Nobs turn snobs when it comes to people with disabilities

But if you actually read my comment, I said that the people who need curb cuts and textured surfaces advocate for themselves, along with others for whom it's a helpful convenience.

Are meant to be high visibility, hence the yellow color. It isn't as noticeable to people with low vision if the strips are gray. They wouldn't sufficiently stand out.

The City (Public Works and the Disability Commission) in negotiations with NAs for the Back Bay, South End, and Bay Village, and Beacon Hill together with the Landmarks/Architectural Commissions for those neighborhoods (including a couple of public meetings with all parties invited and chaired by the then PWD Commissioner) hammered out a compromise for historic districts.

Yellow was off the table for all historic districts, and all the historic districts (except Beacon Hill) agreed to a brick red (or terracotta) tactile strip that would visually complement the largely brick environment of the historic districts yet still offer sufficient contrast with the surrounding material to meet ADA guidelines and assist the visually impaired. The rest of the city (non-historic districts) will all have yellow tactile strips in their ramps.

BHAC does not support the color compromise of a brick red tactile strip preferring that their tactile strips be the color grey--which the disability community refuses to accept and insists that it offers insufficient contrast (especially given our climate and weather). The city reasonably wants just one color compromise for all the historic districts not two or three or some multiple choice scheme. In addition, the city wants to use an industry standard hard plastic material for the tactile strips based on cost and durability. Again, Beacon Hill objects to the proposed hard plastic material for the strips insisting on stone, granite, or some other sort of "organic" material. Public Works objects to this based on cost, durability, and installation; the hard plastic strips can be installed and removed by literally screwing them out of or into the sidewalk for install and replacement while stone or other organic materials will have to be cemented into and jack-hammered out to replace them. In addition, Public Works also says that stone or other organic materials break down much more quickly and estimate that maintenance and replacement costs will be at least double or triple the cost of the hard plastic. Beacon Hill disputes some of these cost and durability assertions by Public Works.

Folks should understand that this is just the opening hand in the larger question of how to address sidewalk repair and refurbishment in historic districts. Current policy states that existing concrete sidewalks will be replaced with concrete and existing brick will be replaced with "wire-cut brick" (a smooth surfaced application of tile-like brick sections laid over an asphalt or concrete bed) that is at least as smooth as our asphalt roads. There are some (a minority) in the disability community who do not share that view and think that all brick should be replaced with concrete. However, the key issues of sidewalk width, trees, lamp-posts, slate coal chutes in sidewalks, entry steps to sidewalk ratios etc. is one of the most daunting challenges that will face Boston's historic districts and the city and historic districts will need the support of the disability community and the State Architectural Access Board (which is empowered to help fashion compromises in implementing ADA requirements).

Maintaining a longer view of the issues we will jointly face, together with fostering good will and trust, and being careful to not let the perfect become the enemy of the good, will serve our neighbors on Beacon Hill best--and all historic districts--now and for the future.