Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking
^ they could just shovel it, no?
This is an operational issue, not a design issue.
|
No, it is 100% a design issue. Clearly you have never needed assistance with walking. In winter snow blows, ice forms, we get snow storms and they shovel and 15 minutes later it needs to be done again. The building it question was intended to be a barrier free residential building yet one massive barrier was completely ignored in the design phase so the whole project is a failure for its intended purpose.
I never once said the solution needed to be indoor parking and it doesn't need to be but a lot more thought needed to be put into how to reduce, limit or completely avoid ice and snow build up in the parking lot at Place la Charette. That design clearly didn't consider that is why it is a design failure as no reasonable level of maintenance is going to be able to keep an outdoor parking lot in Manitoba free of ice and snow 100% of the time.
I am not a designer locating the parking lot so the building acts as a wind barrier in the primary wind directions would be a start. They could put a roof only structure over the parking to further limit direct snow accumulation and enclosing in with a solid fence would further limit snow from blowing in. Yes that would all add costs but no where near the $60,000-80,000 a spot being claimed. And it would take the design from failing to meet its purpose to being significantly close or even achieving its purpose.
Place la Charette core purpose of design was to provide accessible housing. The project, as built, makes it so residents needing accessible housing cannot leave or enter the building. That is a straight up failure of design. It is no different than how Centre Village apparently had kitchens far away from the area young children would be in even though it was geared to newcomer observant Muslim families. That failure of design would apply anywhere the building was placed and had nothing to do with how poorly in interacted with the neighborhood it was built in.
Further, an image of an attempt to make a building accessible was shared with me. The nearly built entrance required an access card tapped on the far left of the double door to activate a timed unlock. If you then needed assistance opening the door the button for that was on the far right and at a height that would be difficult for a wheelchair user to reach even if they made it there before the unlock timed out. Designing for true accessibility is more than just putting lipstick on a pig, thinking through the actual functional use of the space from the point of view of the users with the accessibility needs is essential. That is exactly where the Place la Charette design failed as it did not think through how to make the entrance to the building accessible. You can design a perfectly accessible interior but if you don't address the barriers to get into the building as well the whole building becomes an accessibility failure.
In terms of the CBC story it is failure clear the woman will not get one of the extremely limited indoor parking spaces at Place la Charette so what alternatives would be reasonable to accommodate her? Sad truth is it likely means she will need to move away from the building meant to meet her needs to find a place that actually can accommodate her needs.
Prev
Linear Mode
