June 2023 Meeting

Meeting Date
  • Opening quotation 
  • Invited Guests: Vision 2050 Team 
    • Introductions:
    • University of Michigan Architecture, Engineering and Construction team:
      • Susan Gott, Associate Director for Planning and Communication
      • Sven Sawin, Assistant Campus Planner
      • Benjamin Morse, Associate Manager Projects and Strategic Initiatives
      • Consultants from Sasaki Associates
        • Sasaki Associates is a consulting team that was selected after a lengthy process in order to select the most qualified team possible. 
    • Resources from the meeting:
    • Overview of the Campus Plan 2050
      • This plan will result in making a 5 year and a 10 year plan. Both of these plans will be tied to a capital plan to allow for financial feasibility and hopefully implementation. Along with these two plans there will be a 25 year long-term plan.
        • Flint and Dearborn campuses will be doing concurrent plans.  
      • Past campus plans: 
        • 2005 and 2008 campus plans available on their website. An integrated campus plan began in 2014 that combined all campuses in Ann Arbor, however this plan was never approved.
        • One of the differences between the 2050 plan and these past plans is that it has University leadership behind it including President Ono. The team has also communicated with The Board of Regents. 
      • On the website the content is divided into focus areas including:
        •  D.E.I.(Diversity, Equity, and Inclusivity); Arts and Culture/Health and Wellness; Climate Action, Sustainability and Infrastructure;  Landscape and Open Spaces; and Space Planning, development, and Land Use; and Mobility. 
          • A concern about the D.E.I image was brought up because the image did not include any people with visible disabilities and was of a staircase, which is inaccessible for many people with disabilities. In order to make this image more inclusive participants suggested including someone in a wheelchair,  and/or someone with a cane for navigating blindness, and/or a service dog.
      • Timeline (on website):
        • In the spring Sasaki has and will continue to hold meetings and review data and information in order to understand and analyze the 6 focus areas on campus.  
        • In the summer they plan to brainstorm scenarios in order to think about how campus can evolve. Examples of this include enrollment, sustainability, and hybrid work concerns. 
        • In the fall these approaches will be brought into the planning process. In addition, they will be hosting a number of open houses and online engagement campaigns (which will be found on their website) to receive feedback.
        • They hope to have the plan finalized in early 2024 after receiving the feedback from campus in the fall. Afterwards,  they hope to get their work published over the spring and summer of 2024. 
      • How to get involved:
        • Fall open houses, online mapping opportunities, surveys, focus group meetings, and focus area meetings. Along with these opportunities the team has been working with a number of student groups for feedback. 
          • Information from this meeting and other focus group and area meetings will be published in their records, in The Michigan Daily, shared with alumni, and shared with donors. 
  • Discussion and questions
    • Mary Anne Ocampo, a principal at Sasaki who focuses on architecture in urban design and planning with a special focus on D.E.I for this project. 
      • Her and her team are focusing on D.E.I and accessibility on the physical campus here at the university. In order to understand the challenges currently on campus the group was asked to discuss the questions her team provided. 
  • Questions and Answers:
    • Where are accessibility accommodations working well across campus? 
      • First off, we need to acknowledge that although there are successful areas for accessibility there are also failures. When thinking about a work environment, physical accessibility inside buildings and the amount of  implemented accessibility features are important to talk about as well. The solution to accessibility cannot simply be buildings or building layouts but must also include training, services, and other kinds of implemented accessibility features. 
      • This team's goal is to start tackling accessibility issues at the building level and the physical place-making. However, the team acknowledges the importance of policies and practices in making spaces accessible as well. In this study they are looking at what makes infrastructure, landscapes, and spaces inaccessible. In addition, they seek to understand what services may be needed as well.
      • Problems with handicapped parking on campus are an issue. For people who work from home and don’t need to pay for a blue permit the university makes people with disabilities pay a significant amount to be able to park in a handicapped spot (and these spots are very limited). Students with disabilities have subsidized blue permits from the university, why aren’t employees afforded access to this? Employees with disabilities are not buying these permits out of convenience, they are buying them for accessibility and safety. The parking situation limits accessibility to events on campus for people with disabilities and limits accessibility to people with disabilities who may identify as lower income. It is important that the university acknowledges that people with disabilities are not taking spots closest to the building for convenience, but for accessibility and should not have to pay more for the accessible option. 
      • Language is an important part of the inclusivity process. When referring to making places accessible to people with disabilities using the word accommodations can be harmful. This is because accommodations often refer to changes made after the fact versus thinking about accessibility before buildings are designed or before problems arise. When talking about accessibility modifications and changes often have to be made to “accommodate” people with disabilities. It is important to note that if accessibility was an important topic in the planning of the campus in the first place these accommodations would be considered less of an afterthought and more as standard practice. Accommodations are important to people with disabilities but when talking about large scale campus planning there are many ways to make people with disabilities feel included, especially if buildings are made to be accessible. 
        • An example of accessibility problems on campus mentioned was the touchless door openers at the Thompson St. Blue Lot. It requires a slow wave with an open hand to open the doors making it somewhat difficult to open. A button or better/different sensor would make it more accessible.
      • Large scale campus planning with built in flexible design standards and an understanding of accommodations is necessary going forward.
      • Wifi and cellular data issues in buildings where it may be required to move in order to receive better reception. This issue limits the accessibility of a building especially for individuals using apps for accessibility.
      • Considering the route to and the accessibility of the route to places across campus for individuals with disabilities when they arrive on campus using public transportation is something that should be considered in future public transportation considerations.
    • How do we think beyond ADA compliance and understanding to go beyond the baseline and what does this mean for the U of M community?
      • Thinking about and acknowledging possible issues with current and new accessibility technology. Some of the touchless door openers on campus have accessibility problems. Placement of sensors or buttons can be changed to enhance accessibility. Things as simple as the weight of a door or what it is made of can make entering buildings more challenging.
        •  An example of doors making a building less accessible to people with disabilities on campus are the doors at the Union. They are so heavy that they are challenging to open for people with certain disabilities, for example a person with a hypermobility disorder.
          • It could be useful to implement weight limits/guidelines for doors.
      • In order to make buses more accessible the university’s buses could use text and announcements to notify passengers of what the next stop is.
      • Residence halls should be built to prioritize and create accessible rooms on the first floor. This is important especially for emergency cases in which certain students with disabilities would be put in danger during emergency evacuations. Having students with disabilities living on the first floor in accessible rooms allows these students to independently evacuate. Other accommodations including med sleds could be implemented for safety concerns. 
      • Providing training to staff on how to provide accommodations. 
        • An example of this that was mentioned was a group who used CART services for a presentation but put the transcribed text below the sightline of audience members. Training to staff members could have allowed this accessibility feature to be more effective.
      • The importance of restroom accessibility should be considered in planning buildings. . 
      • An excellent example of accessibility on campus that we should have more of is lecture halls similar to the Central Campus Classroom Building’s large lecture hall that does not require stairs to reach the front of the lecture hall and the slope of the ramp is gentle. It gives people with disabilities access to sit wherever they would like to and gives them greater access in class. 
      • Larger seats should be offered to accommodate people. 
      • Seating without tray desks would also enhance accessibility for certain students.
      • Being thoughtful about accessibility in extracurricular spaces like sororities, fraternities, sporting events, etc. 
      • In order to report accessibility issues it would be helpful to have a form people could use to report when issues arise so that issues aren’t overlooked. There is an ADA form but an issue with using this form is that sometimes people are hesitant to use it because they feel the issues that arise don’t feel substantial enough to fall under the ADA, for example flickering lights. Having simple explanations for what concerns should be reported and where would be useful. It may also be  useful to have the links to the ADA form or QR codes to the form posted in classrooms so that when students, faculty, or community members notice something that impedes accessibility they can report it. 
      • Expansion of paratransit as a more accessible and environmentally friendly option. 
      • Accessible spaces for people with breathing difficulties including asthma, lung problems, and allergy problems. An example of this would be scent free spaces.
      • Lower sensory spaces or sensory friendly spaces.
      • Spaces for students with chronic health issues to rest throughout the day.
    • Are inclusive spaces and accommodations equally distributed throughout campus? 
      • Some rules and regulations across campus have unintended consequences that cause problems with accessibility. 
        • An example of this is the restricted use of external gloves at Michigan Medicine (during the first wave of the Covid-19 Pandemic). Michigan Medicine was not allowing for the use of nitrile or latex gloves. This is a problem for wheelchair users during the winter months because these gloves prevent wheelchair users' hands from getting burned by the salt. Policy making should include conversation about accessibility to avoid circumstances like this.. 
      • The main lecture hall in the Central Campus Classroom Building is very accessible and we should have more spaces like this across campus. However, this space is not used for activities other than classes often despite its accessibility. More spaces like this should be available for extracurriculars as well. Having large accessible spaces to hold events at is an issue across campus.
      • The older spaces we value on campus have accessibility issues and some of them are even inaccessible. How can we/can we retrofit these spaces to make them more accessible? 
    • What changes are required to convey that U-M is an inclusive campus and individuals with disabilities are welcome?
      • Taking the comments made at the meeting to heart and implementing feedback is important to making people feel both seen and heard.  A conversation is not enough, follow-ups and change is required. In order to make U-M inclusive we have to create new buildings that are inclusive and retrofit old ones. Having people with disabilities share their input throughout the process is important and implementing this feedback should be done before it is too late and the contract is made. There is no reason we should be building classrooms that are inaccessible. Taking this feedback and implementing change is what will make U-M feel like an inclusive campus. 
      • Having spaces for people with certain chronic illnesses to lie down or sleep if needed should be implemented. There are no spaces on campus for this unless you have a dorm room. The library previously looked into this but because of fire safety precautions the idea was put to a stop. 
      • A starting point for educating yourself about what needs to be done for accessibility on campus is the Student Idea Board final report.
      • Another valuable document is a document made by the CfDC WISE Committee that included conversation about return to work practices along with conversation about practices that should be standard across campus.
      • Using tactile wayfinding  on pathways around  campus to better accommodate people on campus using canes to navigate. 
      • Making it a policy to have power activated door openers installed at all accessible entrances and pathways around campus.
      • More benches around campus and on pathways, especially in shaded areas for people with energy-limiting or chronic pain conditions. 
      • An example of changes that are being made include the ISR Physical Accessibility Committee looking into enhanced outdoor signage with braille, QR codes with live building status updates, and a more detailed accessibility webpage. These are changes that would be great to implement in new spaces.
      • Making sure that people with disabilities are represented especially in planning committees. 
    • How can varying D.E.I. spaces on campus be made more accessible? Can spaces like lactation rooms be used for practices like spaces to lie down mentioned above?
      • Lactation rooms across campus are too small to be used for that issue. 
      • Can we have infrastructure in place to make rooms like lactation rooms multi-purpose to shift uses based on accessibility needs. 
      • There is no one size fits all solution for accessibility. An accessible space to one person can be inaccessible to the next. Space design should be flexible in order to accommodate differing accessibility needs. One way to combat the one size fits all mentality is to put together a group of people of differing needs and have a conversation about what needs to be done.

 

  • Announcements
    • Neubacher Award nominations are open and are due by July 31st

To make a nomination or read more information about the award please visit: https://hr.umich.edu/working-u-m/awards-recognition/james-t-neubacher-award#make-a-nomination

Aave Crypto Excellence Unveiled: Unveil the excellence of Aave crypto with our partner, a beacon in secure staking and liquidity management, guiding you through a seamless decentralized exchange journey.