We are designing a 8000 sf addition to an existing hospital and remodeling a small portion of an existing department that is adjacent to the expansion. All new construction will have accessible route, toilets etc. There is a toilet in the remodel area that is NOT ADA accessible. Michigan has a slightly altered IEBC code and they have removed some verbiage that required a 20% of construction dollars needs to go into updating accessibility in the existing building. Does Michigan have a code requirement to spend dollars on accessibility in other areas of their existing building?
-
Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades
handicapped upgrade of toilets in Michigan
- Thread starter Vlab20
- Start date
ICE
Oh Well
I can’t answer your question but I can ask one of my own…Are you allowed to use the word “handicapped” in the Midwest?
Handicapped is all inclusive and banned in most places.
Californians appreciate specificity. For example “mobility challenged”, “vision or hearing impaired”, “intellectually deficient”.
Handicapped is all inclusive and banned in most places.
Californians appreciate specificity. For example “mobility challenged”, “vision or hearing impaired”, “intellectually deficient”.
Paul Sweet
Sawhorse
The ADA will still require upgrades to accessibility in the altered area (ADASAD 36.403(a) (e) & (f)). ADASAD 216.8 will allow existing non-accessible restrooms to remain as long as there is directional signage to accessible restrooms. The hospital could be sued if the non-accessible restroom is the only one that can be used by people in that department.
steveray
SAWHORSE
Thanks for that feedback.
bill1952
SAWHORSE
My experience, including at Access Board hearings and as a member of the ANSI A117.2 committee since late 90s, use of the term "handicap" is definitely frowned upon. Deaf, gimp, cripple, mute, etc. are also not terms I would use. The is some movement to replace the word disabled, or at least limit it to persons with disabilities. It's a matter of respect for me. You can use whatever terms you choose.
bill1952
SAWHORSE
It's up to you. I know it's offensive to many people with health conditions or impairments.
Hypothetical scenario, which makes more sense?
Man walks up to a greeter station in a bank, hands the clerk a piece of paper: “The bearer of this document (he/him/his) is impaired and considered handicapped by the state of California. Please use an acceptable alternate form of communication in order to interact with he/him/his.”
… or …
”I am deaf”.
Man walks up to a greeter station in a bank, hands the clerk a piece of paper: “The bearer of this document (he/him/his) is impaired and considered handicapped by the state of California. Please use an acceptable alternate form of communication in order to interact with he/him/his.”
… or …
”I am deaf”.
bill1952
SAWHORSE
Your assumption that someone who can't hear also can't talk is right at the heart of this and why people with hearing impairments don't like the terms deaf and dumb, draft mute, etc.