permanent second–class citizens…”

References:

1. Adler, S. C., & Pierman, B. C. (1981). Building accessibility for the disabled: A review of research needs. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-C13-8320ecda61923d480603ef977daf9625/pdf/GOVPUB-C13-8320ecda61923d480603ef977daf9625.pdf
2. 5 Problems with Accessibility (And How Universal Design Fixes Them). (2018, March 28). [Medium.com]. https://medium.com/@getgoin/5-problems-with-accessibility-and-how-universal-design-fixes-them-2d22d473adec
3. Kadir, S. A., Jamaludin, M., & Rahim, A. A. (2012). Building Managers’ Perception in Regards to Accessibility and Universal Design Implementation in Public Buildings: Putrajaya case studies. AICE-BS 2011 FAMAGUSTA (ASIA PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT-BEHAVIOUR STUDIES), 35, 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.02.071
4. Kristl, Ž., Temeljotov Salaj, A., & Roumboutsos, A. (2020). Sustainability and universal design aspects in heritage building refurbishment. Facilities (Bradford, West Yorkshire, England), 38(9/10), 599–623. https://doi.org/10.1108/F-07-2018-0081
5. Wentz, B., Jaeger, P. T., & Lazar, J. (2011). Retrofitting accessibility: The legal inequality of after-the-fact online access for persons with disabilities in the United States. First Monday, 16(11). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v16i11.3666
6. Accessibility at Central Library | http://www.buffalolib.org. (n.d.). http://www.buffalolib.org. Retrieved August 27, 2023, from https://www.buffalolib.org/library-accessibility/accessibility-central-library