EtoV said:
Yes, of course, but it's not exactly easily accessible. If you look at the renders, wheelchair users will have to travel a significant distance to get to some of the retail bays.
Click to expand...
I am not expert on accessibility but is this design more do due to how the site might grade along the street & ave and keeping the crus all easily accessible especially when building close to the property line. I seem to recall some discussion on this the with Maclaren building on 124 street and I am sure there are other examples.

I suspect (and very well this could be a naïve opinion) that it is more about that level access for all CRUs and less about cost of digging down a touch further.
 
I mean the site is about as flat as it can get so I struggle to see the need for it. If it is due to grading, it's likely something that could have been solved internally.

1670885746658.png
 
Alrighty then. The renders don't appear to show any wheelchair ramps, but assuming they're on the corners of the property, it could be up to an additional ~80m to even get to a retail bay from the intersection (40m to the corner of the building, up the ramp, then 40m back). But you're right, boo hoo, not our problem, nice shiny building, who cares about pesky things like ease of access. I'm not even saying this is a bad building, I just think the raised retail is a mistep.
 
What part did you not understand when it was explained that wheel chair accessibility is mandatory? Look up the OHS...
 
Clearshades said:
What part did you not understand when it was explained that wheel chair accessibility is mandatory? Look up the OHS...
Click to expand...
Mandatory doesn't mean convenient and comfortable. Especially in a winter city such as Edmonton, if the wheelchair accesses are poorly located, it will make the journey for any person with disabilities that much longer, unpleasant, uncomfortable and some might even say less safe.
 
The maximum run would be 30-feet not 40 and likely much less than that -- in a switchback configuration only 15. The path of travel for a wheelchair from either street parking or a bus stop would be far greater than that. "Mountains out of mole hills". If the disabled patron is driving him/herself there, they would have weather-protected underground parking and access to a lift/elevator and interior access. The code mandates have all been developed by disabled architects -- how do I know that? I have to take an exam every two years to familiarize myself with the latest updates in ADA requirements.
 
ChazYEG said:
Mandatory doesn't mean convenient and comfortable. Especially in a winter city such as Edmonton, if the wheelchair accesses are poorly located, it will make the journey for any person with disabilities that much longer, unpleasant, uncomfortable and some might even say less safe.
Click to expand...
As someone that has a loved one in a wheelchair I have become quite militant about accessibility. A place might say they are accessible but there are levels. Functionality is more important. Wheelchairs are not built for our climate. the slightest snow ridge a few cms of snow. The threshold of the door. The front caster wheels catch every crack or bump. There have been a few times I have launched my wife out of her chair going into a place. And don't get me started on door openers that don't work or are placed in such a way that you can't reach them.

The best accessible washrooms are at Paradice Restaurant in the North end and the New accessible washrooms at ST Albert city hall.
 
In this day and age, accessibility should not just be an after thought, but an important consideration in the design of the project.

It should be looked at not just as we have to do it, but how do we do it well so it works better for those people who need it.
 
archited said:
The maximum run would be 30-feet not 40 and likely much less than that -- in a switchback configuration only 15. The path of travel for a wheelchair from either street parking or a bus stop would be far greater than that. "Mountains out of mole hills". If the disabled patron is driving him/herself there, they would have weather-protected underground parking and access to a lift/elevator and interior access. The code mandates have all been developed by disabled architects -- how do I know that? I have to take an exam every two years to familiarize myself with the latest updates in ADA requirements.
Click to expand...
The renders don't show any steps on the NW corner and no ramps that I can see along the streetscape, so its safe to assume that any ramp would be located on the NE or SW corners. It may be a mole hill to you, but it wouldn't be for a lot of people. From my experience, 90% of the time grading like this is proposed, it is purely a money saving decision, I would be surprised if there was a legitimate reason for it, but am open to being proven wrong. Yes, this distance is relatively small compared to what someone may have travelled to get there, but its an unnecessary and not-insignificant addition. To get to the corner retail location could potentially be 80m depending on where you're coming from. I know you're a booster and don't like to be critical of most development, but I don't see why something like this needs to be defended.

1670962080733.png
 
^^^^ It is looked at that way -- it is the intent of code mandated disability accommodations. There are many flaws -- for example the truncated cones that are placed in sidewalks to "alert" people of a change in safety in the path of travel are for many wheelchair-bound an obstacle, especially if they have extra sensitive nerve sensibility -- so sometimes solutions are just the best possible outcome for a general population. My brother next to me in lineage is also wheelchair bound and he has to constantly think of his own accommodation for things that the ambulatory take for granted. About the "Hat" development... I think that the emphasis is on the wrong syllable in this instance considering the number of older buildings that have no accommodation at all!
 
@EtoV -- first of all we're talking feet not metres (that was how I was introduced to the argument). The vertical rise (a reasonable guess) is 2.5 feet (less than one metre) and at a ramp slope of 12:1 (code mandate) would be 25 feet of lateral run (slightly less than 8 metres).
 
archited said:
Renderings are not construction documents -- it is a waste of time to speculate on the material accuracy of renderings.
Click to expand...
I've done plenty of renderings before, not sure why you would put effort on modeling stairs and a raised interface if it won't exist. Grading interfaces are some of the biggest pains to model.

And I am talking about metres. I'm not talking about the length of a ramp, I'm talking about the distance to even get to a ramp. 40m to the ramp, 40m back to get to the retail space, ramp length not included. A one way travel distance of up to 80 metres to access certain retail.

But regardless, you don't think it's a big deal, I do, we aren't going to agree so I think we can probably end this conversation thread lol.
 
archited said:
The maximum run would be 30-feet not 40 and likely much less than that -- in a switchback configuration only 15. The path of travel for a wheelchair from either street parking or a bus stop would be far greater than that. "Mountains out of mole hills". If the disabled patron is driving him/herself there, they would have weather-protected underground parking and access to a lift/elevator and interior access. The code mandates have all been developed by disabled architects -- how do I know that? I have to take an exam every two years to familiarize myself with the latest updates in ADA requirements.
Click to expand...
ADA apply to the USA. Does the Alberta Building Code adhere specifically to ADA?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top