We have an upfit that is an old house. I am trying to find an application for a ADA grabbar mount that can accomodate an existing window. See image. Was thinking possibly an L shaped bar mounted on wall and then to the floor? Any suggestions/manufactureres
Jovan Millet
Jan 4, 22 12:53 pm
Pretty sure ADA allows for swing-up grab bars that aren't nearly as much of a headache as window-mounted...
Chad Miller
Jan 5, 22 2:44 pm
This is for the United States . . . .Depends on the building type. Also I don't think there are any swing up grab bars that meet the ICC A117.1-2009. :(
ivanmillya
Jan 5, 22 3:16 pm
ANSI A117.1-2009, Sec. 1004.11.1.1: Swing-Up Grab Bars. Assuming the old house is staying as a residential occupancy, they should be allowed.
SneakyPete
Jan 4, 22 12:58 pm
Custom mounted adjacent.
Josh Mings
Jan 4, 22 1:02 pm
I'd probably be looking at a swing-up in this situation, but that isn't taking into account any items that are present outside of the presented in post window.
Almosthip
Jan 4, 22 1:11 pm
I have used floor mounted grab bars in the past, may be applicable here
reallynotmyname
Jan 4, 22 2:03 pm
This. Do an internet search for "floor mounted grab bar".
Toesdblue
Jan 5, 22 11:06 am
This is what we were initially thinking, haven't had to use one before..
SlammingMiruvor
Jan 4, 22 1:55 pm
It's ICC A117.1, not the ADA, that requires a vertical grab bar. Check with your AHJ on whether or not it's an adopted building code first.
Chad Miller
Jan 5, 22 2:51 pm
It's funny you mention that. Any AHJ that's adopted the IBC has adopted the ICC A117.1 by default. The IBC doesn't reference the ADA and unless the AHJ also adopts it you don't need to follow it. Not that it matters, both the ICC and the ADA are very similar with a few exceptions.
SneakyPete
Jan 5, 22 2:59 pm
Chad, you're incorrect when you say "...the ADA and unless the AHJ also adopts it you don't need to follow it."
(unless you mean "...the ADA and unless the AHJ also adopts the IBC you don't need to follow the IBC.")
The ADA is federal civil rights legislation and can lead to costly litigation if ignored. While the IBC and other state building codes generally provide information that is consistent with the ADA guidelines, if a disabled individual sues under the ADA and wins, your design will need to change, regardless of IBC compliance.
Chad Miller
Jan 5, 22 3:12 pm
I don't believe so. With the exception of federal government and some multifamily projects the AHJ has to adopt the ADA in addition of the ICC A117.1. The ADA is bit more strict when it comes to multifamily housing but it's very similar to the ICC A117.1. I know some architects follow both the ADA and A117.1 out fear of being sued on any project. When it comes down to it though it's the state government that decides what accessibility standard they follow. If it's not a federal project (client or substantial $$$ backing) then state laws apply and you can't be sued under the federal ADA.
SneakyPete
Jan 5, 22 3:21 pm
The ADA is Federal level, top down, civil rights law. You do not get to ignore it. It is not adopted, it is the law of the land. State and Local jurisdictions can enact codes which are MORE strict, but we do not get to ignore it.
Chad Miller
Jan 5, 22 4:50 pm
Yes and no. It depends on the project type.
In everything other than multifamily housing the ICC A117.1 is more strict than the ADA. The ADA is also only enforceable to being sued. For such a lawsuit the local state accessibility statues apply. I know this because I've worked in states (MN, ND, WI, CO, MI) where people have attempted to sue for complying with A117.1 and not ADA as it applies to multifamily housing. In every instance the cases were dismissed because the states had adapted the IBC and A117.1.
Again. ICC A117.1 is nearly identical to the ADA. The main differences are in multifamily housing as it applies to the number of type A and B units. Also I the A117.1 doesn't have exceptions for clear floor areas at door when using an auto operator.
Chad Miller
Jan 5, 22 5:06 pm
Sneaky - I realized I kept saying 'ADA' when I mean to say the Uniformed Federal Accessibility Guidelines (UFAG).
The ADA isn't a building code. It dose not say how to make a building accessible. It doesn't reference the UFAG or the ICC A117.1.
The AHJ gets to decide how they want to comply with ADA. This is either done through the UFAG, the ICC A117.1, or a amended version of those two standards.
If a AHJ has adopted the IBC then they have to adopt the A117.1 as it's the only accessibility standard referenced in the IBC. The ICC A117.1 doesn't reference the UFAG.
SlammingMiruvor
Jan 5, 22 5:25 pm
Chad, no jurisdiction in the USA gets to decide how they comply with the ADA. The same way a City/Town/Municipality or whatever cannot discriminate racially, they need to make the accommodations for accessibility outlined in the 2010 ADAAG. The same reason we cannot build "whites only" and "colored only" drinking fountains is why we cannot have a restroom without grab bars. Our federal legislature has decided those would be a discriminatory act, and implemented protections that has implications on the built environment.
The AHJ can choose the model building codes they want to adopt, and whether that's the UFAG or ICC A117.1 that's up to them. At the end of the day, they're going to be enforced in a manner that is more similar to other codes, through plan review and building inspection. That isn't to say you cannot be sued for non-compliance though.
The ADA is enforced through lawsuits, and ultimately the Department of Justice.
Chad Miller
Jan 5, 22 5:42 pm
You're wrong Slamming.
The ADA doesn't say how to make a building accessible.
AHJ choose a standard that they think complies with the ADA.
The feds use the UFAS only applies to federal projects or projects with federal funding.
The 2010 ADAAG can be adopted by a AHJ, but they don't have to. They can choose to adopt the ICC A117.1.
Only government projects must use the 2010 ADAAG. Sorry about the confusion, I kept saying 'federal' - I'm on a federal project right now . . . Any federal and government project must follow 2010 ADAAG.
SneakyPete
Jan 5, 22 5:59 pm
From your link: "The 2010 Standards set minimum requirements – both scoping and technical -- for newly designed and constructed or altered ... public accommodations, and commercial facilities to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities."
"State and local" only applies to the words "government facilities," not everything that follows.
I strongly suggest you go talk to your PIC and discuss this. The ADA is a federal law that applies to every commercial building and every building that allows entry to the public. Period. The codes that exist that have sections for accessibility are not part of the federal Department of Justice's requirements, they are regulations enacted by State and Local jurisdictions. You must comply with BOTH.
Everyday Architect
Jan 5, 22 6:03 pm
Here's where we're at, ABA and ADA are federal laws. ABA applies to federal facilities, ADA applies nationwide for most public and private facilities. Building codes are adopted locally and ICC/ANSI A117.1 is referenced in the IBC and most building codes based on it, and applies to facilities where those codes are adopted by they AHJ. California has their own accessibility standards adopted in their state and incorporated into their building code. Local adoption of ICC or state-specific standards cannot overrule requirements of federal legislation (you can't not comply with ADA regardless of what your AHJ says), but the AHJ adopted standards can go beyond the ADA's requirements.
*I don't claim this information is perfect as I threw it together pretty quickly. Please comment on anything I got wrong.
Chad Miller
Jan 5, 22 6:07 pm
Our PIC charge agree with my statements that that the ICC A117.1 is more restrictive than the ADAAG except in state and federal government projects that include housing.
As such you can simply look at the ICC A117.1 except for those projects.
You only have to use the UFAS for federal projects or projects with federal funding.
If you are using the IBC you must adopt the more strict sections of ICC A117.1. AKA: every section except for multifamily housing if it's federally funded.
Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. I see how my posts read as if I was saying you get to ignore one of the standards.
SneakyPete
Jan 5, 22 6:10 pm
It would be really nice if some grand high mucky muck would simply slap the shit out of everyone and insist that everyone only use one set of standards, but then lawyers wouldn't get paid, so *shrug*
SneakyPete
Jan 5, 22 6:12 pm
Also I find it disgustingly interesting that I agree with the (at the time of passage) Republicans on the whole aspect of collection of damages when adjudicating the ADA violations. California lets plaintiffs sue for damages at the state level and shitty lawyers go plaintiff shopping to sue building owners who are truly ignorant of the law for damages as opposed to allowing them to rectify the situation first. Good intentions creating a closet industry for scumbags.
Chad Miller
Jan 5, 22 6:12 pm
I like how in federal (and some state) projects you don't have to listen to anything the AHJ says but instead have to listen to their personal choice of 'codes'. Building height limitations - pffft! Setbacks - don't care! 12" clearance on the push side of the door latch - well we want that even if you don't have a closer
:P
SneakyPete
Jan 5, 22 6:14 pm
I don't ever plan on working for a firm who does prevailing wage jobs unless there's an arch of record, so I don't have that concern. ;)
Everyday Architect
Jan 5, 22 6:16 pm
I'm only disagreeing with your use of "AHJ" in your statement Chad. The local authority (eg. building official) doesn't have jurisdiction on those federal projects and that's why you don't have to listen to them. You still have to listen to the AHJ, it's just that the authority having jurisdiction is some other entity (GSA, HUD, etc.).
Chad Miller
Jan 5, 22 6:28 pm
Good point EA. I've always use AHJ to refer to local officials. It gets complicated when counties and state government have all adopted different codes. :s
SlammingMiruvor
Jan 6, 22 9:40 am
Chad, honestly we're just splitting hairs. I came into this post annoyed that the OP is confusing ADA and A117.1 requirements. Obviously they have to follow what is most stringent, but we really have no idea what their local authority says on any of this. I have no clue why you sent me that link though. It clearly states "Public accommodations and commercial facilities must follow the requirements of the 2010 Standards."
Chad Miller
Jan 6, 22 10:29 am
The A117.1, UFAS, and 2010 ADAAG are different when it comes to multifamily housing. I sent you the link because of the 'public accommodations' line. Non public areas of projects don't have to comply with the ADA. Federal projects have to comply with the UFAS regardless.
It may be splitting hairs but these dictions can have a big impact on certain project types.
Personally I think it's foolish not to comply with the most strict guidelines for meeting the ADA of both the ADAAG and A117.1. I also think it's incredibly foolish that the two guidelines are different.
SneakyPete
Jan 6, 22 11:36 am
"Non public areas of projects don't have to comply with the ADA."
They do if you don't want your employees with disabilities to sue you into the ground. The only parts you don't need to comply with are for tasks that a disability would render impossible.
Chad Miller
Jan 6, 22 12:39 pm
I didn't say that I agreed with it, quite the opposite.
Regardless - owners can choose to have non public spaces not be ADA compliant. It's foolish but they can do it.
If a disabled employee works in a non public space that isn't ADA compliant then the building owner has to make accommodations to make it compliant or they can be sued.
,,,,
Jan 4, 22 8:25 pm
I see 3 problems.
2 grab bars on glass and a large window in a bathroom.
Is it possible to replace the window with a shorter one with the same header height?
Non Sequitur
Jan 4, 22 8:29 pm
What about moving the toilet?
,,,,
Jan 4, 22 8:41 pm
You would still have that big window.
Toesdblue
Jan 5, 22 11:05 am
The window is going to be frosted over and in-operable but otherwise the existing 'hole' for the window will be the same- is not part of the scope for exterior changes. This was the only place in the existing layout that the toilet could fit and still meet the requirements.
Non Sequitur
Jan 5, 22 11:26 am
^Then it is your job to inform the client that their scope is not reasonable. Also, holy flexible accessible codes batman... literally not a single option mentioned above would work in my jurisdiction.
SneakyPete
Jan 5, 22 11:48 am
enh, mine was just brainstorming for a second, probably wouldn't work
Non Sequitur
Jan 5, 22 11:58 am
^what? Pete, you telling us you did not crack open the physics book and calculate the max-newtons your design could handle? This user came here for free advice, they expect to get top-quality bullet-proof information.
SneakyPete
Jan 5, 22 11:59 am
I'd love to see a version of mine with cross bracing. :D
Non Sequitur
Jan 5, 22 12:01 pm
Maybe with internal carbon-fibre trussframes... then the grab bar is in clear back-lit corian (c/w peened surface... we're not monsters, gots to have that grippy surface) to show off your bracing.
We have an upfit that is an old house. I am trying to find an application for a ADA grabbar mount that can accomodate an existing window. See image. Was thinking possibly an L shaped bar mounted on wall and then to the floor? Any suggestions/manufactureres
Pretty sure ADA allows for swing-up grab bars that aren't nearly as much of a headache as window-mounted...
This is for the United States . . . .Depends on the building type. Also I don't think there are any swing up grab bars that meet the ICC A117.1-2009. :(
ANSI A117.1-2009, Sec. 1004.11.1.1: Swing-Up Grab Bars. Assuming the old house is staying as a residential occupancy, they should be allowed.
Custom mounted adjacent.
I'd probably be looking at a swing-up in this situation, but that isn't taking into account any items that are present outside of the presented in post window.
I have used floor mounted grab bars in the past, may be applicable here
This. Do an internet search for "floor mounted grab bar".
This is what we were initially thinking, haven't had to use one before..
It's ICC A117.1, not the ADA, that requires a vertical grab bar. Check with your AHJ on whether or not it's an adopted building code first.
It's funny you mention that. Any AHJ that's adopted the IBC has adopted the ICC A117.1 by default. The IBC doesn't reference the ADA and unless the AHJ also adopts it you don't need to follow it. Not that it matters, both the ICC and the ADA are very similar with a few exceptions.
Chad, you're incorrect when you say "...the ADA and unless the AHJ also adopts it you don't need to follow it."
(unless you mean "...the ADA and unless the AHJ also adopts the IBC you don't need to follow the IBC.")
The ADA is federal civil rights legislation and can lead to costly litigation if ignored. While the IBC and other state building codes generally provide information that is consistent with the ADA guidelines, if a disabled individual sues under the ADA and wins, your design will need to change, regardless of IBC compliance.
I don't believe so. With the exception of federal government and some multifamily projects the AHJ has to adopt the ADA in addition of the ICC A117.1. The ADA is bit more strict when it comes to multifamily housing but it's very similar to the ICC A117.1. I know some architects follow both the ADA and A117.1 out fear of being sued on any project. When it comes down to it though it's the state government that decides what accessibility standard they follow. If it's not a federal project (client or substantial $$$ backing) then state laws apply and you can't be sued under the federal ADA.
The ADA is Federal level, top down, civil rights law. You do not get to ignore it. It is not adopted, it is the law of the land. State and Local jurisdictions can enact codes which are MORE strict, but we do not get to ignore it.
Yes and no. It depends on the project type.
In everything other than multifamily housing the ICC A117.1 is more strict than the ADA. The ADA is also only enforceable to being sued. For such a lawsuit the local state accessibility statues apply. I know this because I've worked in states (MN, ND, WI, CO, MI) where people have attempted to sue for complying with A117.1 and not ADA as it applies to multifamily housing. In every instance the cases were dismissed because the states had adapted the IBC and A117.1.
Again. ICC A117.1 is nearly identical to the ADA. The main differences are in multifamily housing as it applies to the number of type A and B units. Also I the A117.1 doesn't have exceptions for clear floor areas at door when using an auto operator.
Sneaky - I realized I kept saying 'ADA' when I mean to say the Uniformed Federal Accessibility Guidelines (UFAG).
The ADA isn't a building code. It dose not say how to make a building accessible. It doesn't reference the UFAG or the ICC A117.1.
The AHJ gets to decide how they want to comply with ADA. This is either done through the UFAG, the ICC A117.1, or a amended version of those two standards.
If a AHJ has adopted the IBC then they have to adopt the A117.1 as it's the only accessibility standard referenced in the IBC. The ICC A117.1 doesn't reference the UFAG.
Chad, no jurisdiction in the USA gets to decide how they comply with the ADA. The same way a City/Town/Municipality or whatever cannot discriminate racially, they need to make the accommodations for accessibility outlined in the 2010 ADAAG. The same reason we cannot build "whites only" and "colored only" drinking fountains is why we cannot have a restroom without grab bars. Our federal legislature has decided those would be a discriminatory act, and implemented protections that has implications on the built environment.
The AHJ can choose the model building codes they want to adopt, and whether that's the UFAG or ICC A117.1 that's up to them. At the end of the day, they're going to be enforced in a manner that is more similar to other codes, through plan review and building inspection. That isn't to say you cannot be sued for non-compliance though.
The ADA is enforced through lawsuits, and ultimately the Department of Justice.
You're wrong Slamming.
The ADA doesn't say how to make a building accessible.
AHJ choose a standard that they think complies with the ADA.
The feds use the UFAS only applies to federal projects or projects with federal funding.
The 2010 ADAAG can be adopted by a AHJ, but they don't have to. They can choose to adopt the ICC A117.1.
Slamming - look at this
https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2...
Only government projects must use the 2010 ADAAG. Sorry about the confusion, I kept saying 'federal' - I'm on a federal project right now . . . Any federal and government project must follow 2010 ADAAG.
From your link: "The 2010 Standards set minimum requirements – both scoping and technical -- for newly designed and constructed or altered ... public accommodations, and commercial facilities to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities."
"State and local" only applies to the words "government facilities," not everything that follows.
I strongly suggest you go talk to your PIC and discuss this. The ADA is a federal law that applies to every commercial building and every building that allows entry to the public. Period. The codes that exist that have sections for accessibility are not part of the federal Department of Justice's requirements, they are regulations enacted by State and Local jurisdictions. You must comply with BOTH.
Here's where we're at, ABA and ADA are federal laws. ABA applies to federal facilities, ADA applies nationwide for most public and private facilities. Building codes are adopted locally and ICC/ANSI A117.1 is referenced in the IBC and most building codes based on it, and applies to facilities where those codes are adopted by they AHJ. California has their own accessibility standards adopted in their state and incorporated into their building code. Local adoption of ICC or state-specific standards cannot overrule requirements of federal legislation (you can't not comply with ADA regardless of what your AHJ says), but the AHJ adopted standards can go beyond the ADA's requirements.
For the ABA, the GSA, DOD, and USPS have adopted the ABA Accessibility Standards to ensure compliance with the ABA. HUD has not adopted the ABA standards, and instead still uses the UFAS. https://www.access-board.gov/a...
For the ADA, the DOJ has created the ADA Standards for Accessible Design (2010) to ensure compliance with the ADA and are based on the Access Board's ADA Accessibility Guidelines (2004)
*I don't claim this information is perfect as I threw it together pretty quickly. Please comment on anything I got wrong.
Our PIC charge agree with my statements that that the ICC A117.1 is more restrictive than the ADAAG except in state and federal government projects that include housing.
As such you can simply look at the ICC A117.1 except for those projects.
You only have to use the UFAS for federal projects or projects with federal funding.
If you are using the IBC you must adopt the more strict sections of ICC A117.1. AKA: every section except for multifamily housing if it's federally funded.
Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. I see how my posts read as if I was saying you get to ignore one of the standards.
It would be really nice if some grand high mucky muck would simply slap the shit out of everyone and insist that everyone only use one set of standards, but then lawyers wouldn't get paid, so *shrug*
Also I find it disgustingly interesting that I agree with the (at the time of passage) Republicans on the whole aspect of collection of damages when adjudicating the ADA violations. California lets plaintiffs sue for damages at the state level and shitty lawyers go plaintiff shopping to sue building owners who are truly ignorant of the law for damages as opposed to allowing them to rectify the situation first. Good intentions creating a closet industry for scumbags.
I like how in federal (and some state) projects you don't have to listen to anything the AHJ says but instead have to listen to their personal choice of 'codes'. Building height limitations - pffft! Setbacks - don't care! 12" clearance on the push side of the door latch - well we want that even if you don't have a closer :P
I don't ever plan on working for a firm who does prevailing wage jobs unless there's an arch of record, so I don't have that concern. ;)
I'm only disagreeing with your use of "AHJ" in your statement Chad. The local authority (eg. building official) doesn't have jurisdiction on those federal projects and that's why you don't have to listen to them. You still have to listen to the AHJ, it's just that the authority having jurisdiction is some other entity (GSA, HUD, etc.).
Good point EA. I've always use AHJ to refer to local officials. It gets complicated when counties and state government have all adopted different codes. :s
Chad, honestly we're just splitting hairs. I came into this post annoyed that the OP is confusing ADA and A117.1 requirements. Obviously they have to follow what is most stringent, but we really have no idea what their local authority says on any of this. I have no clue why you sent me that link though. It clearly states "Public accommodations and commercial facilities must follow the requirements of the 2010 Standards."
The A117.1, UFAS, and 2010 ADAAG are different when it comes to multifamily housing. I sent you the link because of the 'public accommodations' line. Non public areas of projects don't have to comply with the ADA. Federal projects have to comply with the UFAS regardless.
It may be splitting hairs but these dictions can have a big impact on certain project types.
Personally I think it's foolish not to comply with the most strict guidelines for meeting the ADA of both the ADAAG and A117.1. I also think it's incredibly foolish that the two guidelines are different.
"Non public areas of projects don't have to comply with the ADA."
They do if you don't want your employees with disabilities to sue you into the ground. The only parts you don't need to comply with are for tasks that a disability would render impossible.
I didn't say that I agreed with it, quite the opposite.
Regardless - owners can choose to have non public spaces not be ADA compliant. It's foolish but they can do it.
If a disabled employee works in a non public space that isn't ADA compliant then the building owner has to make accommodations to make it compliant or they can be sued.
I see 3 problems.
2 grab bars on glass and a large window in a bathroom.
Is it possible to replace the window with a shorter one with the same header height?
What about moving the toilet?
You would still have that big window.
The window is going to be frosted over and in-operable but otherwise the existing 'hole' for the window will be the same- is not part of the scope for exterior changes. This was the only place in the existing layout that the toilet could fit and still meet the requirements.
^Then it is your job to inform the client that their scope is not reasonable. Also, holy flexible accessible codes batman... literally not a single option mentioned above would work in my jurisdiction.
enh, mine was just brainstorming for a second, probably wouldn't work
^what? Pete, you telling us you did not crack open the physics book and calculate the max-newtons your design could handle? This user came here for free advice, they expect to get top-quality bullet-proof information.
I'd love to see a version of mine with cross bracing. :D
Maybe with internal carbon-fibre trussframes... then the grab bar is in clear back-lit corian (c/w peened surface... we're not monsters, gots to have that grippy surface) to show off your bracing.
nanotubes...you heard it here first