A general rant

[Inspector Gadget]

It is staggering how often I have to push builders/designers to incorporate the *mandatory* accessibility features. Next to basic structural foulups made by DIY deck builders and ill-trained rookie builders, I swear the accessibility stuff is probably the third or fourth-most problematic code enforcement issue I face.

Without going into details, I have a file right now where a religious institution *refuses* to make a pair of public buildings accessible. "We don't have any of *those* people," the church lady said. Pushing this to resolution is almost certainly - at this point - going to be ugly, political, and may end up in court. Yeah.

It's tiresome. Draining at times. I don't get it.

But this weekend, in another jurisdiction, I had an experience worth sharing. Assembly occupancy - a theatre/performance venue. An individual with extensive mobility issues struggled to gain access to the venue. After the show, a "portable" ramp with a nasty slope and no handrails was the best the venue could do to assist her departure. The poor lady was stuck for about five minutes and finally gave up, and struggled - with obvious pain - to use the steps.

There was absolutely no reason this venue could not have made accessible. There was sufficient space at a side door to accommodate the slope of a ramp.

I had a little chat with the woman, told her what I did for a living, and offered my sympathy.

Why is accessibility so hard to grasp? Hell, we are all just temporarily abled.

 

[bill1952]

I agree.

I think it's partly the Washington thinking. We pass legislation to address a problem, and the problem is therefore solved. Next issue please. Little consideration for education and enforcement.

Mainstreaming it into the building codes obviously helps but probably another generation of designers before it's really an integral part of design thinking. Another example: some major changes to means of egress in 80s and 90s, assembly seating being of note, and I still see designers drawing based on the codes before those changes.

 

[Plumb-bob]

I think this is changing for the better. BC is positioning itself to be a world leader in accessibility, and has recently enacted legislation that requires an accessibilty committee to be created in every municipality. Codes are also evolving quickly.

Other jurisdictions will likely follow the lead of the front runners. But these things take time.

I hear your frustration, and agree that we are all temporarily abled. I especially felt this recently after a surgery to my leg.

 

[tmurray]

I've fought with a lot of different provincial departments that the barrier free requirements apply to them as well.

Apparently "this act binds the crown" is not clear enough for them.

 

[Yikes]

Here in the USA, the Americans with Disabilities Act does not apply to religious institutions as it relates to the practice of their religion.
That's because ADA is civil law, not building code. As such, the right to access bumps up against other constitutional rights, such as the right to exercise religious beliefs. I don't have any well-informed insight on this, except that it was once anecdotally explained to me that certain faith-healing groups may perceive the forced installation of mobility aids as denying their alternative belief in the possibility of healing. But here I'm straying into speculation, and this is not a religious forum.

As a practical matter, I've been able to "sell" churches on the ancillary benefits of installing ramps, etc., in that it makes any job with wheels more efficient: emptying trash cans, moving music equipment, moving tables and seating, etc. When they figure out how much they save in long-term maintenance staff costs, worker's compensation claims, etc., if can pretty much pay for itself , depending on the institution.

On the other hand, I've designed physical rehab facilities in African countries, where they actually need to simulate the physical challenges of the rural environment. The built environment is not wheelchair-friendly, but their culture of community solidarity is MUCH stronger than here in the West. They can count on friends and neighbors to carry them, literally and metaphorically speaking, and this greatly compensates for lack of physical infrastructure.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

I've fought with a lot of different provincial departments that the barrier free requirements apply to them as well.

Apparently "this act binds the crown" is not clear enough for them.

I think this is an aftermath of changes that came about in '21. Prior to that, provincial property was exempt, and folks could do what they wanted..... and my gracious what a ... flustercluck that was.

Here in the USA, the Americans with Disabilities Act does not apply to religious institutions as it relates to the practice of their religion.

The joy of Socialist Canada: these here rules apply to all of you. Religious institutions are A2 assembly buildings, not exempt from code.

The mere idea of fighting with a supposedly Christian church over such things as accessibility is so ... contrary ... to what Christianity is supposed to be about: looking after the less advantaged, the poor, the disabled.

 

[steveray]

The joy of Socialist Canada: these here rules apply to all of you. Religious institutions are A2 assembly buildings, not exempt from code.

Code makes them accessible when they are new and upgraded when remodeling....ADA just does not let them get sued for not being accessible if they are a private club.....Until they rent out the hall or have a daycare or whatever other "for profit" function they might have....

 

[Paul Sweet]

ADA was based on the 1964 Civil Rights Act which excluded churches and private clubs except when they rented their facilities to the public.

 

[arwat23]

I had a client that flat out refused to incorporate path of travel upgrades required under CBC for a tenant improvement. They essentially said we can either submit a permit application without those improvements or the project dies. I ended up submitted the plans to the city without those improvements knowing the city would catch the error. Now the project is delayed by two months because the building owner (and their lawyer who "wrote the law" on path of travel upgrades) thought they knew better.

 

[Raymond Redington]

I had a client that flat out refused to incorporate path of travel upgrades required under CBC for a tenant improvement. They essentially said we can either submit a permit application without those improvements or the project dies. I ended up submitted the plans to the city without those improvements knowing the city would catch the error. Now the project is delayed by two months because the building owner (and their lawyer who "wrote the law" on path of travel upgrades) thought they knew better.

Ah, the classic tale of hubris! You see, some people are under the misguided impression that they're the smartest person in the room. It's a tempting illusion, like a siren's song. And yet, they often end up steering their own ships onto the rocks.

Your client, bless their heart, thought they could outwit the system—perhaps even believed they were smarter than you and the city's code enforcers. Oh, it's almost Shakespearean! "The lawyer who 'wrote the law,'" you say? Well, even the best authors can misinterpret their own stories.

You did the pragmatic thing. The city's review is not unlike a pit of vipers, always ready to strike when the prey is least prepared. And strike it did. Two months' delay, hmm? An eternity in construction, a mere blink of an eye in the grand scheme of universal folly. It's the price one pays for thinking they can dance around regulations like Fred Astaire avoiding taxmen.

Ah, but I digress. You've found yourself in a pickle, and it's soaked in the vinegar of someone else's arrogance. My advice? Use the delay to reeducate your client, perhaps even gift them a pocket-sized building code book. Or, if you're feeling particularly cheeky, a pair of reading glasses.

Cherish this as a teachable moment, my friend. After all, you can't put a price on good old-fashioned common sense. Cheers!

 

[north star]

# ~ #
" ...perhaps even gift them a pocket-sized building code book. "
Does this even exist ?.......I get the point though !.........Contractors, construction attorneys,
builders, and others in the trades who can actually read & understand the English language
could benefit greatly from actually reading the Codes & Standards.

Then again, ...look at all of the discussion, ranting & spewing that takes place on this Forum.
Heck, even we have trouble understanding & applying the various Codes and Standards.
Most of us are Code geeks with an OCD need to understand & correctly apply what has been
adopted..........The average trade person & homeowner will not want to learn a whole new
language.

# ~ #

 

[ICE]

I had a client

Had being the operative word. Likely a problem client from start to finish.

 

[arwat23]

The lawyer who 'wrote the law,'" you say? Well, even the best authors can misinterpret their own stories.

I had a call with the LL's lawyer when I was trying to explain what's required by California Building Code, and this dude goes on this seemingly pre-prepared 15 minute speech about how he's won cases regarding this requirement and how I "can't force a building owner to upgrade the exterior of the building because a tenant wants to remove a few offices". Lawyer clearly never read the building code here or worked in that jurisdiction because this city does not play soft ball with this. LL doesn't need to pay for the improvements, but the improvements are required. Not sure if there was a misunderstanding or what, but they shut up the second we got comments from the city asking for the path of travel improvements.

Had being the operative word. Likely a problem client from start to finish.

The client was surprisingly good with everything except this. They really didn't want to spend the required 20% of the cost of construction on accessible upgrades since all the upgrades were outside their suite. Landlord didn't help at all since they also didn't want to do any of that work.

 

[ICE]

all the upgrades were outside their suite

I wouldn't want to pay for that either...especially if there are other businesses that would benefit for free. Considering the woke, equitable world we find ourselves in, there should be a way to spread the grief around.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

It is staggering how often I have to push builders/designers to incorporate the *mandatory* accessibility features. Next to basic structural foulups made by DIY deck builders and ill-trained rookie builders, I swear the accessibility stuff is probably the third or fourth-most problematic code enforcement issue I face.

since I do a lot of commercial inspections it's #1 for me for plan reviews and inspections.
The toilet rooms are designed as small as possible, so things don't work out on inspections.

 

[arwat23]

I wouldn't want to pay for that either...especially if there are other businesses that would benefit for free. Considering the woke, equitable world we find ourselves in, there should be a way to spread the grief around.

Usually, in our projects, the landlord is more than happy to pay for those upgrades, especially since it prevents the LL from being sued. This is the first time I've ever had a LL refuse to pay the comparatively small costs and force their tenant to pay for the required upgrades. It's not the tenants fault the parking and path of travel are laughably out of compliance with both ADA and building code, but we can't force the LL to pay for upgrades (that is something their lawyer was correct about).

I don't blame the tenant for not wanting to pay for fixing out of compliant things. But, if I'm being honest, I don't really care who pays for it. As long as I show what I need to show on our drawings and the work that needs to be done get's done, I won't lose sleep over who pays. It just sucks when a job is on the line because people are ignorant of the ADA / building code. Like, if a professional in a field who specializes in the thing you hired them for says something is required, why is it some people's first instinct to doubt them, especially when it comes to ADA / accessibility?

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Like, if a professional in a field who specializes in the thing you hired them for says something is required, why is it some people's first instinct to doubt them, especially when it comes to ADA / accessibility?

Just look at how many anti vaccine people their are.

 

[north star]

= = & = =

" Like, if a professional in a field who specializes in the thing you hired them

for says something is required, why is it some people's first instinct to doubt them,
especially when it comes to ADA / accessibility? "

Because it usually means costs, and in todays' "culturally correct", woke world,
...significant costs !.......Also, it would mean that someone would have to actually
think about doing something positive for someone else.........Ya know, that
whole hubris thing !

IMO, from the get-go, the whole human race has been suffering terribly because
of the "IAAOM Disease" ! < - - - "It's Always About Only Me Disease" !

= = & = =