06-07-2021, 01:02 PM
(06-07-2021, 12:52 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I usually agree with ijmorlan, but while his statement might not be entirely untrue, I really have to suggest that it is at best an oversimplification.
Many accomodations for accessibility help everyone at least some of the time. Curb cuts, accessible doors, elevators, useful to people with strollers, or moving stuff in and out of a home, or even just with a grocery trundle buggy.
While yes, some people are more able to deal with not having those accommodations, they are still beneficial. I am going to agree that requiring every single apartment to have an elevator is perhaps too great a cost to pay to achieve that benefit, we should be honest about what the trade off is.
And frankly, I don't think cost of elevators is the main obstacle here.
This is why I totally agree with most accessibility requirements. It really annoys me, for example, to see single steps places that could have been eliminated by just being a bit more careful with the grading. Also I get uncomfortable when I see construction which technically follows the rules but could have been so much better with a bit more care. I’m looking at you UW E5 western entrance!
I’m pretty sure I already said that I agree that larger apartment buildings, even lowrises with only 2-3 floors, should have elevators. The question is whether it makes sense for smaller buildings, perhaps no larger than 2 apartments per floor (although the exact cutoff is legitimately a matter for debate, primarily on economic grounds), should also be required to have the same. I’m quite confident the answer is no; and nobody has attempted to prove otherwise, just cast aspersions on my care for those members of the community who require accessible accommodation.
It might be different if everybody were wealthy; but since we have both non-wealthy people and people who require accessibility, we need to make sure we include both groups (among others) in our thinking.