Pedestrian Access Route Completed at Schlafly Bottleworks
Last October I posted about the lack of a pedestrian route to reach the Schlafly Bottleworks in Maplewood.  Pedestrians were forced to walk in spaces designed for cars, not people.  Pedestrians deserve their own route separate from crossing through automobile parking lots.  Furthermore, American’s with Disabilities Act guidelines requires such:
4.3.2 Location.
(1) At least one accessible route within the boundary of the site shall be provided from public transportation stops, accessible parking, and accessible passenger loading zones, and public streets or sidewalks to the accessible building entrance they serve. The accessible route shall, to the maximum extent feasible, coincide with the route for the general public.
Failure to provide this route is a civil rights violation, as well as being very anti-pedestrian.
I’m happy to report Schlafly has just completed constructing an access route!
Schalfly knows good  food & beer, not pedestrian access.  Responsibility to plan for pedestrian access falls to the architects & engineers hired by business owners. Unfortunately too many of these professionals fail their clients and the public by not considering how the pedestrian on the sidewalk will reach the front door.
I’m convinced that if design professionals actually informed their clients of the need to provide a route for pedestrians we’d see buildings get placed closer to the public sidewalk to reduce the expense of the concrete. Â My preference, of course, would be for the buildings to abut the sidewalk — with no parking in between. Building codes must get caught up so this becomes something plan reviewers and building inspectors will check for.
In the meantime I’ve got thousands of business & property owners to persuade to do as Schlafly has done. I’ll probably start with Schlafly’s original location, The Tap Room, located in west downtown.
– Steve Patterson
As a design professional, I need to take exception with your statement that “Responsibility to plan for pedestrian access falls to the architects & engineers hired by business owners. Unfortunately too many of these professionals fail their clients and the public by not considering how the pedestrian on the sidewalk will reach the front door.”
One, the ADA is pretty explicit in stating that compliance is, ultimately, the owner’s responsibility. If an owner retains the services of design professionals, he or she should reasonably expect competence, and will likely hold them responsible for any errors or omissions in the plans they prepare. But if a person chooses to press a civil rights case, they will do so against the owner, not the owner’s consultant(s).
Two, in any profession, you will find a range of competence among its practioners – a license does not guarantee a good job. You can get a good or bad haircut, tattoo or set of civil engineering plans. Part of it is that you need to do your research and part of it is you get what you pay for.
And three, until there are consequences for non-compliance with the ADA, many owners will choose not to comply, arguing / rationalizing that it’s too “expensive” and/or “onerous” to do so. While I’ve had limited experience with site access issues, I’ve had multiple commercial clients say, for example, that they’re not going to modify an existing restroom until they get called on it.
Fortunately, the International codes are aligning themselves more closely with the ADAAG, so compliance is improving inside structures (since local building officials are enforcing the requirements, and not the Dept. of Justice or the courts). The real challenge remains site access, where there seems to be little consistency or attention being paid to anything outside a specific site.
Finally, building a structure next to a sidewalk does not guarantee that a public entrance will be provided from the sidewalk. We live in an autocentric world, and the public entrance invariably abuts any available parking. There are multiple examples of this out there, with both the parking and the public entrance facing away from the public sidewalk, many times creating a longer, less-direct path for someone who chooses to arrive on foot.
As a design professional, I need to take exception with your statement that “Responsibility to plan for pedestrian access falls to the architects & engineers hired by business owners. Unfortunately too many of these professionals fail their clients and the public by not considering how the pedestrian on the sidewalk will reach the front door.”
One, the ADA is pretty explicit in stating that compliance is, ultimately, the owner’s responsibility. If an owner retains the services of design professionals, he or she should reasonably expect competence, and will likely hold them responsible for any errors or omissions in the plans they prepare. But if a person chooses to press a civil rights case, they will do so against the owner, not the owner’s consultant(s).
Two, in any profession, you will find a range of competence among its practioners – a license does not guarantee a good job. You can get a good or bad haircut, tattoo or set of civil engineering plans. Part of it is that you need to do your research and part of it is you get what you pay for.
And three, until there are consequences for non-compliance with the ADA, many owners will choose not to comply, arguing / rationalizing that it’s too “expensive” and/or “onerous” to do so. While I’ve had limited experience with site access issues, I’ve had multiple commercial clients say, for example, that they’re not going to modify an existing restroom until they get called on it.
Fortunately, the International codes are aligning themselves more closely with the ADAAG, so compliance is improving inside structures (since local building officials are enforcing the requirements, and not the Dept. of Justice or the courts). The real challenge remains site access, where there seems to be little consistency or attention being paid to anything outside a specific site.
Finally, building a structure next to a sidewalk does not guarantee that a public entrance will be provided from the sidewalk. We live in an autocentric world, and the public entrance invariably abuts any available parking. There are multiple examples of this out there, with both the parking and the public entrance facing away from the public sidewalk, many times creating a longer, less-direct path for someone who chooses to arrive on foot.
“We live in an autocentric world”
Actually, no. The US is very, very autocentric. But a good share of the world (and a larger proportion of people, I’d guess) live in places that are not autocentric.
Agreed, I was using world to mean our environment, not the entire planet.
What do you mean by “design professional”? Architect? Urban planner? I ask only because I’m fascinated by these fields.
I’m an architect.
My point is the owners didn’t receive competent professional services.
What proof do you have? Did the Schlafly folks show you plans without an accessible route? Or, are you just going on what was built there?
I’ve not seen the architects drawings, I would love to see them! Schlafly folks indicated they hadn’t thought about pedestrian access. Once I pointed it out they got busy correcting their property.
“We live in an autocentric world”
Actually, no. The US is very, very autocentric. But a good share of the world (and a larger proportion of people, I’d guess) live in places that are not autocentric.
Agreed, I was using world to mean our environment, not the entire planet.
What do you mean by “design professional”? Architect? Urban planner? I ask only because I’m fascinated by these fields.
No form of civil rights violations in MO or the country will be tolerated against any protected class. Great work Steve!!!
No form of civil rights violations in MO or the country will be tolerated against any protected class. Great work Steve!!!
I’m an architect.
My point is the owners didn’t receive competent professional services.
JZ is right on. I am also an architect and have many clients that choose to ignore the drawings that I have prepared according to the code betting they won’t get called on it. Contractors often “help” the
owner cut corners and if accessibility is not a priority to the owner it’s not included. Admittedly, some design professionals are lazy and used to doing things the way they’ve always been done and know what they can get away with. But, I would argue the VAST majority know the codes and feel strongly about properly addressing accessibility issues inside and out for both professional and ethical reasons. Luckily, my record drawings reflect what should have been built. I am not entirely sure how this works but I understand in other states (OR, in particular) architects are required to perform construction administration on the projects they seal in order to ensure they are built as the permit drawings show and if they are not they are obligated to report them to the proper jurisdiction. I wish that were true here as I just had a client who instructed the contractor to make several changes without my knowledge which were in direct violation of the code (and therefore created life-safety issues). Despite my protestations the changes remain. At the very least, the building inspector should have required an addendum to the permit drawings but despite flagrant violations of the code occupancy was issued with no record. It’s sad, really, that enforcement is not just inconsistent between jurisdictions but WITHIN them. From inspector to inspector and plan reviewer to plan reviewer. In trying to push various issues I’ve been admonished by plan reviewers telling me I know better only to see the same issues ignored in the field by inspectors.
JZ is right on. I am also an architect and have many clients that choose to ignore the drawings that I have prepared according to the code betting they won’t get called on it. Contractors often “help” the
owner cut corners and if accessibility is not a priority to the owner it’s not included. Admittedly, some design professionals are lazy and used to doing things the way they’ve always been done and know what they can get away with. But, I would argue the VAST majority know the codes and feel strongly about properly addressing accessibility issues inside and out for both professional and ethical reasons. Luckily, my record drawings reflect what should have been built. I am not entirely sure how this works but I understand in other states (OR, in particular) architects are required to perform construction administration on the projects they seal in order to ensure they are built as the permit drawings show and if they are not they are obligated to report them to the proper jurisdiction. I wish that were true here as I just had a client who instructed the contractor to make several changes without my knowledge which were in direct violation of the code (and therefore created life-safety issues). Despite my protestations the changes remain. At the very least, the building inspector should have required an addendum to the permit drawings but despite flagrant violations of the code occupancy was issued with no record. It’s sad, really, that enforcement is not just inconsistent between jurisdictions but WITHIN them. From inspector to inspector and plan reviewer to plan reviewer. In trying to push various issues I’ve been admonished by plan reviewers telling me I know better only to see the same issues ignored in the field by inspectors.
Record drawings indicating pedestrian access is an excellent defense, we will see how often those are produced.
Record drawings indicating pedestrian access is an excellent defense, we will see how often those are produced.
What proof do you have? Did the Schlafly folks show you plans without an accessible route? Or, are you just going on what was built there?
I’ve not seen the architects drawings, I would love to see them! Schlafly folks indicated they hadn’t thought about pedestrian access. Once I pointed it out they got busy correcting their property.