The viability of voluntary visitability: A case study of Irvine's approach

Journal of Disability Policy Studies

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 49-56

  Kaminski, Scott E ^a   Mazumdar, Sanjoy ^a   DiMento, Joseph F C ^a   Geis, Gilbert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33750170874     PISSN: 10442073     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/10442073060170010501     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Atlanta. (1992). City Code, art. F, Division 3-8-2182
2. Austin. (1998 October 7). City Ordinance no. 981007-a: An ordinance amending chapter 7-1 of the city code to require barrier-free residential construction where city funds are expended.
3. Best, R. (2001). Lifetime homes: Achieving accessibility for all. In W.E. Preiser & E. Ostroff (Eds.), Universal design handbook (pp. 14-1-14-14). New York: McGraw-Hill.
4. Bolingbrook. (2003). Ordinance No. 03-069
5. Brewerton, J., & Darton, D. (1997). Designing lifetime homes. York, UK: Joseph Rowntree Foundation
6. California. (2003). Health & Safety Code, s. 1795.6
7. Carter, S. L. (2000). God's name in vain: The wrongs and rights of religion in politics. New York: Basic Books.
8. Corbin, L. (1999 July 29). Council rejects housing accessibility mandate. Irvine Citizen, pp. 1, 4.
9. Crabtree, L. (2004 April 24). The seven principles of universal design. The Standard (St. Catharines, Ontario), p. E3.
10. Davis, E. M. (2002). Comment: A New York perspective regarding access and usability for the disabled and elderly in private residential dwellings: What can be done on a local level to provide basic access and usability in private dwellings utilizing cost effective and efficient methods. Albany Law Journal of Science & Technology, 12, 917-937.
11. Escanaba. (2003). Ordinance ch. 6, art, III, ss. 6-36 to 6-39
12. Florida. (1989). Stat. Ann, 533.504 (West).
13. Garber v. Pima County, 2002 CV 02-489-TUC-FR2 (Pima Cty. Sup. Ct. 2002)
14. Georgia. (2003). Code Ann. 8-3-172
15. Great Britain. (1998). Section M of Building Regulation. Single family access law (2003). Available from http://www.concretechange.org/uknews.htm
16. Hodgson, G. (2000). The gentleman from New York: Daniel Patrick Moynihan: A biography. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
17. Imrey, R. (2003a). Housing quality and the provision of accessible homes. Housing Studies, 18(3), 395-416.
18. Imrey, R. (2003b). The impact of part M on the design of new homes. York, UK: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
19. Inclusive Home Design Act. (2003, June 5). U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 2353), 108th Cong., 1st Sess.
20. Irvine City Council (1999, July 27). Report to the City Council by the Irvine Chamber of Commerce.
21. Irvine City Council (2000, January 25). City council Minutes, Council Business.
22. Irvine City Council (2001a, February 13), Director of Community Development and City Manager. Report to the City Council.
23. Irvine City Council. (2001b). Report on the Universal Design program for new homes.
24. Irvine City Council. (2002, July 9). Director of Community Development and City Manager. Report on the Universal Design Program for New Homes.
25. Kelly, R. (1997, December 5). Doorsteps to be swept away in new rules for building. Times of London, p. 12.
26. Kochera, A. (2002). Accessibility and visitability features in single family homes: A review of state and local activity. Washington, DC: Public Policy Institute, American Association of Retired Persons.
27. Kreditor, A., & Kraemer, K. (1969, March 4). Ranch cited for planning achievement. Irvine Ranch Newsletter, p. 1.
28. Lanspery, S., & Hyde, J. (Eds.). (1997). Staying put: Adapting the places instead of the people. Amityville, NY: Baywood.
29. Long Beach (CA). (2002). Ordinance C-7807.
30. Mace, R. (1985). Universal design, barrier free environments for everyone. Los Angeles, CA: Designers West.
31. Mazumdar, S., & Geis, G. (2003). Architects, the law, and accessibility: Architects' approaches to the ADA in arenas. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 20(3), (Aut) 199-220.
32. Mazumdar, S., & Geis, G. (2002). Accessible buildings, architects, and the ADA law: The MCI Center Case. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 19(3) (Aut), 195-217.
33. Mazumdar, S., & Geis, G. (2001a). Case study method for research on disability. In B. N. Altman & S.N. Barnartt (Eds.). Research in social science and disability vol. 2: Exploring theories and expanding methodologies (pp. 255-275). New York: Elsevier
34. Mazumdar, S., & Geis, G. (2001b). Interpreting Accessibility standards: Experiences in U.S. courts. In W.F.E. Preiser & Ostroff, E. (Eds.). Universal Design Handbook, (pp. 18.1-18.20). New York: McGraw-Hill
35. Mazumdar, S., & Geis, G. (2000). Stadium sightlines and wheelchair patrons: Case studies in Implementation of the ADA. Research in Social Science and Disability, 1, 205-234.
36. Minnesota, (2001 June 30). Hf5 (special session)/ ch.4 art. 4 sec. 35
37. Minnesota. (2002). Statute 462A-34.
38. Molotch, H. (1979). Capital and neighborhood in the United States: Some conceptual links. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 14(3), 289-312.
39. Molotch, H. (1976). The city as a growth machine: Toward a political economy of place. American Journal of Sociology, 82(2), 309-330.
40. Naperville. (2002). Ordinance R326.2.
41. Obermark, J. (2002, December 22). Wheelchair access can help sell homes: In-law wing also popular for aging parents and adult kids. Memphis Commercial Appeal, p. 11.
42. Olin, S. (1991). Interclass conflict and the politics of a fragmented region. In R. Kling, S. Olin, & M. Poster (Eds.), Postsuburban California: The transformation of Orange County since World War II (pp. 223-253). Berkeley: University of California Press.
43. Ostroff, E. (2001). Universal design: the new paradigm. In W.F.E. Preiser & E. Ostroff (Eds.) Universal design handbook, (pp. 1.3-1.12). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
44. Pima County. (2002). Ordinance 2002.
45. Ridgway, K. (1999, July 28), Irvine shies from changes for disabled. Los Angeles Times, p. B2A.
46. Roberts, T. (1985, October 26). How the wheelchair can win access to builders' blueprints. The Guardian, p. 23.
47. Schiesl, M. J. (1991). Designing the model community: The Irvine Company and suburban development, 1950-88. In R. Kling, S. Olin, & M. Poster (Eds.). Postsuburban California: The transformation of Orange County since World War II (pp. 55-91). Berkeley: University of California Press.
48. Spegal, K., & Liebig, P. S. (2003). Visitability: Trends, approaches, and outcomes. Unpublished manuscript. Los Angeles: National Center on Supportive Housing and Home Modification, Andrus Gerontology Center, University of Southern California.
49. Stark, J. (2002, June 2). And access for all. St. Petersburg Times, p. 6.
50. Texas. (2000). Gov't Code Ann. 2306.514.
51. Vermont (2000 April 27). N. 88 An act relating to residential housing standards.
52. Urbana. (2000). Ordinance no. 2000-09-105: An ordinance amending the 1989 Cabo one- and two-family dwelling code Appendix F.
53. Washburn v. Pima County (2003), C200030754 Pima Cry. Sup. Ct. 2003
54. Wilgoren, J. (2002, February 7). Wheelchair users achieve milestone in two ordinances. New York Times, p. 17.
55. Zlotnick, J. (2002, July 13). Irvine honors builders' universal design plan. Orange County Register, Local 5.