A plan for entry accessibility (Speculation)

GETTING IN AND OUT of our historic sanctuary building cannot be done according to either the normal building code or the more lenient state historic building code, unfortunately. Yet surely our impending restroom expansion will trigger a review of the building’s entry accessibility. This topic must be addressed before we can proceed with that larger project. Therefore I have been working toward a draft plan for entry accessibility, while discussing the topic with several architects.

Ultimately, such a plan will need to be formally developed by an architect of record. However, I find that our building poses certain constraints that will inevitably guide that plan. Below the jump, this post discusses those constraints, and the remaining options.

Getting a wheelchair from Main Street into the sanctuary

OPTION 1: VIA RAMP.  According to normal ADA requirements (§405), a ramp would have a maximum grade of 1' for every 12' of distance traveled, plus landings 5' wide would be required at each turn. Therefore, ascending the 6' of height from Main Street to the portico would require cutting into the steps in order to construct roughly 9 lengths of ramp plus 9 landings (see drawing, which shows landings of only 2' width, and no railings).

Doing that would be quite expensive (given the masonry and concrete reinforcement work involved), even if there is enough actual room in all dimensions—which is doubtful. It would obviously create a major disturbance to the appearance of the historic façade. And the resulting experience for the wheelchair user would not be pleasant. Consequently, a front ramp is not feasible.

OPTION 2: VIA VERTICAL PLATFORM LIFT (VPL).  A VPL is a common retrofit in places of worship, because it minimally disrupts the existing spaces. In our case, however, the VPL’s street-level access would need to be from the stairwell landing, just inside the exterior doors. In order to access the upper, sanctuary level, the VPL would penetrate the front steps—thus being mainly outdoors—and then open onto the portico near the main front doors.

 

Again, doing such a thing would be quite expensive (given the masonry and concrete reinforcement work involved, and a custom design of the VPL itself). And it would create a major disturbance to the appearance of the historic façade. Consequently, a VPL is not feasible.

OPTION 3: VIA INCLINED PLATFORM LIFT.  As documented elsewhere, an inclined platform lift was installed in the front stairwell in 2008–2009, and it worked (more or less) for about a decade. Recently I found the architect’s blueprint for the lift; the drawings were prepared in 2007 by Ira Tenenbaum, then of Venice, under the direction of the late Phil Raider.

When the lift was finally completed, it did manage to get wheelchair users from the sanctuary to the basement and back up again. However, those who were involved in its funding, operation, and maintenance remember it as a boondoggle. It was said to cost twice as much as originally advertised. It was slow and awkward to use, requiring a specially trained operator to be present throughout. Nobody else could use the stairs while it was operating. And it broke down frequently until it was eventually declared irreparable. Consequently, the unhappy experience has taught us that an inclined platform lift is not feasible.

OPTION 4: A HYBRID APPROACH.  Due to the impracticality of the above options, in February I proposed a hybrid approach: a stairlift for the front stairwell, together with a ramp arrangement in the sanctuary’s northeast corridor. The board provisionally approved this approach that month. Work has been slowed down by the difficulty in finding the digitial files for our past architectural drawings. Meanwhile, discussion with architects has led me to believe that the ramp project will need to involve lowering the doorway by a foot or so (!). Which means that it will not be the straightforward and (relatively) inexpensive project that I had hoped.