Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
347975943
label
CBFL [Coalition for Barrier Free Living] Funding [1976-1979] [1]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
347975943
contentType
document
title
CBFL [Coalition for Barrier Free Living] Funding [1976-1979] [1]
citationUrl
collections
Lex Frieden Collection: Records on Disability Rights
Records Relating to Disability Rights Organizations
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
347975943
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
0c6ecbbff5d9d75b
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
Donated Historical Materials
Collection/Office of Origin: Frieden, Lex, Collection
Series:
Disability Rights Organizations
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
52054
Folder ID Number:
52054-001
Folder Title:
CBFL [Coalition for Barrier Free Living] Funding [1976-1979] [1]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
5
3
1
5
for barrier free living post office box 20803 houston, texas 77025
October 28, 1979
MEMO
TO:
Edwin Becnel, Director, Community Development Program
FROM: Lex Frieden, Chairman, Center Planning Committee
I would like to reiterate the report from our planning
committee which I gave you over the telephone on October 11,
1979.
1. The Committee has agreed to endorse, with the following
contingencies, the expenditure of CD funds reserved for
Center activities to purchase approximately 6.2 acres
of land near downtown Houston known as the Parker estate.
2. Based on information provided by architects at Rice
University, the Committee feels it is necessary to
insure that at least 2.5 - 3 acres of this site be
reserved for construction of the Center.
3.
The Committee believes that this reservation should
be clearly stated in the land purchase agreement and
associated ordinances or documents.
4. The Committee desires assurance and documentation via
written communication and public announcement that
the City is committed to building the Center and promises
to provide at least $2 million (in addition to that
already allocated) within the next twelve months for
actual construction of the facility.
-
UNIVERSITY OF 00000000000 HO 0 DEPARTMENT
S
U
From the Desk of
MAIN gr
Jules Dedeaux
Administrator, Special Programs
Human Resources
Lex i
Here are the contact
persons for the vacant
boys club property off
Broadway .
Dene is checking on the
operating manual for you
Boys' Clubs
OF
GREATER HOUSTON
MULTIPLE
LISTING
THE RIGHT WAY
R
SERVICE
MLS
REALTOR
1520 AIRLINE
W. NAGORNY
COMPANY
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77009
JOHN HAVARD
-
713/861-8256
GENERAL REAL ESTATE
Executive Director
REALTOR
2900 BROADWAY
C
CAPITAL INVESTMENT COUNSEL
WESLEY NAGORNY. JR.
HOUSTON. TEXAS 77017
AREA CODE 713.645-1223
ESTABLISHED 1916
I
C
LANNY VLASAK
2801 S. POST OAK
SUITE 258
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77056
OFFICE: 627-9660
HOME: 497-1277
Mailed to commite 2-13-29
MEMO
Date: February 5, 1979
To: Planning Committe Members
From: Lex Frieden, Chairman
Please find enclosed a series of items for your information
and action. Chairpersons for the respective subcommittees
are: Dr. William Spencer, Legal; Mary Ann Board, Budget;
Peter Weidemann, Site; Bob Kafka, Program. New subcommittee
objectives are; Legal- Plan and draft corporate instruments;
Budget- Draw up and annotate hypothetical budget; Site-
Investigate and propose sites; Program- Refine and elaborate
on proposed programs. I hope each subcommittee can meet
before our March 7 meeting and be ready to report at that
time.
On another matter, I hope each committee member will take
the time to respond to the enclosed solicitation of letters
of support. Also, it would be helpful if you could solicit
letters from other organizations or individuals.
A final note-- City Council has scheduled hearings on the
proposed Community Development plan to be held in Council
Chambers on March 13 and 14. Please plan to be there on
one of those dates to speak in behalf of the Center.
Thanks for all of your help with this exciting task.
CENTER PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES 1-17-79
The fourth meeting of the Center Planning Committee was held at the Easter
Seal Center on January 17, 1979, at 10:00.
Committee Chairman, Lex Frieden opened with a welcome to everyone.
Corrections for the last minutes were acknowledged. Mr. Frieden announced
that on January 16 Community Development held a meeting to plan allocation
of funds at which they were supportive of the Center.
Dr. Tony Santos was introduced from the Rice School of Architecture. His
students worked on plans for the Center last semester. Twelve students developed
schemes. Dr. Santos showed six of the twelve schemes. The proposed auditorium
would hold 500 people. Indoor recreation facilities included a basketball court,
swimming pool, and floor space. Also inside were a day care facility, a group
of workshops and hobby rooms, a series of class and meeting rooms and offices.
Outdoor facilities included a track. The main objective in those plans was to
make the Center a social center that all handicapped people could identify with
rather than an institution.
Dr. Santos said that the proposed overall costs of the Center would be $55 -
$70 per square foot depending on the materials.
Following Dr. Snatos' presentation, Mr. Frieden introduced Jim Veercamp, a lawyer,
to report on site location. Accompanying him was Mr. Juan Salazar from First
International Bank.
Next, Mr. Frieden passed out a draft version of the Interim report. The
following questions were posed:
Q. Maybe the use of the Center should be mentioned?
A. The new proposal will include this and will come with it.
Q. Be careful of the Program mix?
A. We had in mind a Board as well as an advisory committee. The Executive
Director would be responsible to a two-part Board, the first part would be
consumers who would take care of the programs and the second part would be
providers who mainly would be concerned with the budget.
Q. Look carefully at the two-part Board so there is not conflicting input to
the Director, the operating board would make top level decisions and the
trusteeship would take care of the public interest. If the two are mixed
it will cause a mess because you would have people in authority, who do not
have the experience to make the decisions. The legal committee could make
recommendations of these descriptions of these boards with oros and cons.
A. Yes, the legal committee should be doing this.
Mr. Frieden reported on the prospects of getting an executive on loan from one
of the corporations in the city. The outlook is very good.
The next meeting will be at 10:00 a.m., March 7 at the Easter Seal Center.
ATTENDANCE
NAME
PHONE
AGENCY
ADDRESS
Elizabeth Bowen
790-4681
Baylor Med. Illust. 1200 Moursund
Roberta Forbes
748-8450
D.H.R.
6118 Scott
Jim Veercamp
652-6570
1st International Bank, N.A.
Terry Smith
526-8511
T.R.C.
1964 W. Gray
3217
Bob Kafka
526-1952
Texas Paralyzed Veterans Montrose
Juan Salazar
652-6546
1st International Bank, N.A.
Tom Hills
692-6221
Goodwill
5200 Jensen
f/t Hearing Impaired
Julie Allen
790-4977
Gulf Coast Council
Baylor College
David Naumann
861-9442
Deaf Community
2522 Haverhill
William Spencer M.D.
790-9121
TIRR
1333 Moursund
Betty Webb
641-4111
Houston Parks Dept. 2999 S Wayside
Lex Frieden
797-1440
TIRR
Drew St.
Shirley Price
483-4918
NASA
Carol Lustgarten
654-1207
C.B.F.L.
1209 Main St.
Debra Wymore (Jack White) 527-9892
United Fund
Waugh Dr.
Joyce Frieden
654-1207
C.B.F.L.
PO Box 20803 77025
Carol Taylor
528-4389
Deaf Community
Deborah Stewart
669-0263
NCHDC, Inc.
PO 665 Bellaire 77401
Larry Rager
526-1651
Easter Seal
3630 W. Dallas
Jules Dedeaux
222-3814
City of Houston
1010 Louisiana
Ken Bitz
222-4005
City of Houston
PO 1562
77001
CENTER FOR THE HANDICAPPED
FACT SHEET:
Houston, Texas
WHAT IS THE CENTER FOR THE HANDICAPPED?
It is a centralized, multi-purpose facility designed to house
educational, recreational and social service programs for people
with disabilities.
WHO WILL BENEFIT FROM THE CENTER?
There are between 150,000 and 250,000 persons in Houston who are
visually impaired (blind), hearing-impaired (deaf), , mobility-
impaired (use wheelchairs) or mentally retarded and who may bene-
fit from the Center.
AREN'T THERE OTHER CENTERS LIKE THIS IN HOUSTON?
No, in spite of the fact that there are many fine training and
rehabilitation centers for disabled people in our community, there
are no facilities designed especially to meet the social and
recreational needs of handicapped individuals. There are no
completely barrier free public swimming pools, gymnasiums or
auditoriums in Houston.
HOW LARGE WILL THIS FACILITY BE?
The Center will be approximately 60,000 square feet with a large
outdoor park and recreation area on a three-to-four acre tract.
WHERE WILL THE CENTER BE LOCATED?
Several possible sites are under consideration, but no choice has
been made.
WHEN WILL THE CENTER BE BUILT?
It is hoped that construction will begin during the last quarter
of 1979.
HOW MUCH MONEY WILL THIS COST?
It is estimated that the Center and the land it rests on will cost
between three and five million dollars.
WHO WILL PAY FOR IT?
Three million dollars in Community Development Block Grant funds
have been allocated by the City to pay for the Center. Other
funds will be solicited from charitable foundations, corporations
and individuals who are interested in helping handicapped citizens
be more active in our community.
WHO HAS DONE ALL THE PLANNING AND WORK ON THE CENTER THUS FAR?
A committee of twenty-five individuals representing various elements
FACT SHEET PAGE 2
of the handicapped community and the community at large have been
meeting voluntarily to advise the Coalition for Barrier Free Living
(CBFL), a voluntary, non-profit organization, on plans for the
Center.
HOW CAN I GET INFORMATION ABOUT THE CENTER AND WHAT I CAN DO TO HELP
MAKE IT A REALITY?
Contact the CBFL at Box 20803, Houston, Texas 77025 or CALL
654-1207.
Gooden
for barrier free living post office box 20803 houston, texas 77025
Dear Sir or Madam,
The Community Developement Division of the City of Houston
is planning to fund construction or purchase of a Center for the
Handicapped.
The Center was originally proposed by the CBFL, a Houston
based private, non-profit organization of handicapped individuals.
This Center will provide equipment and space for educational, rec-
reational and social programs that do not exist for disabled peo- -
ple in Houston today. Among other things, the Center will house
specially adapted facilities for swimming, playing basketball,
exercising, performing arts, and meeting. The Center will be en-
tirely designed and equipped to be used by people who are deaf,
blind, mentally retarded, or in wheelchairs. Additionally, dis-
abled people will be responsible for managing and directing the
Center and its programs.
In order to complete the final proposal for the Center by
March 15 SO that funding will be available in August, 1979, the
Center Planning Committee is soliciting general letters of support
for the Center, letters of interest in funding programs at the
Center, and letters of interest in renting space at the Center.
Although these letters are prospective and do not indicate a le-
gal commitment, it is necessary for us to validate our contention
and belief that the Houston community can and will support the on-
going programs and costs of the Center. As Chairperson of the Cen-
ter Planning Committee, and as a disabled person myself, I would
appreciate it if you would write a letter of support for or intent
to consider future funding of the Center. Please address your let-
ter to me in care of the CBFL. If there is further information a-
bout the Center which I can provide, please feel free to contact
me at my office (713) 797-1440 ext.504 or home (713) 781-8949.
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely yours,
Lex Frieden, Chairperson
Center Planning Committee
3 -
A' place in which
the soul can dance
America's first public recreation center
for the retarded and handicapped is now
a magnet for therapists and architects.
Kent Cooper's and William Lecky's
design in our nation's capital is proving
that barrier-free design has come of age.
Of all disabilities, mental retardation is by
far the hardest to imagine for those not
afflicted by it. Those of us who can see can
blindfold ourselves, those of us who can
hear can stuff our ears with cotton wool,
those of us who can walk can roll ourselves
about in wheelchairs. But how can one
conceive-let alone simulate-what it is
like to be retarded? Therefore, much of the
architectural profession's planning for the
needs of the mentally retarded has been
based, of necessity, on observation alone.
Institutions and schools for the retarded
have existed for some time in this country,
but save for one private facility in San
Francisco, there had never been a public
recreation center for the retarded and
Exterior of center (above) with overhanging roof that protects arriving and departing users (below)
handicapped before the Joseph H. Cole
Recreation Center opened last year in the
Anacostia section of Washington, DC.
This building's significance lies not
merely in its pioneering place in one
municipal government's efforts to improve
the lives of some of its most irredeemably
deprived citizens, but also in that it
should-indeed must-be studied by any
architect involved in planning a similar
facility. That imperative is clear enough if
only in the uniqueness of this building and
its program. But beyond that, the Cole
Recreation Center is a virtual textbook for
most of the issues inherent in barrier-free
design, issues not limited to the specific
disabilities to which many other buildings
for the handicapped are confined.
The barriers implied in the phrase
"barrier-free design" are generally, and
not incorrectly, understood to be physical.
But the psychological barriers most
people have in approaching the subject
are often just as much of a handicap as
physical disabilities are to the handi-
capped. Perhaps that is why it has taken
so astonishingly long for a building such
that reason the conception, execution, and
successful operation of this inspiring proj-
ect bring honor to all those involved in it.
Good neighbor policy
Kent Cooper and William Lecky had previ-
ously worked on a variety of building types
for the District of Columbia government, so
when they were commissioned by the city
to design a therapeutic recreation center
for the retarded and handicapped, they
were no strangers to some of the basic re-
quirements for municipal construction in
the nation's capital. At the top of the city's
list of priorities was the need for the struc-
ture to be secure, Washington having one
of the highest vandalism rates in the coun-
try. Therefore a minimum of exposed en-
trances and windows, a maximum of dura-
ble materials were necessary, and thus far
the center has enjoyed that paradoxical
reprieve that sometimes is granted when a
thoughtfully designed building is placed in
an area with no previous indications of re-
spect for public property. The architects
wanted this building to relate to the black
working class community around it, and
they correctly gauged the potential fear
and suspicion that the introduction of a
facility such as this could evoke in a resi-
dential neighborhood.
Accordingly, they devised a number of
design solutions to accommodate and cir-
cumvent that anticipated community hostil-
ity. Cooper and Lecky planned the cen-
ter's exterior to look as noninstitutional as
possible. This they achieved by several
Courtyard with amphitheater (above), architects' plan (below) with barrier-free conceptions.
WALKWAY
HORSESHOBS NATURE STUDY.
OUTDOOR CUESROOM
STREAM OVERLOOK
THE JOSEPH H CO
ALSO CONVERTS
WATER PLAY AREA
WALKWAY TO
RECREATION CENT
MINIATURE GOLP
SWINGS, PLAY SCULPTURE
FOR THE MENTALLY BEFARDED & HAND
PLAY
SCULPTURE
THE KENT COOPER PARTNERSHIP = ASCX:
WADING POOL
POOL
STORAGE
MECH
FIRE
EXIT
STANDARD
WORK
SITTING
COUNTER
ALL
PLATFORM
PUSH/FULL HARDWARE
TO LARGE PICNIC
FOR CONTINUOUS
DEEP
WHEELCHAIR
PUBLIC
PLAY SCULPTURE WOODS
CIRCULATION
WATER
WORK COUNTER
DOORS (CLASSROOMS
OBSTACLE cause. NATURE
eves
ARTS
GYM ETC)
WALKS ETC.
CRAFTE
SHOP
CONVENTIONAL KNOES USED
SLOPED
REMOVABLE
CGUARD
RAIL
NOM-PUBLIC DOORS
TOWARD
EXERCISE
(MECH ROOMS STORAGE et)
PAVING
new OF
PERIMETER
RAILS
HOME ARTS
ALLOWS BLIND TO IDENTIFY
OUNGES ERICE
POOL
DRAIN
KITCHEN
ROOMS or TOUCHING HARDWARE
THE BUND
SWIMMING FOOL
AREA
AROUND
VIEW TO
DESIGNED
TO
RAMP INTO FCA
CLASSES
CORRIDORS REPLACED
BUILDING
AOID
CHAIR USERS
ENCLOSED CENTRAL COURT
WHERLOMIRS
PUDOLES
VISIBILITY OF
SANDBO
AND
AREAB CREATE
SUPPING
SOCIAL MISING BOWL
SLIGHT CURD
CHA
BETWEEN CLASSES REDUCE
INSTRUCTION
POR WHEELCHAIRS
MULTI PURPOSE
c
INSTITUTIONAL CHARACTER.
LORARY
CORNERS ELIMINATED
AMPHITHEATER
STOR
SHOWERS
ALL OVER TO ALLOW EASIER
GIRLS
STAPP
SPACED
STOR
TRAFFIC FLOW REDUCE
LOCKERS
LOCKERS
PREVENT
SHARP CORNERS FOR FALLS.
OURGING
CHANGING
WHEELCHAIR
SEIZURES, ETC.
FIRE
RE.SCHOOL
TABLE
TABLE
PASSAGE
EXIT
use or
SITTING
ATTENDANT
BOYS
LOCKERS
HEIGHT
COLOR CODED
WAITING
FIRST
BOLLARDS
AID
FOR EASY
RECEPTION
POLDING
TIME DELAYED
NEW TO
IDENTIFICATION
PARTITION
DOOR CLOSERS
SKYLIGHT
VIEW
PLANTING AREA
81
ALL TOLETS
ABOVE
PROVIDED WITH
UP
ROLL SECURITY
BLIDING
GROB BASS FOR
EQUIPMENT
GRILLES OVER ALL
FIRS
GLASS
EAST
The HANDICAPPED
STORAGE
SLIDING GLASS
DOORS
DOORS
CSITTIMG
CFOLDING
DAY FOR METLOWER
DRESSING
SEOR
PARTITION
STAPF
ACCESS TO STAGE AREA
DIRECTOR
LOUNGE
ADJUSTABLE
WHEELCHAIR HEIGHT MAKE COUNTERS
HEIGHT
AUTOMATIC
BACKGOOPB
OPERATING
are
SHOWNG GLASS
sure
OFFICE
Doore
BLIGHT CURE
&
o
FOR WHEELCHAIRS
SECURITY
GELLE
TOHATIC
URETHANE COMPOUND
MECH
TYPICALLY
FOR GOOD
EQUIP
BOLLARDS
soccess
MINIMUM
DOORS
SCRAPES FROM FALLS
GYMNASIUM
AUDITORIUM
BEIZURES ETC
HEELOHAIR ACCESS WHEN
SITTING
BRIOK PAVING
ONE WAY
FOLDING PARTITION CLOSED
STOPO
ENTRANCE
AREAS
CHAIR
BUMO
DRIVE
CUMBING EQUIPMENT
AREA
EXITS
ACCESS
susepn COTE Recreation Center
rooms. Sometimes, the transition is too
great to be made in one step, SO the ar-
chitects have thoughtfully included several
means in reducing the visual bulk of the
nichelike withdrawing areas into which the
structure. Among them were separating
wary user can retreat until ready to face
the center's day care facility into a smaller,
further exposure.
adjacent pavilion, employing an angled
plan that succeeds in cutting the building's
Little things mean a lot
mass, using recessive masonry cladding
Much of the designers' efforts, of course,
that lets the center blend in with the city
were directed toward circulation, for while
park in which it is sited, and designing a
the center is used by the retarded, it is also
deeply overhanging roof that further em-
open to the physically handicapped as
phasizes the horizontal, domestic scale.
well. Every conceivable detail of the build-
(That overhang also serves as protection
ing was evaluated for the different needs of
from the elements for those users who
both sets of users. Cooper and Lecky drew
must be helped to and from vehicles and
up a set of 18 design criteria, which
wheelchairs as they arrive at and leave the
ranged from steps (there are none except
center.) Picnic tables that existed at this
in mechanical areas) to hardware (push/
favorite neighborhood outing spot were
pull bars, few knobs, automatic door clos-
kept intact, and a row of dilapidated aban-
ers on major entrances), from paving tex-
doned houses adjacent to the center will
tures (varying to cue position for the blind)
soon be demolished to establish an open,
to color coding (enabling retarded users
landscaped link to the nearby streets.
Wheelchair access to pool (above) is aided
who can neither read nor count to 'go to
So successful were the architects' ef-
by inclined ramps. Pool (below) has ramp
the blue door.")
forts toward those ends that neighborhood
enabling wheelchairs to go directly into it, and
There were literally hundreds of small,
residents who have visited the center have
railings for special physical therapy activities.
expressed astonishment that the building
is actually so much larger on the inside
than it seems on the outside. The general
look of the Cole Recreation Center is not
unlike a late copy of one of Frank Lloyd
Wright's Usonian houses, not a startlingly
innovative image, but one that serves the
architects' purposes well. The 3-ft-high
clerestory strip windows conform to the
city's security requirements (as do the
rollaway steel gates and roll-down steel
tambour shutters that protect ground-level
glass sliding doors), but a fortresslike feel-
ing is happily avoided.
Heart of lightness
The interior does indeed come as a sur-
prise after an examination of the exterior. A
large central courtyard is dramatically
topped by a structural space frame that
proved to be a major contributing factor to
the flexibility of the plan. Without that flexi-
bility an architect is severely limited from
the start in designing for the handicapped:
for structural expediency is frequently the
most serious obstacle to freedom of circu-
lation. Here, the interplay of structural
necessity and programmatic need was
significantly enhanced by the use of this
computer-designed structural system.
And, in combination with skylights and the
aforementioned clerestory windows, the
space frame gives a feeling of lightness
and loftiness that is at once comforting and
uplifting.
The courtyard performs the first of a se-
quence of acclimating functions that make
the interior spaces of this building seem as
homelike as the exterior leads one to be-
lieve. Carefully considered sight lines
make it possible for the visitor to catch
glimpses of the various activities going on
in the spaces clustered around the central
atrium. Since fear of unknown spaces is a
special problem for the mentally retarded,
this gradual revelation of what comes next
is of great help in easing them from the re-
ception area into the specific activity
our
so thoroughly worked out to anticipate
every possible contingency that one feels
the human presence behind this design far
more palpably than in the vast majority of
architectural design being done today.
The swimming pool, the center's justifiable
pride and joy, demonstrates the depth of
attention given to this true example of total
design. Since a great many of the center's
users are confined to wheelchairs, a ramp
was included to allow direct access into
crafts
the pool for those vehicles. A common bar-
rier to those in wheelchairs is the too-steep
ramp, but this barrier becomes a hazard in
a pool, where a steep incline could cause
a paraplegic to roll, helpless, into water
over his head. An easy 6-in. slope pre-
vents that from happening.
Adjustable railings in the pool allow the
pool to be used for physical therapy, and
underwater railings demarcate areas of
the pool used for special training. Around
the pool's perimeter a wide wooden bench
Push/pull bars (above left) permit wheelchair users maximum independence in passing through
permits wheelchair transfers to be made in
doorways. Nook in day care center (above right) is one of several "retreat spaces." Day
cases where the chair itself need not be
care classroom (below) has glass sliding doors leading to park outside. Central courtyard
taken into the pool, and the deck that sur-
(bottom) has floor texture change from brick to concrete to cue blind to conversation pit.
rounds it is slightly inclined to minimize
water retention, and thereby reduces slip-
page and skidding.
A sense of community is promoted at
every turn at the center. Kent Cooper and
William Lecky correctly felt that the one
abnormality most frequently imposed by
society on the retarded and the handi-
capped is that of isolation. The architects
here have provided a place where people
can reach beyond what other people see
as their limited potential, but which they
themselves experience as limited
opportunity for the most basic of human
impulses. This is a small, but very
significant, beginning toward giving these
people what is no more than their due, and
no less than our duty. [Martin Filler]
Data
Project: Joseph E. Cole Recreation Center,
Washington, DC.
Architects: The Kent Cooper Partnership (now
The Cooper-Lecky Partnership). Rob Byrnes,
Job captain.
Contractor: George C. Martin, Inc.
Program: municipal recreation center for the
mentally retarded and handicapped, providing
physical therapy, athletic, arts and crafts, and
domestic skills facilities, and a day care center
for preschool age children.
Site: a small, wooded public park in a low-rise,
urban residential neighborhood.
Structural system: steel frame construction,
metal space frame and steel joist roof.
Mechanical system: unit ventilators, chillers,
and heaters.
Major materials: brick masonry exterior walls,
brick masonry and mortar interior walls, con-
crete and brick floors, acoustic tile ceilings.
(See building materials, p. 134.)
Consultant: KCE Structural Engineers.
Client: DC Department of Recreation.
Cost: approximately $2.3 million for construc-
tion and site work.
Photography: Robert Lautman, except as
noted.
INTERIM PLANNING REPORT
FOR THE
HOUSTON CENTER FOR THE HANDICAPPED
JANUARY 17, 1979
INTRODUCTION
The Coalition- for Barrier Free Living (CBFL) proposes
to establish a Center for the Handicapped in Houston. This
report describes the purpose and plans for the Center, and
documents progress on the project to date.
HISTORY
The CBFL is a non-profit advocacy organization repre-
senting disabled people in Houston, Texas (a detailed de-
scription of CBFL is attached). . Recognizing the need to
have a multi-service center where handicapped people could
meet, socialize, recreate, exchange information, obtain here-
tofore unavailable or difficult to access services, and de- -
velop new service delivery methods, representatives of CBFL
met with representatives of the City of Houston Community
Development Division on September 29,1977 to discuss the need
for a Center for the Handicapped. Community Development
Block Grant funds were authorized to establish Centers for
the Handicapped under the U. S. Housing Authorization Act
of 1976 (see attached notice and rules). . On December 13,
1977, the Director of the Houston C. D. Division, Edwin
Becnel, requested that CBFL submit a written proposal to
his department by January 15, 1978. CBFL delivered the de-
sired proposal (see attached proposal), and following appro- -
val by the C. D. Commissioners in early 1978, it was incor-
porated into the proposed long range C. D. plan for Houston.