Is the house more important than the land on which it sits?
Does the house compliment, and use as a resource its environment?
Is the house and property accessible to all who live and visit?
Is the house a conduit, a mirror, of the lifestyle and values of its occupants?
Is nature subordinate to the house?
Is the architect subordinate to the owner?
Is the landscape architect subordinate to the architect?
The above is from our project team page from a year ago.
As an ethic and a value we wanted our home accessible to all. Since we were doing a reverse floor plan with the main area on the second floor, it was important to Julie and I that all who are in our home as guest and residents, have the ability to use the whole home. That no one feel confined to an area and unable to access the rest of the home.
Saying that as a value and doing that in reality are two different stories. It's not inexpensive to do. We have kept the primary access ways to 48", the kitchen with 48" clearance, the primary doors to 36" and installed levers on all the door handles. We also installed a residential elevator.
Every step along the way of construction we asked ourselves "is there a better way that we could do this so that it is more accessible?" That led to lower thresholds on the doors, pocket doors for some restrooms, a minimum 48" wide hallways and other considerations.
Today, after a year of waiting and building, hoping it would all be worth the effort, my mother who is in a scooter was able to visit the house. The whole house.
Priceless!
