A curious project has graced my desk lately courteously of our dirty communist government. It appears that there is a new movement to provide feminine hygiene disposals and dispensers in all multi-stall male and single-user washroom facilities currently under lease or owned by the Canadian federal government. Now let me preface this by saying I am all for inclusivity and have no personal or professional issue with instructing my contractors to install dispensers and disposal bins but I am curious to see if there are other similar movements out there.
There is a big cost to these too since there are hundreds of properties and thousands of existing stalls. Also, all dispensers are being set to free... so the underlying question is, is the expense and effort worth it or could the cash and energy (focus groups, approvals, consultant fees, etc) be of greater public use elsewhere?
p.s. Big green head, I thought of burying this in TC to avoid the usual suspects ramblings but since they've all been rather quiet lately, I figured it was safe.
Chad Miller
Oct 4, 23 2:02 pm
In most areas I've practiced feminine napkin disposal bins have been provided in all appropriate toilet facilities. The dispensers have been an issue in public spaces as they're ease to destroy and the napkins are used to clog toilets. I don't know of any public entity that's provided dispensers and not had them removed after a year or so.
In private projects owners have opted to simply provide free feminine napkins in a loose container.
Non Sequitur
Oct 5, 23 10:25 am
We have private clients who've done similar things. One large private corp simply made both washrooms identical for either genders but I can't recall how they labelled them. I'm forced to be the bad guy in another tangential discussion where one focus group in the fed gov wants to take over the single-user handicap facilities for their universal gender-free initiative. I had to tell them that they can call them whatever they want on paper but there is no way I'm not making changes to the accessories nor am I asking the GC to remove the wheelchair symbol. The handicap lobby fought hard enough to get some accommodations, lets not forget this. Funny thing is these types of projects are plentiful and we charge a premium for services. Tax-payer money back into my pocket for minimal effort.
Non Sequitur
Oct 4, 23 2:03 pm
Ah... your exclusion from this inclusivity talk is welcomed.
Chad Miller
Oct 4, 23 2:10 pm
Is this Chartres the same user that follows you around here and tries to make fun of your children Non? If so the big green head needs to ban this punter.
Non Sequitur
Oct 4, 23 2:48 pm
It is. Some people have strange hobbies.
Chad Miller
Oct 4, 23 5:21 pm
Hey mods - will you please boot this guy "Chartres" or whatever current username he has. They guy is troll who only comes here to disparage Non and his family. It reflects very poorly on this site to have such a petty and detestable punter as part of the community.
Non Sequitur
Oct 5, 23 10:09 am
Great, another one comes out from under their dumb rock to grace us with their intelligent response... probably.
Chad Miller
Oct 5, 23 10:11 am
Looks like what's his name got his stuff deleted, again.
Non Sequitur
Oct 5, 23 10:18 am
RSRS follows Chartres like a dumb sad puppy. Nothing important to see. Not even pedestrian level snark I'd wager. If they at least made the effort to be comical or entertaining, I'd likely not have put these cunts on ignore.
Chad Miller
Oct 5, 23 11:27 am
I have a serious problem with them. They think making fun of someone's kids is an acceptable means to disagree with a person. That shows a significant lack of intelligence, maturity, dignity, honor, an courage. People like that need a good whoopin'.
Scent_of_a_woman
Oct 6, 23 5:39 am
I am an inclusivity designer based in Scandinavia and I just stumbled across this thread. This is a very interesting project to work on and I would definitely encourage you to delve deeper into it.
You may believe that the topic of female hygiene is entirely out of an architect's scope, but think again! This is not just about tampons, or bins. It's about architecture. Rather than looking down on this like other forum users you should embrace the project and push it forward. Try to learn everything about environmental psychology, architectural design for women, feminist architecture. Don't just specify some bins, but take the time to study these spaces, visit them, touch them, experience the sounds the smells and the essence. That's what design is really about!
Non Sequitur
Oct 6, 23 7:43 am
Experience the touch, sounds and smells? I won't kink-shame but ain't nobody paying me enough to do that.
Donna Sink
Oct 6, 23 11:22 am
Accessibility and inclusivity in bathroom facilities should absolutely be the norm in all buildings. Ethically, I feel compelled to provide whatever might be need. The example that got me thinking about this a bit deeper, however, was a suggested move to provide adult-size diaper changing tables in public facilities.
This would be for people who are adult size and have a caregiver to provide diapering for them when in public. The example given was someone who is attending a concert and has their caregiver along - why should that person *not* be able to have bathroom needs met while enjoying their time out in the world? I have absolutely agree with this ethically and functionally.
But technically, when you look at the size space required for this, it's about twice the size of the smallest ADA single-use restroom. For truly small businesses and businesses in old buildings, for example, this takes up a huge amount of floor space. Which isn't an argument against providing large, accessible, private restrooms for everyone, it just presents a technical, thus financial, challenge.
So my question is: how can we bring back *public* restrooms, built with public dollars, located every few blocks or whatever is needed to make them easily accessible. So people don't have to step into a Starbucks to use the toilet, or get a key from a cashier, or worry about their baby's poop blowout ruining the restaurant banquette...and these facilities can be fully accessible to every person.
They could also be clean, well-maintained, and staffed for security, of course. It's not like governments couldn't afford to do this.
Non Sequitur
Oct 6, 23 11:27 am
Donna, we already have the duty (ha... puns!) to provide the space for future adult changing tables in my area. Technically called nursing benches/stations. It's been like that since 2015. You're right that it takes up space and very fewer clients fully understand it nor do most of the AHJ. I'd say we need to explain these WC to the AHJ and client in 2 out of every 3 reno or new builds (commercial).
Our requirement is to provide a space for 72"x30" table and 60"x30" clear space next to plus a whole bunch of buttons and warning lights.
Donna Sink
Oct 6, 23 11:33 am
Thinking about the time I spent working in Philadelphia, I just can't imagine a restaurant managing to build one of these restrooms in the first floor of a 15' wide rowhouse (4.6 meter) and still have enough room for a kitchen and enough table seating to turn a profit. I'm sure it's possible but it seems like a barrier to small businesses.
b3tadine[sutures]
Oct 6, 23 11:46 am
It's coming in the new code. My state is advising to plan on seeing new language in the the 3rd quarter of 24. It will likely be required in family restrooms, require additional structural support, if they can't have enough room for a bench, it will be wall mounted and will need to be motorized.
curtkram
Oct 6, 23 1:34 pm
it's in the code now. section 1110.4 of the 2024 IBC. it will not likely be required for a small restaurant.
Non Sequitur
Oct 6, 23 1:50 pm
these change table clearances are required for mercantile over 300m2. Some exceptions apply but generally, most need to provide a WC big enough to accommodate the table. The idea is also that is can hold a stretcher if ever there was the need. I've told to expect my code will require 2100 turning clearances soon (7') because motorized scooters are getting more common.
b3tadine[sutures]
Oct 6, 23 2:32 pm
Curt, yeah I imagine it is, but my state is advising that we wait for their amendments.
archanonymous
Oct 6, 23 5:41 pm
In south america everyone just throws shitty toilet paper, sanitry napkins, and tampons in a super gross trashcan next to the toilet because you can't flush any of it.
Maybe consider a low-tech solution like that?
atelier nobody
Oct 6, 23 6:19 pm
I think the point we're moving toward will be that all "multi-accommodation" toilets will have to be designed with real walls and doors instead of partitions, so that each "stall" is essentially it's own single-accommodation. I've already started pushing for this in new work (against a LOT of pushback), but how to achieve inclusivity when retrofitting existing public toilets is a real head-scratcher...
bowling_ball
Oct 7, 23 12:24 pm
The head admin of our city's planning department has MS with all of the accompanying disabilities. It was through him that we were able to convince our city to do what you're describing. It tends to make sense and I've done it on a few projects now, and it's even being requested by clients, including the government. It takes time.
gwharton
Oct 6, 23 7:01 pm
Inclusivity and accommodation in design is an interesting and touchy topic. What is enough? Where do you stop? What is reasonable and what is not? At a certain point, mandating all this stuff makes it so huge and uneconomical to actually do that it defeats the whole purpose. You get perverse results such as incentivizing people to provide no facilities at all rather than have to meet massive numbers of arbitrary requirements.
b3tadine[sutures]
Oct 6, 23 8:10 pm
Really? You think more access is the problem, and not less? Even when ADA has proven to benefit our culture and economy? Measurably. In fact I'll go on and state the obvious; non-gendered restrooms would actually save money.
gwharton
Oct 7, 23 1:24 am
I'm saying it's complicated and involves lots of trade-offs which are rarely addressed. But you do you.
b3tadine[sutures]
Oct 7, 23 8:08 am
It's not about me do me, Judge.
gwharton
Oct 9, 23 1:29 pm
You like to make personal comments and insults about people, especially me, without knowing anything about us. It's not very constructive or useful, and tends to undermine any other points you're trying to make. Just a little advice for you there.
Chad Miller
Oct 9, 23 1:45 pm
What are you talking about qwharton?
ivanmillya
Oct 9, 23 3:12 pm
I think I get what gwharton is saying. We have clients that, because of the cost of accessible lifts, will have us figure out ways to make that area not be required to be accessible (e.g. take a habitable roof deck and classify it as mechanical, knowing that it will later become a venue spot). It's shitty and counterproductive if/when they eventually get sued by someone for violating ADA, but it certainly happens.
Chad Miller
Oct 9, 23 3:21 pm
I didn't mean that Jovan. We've had clients try and do that. We inform them that the way we interpret the code(s) is counter to theirs. If they want the project to proceed then they need to sign a document saying they're going against our recommendations and indemnifying us.
I meant gwharton's comment about bt3 insulting him.
ivanmillya
Oct 9, 23 3:24 pm
Oh okay. Yeah we do something similar.
natematt
Oct 9, 23 3:45 pm
New architecture projects today are immensely more accessible than buildings in the near past. And while some clients may find workarounds, the scale and meaning of that is miniscule compared to the improvements, and often not even about accessibility.
gwharton
Oct 9, 23 4:07 pm
Chad, b3ta has been following me around in comments on this site for years, calling me "Judge" and generally just being an ass toward me. I was just pointing out that I haven't forgotten any of that. I've never reported him for it, but it's tiresome and juvenile.
Chad Miller
Oct 9, 23 4:15 pm
If I recall b3t only started to do that after you made some rather judgemental and inane comments. I also seem to recall you following him around for a bit. I'm sorry that it bothers you so much that you can't let it go. I find it odd that many of your responses to telling you that your comments are 'ugly' is that it's free speech. When someone dose the same to you it's not free speech and should be reported to the admins.
gwharton
Oct 9, 23 7:13 pm
I can let it go just fine. After a couple of years not posting much here, I make a few comments, and there b3ta is again, doing his thing. I simply called him out on it. You asked why, and I explained. That's all. I don't care or think about b3ta at all otherwise. He's nobody.
b3tadine[sutures]
Oct 9, 23 9:15 pm
Listen Smails, I know about you, because I know of someone that worked with you and they confirmed it was fitting. I only think about you when you're obnoxious, obtuse, and your generally peevish attitude rears itself. Like it did in your response to my questions, after you asked a series of questions. Perhaps you and the yacht club set don't like being questioned by lowly workers?
b3tadine[sutures]
Oct 9, 23 9:21 pm
Jovan, that's not what the republican is asking. He's asking where does this accommodation end? When will "disability rights" ever top out? He seems to have the right courts to help define, and limit what rights are worthy of protecting, and how businesses can avoid them.
b3tadine[sutures]
Oct 9, 23 9:28 pm
One last note, contrary to this man's hyper inflated sense of himself, I hardly "follow" him around, he posted a shit ton of conservative garbage on politics central, most of it I treated like the shit it is. Nearly everything else I ignore, because it's benign, and generally boring.
ivanmillya
Oct 10, 23 7:56 am
I was inclined to agree with gwharton on the notion that the very complicated rulebook that is ADAAG requirements leaves too many small loopholes which allow my clients to "technically" not provide accessibility features in various ways.
I'd like to clarify: I think that all buildings available for public access should be entirely publicly accessible and universal. Splitting bathrooms and their amenities by sex is just as much of a threat to the safety and welfare of trans and non-binary people as is not providing accessible features in bathrooms for those with disabilities. Anyone who disagrees should hand in their license to practice on account of intentionally violating the health, safety, and welfare of the public.
Chad Miller
Oct 10, 23 11:03 am
b3tadine[sutures] wrote:
Regarding gwharton:
“ I know about you, because I know of someone that worked with you and they confirmed it was fitting. I only think about you when you're obnoxious, obtuse, and your generally peevish attitude rears itself. Like it did in your response to my questions, after you asked a series of questions. Perhaps you and the yacht club set don't like being questioned by lowly workers?
[snip] he posted a shit ton of conservative garbage on politics central, most of it I treated like the shit it is.”
I too have met gwharton and know people who have worked with him. This is what I recall about him as well. It hard to forget someone that acts like that.
gwharton
Oct 10, 23 2:18 pm
We haven't met, sorry. I have posted political things in Politics Central, which is the appropriate place to do so on this forum. People disagree on stuff there. You all seem to take political disagreement personally. Feel free to keep making assumptions about me personally, but you obviously know nothing at all about me.
Related to that, back to my original point about accessibility accommodation, reasonability, and where does it stop is directly related to my own personal experience as a disabled person, not attempts to get out of designing for accessibility.
Since you want to get personal, here's a personal tidbit for you: I am deaf, and have been for most of my adult life. Deaf people face lots of unique challenges in a hearing world (with demographic life outcomes statistically much worse than most other populations), and that's not just limited to the behavior of hearing people treating us badly.
On the design side, there are lots of things building designers can do to make spaces and buildings a lot more deaf-friendly. Gallaudet University has pioneered a great program - DeafSpace - specifically on that problem. Being pretty familiar with the DeafSpace design program, implementing it as a fundamental ADA requirement for all buildings would dramatically change how you design public spaces, make them quite a bit larger and more expensive, all to accommodate the needs of people like me.
How far are you willing to go with that? And how far does it extend? Blind people have lots of special needs too. Few of them fall under ADA design guidelines right now. And then there are lots of other categories of disability and need which are beyond that.
While you are riding around on your ideological hobby horse and hating me because I posted something you didn't like years ago in a political chat, maybe give that some serious thought instead.
b3tadine[sutures]
Oct 10, 23 3:23 pm
Bah. I answered your questions, with some clarifying questions, your response indicated you gave no thought to my questions. Then your "sagacious" retort; but you do you. You're someone that like a judge, believes your rhetorical questions are above challenge. You further inflate your own personal wealth in your own mind, that I could hate someone I give little thought. It's not like I posted on TC, you know what, I miss hating on gwharton.
But, to answer your question, if the building codes make widening buildings as you suggest, part of the code, I'm still for expanding access to those within a protected class.
Chad Miller
Oct 10, 23 4:16 pm
I have met you gwharton. I didn't interact with you though. I've also met people you work with.
Like you I too am disabled. In addition to my permanent disability for two years I was unable to walk and spent that time in a wheelchair. My personal experience is that ADA doesn't go far enough.
gwharton
Oct 10, 23 5:43 pm
Okay. Then please be specific. What's missing? How open-ended is this demand that other people pay for accommodating us as disabled people? What is the reasonable minimum? Where does it stop? My original question was trying to get at this in particular: it's fun to make a Big Rock Candy Mountain wish list of things other people should (must, in the case of ADA law) do for us unilaterally. But beyond making wish lists, what is a real, realistic, achievable standard for implementing stuff like this? What is the limit? Mobility impairments are obviously on the list of basic, reasonable requirements because there are some fundamental geometric configuration issues involved. But beyond that? We are in uncharted territory. I have thought about this a lot in the context of my own disability and those of people close to me, and so far my own answer is that it's very hard to expand the requirements without having a very specific, justifiable logic for doing so, and how far that mandate can go.
Chad Miller
Oct 10, 23 6:44 pm
Simple - make it so that people with mobility, sight, and hearing issues can still use a building safely with minimal assistance. The ADA is a good start however many of the clearances / requirements are still at the minimum and require someone to attempt to do something perfectly for it to work.
b3tadine[sutures]
Oct 10, 23 8:28 pm
I thought Capitalism was the solution to all things? I guess making those little oligarchs pay up is too much of an ask? I actually believe that better buildings, better urbanism, makes for a better culture, community, and world.
A curious project has graced my desk lately courteously of our dirty communist government. It appears that there is a new movement to provide feminine hygiene disposals and dispensers in all multi-stall male and single-user washroom facilities currently under lease or owned by the Canadian federal government. Now let me preface this by saying I am all for inclusivity and have no personal or professional issue with instructing my contractors to install dispensers and disposal bins but I am curious to see if there are other similar movements out there.
There is a big cost to these too since there are hundreds of properties and thousands of existing stalls. Also, all dispensers are being set to free... so the underlying question is, is the expense and effort worth it or could the cash and energy (focus groups, approvals, consultant fees, etc) be of greater public use elsewhere?
p.s. Big green head, I thought of burying this in TC to avoid the usual suspects ramblings but since they've all been rather quiet lately, I figured it was safe.
In most areas I've practiced feminine napkin disposal bins have been provided in all appropriate toilet facilities. The dispensers have been an issue in public spaces as they're ease to destroy and the napkins are used to clog toilets. I don't know of any public entity that's provided dispensers and not had them removed after a year or so.
In private projects owners have opted to simply provide free feminine napkins in a loose container.
We have private clients who've done similar things. One large private corp simply made both washrooms identical for either genders but I can't recall how they labelled them. I'm forced to be the bad guy in another tangential discussion where one focus group in the fed gov wants to take over the single-user handicap facilities for their universal gender-free initiative. I had to tell them that they can call them whatever they want on paper but there is no way I'm not making changes to the accessories nor am I asking the GC to remove the wheelchair symbol. The handicap lobby fought hard enough to get some accommodations, lets not forget this. Funny thing is these types of projects are plentiful and we charge a premium for services. Tax-payer money back into my pocket for minimal effort.
Ah... your exclusion from this inclusivity talk is welcomed.
Is this Chartres the same user that follows you around here and tries to make fun of your children Non? If so the big green head needs to ban this punter.
It is. Some people have strange hobbies.
Hey mods - will you please boot this guy "Chartres" or whatever current username he has. They guy is troll who only comes here to disparage Non and his family. It reflects very poorly on this site to have such a petty and detestable punter as part of the community.
Great, another one comes out from under their dumb rock to grace us with their intelligent response... probably.
Looks like what's his name got his stuff deleted, again.
RSRS follows Chartres like a dumb sad puppy. Nothing important to see. Not even pedestrian level snark I'd wager. If they at least made the effort to be comical or entertaining, I'd likely not have put these cunts on ignore.
I have a serious problem with them. They think making fun of someone's kids is an acceptable means to disagree with a person. That shows a significant lack of intelligence, maturity, dignity, honor, an courage. People like that need a good whoopin'.
I am an inclusivity designer based in Scandinavia and I just stumbled across this thread. This is a very interesting project to work on and I would definitely encourage you to delve deeper into it.
You may believe that the topic of female hygiene is entirely out of an architect's scope, but think again! This is not just about tampons, or bins. It's about architecture. Rather than looking down on this like other forum users you should embrace the project and push it forward. Try to learn everything about environmental psychology, architectural design for women, feminist architecture. Don't just specify some bins, but take the time to study these spaces, visit them, touch them, experience the sounds the smells and the essence. That's what design is really about!
Experience the touch, sounds and smells? I won't kink-shame but ain't nobody paying me enough to do that.
Accessibility and inclusivity in bathroom facilities should absolutely be the norm in all buildings. Ethically, I feel compelled to provide whatever might be need. The example that got me thinking about this a bit deeper, however, was a suggested move to provide adult-size diaper changing tables in public facilities.
This would be for people who are adult size and have a caregiver to provide diapering for them when in public. The example given was someone who is attending a concert and has their caregiver along - why should that person *not* be able to have bathroom needs met while enjoying their time out in the world? I have absolutely agree with this ethically and functionally.
But technically, when you look at the size space required for this, it's about twice the size of the smallest ADA single-use restroom. For truly small businesses and businesses in old buildings, for example, this takes up a huge amount of floor space. Which isn't an argument against providing large, accessible, private restrooms for everyone, it just presents a technical, thus financial, challenge.
So my question is: how can we bring back *public* restrooms, built with public dollars, located every few blocks or whatever is needed to make them easily accessible. So people don't have to step into a Starbucks to use the toilet, or get a key from a cashier, or worry about their baby's poop blowout ruining the restaurant banquette...and these facilities can be fully accessible to every person.
They could also be clean, well-maintained, and staffed for security, of course. It's not like governments couldn't afford to do this.
Donna, we already have the duty (ha... puns!) to provide the space for future adult changing tables in my area. Technically called nursing benches/stations. It's been like that since 2015. You're right that it takes up space and very fewer clients fully understand it nor do most of the AHJ. I'd say we need to explain these WC to the AHJ and client in 2 out of every 3 reno or new builds (commercial).
Our requirement is to provide a space for 72"x30" table and 60"x30" clear space next to plus a whole bunch of buttons and warning lights.
Thinking about the time I spent working in Philadelphia, I just can't imagine a restaurant managing to build one of these restrooms in the first floor of a 15' wide rowhouse (4.6 meter) and still have enough room for a kitchen and enough table seating to turn a profit. I'm sure it's possible but it seems like a barrier to small businesses.
It's coming in the new code. My state is advising to plan on seeing new language in the the 3rd quarter of 24. It will likely be required in family restrooms, require additional structural support, if they can't have enough room for a bench, it will be wall mounted and will need to be motorized.
it's in the code now. section 1110.4 of the 2024 IBC. it will not likely be required for a small restaurant.
these change table clearances are required for mercantile over 300m2. Some exceptions apply but generally, most need to provide a WC big enough to accommodate the table. The idea is also that is can hold a stretcher if ever there was the need. I've told to expect my code will require 2100 turning clearances soon (7') because motorized scooters are getting more common.
Curt, yeah I imagine it is, but my state is advising that we wait for their amendments.
In south america everyone just throws shitty toilet paper, sanitry napkins, and tampons in a super gross trashcan next to the toilet because you can't flush any of it.
Maybe consider a low-tech solution like that?
I think the point we're moving toward will be that all "multi-accommodation" toilets will have to be designed with real walls and doors instead of partitions, so that each "stall" is essentially it's own single-accommodation. I've already started pushing for this in new work (against a LOT of pushback), but how to achieve inclusivity when retrofitting existing public toilets is a real head-scratcher...
The head admin of our city's planning department has MS with all of the accompanying disabilities. It was through him that we were able to convince our city to do what you're describing. It tends to make sense and I've done it on a few projects now, and it's even being requested by clients, including the government. It takes time.
Inclusivity and accommodation in design is an interesting and touchy topic. What is enough? Where do you stop? What is reasonable and what is not? At a certain point, mandating all this stuff makes it so huge and uneconomical to actually do that it defeats the whole purpose. You get perverse results such as incentivizing people to provide no facilities at all rather than have to meet massive numbers of arbitrary requirements.
Really? You think more access is the problem, and not less? Even when ADA has proven to benefit our culture and economy? Measurably. In fact I'll go on and state the obvious; non-gendered restrooms would actually save money.
I'm saying it's complicated and involves lots of trade-offs which are rarely addressed. But you do you.
It's not about me do me, Judge.
You like to make personal comments and insults about people, especially me, without knowing anything about us. It's not very constructive or useful, and tends to undermine any other points you're trying to make. Just a little advice for you there.
What are you talking about qwharton?
I think I get what gwharton is saying. We have clients that, because of the cost of accessible lifts, will have us figure out ways to make that area not be required to be accessible (e.g. take a habitable roof deck and classify it as mechanical, knowing that it will later become a venue spot). It's shitty and counterproductive if/when they eventually get sued by someone for violating ADA, but it certainly happens.
I didn't mean that Jovan. We've had clients try and do that. We inform them that the way we interpret the code(s) is counter to theirs. If they want the project to proceed then they need to sign a document saying they're going against our recommendations and indemnifying us.
I meant gwharton's comment about bt3 insulting him.
Oh okay. Yeah we do something similar.
New architecture projects today are immensely more accessible than buildings in the near past. And while some clients may find workarounds, the scale and meaning of that is miniscule compared to the improvements, and often not even about accessibility.
Chad, b3ta has been following me around in comments on this site for years, calling me "Judge" and generally just being an ass toward me. I was just pointing out that I haven't forgotten any of that. I've never reported him for it, but it's tiresome and juvenile.
If I recall b3t only started to do that after you made some rather judgemental and inane comments. I also seem to recall you following him around for a bit. I'm sorry that it bothers you so much that you can't let it go. I find it odd that many of your responses to telling you that your comments are 'ugly' is that it's free speech. When someone dose the same to you it's not free speech and should be reported to the admins.
I can let it go just fine. After a couple of years not posting much here, I make a few comments, and there b3ta is again, doing his thing. I simply called him out on it. You asked why, and I explained. That's all. I don't care or think about b3ta at all otherwise. He's nobody.
Listen Smails, I know about you, because I know of someone that worked with you and they confirmed it was fitting. I only think about you when you're obnoxious, obtuse, and your generally peevish attitude rears itself. Like it did in your response to my questions, after you asked a series of questions. Perhaps you and the yacht club set don't like being questioned by lowly workers?
Jovan, that's not what the republican is asking. He's asking where does this accommodation end? When will "disability rights" ever top out? He seems to have the right courts to help define, and limit what rights are worthy of protecting, and how businesses can avoid them.
One last note, contrary to this man's hyper inflated sense of himself, I hardly "follow" him around, he posted a shit ton of conservative garbage on politics central, most of it I treated like the shit it is. Nearly everything else I ignore, because it's benign, and generally boring.
I was inclined to agree with gwharton on the notion that the very complicated rulebook that is ADAAG requirements leaves too many small loopholes which allow my clients to "technically" not provide accessibility features in various ways.
I'd like to clarify: I think that all buildings available for public access should be entirely publicly accessible and universal. Splitting bathrooms and their amenities by sex is just as much of a threat to the safety and welfare of trans and non-binary people as is not providing accessible features in bathrooms for those with disabilities. Anyone who disagrees should hand in their license to practice on account of intentionally violating the health, safety, and welfare of the public.
b3tadine[sutures] wrote:
Regarding gwharton:
“ I know about you, because I know of someone that worked with you and they confirmed it was fitting. I only think about you when you're obnoxious, obtuse, and your generally peevish attitude rears itself. Like it did in your response to my questions, after you asked a series of questions. Perhaps you and the yacht club set don't like being questioned by lowly workers?
[snip] he posted a shit ton of conservative garbage on politics central, most of it I treated like the shit it is.”
I too have met gwharton and know people who have worked with him. This is what I recall about him as well. It hard to forget someone that acts like that.
We haven't met, sorry. I have posted political things in Politics Central, which is the appropriate place to do so on this forum. People disagree on stuff there. You all seem to take political disagreement personally. Feel free to keep making assumptions about me personally, but you obviously know nothing at all about me.
Related to that, back to my original point about accessibility accommodation, reasonability, and where does it stop is directly related to my own personal experience as a disabled person, not attempts to get out of designing for accessibility.
Since you want to get personal, here's a personal tidbit for you: I am deaf, and have been for most of my adult life. Deaf people face lots of unique challenges in a hearing world (with demographic life outcomes statistically much worse than most other populations), and that's not just limited to the behavior of hearing people treating us badly.
On the design side, there are lots of things building designers can do to make spaces and buildings a lot more deaf-friendly. Gallaudet University has pioneered a great program - DeafSpace - specifically on that problem. Being pretty familiar with the DeafSpace design program, implementing it as a fundamental ADA requirement for all buildings would dramatically change how you design public spaces, make them quite a bit larger and more expensive, all to accommodate the needs of people like me.
How far are you willing to go with that? And how far does it extend? Blind people have lots of special needs too. Few of them fall under ADA design guidelines right now. And then there are lots of other categories of disability and need which are beyond that.
While you are riding around on your ideological hobby horse and hating me because I posted something you didn't like years ago in a political chat, maybe give that some serious thought instead.
Bah. I answered your questions, with some clarifying questions, your response indicated you gave no thought to my questions. Then your "sagacious" retort; but you do you. You're someone that like a judge, believes your rhetorical questions are above challenge. You further inflate your own personal wealth in your own mind, that I could hate someone I give little thought. It's not like I posted on TC, you know what, I miss hating on gwharton.
But, to answer your question, if the building codes make widening buildings as you suggest, part of the code, I'm still for expanding access to those within a protected class.
I have met you gwharton. I didn't interact with you though. I've also met people you work with.
Like you I too am disabled. In addition to my permanent disability for two years I was unable to walk and spent that time in a wheelchair. My personal experience is that ADA doesn't go far enough.
Okay. Then please be specific. What's missing? How open-ended is this demand that other people pay for accommodating us as disabled people? What is the reasonable minimum? Where does it stop? My original question was trying to get at this in particular: it's fun to make a Big Rock Candy Mountain wish list of things other people should (must, in the case of ADA law) do for us unilaterally. But beyond making wish lists, what is a real, realistic, achievable standard for implementing stuff like this? What is the limit? Mobility impairments are obviously on the list of basic, reasonable requirements because there are some fundamental geometric configuration issues involved. But beyond that? We are in uncharted territory. I have thought about this a lot in the context of my own disability and those of people close to me, and so far my own answer is that it's very hard to expand the requirements without having a very specific, justifiable logic for doing so, and how far that mandate can go.
Simple - make it so that people with mobility, sight, and hearing issues can still use a building safely with minimal assistance. The ADA is a good start however many of the clearances / requirements are still at the minimum and require someone to attempt to do something perfectly for it to work.
I thought Capitalism was the solution to all things? I guess making those little oligarchs pay up is too much of an ask? I actually believe that better buildings, better urbanism, makes for a better culture, community, and world.
Don't get your adult diapers in a twist, people.
My AARP rep would like a word.