Raised Booth in Restaurant

[fj80]

I think it would depend on how you limit the definition of "dining spaces" are they all the same space? Or are the booths and tables with chairs different "spaces"

Agreed, and I don't see a definition of "spaces" or "seating spaces" in the ADA...

 

[mark handler]

you guys are over thinking this. PUT IN ACCESSIBLE TABLES AND CHAIRS in all different dining rooms..

 

[ADAguy]

Fj what is your role with regards to this question or are you or your client merely not wanting to comply?

 

[tmurray]

Agreed, and I don't see a definition of "spaces" or "seating spaces" in the ADA...

I wonder if there is any rulings that would provide guidance either way. That would be the only way I could see of getting a concrete answer. Personally, if I were the owner, I would err on the side of caution and provide an accessible booth.

 

[Francis Vineyard]

"If the bar is the only seating, or the bar is in a separate area, a portion of the bar is required to be lowered to provide accessible seating. However, if the bar is part of the general dining area, or if other seating is provided in the bar area, a portion of the bar is not required to be lowered.

This applies whether seating is fixed or loose, as clarified in the 2012 IBC codes, Section 1108.2."

Source: Building Safety Journal By Kimberly Paarlberg, RA, Senior Architect, International Code Council

 

[ADAguy]

Ok Fj, cat got your tongue?

 

[steveray]

From what FB posted....

As with the issue of whether the high counter walls themselves comply with the ADA Guidelines, Chipotle has already litigated and lost this issue in the individual case, wherein the Ninth Circuit held in clear terms: The violations of the [ ADA] we have found are that, because of the wall, Antoninetti was unable to see the food arranged on the food counter or the preparation of his order, as non-wheelchair-bound customers could do, and thus was unable to enjoy the “Chipotle experience.”

Whether "code" requires it or not, you may want to do it...So that your customers can enjoy the "booth or bar" experience....Until Ms. Paarlberg and the DOJ issue a formal interpretation together, that is how I will keep calling it....

 

[mark handler]

By not being acessible, You are writing off about twenty percent of the population from your customers. That could be the difference between surviving in business or going belly up.

From what FB posted....

As with the issue of whether the high counter walls themselves comply with the ADA Guidelines, Chipotle has already litigated and lost this issue in the individual case, wherein the Ninth Circuit held in clear terms: The violations of the [ ADA] we have found are that, because of the wall, Antoninetti was unable to see the food arranged on the food counter or the preparation of his order, as non-wheelchair-bound customers could do, and thus was unable to enjoy the “Chipotle experience.”

Whether "code" requires it or not, you may want to do it...So that your customers can enjoy the "booth or bar" experience....Until Ms. Paarlberg and the DOJ issue a formal interpretation together, that is how I will keep calling it....

 

[Yikes]

Speaking as someone who has designed restaurants and bars and other "Third Places": A lot of what goes intro a successful design is the experience of the environment. It's about more than the ability to chow down some food or slug a drink. There's a lot of subtle interaction. People often like to be in a room where there's lots of activity, but don't like to be the center of activity themselves. You will notice this for example, when people come out of an assembly space into a main lobby, they won't keep walking - - they'll gather off to one side of the doors and observe others coming in and out. It's almost like leaves in the eddy of rocks in a stream.

All that to say that the raised platforms around the perimeter of a bar or restaurant provide that kind of experience: a sense of being in the activity, but not the center of activity. (Private boxes at the opera house have a similar function.) I understand what Mark is saying about don't write off 20% of your customers. But have a generic, undifferentiated space can be a turnoff to customers as well.

Back to the legalities of it: Chipotle got into hot water because they promoted the idea of being able to see how fresh your food is while it's being made, and (for example) being able to look at the scoop and tell the employee, OK that's enough sour cream". If a restaurant actively promoted their tiered seating, they could get in trouble. But if is not actively touted as part of a unique dining experience, then the design decision is more akin to unstated aesthetic choices of lighting temperature, etc., and IMO you can go with the general code concept of providing accessible seating elsewhere, not just the booths.

A "universal design" approach, if you have the space for it, is to provide a wide raised aisle adjacent to the raised booths, and have an accessible wheelchair area in the aisle.

 

[fatboy]

Excellent reply Yikes..............

 

[ADAguy]

Ok FJ, we respond and yet you have no replied as to the motivation for your questions? The court has spoken.

 

[fj80]

Speaking as someone who has designed restaurants and bars and other "Third Places": A lot of what goes intro a successful design is the experience of the environment. It's about more than the ability to chow down some food or slug a drink. There's a lot of subtle interaction. People often like to be in a room where there's lots of activity, but don't like to be the center of activity themselves. You will notice this for example, when people come out of an assembly space into a main lobby, they won't keep walking - - they'll gather off to one side of the doors and observe others coming in and out. It's almost like leaves in the eddy of rocks in a stream.

All that to say that the raised platforms around the perimeter of a bar or restaurant provide that kind of experience: a sense of being in the activity, but not the center of activity. (Private boxes at the opera house have a similar function.) I understand what Mark is saying about don't write off 20% of your customers. But have a generic, undifferentiated space can be a turnoff to customers as well.

Back to the legalities of it: Chipotle got into hot water because they promoted the idea of being able to see how fresh your food is while it's being made, and (for example) being able to look at the scoop and tell the employee, OK that's enough sour cream". If a restaurant actively promoted their tiered seating, they could get in trouble. But if is not actively touted as part of a unique dining experience, then the design decision is more akin to unstated aesthetic choices of lighting temperature, etc., and IMO you can go with the general code concept of providing accessible seating elsewhere, not just the booths.

A "universal design" approach, if you have the space for it, is to provide a wide raised aisle adjacent to the raised booths, and have an accessible wheelchair area in the aisle.

Yikes hit the nail on the head. My clients and I (I'm the architect) are looking for a design solution to break up a very large existing space into two general areas- bar style dining on one half of the room and restaurant seating on the other half. They don't want a full-height wall that completely separates the spaces and a low wall doesn't create enough visual separation between the two spaces (these are aesthetic choices). So we'd like to create a row of booths on a 6" raised platform that becomes the separation between the two spaces. There would be significantly more accessible seating on both sides of the restaurant (with the typical tables and chairs seating) than there would be booths. From my reading of the ADA and IBC it seems like this should be acceptable.

 

[ADAguy]

Not quite, now that you have better explained what you are trying to do. Your proposal creates two (2) separate experiences, one dining in a bar atmosphere and one a dining experience; each has a different ambiance and noise level. As such the raised seating in the bar area disallows those in wheelchairs to participate with the booth users unless you make the booths accessible by a ramp.
Was in a Ruth Chris the other evening with a similar issue.

 

[fj80]

I appreciate all the comments and different perspectives on this interesting issue.

Here's something interesting I found:

Kimberly Paarlberg, Senior Architect with ICC, wrote an article regarding whether or not wheelchair spaces are required at bars. Long story short, she says they are not, and she goes on to say that "The assumption in the codes is that if other types of seating are provided adjacent to the bar, services provided at the bar also will be available at the adjacent seating."

It seems that the same logic would apply to a booth as well as the bar seating.

She also states that wheelchair spaces are not dispersed by type of seating:

"One of the reasons wheelchair spaces are not dispersed by type is the effect accessibility requirements would have on a type. For example, if you had bar-height tables and lowered some to get the 34-inch maximum height dining surfaces (ICC A117.1 Section 902.4), you no longer had a bar-height table, you have a standard height table. If you had booths, and pulled off one side to allow for wheelchair spaces, you now have a banquette seating. Each time you apply the accessibility requirements, you create another type of seating—the result being that a designer could never provide wheelchair spaces at all types."

Here's the full article:

https://www.kmaccess.com/wp-content...es_required_at-bars_2016_10_oct_bsj_final.pdf

 

[fj80]

Not quite, now that you have better explained what you are trying to do. Your proposal creates two (2) separate experiences, one dining in a bar atmosphere and one a dining experience; each has a different ambiance and noise level. As such the raised seating in the bar area disallows those in wheelchairs to participate with the booth users unless you make the booths accessible by a ramp.
Was in a Ruth Chris the other evening with a similar issue.

Again, the ADA and IBC do not require accessible seating each TYPE of dining surface, as I read them.

 

[SCBO1]

Kimberly Paarlberg, Senior Architect with ICC, wrote an article regarding whether or not wheelchair spaces are required at bars. Long story short, she says they are not, and she goes on to say that "The assumption in the codes is that if other types of seating are provided adjacent to the bar, services provided at the bar also will be available at the adjacent seating."

I think Kimberly is right on, I had the same opinion, thought maybe the code may have changed.

You got a bar and you provided a table for the wheelchair user near the bar, the bar tender or the bar hop took your order.

Has the code changed to require different "experiences!" Is this true?

 

[mark handler]

fj80
You can justify it whatever way you want, BUT;
You and your Client CAN be sued under ADA
You are doing a disservice to the restaurant owner By disregarding the ADA requirements.

2010 ADASAD
226 Dining Surfaces and Work Surfaces
226.1 General. Where dining surfaces are provided for the consumption of food or drink, at least 5 percent of the seating spaces and standing spaces at the dining surfaces shall comply with 902. In addition, where work surfaces are provided for use by other than employees, at least 5 percent shall comply with 902.
226.2 Dispersion. Dining surfaces and work surfaces required to comply with 902 shall be dispersed throughout the space or facility containing dining surfaces and work surface
902.4.2 Height. The tops of tables and counters shall be 26 inches minimum and 30 inches maximum above the finish floor or ground.

 

[fj80]

fj80
You can justify it whatever way you want, BUT;
You and your Client CAN be sued under ADA
You are doing a disservice to the restaurant owner By disregarding the ADA requirements.

2010 ADASAD
226 Dining Surfaces and Work Surfaces
226.1 General. Where dining surfaces are provided for the consumption of food or drink, at least 5 percent of the seating spaces and standing spaces at the dining surfaces shall comply with 902. In addition, where work surfaces are provided for use by other than employees, at least 5 percent shall comply with 902.
226.2 Dispersion. Dining surfaces and work surfaces required to comply with 902 shall be dispersed throughout the space or facility containing dining surfaces and work surface
902.4.2 Height. The tops of tables and counters shall be 26 inches minimum and 30 inches maximum above the finish floor or ground.

I'm not trying to justify it or argue with you. I just don't see how any section you've quote disallows what I'm proposing. Well over 5% of the seating spaces would be accessible by way of accessible height tables and would be dispersed throughout the restaurant, exactly as ADASAD reads. I do appreciate your comments though.

 

[mark handler]

This is from the Texas Access Standards
http://www.johnsonkelley.com/accessible-dining-surfaces-under-the-2012-tas-2010-ada/

 

[Paul Sweet]

By not being acessible, You are writing off about twenty percent of the population from your customers. That could be the difference between surviving in business or going belly up.

Saying that 20% of people have some sort of disability isn't saying that 20% of potential customers can't get into a booth that is raised 6". Only the 1% of so who are in wheelchairs couldn't get up a 6" step.

If the booths are raised just to create a slightly higher divider between the two parts than a floor level booth would provide, and there are accessible tables or booths that aren't raised in both parts, then people who aren't at a raised booth aren't missing anything, except for a chance to trip getting into or out of the booth.

If the raised booth provides a better view, than it's a different story.

 

[ADAguy]

FJ 226 and Mark couldn't be any clearer as to the intent of ADASAD. As an architect you and your client "must" comply with "both" the code and Federal law.
Many families seek out booth seating in the bar areas as big screens are often there and many of these families have members in WC's.
This is a planning issue, you have the space so make it comply.
Last resort, speak to the Access Board in DC for a ruling.

 

[fj80]

FJ 226 and Mark couldn't be any clearer as to the intent of ADASAD. As an architect you and your client "must" comply with "both" the code and Federal law.
Many families seek out booth seating in the bar areas as big screens are often there and many of these families have members in WC's.
This is a planning issue, you have the space so make it comply.
Last resort, speak to the Access Board in DC for a ruling.

Yes, there are clearly strong and differing opinions here about this issue, so I'll run it by the Access Board. I felt it was a little unclear, at least to me, so that's why I created this post.

As always, I appreciate the great input and insight from everyone here. This forum is a great resource.

 

[mark handler]

Only the 1% of so who are in wheelchairs couldn't get up a 6" step.

Not necessarily true. there are people with mobility issues, not using wheelchairs, that can not raise their feet 6 inches.

then people who aren't at a raised booth aren't missing anything, except for a chance to trip getting into or out of the booth. If the raised booth provides a better view, than it's a different story.

Without further information, we are shooting in the dark. Someone will say it is "special" and I am not included, then sue.

With the info provided, Better to nip it in the BUD now​

 

[ADAguy]

Ditto !!! Just do the "right" thing.