• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Is it really a mall?

Examiner

Examiner

REGISTERED
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
521
Location
USA
Given: Many retail stores on the same site but they are separate buildings perimeter by parking lots. The buildings containing several stores but there are pedestrian plazas between buildings.

Site plan shows the buildings not in as a strip center but more like a mall that does not have a roof over the plazas.

Designer calls this complex an outlet mall. Is it really a mall or a shopping center?

Designer shows public restrooms accessed from the outside plaza in lieu of providing public restrooms for in each retail store. Is this allowable if it is not a mall?

What about the travel distance to a restroom? Is there an issue with ADA or other Code sections about having the customers go outside to the restrooms when the store has restrooms for the employees?

I am told these are designed this way all around the country. That confuses me because I see each tenant as having to meet the requirements of restroom facilities for the employees and its customers since it is not really a covered mall.

Comments welcome.
 
Does not sound like a mall

Cannot address the potty code, but have seen these with common restrooms available to all the stores
 
There is no "shopping center" in the code that I am aware of. It sounds like an "open mall". There is a way to permit restrooms accessible from the exterior, look in the "mall" section. Yes to the ADA issues.
 
Sound like a mall to me

SECTION 402

Open mall. An unroofed common pedestrian way serving a number of tenants not exceeding three levels. Circulation at levels above grade shall be permitted to include open exterior balconies leading to exits discharging at grade.

Open mall building. Several structures housing a number of tenants, such as retail stores, drinking and dining establishments, entertainment and amusement facilities, offices, and other similar uses, wherein two or more tenants have a main entrance into one or more open malls.

In CALIFORNIA only

SECTION 1102B

DEFINITIONS

SHOPPING CENTER (or SHOPPING MALL) is one or more sales or rental establishments or stores. A shopping center may include a series of buildings on a common site, connected by a common pedestrian access route on, above or below the groundfloor, that is either under common ownership or common control or developed either as one project or as a series of related projects. For the purposes of this section, "shopping center" or "shopping mall" includes a covered mall building.
 
* * * *

Examiner,

Your application is not a mall! It is more of a "shopping market".

The codes do not specifically address these types of "new"

designs for shopping. They are the latest, greatest thing to attract

customers, and getting away from the so called "strip centers",

and definitely away from the antiquated "covered malls" [ i.e. -

the big boxes ].

Destin, Florida has a really nice one. See the link.

http://www.sandestin.com/ExploreSandestin/Shopping/TheMarketShops.aspx

As others have eluded to, ...the ' Common Restrooms '

are part of the overall design. In the restaurants,

they do have the ADA compliant & quantity of restrooms.

The perimeter type parking DOES include the required

quantity of ADA compliant spaces & loading areas.

This type of design is ahead of the 2006 I-codes, ...not

sure if this type of shopping facilities is incorporated in

to the 2009 I-codes or not.

Have you checked Section 503.1.2 in the 2006 IBC?

Section 503.1.2: "Buildings on same lot.

Two or more buildings on the same lot shall be regulated as separate buildings

or shall be considered as portions of one building if the height of each building

and the aggregate area of buildings are within the limitations of Table 503 as

modified by :Next('./icod_ibc_2006f2_5_sec004.htm')'>Sections 504 and :Next('./icod_ibc_2006f2_5_sec006.htm')'>506.......The provisions of this code applicable

to the aggregate building shall be applicable to each building."

Also, in the City of Ridgeland, MS, they have built a shopping facility similar

to the one in Destin. It is called "Renaissance at Colony Park". See the link:

http://www.renaissanceatcolonypark.com/

Send me a PM if you want more info.

* * * *
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not under the 09 yet so did not know they played with the mall definition in the 09 code
 
In 2002 we had Short Pump Town Center built here under 1996 BOCA and by modification we let them use the covered mall provisions, with the alternative design being smoke control by omiting the roof.

http://www.shortpumpmall.com/

I see that the 2009 IBC validates that concept.
 
It would help to know the exact codes that are used for your jurisdiction.

I don't design Malls or Outlet malls, but my first thought was: "Of course, common facilities are okay in an open Mall concept" Every Outlet Mall I've been to has common toilet room facilities. We've now adopted the 2009 IBC, but even under the 2006, we used the Uniform Plumbing Code which has this requirement which supports this concept:

"412.5.2 Fixtures for customer use shall be

permitted to be met by providing a centrally

located facility accessible to several stores. The

maximum distance from entry to any store to

this facility shall not exceed five hundred (500)

feet (152.4 m)."
 
Code will be the 2006 IBC. I did not find a definition for “Open Mall” in the 2006 code. Section 402 - Covered Mall Buildings in the 2006.

I did word searches for "open mall", "open" and "mall" and nothing came up but “covered mall” or in the covered mall section.

Mark what code did you find the Open Mall definition? Is the definition in something other than my electronic program of the 2006 IBC? I use the 2006 Commentary Collection on my computer.

A new design without a definition for it to be called an "open mall" would put it back to nothing more than an outdoor shopping center. Maybe not a strip center but definitely a shopping center. Yes, it will fall under a campus plan per code with separate buildings if the “open mall” definition is not within the Codes. I guess the City could issue a waiver for the restrooms to be centrally located within travel distances.
 
If you're under the 2006, then it is defined as: "a bunch of individual buildings grouped somewhat closely together".

Why they needed to specifically address "a bunch of individual buildings grouped somewhat closely together" in the 2009 is beyond me. The code already has all of the provisions necessary to regulate "a bunch of..." well, you know the rest.
 
= = = =

FWIW,

The term ' outlet mall ' is one part of the pyschological aspect of the marketing

plan for these type facilities........It facilitates the idea that there are cheaper

prices for their merchandise........It also focuses directly on a particular demographic,

...females!

The term ' shopping center ' doesn't foster that "new, ...exciting, ...trendy, ...latest,

greatest" mindset.

= = = =
 
So, if the Code does not address the shopping center as an “open mall” then it is nothing more than a “campus plan” of separate buildings and each should have its own restrooms for the employees and public use in each building. I seem to remember a project I reviewed and found somewhere in the 2006-IPC and accessibility regulations comments about not liking the idea of leaving a building’s interior environment to venture outside to go to the public restrooms. Having a restroom above or below a story that does not have a restroom is allowed but I do not think going outside was ever the intent.
 
MALL. A roofed or covered common pedestrian area within a covered mall building that serves as access for two or more tenants and not to exceed three levels that are open to each other.

We have determined that the Open Mall is not a Covered Mall and the Mall term is that area between the stores. Per this definition it is roofed or covered and in a covered mall building. Therefore, the Open Mall being the area between stores is an outside plaza.

2006 IBC 503.1.2 Buildings on same lot. Two or more buildings on the same lot shall be regulated as separate buildings or shall be considered as portions of one building if the height of each building and the aggregate area of buildings are within the limitations of Table 503 as modified by Sections 504 and 506. The provisions of this code applicable to the aggregate building shall be applicable to each building.

This is the section of the Code that allows the buildings to be on the same lot. The Construction Type and sizes will determine whither or not they are regulated as separate buildings or as one building. Until there is a Code definition of an Open Mall I think this is the Section that applies.

2006 IPC 403.4 Required public toilet facilities. Customers, patrons and visitors shall be provided with public toilet facilities in structures and tenant spaces intended for public utilization. This sentence is stating that the restrooms are to be in the tenant space or in the structure. If you have to go outside you are not in the structure. The accessible route to public facilities shall not pass through kitchens, storage rooms, closets or similar spaces. This sentence is addressing the route that is undoubtedly in the structure or tenant space. Employees shall be provided with toilet facilities in all occupancies. This sentence is requiring restrooms for the employees in all occupancies and the occupancy is in the building. Employee toilet facilities shall be either separate or combined employee and public toilet facilities. This sentence is allowing the restrooms to be shared or be separated for patrons and employees. So it appears to me that the restrooms are to be in the building where the occupancy or tenant occurs not in another building.

2006 IPC 403.4.1 Location of toilet facilities in occupancies other than covered malls. In occupancies other than covered malls, the required public and employee toilet facilities shall be located not more than one story above or below the space required to be provided with toilet facilities, and the path of travel to such facilities shall not exceed a distance of 500 feet (152 m). This only addresses the maximum travel distance not if it is allowed to be an outside or inside route. Exception: The location and maximum travel distances to required employee facilities in factory and industrial occupancies are permitted to exceed that required by this section, provided that the location and maximum travel distance are approved.
 
Input from the ICC below:

You might be interested in knowing what the 2012 IBC/IPC says about the topic of your email:

403.3.4 Location of toilet facilities in malls. In covered and open mall buildings, the required public and employee toilet facilities shall be located not more than one story above or below the space required to be provided with toilet facilities, and the path of travel to such facilities shall not exceed a distance of 300 feet (91 440 mm). In mall buildings, the required facilities shall be based on total square footage within a covered mall building or within the perimeter line of an open mall building, and facilities shall be installed in each individual store or in a central toilet area located in accordance with this section. The maximum travel distance to central toilet facilities in mall buildings shall be measured from the main entrance of any store or tenant space. In mall buildings, where employees' toilet facilities are not provided in the individual store, the maximum travel distance shall be measured from the employees' work area of the store or tenant space.

I believe there will be a definition placed in the IBC for an open mall building.

I assume that the "in mall" reference is to both a covered and open mall. It would seem that the BO must issue a waiver for the complex to be designed under the forthcomming "Open Mall" requirements.
 
Well, it could be either.

The reason that the "open mall" section got into the code was because it made no sense to require a building to be treated as something other than a mall if it meets all the provisions except for a roof. I'll add a screen over the top so it's "covered" and now it complies??? That 's ridiculous.

Make them pick a path and stick to it. Either its a building as such or a covered mall - but not both or bits from both. Add the standpipes, voice alarm and other safety elements not normally required and call it a mall.
 
Gene Boecker said:
Well, it could be either.The reason that the "open mall" section got into the code was because it made no sense to require a building to be treated as something other than a mall if it meets all the provisions except for a roof. I'll add a screen over the top so it's "covered" and now it complies??? That 's ridiculous.

Make them pick a path and stick to it. Either its a building as such or a covered mall - but not both or bits from both. Add the standpipes, voice alarm and other safety elements not normally required and call it a mall.
Click to expand...
I would agree with this, only if the individual buildings did not comply with the code as stand alone buildings. Why on earth would you require all of the restrictive mall provisions on individual buildings that meet height, area, separation, etc requirements? The reason the mall provisions are in place is because it's all one building. 402.1, Exception 2 clearly does not intend for these provisions to apply, if the buildings totally comply with all other provisions of the code.

"Add a screen over the top so it's covered"? I don't know if that's really a relevant argument. Depending on the type of "screen", it might become a covered mall building, it might be a pedestrian walkway, or it might be something else. The fact remains that the code already addresses these things. To call a group of individual, code compliant buildings anything other than what they are is what's ridiculous.

Next thing you know, we'll have people wanting to call a series of warehouse buildings that are in proximity to each other a "mall". In fact, the 2009 definition could easily be applied to such situations. Overly restrictive and unnecessary; good for code consultants, bad for everyone else.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The answer to "why" is simple: So the individual buildings don't have to meet the individual building requirements. In an outdoor setting the design is like a mall with the desire for maximum window exposure. And, the "buildings" are close together so that exterior wall ratings and opening protection becomes a major problem. Since a mall can be Type II-B construction that is highly desirable as well. The buildings will likely be sprinklered (since we sprinkler everything now). Smoke control is passive so that done. All that needs to be done is Add a few standpipe connections. It's the separation issues that are the real problem.

Oh, and there's that thing about fire departments wanting access to the main pedestrian mall. It's tough to drive a pumper over all those planters and fountains. If the trucks can be kept to the perimeter, then the central circulation path can be used for people.

I don't think folks will be using the mall provision for a warehouse. You're right. It's overly restrictive for that. But for retail it's perfect - and used all over the country.
 
Gene Boecker said:
The answer to "why" is simple: So the individual buildings don't have to meet the individual building requirements. In an outdoor setting the design is like a mall with the desire for maximum window exposure. And, the "buildings" are close together so that exterior wall ratings and opening protection becomes a major problem. Since a mall can be Type II-B construction that is highly desirable as well. The buildings will likely be sprinklered (since we sprinkler everything now). Smoke control is passive so that done. All that needs to be done is Add a few standpipe connections. It's the separation issues that are the real problem.Oh, and there's that thing about fire departments wanting access to the main pedestrian mall. It's tough to drive a pumper over all those planters and fountains. If the trucks can be kept to the perimeter, then the central circulation path can be used for people.

I don't think folks will be using the mall provision for a warehouse. You're right. It's overly restrictive for that. But for retail it's perfect - and used all over the country.
Click to expand...
OK; we're saying the same thing. I have no problem applying such provisions when the buildings do not comply with the code. I guess I just haven't seen any that had the buildings so close together that wall/opening protection would be an issue.

By the way, smoke control is moot unless it's an atrium situation. See my post regarding malls a couple of threads back - I'd like your thoughts on that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top