A big part of my role at the ADA Center is to demystify physical access requirements from the ADA. In a perfect world, every physical structure would be equally usable by everyone. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a perfect world. Historically, physical access was based on what the fully able-bodied population could do and no consideration was given to others. It was ‘their problem’ to deal with. Since many barriers couldn’t be mitigated, people with disabilities were effectively barred from entry to these facilities. A major goal of the ADA was to create a minimum standard to allow people with disabilities systematic access to places covered by the ADA.
The ADA was created with reasonable judgement being a crucial component of balancing the needs of people with disabilities with the realities that businesses and local governments face. No business or government agency has unlimited funding. It can also be expensive to make physical access improvements to an existing inaccessible facility.
Local governments have the option of providing programs in only the accessible spaces under their control. They can also use other equally effective means to provide access to their programs, so long as they prioritize doing so in an integrated manner. (A core principle of the ADA is to no longer segregate people with disabilities from everyone else.) Sometimes they will need to update an existing facility, but it’s one of several options at their disposal.
Businesses are supposed to understand what physical access barriers exist within their facilities. Then address those barriers that can be removed when it’s easily accomplishable without much difficulty or expense. Businesses also have access to Tax Incentives from the IRS Code to help offset some of the costs of complying with the ADA. This is an on-going obligation, though. That means that access barriers that are too expensive to address today might not be in the future. Imagine a new business starting up in an existing building. This building does not have an accessible entrance. Installing a ramp when they open might be too much of a burden for that business to survive during the first few months of operation. But, in 5 years that business could be thriving. At that point, they could have much more stable finances as well as 5 years to budget the cost of installing a ramp to the entrance. This also demonstrates one aspect of the ADA that few consider: time.
It was never intended that the passage of the ADA would make the physical environment accessible overnight. Businesses were supposed to do what they could. Local governments may have had more responsibility to make physical changes but also had other options. The idea was, and is, that over time both businesses and governments would plan to alter their facilities for normal reasons unrelated to accessibility or would build new facilities. When this happens, it should be done accessibly.
During a planned alteration of an existing facility, access should be part of the design within the scope of the work already being performed. To simplify, whatever you touch, you should replace accessibly. The ADA even makes exceptions with the understanding that it’s not always possible to bring an existing space into full compliance. In those cases, you do the best you can to provide access.
When it comes to new construction, the expectation set by the ADA is that it be designed accessibly from the start. The earlier access can be integrated into a new facility’s plans, the less compromises people with disabilities will have to deal with when the construction is completed. All this has been a build-up to the idea that if you only know one thing about new construction, know this… You can’t build new things that aren’t accessible. It sounds simple enough, but you’d be surprised at how often people have no empathy. When a facility is being designed without existing barriers, new barriers shouldn’t be created. Think of policy as a band-aid to be used when an existing barrier can’t be removed. The policy might make up for the barrier to an extent, but it doesn't provide the same experience.
Example: An old restaurant has a bar with no accessible seating. The bar has not been renovated and the new ownership has determined it is not readily achievable to add accessible seating at the bar at that time. The restaurant will offer bar service at a nearby table that is accessible. While a person who needs accessible seating might still receive bar services, they don’t get the same opportunity as siting at the bar. The TV behind the bar may be the best place to watch the championship game. The customer may enjoy chatting with the bartender. The policy of providing bar service at the table is better than nothing, but it’s not the same experience. It’s a compromise that results in a less than equal experience for the person with a disability. This problem is rooted in the nature of the existing facility because access was not part of the original design. The policy is in place to make up for the barrier created before the ADA became law.
In all fairness, professional designers rarely believe using a policy to make up for an inaccessible new design is an acceptable or legal practice. It’s usually facility owners who want to take short cuts. Designers should understand that they could share liability in a disability discrimination complaint or lawsuit, for the entire time a physical space is intended to exist once constructed.
When you have a blank canvas, ableism is not a genre for inspiration. The notion I want to squash is that a new design can omit accessibility and use a policy to “provide access.” There is simply nothing within the ADA which supports this idea. I realize that I’m likely preaching to the choir, but I feel very strongly that this should be common knowledge. If we accept the errors of the past without correction, the future will never be better. Just as with life, we don’t have control over things that happened in the past, but we do have a responsibility to learn from the past and to do better now for future generations.