Are Accessibility Standards Meeting the Needs of an Aging Population

[jar546]

As the population ages, there is a growing need for buildings to be more accessible. How well do current accessibility standards address the needs of an aging population? What improvements or changes would you suggest to accommodate this demographic better in building designs?

Example

 

[Yikes]

Slow to respond to this one. I work on a substantial amount of public-funded housing, including rehabbing existing buildings to meet ADA Standards and CBC 11B.

One of the most frustrating things is code requirements that no one wants, not even persons with disabilities.

For example, when renovating an existing apartment's tub/shower for ADA compliance I've had requests from residents for a "walk-in" tub in a designated mobility accessible unit:

The residents want it, and the owner is willing to pay for it. However, these kinds of tubs are not compliant with ADA Standards, which only allow a wheelchair transfer + permanent or fold-down seat at 17-19" high.
17-19" is too high to step over for many people, and the model code illustrations show the seat overlapping the tub rim, so the shower curtain can't go between the seat and the rim in order to keep water inside the tub.

So the old tub gets removed, a tall tub + seat gets installed, the resident can't lift their legs into it, and the shower water is spilling everywhere. At that point, they are saying, we just want our old bathtub back!

 

[Mr. Inspector]

I thought it was weird that accessible egress is not required in existing buildings, but entrances, toilet rooms and drinking fountains can be required. I thought it was more important to get out then to get in the building during a fire, especially more important than a drinking fountain or what side the toilet flush handle is on.

 

[arwat23]

I work in an area where a good chunk of the population is over the age of 65 (about 20% of the population) and a higher than average median age (47). I mostly work on commercial buildings. I think CA, with our more strict requirements for path of travel improvements for existing buildings, does a fairly decent job at keeping things accessible. But there are some shortcomings imo.

Like Mr. Inspector said, not requiring accessible means of egress in existing buildings seems odd. Sure, if you have an accessible entry, you possibly have an accessible means of egress to some degree, but that still seems weird to not require it.

I also think CA should adopt some of the more strict technical requirements that ICC A117.1 has. I know CA has a fat list of amendments to ADAS that make parts of it more strict than A117.1, but there are many parts of A117.1 that are more strict than CA code.

 

[Msradell]

As the population ages, there is a growing need for buildings to be more accessible. How well do current accessibility standards address the needs of an aging population? What improvements or changes would you suggest to accommodate this demographic better in building designs?

Example

I am disabled and uses a wheelchair. I don't think the problems is the codes as much as it is the fact that the codes are not enforced in many areas. On top of that there is no mechanism in the code for enforcement of it.

 

[jar546]

I am disabled and uses a wheelchair. I don't think the problems is the codes as much as it is the fact that the codes are not enforced in many areas. On top of that there is no mechanism in the code for enforcement of it.

I agree that this is an enforcement issue. I am not talking about local jurisdictions enforcing ADA which they are not authorized to do, but I am talking about jurisdictions that don't enforce their own or state laws that govern accessibility such as when the ANSI A117.1 is adopted or a version of it customized by the state.
As an example, compared to Pennsylvania, Florida is beyond lackluster when it comes to enforcing the FBC Accessibility. As I travel around the state, I am appalled by the amount of non-compliance, even with new construction. Florida really needs a wake up call.

 

[tbz]

There are certain areas of the country that have older communities that have existing structures and the infrastructures that access them where it is extremely overly costly to implement basic accessibility compliance for a change of use, were minor renovation is needed for its general use, but major renovation needs to be done specifically for compliance with accessibility.

On the other side of that is a blank slate construction site where there is no excuse for compliance, but in these locations you periodically find designs, prepared by design professionals that openly leave out accessibility requirements on the drawings that are approved to begin construction and the local AHJ don't enforce and allow projects to move forward and issue certificates of occupancy for.

The biggest issue I see across my desk is the non-uniformity of the plan review, we continue to see plans approved and permits issued that show accessibility routes for ramps, that are clearly never checked to see if the areas designated are actually large enough for the installation the compliant ramp with the required landings, handrails, handrail extensions and possibly guards.

This is an issue that seems to be very slowly getting better, but a very large amount of drawings are still brought to my attention each week, and this tells me that a better educated designer on these requirements is part 1, the second is a reviewer that catches it.

 

[tmurray]

There are a couple of issues I think we are running up against (at least in Canada) as we progress with accessibility requirements:

1. One set of requirements does not work for everyone. We are used of creating something based on code that in theory works for everyone. When it comes to implementing accessibility standards, we have been chasing the same idea. Now we're seeing advancements that benefit one group, but create challenges for another group. This is particularly pronounced in dwelling units where we are trying to make a certain amount of units accessible, but the standards don't necessarily work for everyone. I think a solution to this is to make dwelling units adaptable (minim floor area requirements, hall and door width, blocking for grab bars in walls at strategic places, etc.) Stuff that can be done with minimal cost at the design and construction phase so people can implement the elements they need in their dwelling later on for less cost.

2. In Canada, discrimination against someone based on a disability is a violation of their charter rights. There is a misunderstanding that once you building meets the accessibility requirements laid out in the code, you do not need to make further adaptations. This is not true. Because it is a human right, the owner must adapt to the point of unreasonable hardship. Apartment building owners and condo boards need better education on their responsibilities.

 

[mtlogcabin]

I thought it was weird that accessible egress is not required in existing buildings,

An accessible route into the building is the accessible means of egress to get out of the building.
The code does not require you to provide a second accessible means of egress in existing buildings.

2018 IBC
1009.2 Continuity and components.
Each required accessible means of egress shall be continuous to a public way and shall consist of one or more of the following components:

1. Accessible routes complying with Section 1104.

2. Interior exit stairways complying with Sections 1009.3 and 1023.

3. Exit access stairways complying with Sections 1009.3 and 1019.3 or 1019.4.

4. Exterior exit stairways complying with Sections 1009.3 and 1027 and serving levels other than the level of exit discharge.

5. Elevators complying with Section 1009.4.

6. Platform lifts complying with Section 1009.5.

7. Horizontal exits complying with Section 1026.

8. Ramps complying with Section 1012.

9. Areas of refuge complying with Section 1009.6.

10. Exterior areas for assisted rescue complying with Section 1009.7 serving exits at the level of exit discharge.

 

[Yikes]

Another example:
On a nearly completed public housing project, I was asked by the developer to switch out a bathtub to a roll-in shower in a mobility accessible unit. They knew it would be helpful for various kinds of disabilities.
Unfortunately, if you switched out that unit’s bathtub to a shower-only, you have now discriminated against that tenant because you have not offered them the same kind of amenity (opportunity to take a bath) that is available to other residents. You have to change out at least two units: one accessible and one conventional unit, so as to meet dispersion requirements, and then you need to make sure you still have yet another mobility accessible unit with a bathtub.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

An accessible route into the building is the accessible means of egress to get out of the building.
The code does not require you to provide a second accessible means of egress in existing buildings.

2018 IBC
1009.2 Continuity and components.
Each required accessible means of egress shall be continuous to a public way and shall consist of one or more of the following components:

1. Accessible routes complying with Section 1104.

2. Interior exit stairways complying with Sections 1009.3 and 1023.

3. Exit access stairways complying with Sections 1009.3 and 1019.3 or 1019.4.

4. Exterior exit stairways complying with Sections 1009.3 and 1027 and serving levels other than the level of exit discharge.

5. Elevators complying with Section 1009.4.

6. Platform lifts complying with Section 1009.5.

7. Horizontal exits complying with Section 1026.

8. Ramps complying with Section 1012.

9. Areas of refuge complying with Section 1009.6.

10. Exterior areas for assisted rescue complying with Section 1009.7 serving exits at the level of exit discharge.

I disagree. Nowhere in the 2018 IEBC says an accessible egress is required. Nothing in section 1009 "accessible means of egress" would be required in an existing building.

 

[steveray]

I thought it was weird that accessible egress is not required in existing buildings, but entrances, toilet rooms and drinking fountains can be required. I thought it was more important to get out then to get in the building during a fire, especially more important than a drinking fountain or what side the toilet flush handle is on.

If you have an accessible entrance....you generally have an accessible egress....

 

[mtlogcabin]

Nowhere in the 2018 IEBC says an accessible egress is required.

I agree, However there are quite a number of buildings constructed after 2003 I-Codes where adopted that are required to have an accessible means of egress.
The Items listed in 2018 IBC Section 1009.2 1-10 that where installed have to be maintained.

2018 IEBC
[F] 1505.2 Maintenance of means of egress.
Means of egress and required accessible means of egress shall be maintained at all times during construction, demolition, remodeling or alterations and additions to any building.

Exception: Existing means of egress need not be maintained where approved temporary means of egress and accessible means of egress systems and facilities are provided.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

When I go out to inspect an existing building I almost never know when it was built, or which code year was used when it got that permit or if the accessible egress actually complied to that code when it got the C. O. or if it got appeal. I don't carry the older code books too.

 

[jar546]

When I go out to inspect an existing building I almost never know when it was built, or which code year was used when it got that permit or if the accessible egress actually complied to that code when it got the C. O. or if it got appeal. I don't carry the older code books too.

The permit card which is required to be on site should have the code cycle applies to the permit.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

agree, However there are quite a number of buildings constructed after 2003 I-Codes where adopted that are required to have an accessible means of egress.
The Items listed in 2018 IBC Section 1009.2 1-10 that where installed have to be maintained.

2018 IEBC
[F] 1505.2 Maintenance of means of egress.
Means of egress and required accessible means of egress shall be maintained at all times during construction, demolition, remodeling or alterations and additions to any building.

Exception: Existing means of egress need not be maintained where approved temporary means of egress and accessible means of egress systems and facilities are provided.
[/QUOTE]

The permit card which is required to be on site should have the code cycle applies to the permit.

I meant the original permit the existing building was built to.

 

[Plumb-bob]

There are a couple of issues I think we are running up against (at least in Canada) as we progress with accessibility requirements:

1. One set of requirements does not work for everyone. We are used of creating something based on code that in theory works for everyone. When it comes to implementing accessibility standards, we have been chasing the same idea. Now we're seeing advancements that benefit one group, but create challenges for another group. This is particularly pronounced in dwelling units where we are trying to make a certain amount of units accessible, but the standards don't necessarily work for everyone. I think a solution to this is to make dwelling units adaptable (minim floor area requirements, hall and door width, blocking for grab bars in walls at strategic places, etc.) Stuff that can be done with minimal cost at the design and construction phase so people can implement the elements they need in their dwelling later on for less cost.

2. In Canada, discrimination against someone based on a disability is a violation of their charter rights. There is a misunderstanding that once you building meets the accessibility requirements laid out in the code, you do not need to make further adaptations. This is not true. Because it is a human right, the owner must adapt to the point of unreasonable hardship. Apartment building owners and condo boards need better education on their responsibilities.

BC is requiring all dwelling units to be adaptable starting in 2025. Like you say, good bang for the buck.

 

[jar546]

agree, However there are quite a number of buildings constructed after 2003 I-Codes where adopted that are required to have an accessible means of egress.
The Items listed in 2018 IBC Section 1009.2 1-10 that where installed have to be maintained.

2018 IEBC
[F] 1505.2 Maintenance of means of egress.
Means of egress and required accessible means of egress shall be maintained at all times during construction, demolition, remodeling or alterations and additions to any building.

Exception: Existing means of egress need not be maintained where approved temporary means of egress and accessible means of egress systems and facilities are provided.

I meant the original permit the existing building was built to.
[/QUOTE]
The plans examiner should have asked for that during plan review, otherwise it is an uncertified building in PA.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

The permit card which is required to be on site should have the code cycle applies to the permit.

I meant the original permit the existing building was built to.

The plans examiner should have asked for that during plan review, otherwise it is an uncertified building in PA.
[/QUOTE]

What I mean is if something with accessibility egress was missed by the original inspection you can't make them maintain something that was not right to begin with.
Just did an inspection in a town that my 3rd party just took over. Plan review was done by the previous 3rd party. It was for some minor work. Plans did not say what IEBC method is used. There was no accessible entrance or egress. Plans did not show any. Doesn't look like they ever had them. How can they maintain an accessible egress when they may have never had it?

 

[mark handler]

Do current accessibility standards address the needs of an aging, yes and no.
It took 200 years of building in this country, without consideration of accessibility.
It will take time and money, to transform the built environment to be accessible.
If and when enforced, current accessibility standards does make life easier for the aging population, but there is a long way to go.
One problem, and we see it here, may people enforcing the current accessibility standards, don't feel they are necessary, or don't know thy they are there.
Had a friend of mine, and yes I do have some friends, Wheelchair user complain about the Truncated Domes. The bumping of the domes hurt when he road over them, he was in extreme pain he Didn't understand why they were there. once i explained their purpose, he didn't compline anymore. he understood they were not there for him, but for the sight-impaired.

 

[mtlogcabin]

The bumping of the domes hurt when he road over them, he was in extreme pain

My wife experienced the same thing while using a knee scooter when she was recovering from surgery for a broken foot.
Personally I don't like them, they are a slip and fall hazard in the winter here from ice and snow freezing on them.

 

[mark handler]

My wife experienced the same thing while using a knee scooter when she was recovering from surgery for a broken foot.
Personally I don't like them, they are a slip and fall hazard in the winter here from ice and snow freezing on them.

Been There, Felt That

 

[Yikes]

Just got back from a trip to Northern Europe. The EU takes the exact opposite approach regarding detectable warnings.
We try to use bumps to tell visually impaired where it is less safe: big stripes of domes across all traffic locations.
Instead the EU provides grooved tiles in the center of sidewalks, etc. so that a cane can detect the safest route to go. Special patterns indicate intersections and places to turn.

 

[mark handler]

Just got back from a trip to Northern Europe. The EU takes the exact opposite approach regarding detectable warnings.
We try to use bumps to tell visually impaired where it is less safe: big stripes of domes across all traffic locations.
Instead the EU provides grooved tiles in the center of sidewalks, etc. so that a cane can detect the safest route to go. Special patterns indicate intersections and places to turn.

View attachment 13907

And we cannot get the bare minimums here