Having worked in the architectural field for almost 22 years, I’ve gone from doing ink-on-mylar drawings hunched over a drafting table to spending my days on a computer putting together project drawings and specifications, all while having much of the information I need at my fingertips thanks to the internet. All but gone are the days of drawing up plans and running them through an old-fashioned blueprint machine with the special yellow printing paper, sucking in all those nice ammonia fumes.
Besides its computerization and the design flavor du jour, two other changes have radically affected my chosen profession over the last two decades. While I’ve regularly been critical of the movement toward sustainable architecture as an expensive mandate of dubious benefit (readers can browse the “Radical Green” category for some examples), another expensive mandate of dubious benefit came into being in the early 1990’s and is on the verge of being updated in the next few months. In 1990 President George H.W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act and changed the way our profession looked at the design of spaces.
I bring this up as an introduction to two recent articles by writer Hans Bader, who toils for the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Both of these look at disabilities in light of the legislation I referred to earlier. The more tongue-in-cheek article was written last week and asks whether we’re all disabled now. In Bader’s case, he points out a recent court decision made insomnia a disability, and since he only gets a few hours of sleep a night that makes him “disabled”, even though he’s otherwise healthy. I probably qualify as “disabled” myself once or twice a month on that count alone. Even moreso, I qualify in that category due to my sleep apnea – I must be in like flint on that disabled classification. Actually I would be, because that particular condition prevents me from doing an activity like camping where there’s no electrical outlets to plug my CPAP machine into. (Never mind I really have no desire to sleep outdoors on the hard ground anyway.)
The more recent and meatier Bader piece talks about the impact of the ADA on building design. He cites a New York Times story which claims 100,000 apartments in New York City alone may have to be renovated because the Justice Department says so. This is in spite of a local ordinance which is stricter than the federal one in many cases.
By hook or by crook, I’m sort of the go-to person in my firm when it comes to the ADA and similar code compliance issues. It’s probably because I’ve been in the architectural field long enough to have these things become second nature in design, but I’ve also sat through a couple seminars on the subject in my time as well. (The most recent one fulfilled a good chunk of my continuing education requirements for maintaining my registration in the state of Maryland; however, that sore subject is a post for another day.) But the problem with making more and more conditions legally considered disabilities is that more and more provisions have to be made architecturally for the new disabilities.
Let’s take my condition to the extreme. I’ve only run into one place where plugging in my CPAP was an issue, and the solution was unplugging the alarm clock in my motel room and asking the front desk for a wake-up call at a certain time. But wouldn’t I have a case that my disability required not just an outlet dedicated for the machine close by the bed, but one which is connected to a backup power supply because I need the machine to overcome my medical condition and get the proper amount of sleep, even if the power failed for some reason? Imagine the cost of retrofitting millions of domiciles around America if that were placed into federal regulations. And having done an architectural job renovating parts of a well-known area nightclub in response to legal action brought against the owner of that particular property, I’m well aware that with the right circumstances there are trial lawyers more than happy to take any case I could come up with if I believed my rights had been violated. It’s small wonder that one joke in my profession is that ADA truly stands for “Attorney’s Dreams Answered.”
In most respects, accessibility for the vast majority of the disabled has been addressed with the original ADA regulations. As I said earlier, those have pretty much become second nature for design and with Baby Boomers getting older and taking advantage of Medicare benefits to snatch up accessibility aids like power scooters, it’s likely that some provisions will need to be numerically increased to account for the larger population who depend on these devices, such as the number of accessible stalls in a toilet room or van-accessible parking spaces. But there needs to be a limit placed on just how far the regulations go, as it’s almost impossible to design a public space that truly accommodates all people regardless of disability in a cost-effective manner.
Regardless of the new regulations, the provisions which exist in current law that need to be retained are ones where spending to comply with accessibility regulations is prioritized in favor of accomplishing certain common accessibility goals first, then less important ones completed if funds remain available to do so. This also establishes a budgetary cap which dictates that only a certain percentage of the price needs to go to accessibility renovations and allows for exempting items which would exceed that percentage. Similar exemptions are also in place for changes which would disrupt the building structurally or damage the historic character of a building undergoing renovation.
I think both Bader and I agree that these regulations need to be reined in rather than expanded; unfortunately the trend with almost anything that comes out of Washington in this day and age is to go the opposite way. Having glanced through the 300-plus pages of the revised ADA regulations, I can vouch for the fact that there’s no exception in this case either.
Mike, I agree wholeheartedly. One only has to look at the green mandates within building codes, health codes and for that matter, the mere existence of energy codes to see what these people really want. Socialized architecture. Take a look at a little group called architecture 2030. Their goal is to eliminate greenhouse gases from all buildings by 2030. Now unless we are ready to enter a second stone age, this just isn’t going to happen – nor should it.
Prosperity is measured by each successive generation being better off, more productive and having a better life than the previous generation. Please tell me how that is going to happen by us using LESS energy and crippling development in the name of The Holy Globe.
The basic question here isn’t whether we should use energy wisely, the question is what business is it of code officicials, government agents or anyone else how efficient the building my client wants is. If he wants a building with screen walls and a glass roof… I say, “Pass the windex!”
Let Freedom Reign. Too bad that only applies to Iraqis’ these days.