Search Results

We are big supporters of social connectivity and supports for everybody in their home, and it is especially important as we grow older. We are also conscious of the challenges and limits of Village networks in suburban and rural areas. isolation is hard to combat when we can’t drive and travel distances are long. We know that many of us live in homes that are dangerous for us to use as well. We wish that more people would plan ahead to make changes in their homes or move to a home that better supports their activities. It would also be nice if the home were located where supports and services were easier to access. But, of course, this suggests that these and other housing choices are actually available. For full article click HERE

We all wish we can live like the rich and famous, don’t we? It would be incredible to have the budget to makeover our bathrooms like these celebs, but would it be wise? While there is no doubt that these bathrooms are beautiful, they may lack the function and long term usability that many of us need, celebs included. So, which celeb bathroom speaks to you? Which one of us hasn’t wished they had a quick escape route out of a bathroom on occasion? Well, this one does. Those bathroom windows can be hard to squeeze out of. The side-hinged doors look like they are wide enough. I wonder if they have low thresholds and a step-free exit? We love the truly curbless, threshold-less shower as well as the handheld shower. While the egg tubs look like they can be really hard to get into, and especially out of, the narrow edge seems like it offers a ready handhold but beyond that, you are on your own to clamor in and out of the tub with a very high rim height. Who wouldn't want to be Queen Bey for a day? While this bathroom has lots of space it also has another slippery-looking high rim height tub, and a step-in shower. Large bathrooms like this one (especially ones with high ceilings like J-Lo’s above) can create their own convection patterns and can make it seem really cold. Best to add heat - radiant floors, heat lights, additional forced air heat - you really need something. OK, this one also has a lot of space (with an actual fireplace?) but again a step-in shower. And the large basin bathtub might at least give you a running start to fling yourself over the rim. (Plus where do you get that much square footage in NYC, just for a bathroom?) Perhaps another emergency exit or just a habit from his Mission Impossible days? Moveable furniture adds flexibility. The tub backs up against a wall and so offers a potential location for an assist bar if needed. But the two-height rim makes a sit-turn-lower myself into the tub maneuver harder than it needs to be. Also a big room with lots of space.

We acknowledge that some 50+ aged households may opt for apartment living, in part as an affordable option compared to LIfe Care communities or maybe with an eye towards delaying the high out-of-pocket assisted living costs for as long as possible. Or, for the article’s reasons, at least two of them anyway: Convenience and Concierge services. A lot of us are tired of home maintenance or at least parts of it. Apartments take most of that off the table. Many market-rate apartments offer garbage pick up and package receipt, exercise rooms, etc. And many newly built development projects have pretty accessible common use spaces and more usable apartment interiors as well.  For a certain cohort, who don't have the funds for an ownership situation, or who want to invest their money in higher liquidity options, who want a more social environment, or who just don't want the hassles of home maintenance, multi-unit rental might be an option. For full Washington Post article click HERE

We really like home tech as one part of the support infrastructure in older households' dwellings. A lot of the focus that we see is on problems and solutions for the oldest old, or those with serious health problems or those with dementia or high fall risks. These pretty specialized solutions are good but do not speak to the much larger, less extreme population of older folks who could adopt a range of home tech options while remodeling. We continuously search for age appropriate, fun, and helpful home tech options. I don't see sufficient market focus in this area yet. The housing industry could really serve this market if they figured this out. For full article -> https://bit.ly/31qOjYC

The Turning Diameter of 1.5 Meters Was Retained, But Not for All Dwellings Research at the Norwegian Universal Design Research Laboratory at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology was instrumental in the process of revising the building regulations as reflected in the final result:” Regulations on Technical Requirements for Construction Works “ [1] . The following sections show how the regulations ultimately dealt with turning diameters. The turning diameter for wheelchairs was kept at 1.5 meters in buildings for public use and dwellings. By contrast, 20% of the dorms for students are required to be accessible with turning diameters of 1.3 meters since these dwellings usually are small and temporary. To compensate, each floor is required to have larger toilets with better accessibility. All apartments larger than 50 m2 (60 yd2) must be accessible to a standard compatible with universal design. If a housing project consists of apartments smaller than 50 m2, 50% of these must be accessible. [1] Regulations on technical requirements for construction works. The Norwegian Building Authority, Oslo 2017 An English translation is available on https://dibk.no/globalassets/byggeregler/regulation-on-technical-requirements-for-construction-works--technical-regulations.pdf [1] Regulations on technical requirements for construction works. The Norwegian Building Authority, Oslo 2017 An English translation is available on: https://dibk.no/globalassets/byggeregler/regulation-on-technical-requirements-for-construction-works--technical-regulations.pdf Realizing the Shortcomings of the Turning Diameter as a Basic Design Measure The report from the Norwegian Universal Design Research Laboratory brought to light a fact that accessible design professionals knew well, and which has been elaborated by research at the Center for Inclusive Design and Environmental Access at The University of Buffalo in the US. The turning diameter is a simple and pedagogical way of explaining and regulating the space requirements for turning a wheelchair, but it does not represent the actual space needed to turn a standard selection of wheelchairs. In the US, the T-turn has been introduced as an alternative to the circle. Based on the research at Norwegian Universal Design Research Laboratory, a turning rectangle is presented by the building authorities as an alternative to a turning diameter of 1.5 meters. Mr. Jonny Nersveen, the initiator and research responsible for the laboratory, comments: Our studies show that a rectangle with a width of 1.3 meters (51 inches) and a length of 1.8 meters (71 inches) may be used as a general requirement for turning a wheelchair in dwellings. If attendant wheelchairs are used our studies show that a rectangle of 1.6 meters (63 inches) x 2.0 meters (79 inches) is required to turn the wheelchair. We need be innovative, look beyond the turning circle and take the next steps where the actual need for space and movement patterns are taken into consideration. I believe it is necessary to put designers to work extensively on finding better ways of creating universally designed dwellings. I am very much concerned with the design of the bathroom. The movements in bathrooms is exceptionally dependent on the choice of inventory and the layout of the room.

Universal Design of Dwellings Required in the 2010 Version of The National Building Regulations After the turn of the century, the building authorities’ patience had come to an end, and in the 2010 amendments for a completely universally designed lay-out of all new dwellings was put forward, requiring accessibility to every room, including the bathroom. A debate immediately arose on the necessity of the new requirements. The focus was primarily on the areas needed to turn a wheelchair. The entrepreneurs and developers of housing argued that if a turning diameter of 1.5 meters (59 inches) were used this would increase building costs and hit hard students and young people looking for their first small dwelling. The extra costs were claimed to be as high as NOK 500,000 (USD $79,000) They pointed out that the building regulations in neighboring Sweden, with the same basic preconditions, required a turning diameter of 1.3 m (51 inches) and suggested that this area should be sufficient in other countries too. The need for facts on these matters sparked some interesting research and analyses. Researchers from the research institute SINTEF Byggforsk carried out a study of the extra costs of a universally designed apartment using a turning diameter of 1.5 meters. [1] They found that there were some extra costs, but much smaller than the ones presented by the developers. They concluded that the extra costs varied some depending on the lay-out of the various apartments analyzed, but never exceeded NOK 40,000 (USD $6,400). By way of comparison, the typical building cost for an appartment of 55 m2 (66 yd2) in 2009 was NOK 1,700,000 (USD $270 000). The size of the area of movement for the use of wheelchairs where challenged by the developers and entrepreneurs. There was widespread uncertainty about which areas were optimal, considering both the need for movement and building costs, and, as it turned out, a lack of solid data to decide on the matter. Consequently, the newly established Norwegian Universal Design Research Laboratory was commissioned by the Norwegian Building Authority to conduct the necessary research. After testing the use of all categories of wheelchairs on the marked, the laboratory concluded that an area of 1.3 meters x 1.3 meters was too small to turn a standard manual or electrical wheelchair, and consequently a turning diameter of 1.3 meters would be too small too. [2] After years of debate and partially diverging information, the authorities had to decide on the final wording of the building regulations, balancing building costs, equality for persons with disabilities and a growing senior population with a need of practical and accessible housing. The result was a compromise and the original ambition of a building policy based on a general and consistent universal design quality was only partially realized. [1] Christophersen, Jon and Karine Denizou. Ikke så dyrt likevel. Konsekvenser av TEK 10 for arealbruk in smaaboliger. SINTEF Byggforsk, Oslo  November 2010/ Not so expensive anyway. Consequences of Technical Building Regulations of 2010 on the use of area in small dwellings. Sintef Byggforsk. Oslo. November 2010. [2] Nersveen, Jonny og Hans Petter Olsen. Bruk av rullestol og rullator ved stigningsforhold utendørs, åpning og lukking av dør i bolig, plassbehov for å kunne snu en rullestol innendørs i bolig. Norsk forskningslaboratorium for universell utforming, Gjoevik 2014.

We often highlight the need for housing for "Missing Middle" aging households, as long it includes universal home design. Missing middle folks can’t afford life care communities or assisted living, so their next/final home better be one that won’t require much effort or cost to customize. The article, which doesn’t address aging or design issues, lists a few housing types that we are also interested in and one that is usually quite bad. We like infill projects and creating housing density that is higher than the traditional ½ acre single family; we like duplexes or triplexes; we love ADU’s. AS LONG AS THEY ARE UNIVERSALLY DESIGNED. Someone with an interest in life long housing should be cautious about townhome style dwellings. They often have small, narrow footprints, multiple stories, separated key function areas, and little land to create accessible entrances. Yes, UD homes for missing middle households need to be on a lot of agendas. For full article click HERE

The private dwelling is in many respects the last frontier for the general regulation of universal design in buildings. There is an appropriate reluctance to impose more requirements on these private areas, especially when they are considered costly and of doubtful significance. Still, we know that many building regulations that apply to private houses effectively protect the construction, residents, neighbors, and the environment. Accessibility and universal design have become part of the requirements for some dwellings both in the US and many other countries, while the justification for these requirements differs a bit. In the US, non-discrimination is the rationale behind certain types of accessible housing requirements (e.g., in multifamily projects) while welfare for the citizens has been the motivation in the Nordic countries. Moving from a policy of social care to self-determination. The non-discrimination legislation in the US is widely acclaimed, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 has been an inspiration and a model for similar legislation throughout the world, including the Nordic countries. The 1988 Amendments to America’s Fair Housing Act of 1968 increased the accessibility of multifamily housing in the US, via seven accessibility requirements for entrances to some buildings with dwellings, the public use areas, doors, routes, environmental controls, bathrooms and kitchens. In the 1960’s and 70’s the housing policies in the Nordic counties changed, largely due to the work of organizations for people with disabilities who argued for inclusion and equal treatment. The move away from institutional care and the creation of housing for people with disabilities had started. In a white paper to The Storting (The Norwegian National Assembly) in 1977 the government explained the new policy: In all dwellings there will, in shorter or longer periods, live persons with a disability. All dwellings should ideally be usable for all regardless of age or degree of mobility.  Preferably the dwelling should be designed in a way that people could live in their dwellings even if the life circumstances and use requirements change. Integrating people with disabilities in ordinary environments became a main objective of the housing policy for people with disabilities, and accessibility to ordinary residential buildings was the instrument. In 1976 a set of accessibility requirements was included in the Norwegian building regulations.  The requirements resembled, with some distinctions, the amendments to the Fair Housing Act of 1988 and initiated the development of successive improvement of accessibility to dwellings. While an improved design of the residential bathroom is essential for people with reduced mobility to live in a dwelling, the 1976 regulations did not, in fact, have those requirements. A soft requirement came in 1985 when a toilet that was accessible and usable for people with reduced mobility was allowed. Research showed that this was ignored by builders and local authorities as was a little bit stronger wording in the 1997 revision of the building code.

Two more in-process BLD projects, both renovations. One is a kitchen renovation in Missouri. The other image is an existing bathroom that is part of a substantial interior renovation of a home in North Carolina. We’ll keep you updated on these projects and others in the months to come.

AARP has long been an important advocate for better home design, better home features, and helpful products that can maintain our lifestyle and enhance our safety in the home. In the August/September Issue of AARP Magazine, the article Home Sweet Forever Home is a good read. It shows a number of really good home features that are good for everyone and really good if you are older, such as a curbless shower, added lighting, and a raised dishwasher. They might have emphasized more the marketability of a UD home. They also toss a custom feature like grab bars in there. We'll all need them at some point in our lives, but they aren't an example of a UD feature. Universal equivalents are the handholds around toilet paper dispensers, mix valves, at soap dishes, and built into towel bars. Plan ahead and do it now! For full article click HERE

We are so grateful to all those who have signed up with Amazon Smile and chosen to support UDI and BLD initiatives. We wanted to pass along some directions to add our special portal to your smartphone so that your on the go purchases can also help grow our mission to educate, promote and encourage wide adoption of Better Living Design practices. Click here for our special Amazon Smile link. If you have an iphone this article takes you step by step to adding the link as a button on your homescreen. If you are an android user check out this article. Have a wonderful holiday season!

This article points out one dilemma faced by older households. Only some can afford the $261,000 remodel that is featured here. But despite the high cost, for this family the dollar trade off may work: many assisted living or life care communities cost >$50,000/yr. So if they can extend their home living by 4-5 years, the renovation cost might have been worthwhile, at least for the narrowly framed perspective of top-line dollars. We hope that their renovated home is in an age-friendly neighborhood and community as well. However, if you don’t have that kind of money, your options are more limited and you need to make a careful “move or improve” calculation regarding how much renovation you can afford, how functional the result will be, and whether your existing community is the place to age anyway. For full Washington Post article click HERE