New York City-based legal group Disability Rights Advocates (DRA) has filed a class action lawsuit against a collection of public agencies representing the borough of Queens, New York "challenging the inaccessibility" of the new Steven Holl Architects-designed Hunters Point Library, according to a press statement.
A press release announcing the suit reads: "Under longstanding disability rights laws, newly constructed buildings must be made fully accessible to people with disabilities. Yet Hunters Point Library, which is an entirely new $41.5 million building constructed after years of in-depth planning, shockingly excludes persons with mobility disabilities from full and equal access to its services through reliance on stairs and other inaccessible features."
The statement argues that a series of "barriers" to accessibility exist at the library, including:
The building was initially met with a glowing debut in the design press due to the open and inspiration nature of its design. But in the weeks that followed the library's opening, issues with the building's design began to surface as record crowds and a peculiar, stairs-forward design laid bare some of the shortcomings in the project's configuration and amenities.
A recent article in The New York Times highlighted the design challenges initially presented by the building, some of which have been resolved, according to the architects. In a contemporaneous response to the Times report, Chris McVoy, senior partner at Steven Holl Architects, defended the project's design in a message to Archinect, saying, "Reading areas and study desks are continually full; people are inspired to come and spend time here." McVoy added: "The Hunters Point Library is a testament to the value of public space of design excellence, and the desire of the community to have such a space to visit. We are thrilled that the library is offering this to the city."
McVoy also added that books located in the previously inaccessible terraced reading sections had been relocated and made accessible, while forthcoming design changes to a stepped seating area in the children's wing of the library were also receiving upgrades.
The lawsuit—which was filed this week against Queens Borough Public Library, The Board of Trustees of the Queens Borough Public Library, and the City of New York and does not name the architects—represents an escalation of the situation and makes clear that the accessibility issues may have persisted at the building despite these fixes.
In the announcement highlighting the suit, Andrea Kozak-Oxnard, Staff Attorney at DRA, writes, “The ADA is not a new requirement, and it is not hard to understand. It is baffling that this $41.5 million building is missing these fundamental elements. It’s as though the library didn’t care about these requirements, or worse didn’t even consider the needs of these members of the community. People with disabilities should be able to browse, relax, and enjoy the library just like everyone else."
According to DRA, the goal of the lawsuit is to "rectify the exclusion of people with disabilities by requiring Defendants to develop and implement a remedial plan to provide equal access to Hunters Point Library." The statement adds, "The suit alleges violations of the federal and local civil rights laws designed to eliminate disability-based discrimination."
after seeing the building in person, I find the commentary/photos to be misleading. the controversial stairway in question has a forth, extra wide level that is accessible via a 1.5 level elevator. The other two or three levels are too narrow even if you installed a mini escalator. The rest of the five floors are accessible via an intricate system of paths and spaces. So the problem is more about the books themselves. But if you are in a wheelchair, how do you access any books without assistance? I find it interesting that this has been left out of the images and commentary. The architects did offer the equivalent of handicapped parking spaces. Is that enough?
The building is nice but the problem perhaps is not this individual space, it’s the overall size. If it were bigger, it would have offered more room to add space for capacity which seems more of the issue than accessibility per se.
For what it's worth the damages were removed during the creation of the ADA by the Republicans as a requirement for their support. California, in its great wisdom, added back damages for disability lawsuits of this type and guess what happened. A closet industry is still in effect. This does not, nor will it ever, negate the need for intentional and intense respect for and accommodation of the disabled. Using one groups greed to negate the care deserved by another is bullshit, and you're a shitty architect if that's how you think.
All 8 Comments
Sue the architect, it's their responsibility to meet code. Suing the municipality just further burdens taxpayers.
I'm fairly certain that the architect will be included in any fines resulting from a ada violation, as well as costs associated with correcting the issues. Given the number of "stakeholders", cost & length of time spent on the design, I think all parties share in the blame, but I agree that Steven Holl Architects is ultimately responsible for the flawed concept.
"Reading areas and study desks are continually full; people are inspired to come and spend time here."***
***As long as you can walk.
They are full because there aren't enough reading spaces with so much voids and ramps around.
50% of the book shelves are too high to reach when you're a child or in a wheelchair... shall we make them all lower so the rest of us can squat? where does this end?
sure its a "bad" design for this reason, but lets just take the lesson and learn not to do it again (at least in the USA)...
Calgary Central Library / Snøhetta
Tianjin Binhai Library / MVRDV
...i won't go on
Architecturally, it is a poor spatial experience in my view. Also looks shoddy from the outside and poorly detailed within. Was it worth the money and sacrifices?
I mean, I agree the design isn't great..but someone agreed to pay for it and its done now. Why pile on a lawsuit instead of just waiting for changes to be implemented? I think they got the point...
I don't see any books in the first and the second is full of pictures of books...Great examples of ignoring the design prompt. The Snohetta design could be any program, the MVRDV design is contemptuous.
How in the world did this get built? Don't the code officials in the jurisdiction having authority bear some responsibility for allowing this through?
Of course not. Code officials share no responsibility. They... simply exist.
"No oversight, error or omission on the part of the Building Inspector or his representative shall legalize the erecting, construction, alteration, removal, use or occupancy of a building or structure that does not conform to the provisions of the NY State Fire Prevention and Building Codes and code of the Town of Southampton Zoning Regulations"
Interesting that that passage doesn't cover federal ADA law.
Building Codes kick off to ADA, so to mention NYC BC is to include ADA (and others).
Building Codes are adopted as State Law. The ADA is Federal Civil Rights Law. Apples and Pears.
ADA isn't enforced by code officials, but as I recall, the Justice Department.
And generally, any "guidelines" are the result of legal action.
another case of the social justice mob overreacting to a small issue. just take down the bookshelves in that nice nook, so everyone will be happy.
There are many many buildings with worse problems, but the building covered positively in media is under woke attack. How convenient
What disabled person will stand up to this madness? Attacking libraries instead of basic transportation.
"There are many many buildings with worse problems, but the building covered positively in media is under woke attack. How convenient". That's hardly a reason not to criticize the building and its designers. It became a big target after the architectural press praised it as some kind of groundbreaking masterpiece that should be held to a higher standard.
another case of the troll the lib mob overreacting to an important issue. just realize that people with disabilities fall under the umbrella of HSW so everyone will be safe and have equal access to buildings.
There are many many buildings with worse problems, and the straw man is useful for my pet issue. How convenient
What disabled person will stand up to this madness? I say this without a trace of irony or self awareness. Also an inability to turn a phrase without hitting myself in the face with it.
This is all fine and good until you realize a bunch of lawyers are suing to get free money from the government. I don't see anyone proposing design fixes in a constructive spirit, even solutions that would water down the experience for everyone. What I do see is a bunch of lawyers getting in line to get cheese, and a dumb mob who don't think for themselves. As I remember the building is ADA. But the lawyers have to get money from somewhere, right?
The ADA does not include damages for the plaintiff for this reason. If a lawyer tries to find someone to sue the building owner, great, but who's making money?
For what it's worth the damages were removed during the creation of the ADA by the Republicans as a requirement for their support. California, in its great wisdom, added back damages for disability lawsuits of this type and guess what happened. A closet industry is still in effect. This does not, nor will it ever, negate the need for intentional and intense respect for and accommodation of the disabled. Using one groups greed to negate the care deserved by another is bullshit, and you're a shitty architect if that's how you think.
Frivolous ADA lawsuits do seem to play in NY State, despite the supposed class action laws. “Lawyers are clearly driving this litigation. They are not committed to removing barriers or guaranteeing access for all”
If lawyers are driving frivolous lawsuits that don't lead to more access, how does that help anyone? The mob rage is just used as blackmail to put fees in the lawyers pockets. Open your eyes.
NBC New York - NYS spike in frivolous ADA lawsuits
I think the point here is not whether the lawsuit itself is valid but whether the architect should brazenly disregard ADA compliance in the name of art. The lawsuit could well be lawyers taking advantage of a questionable design but is the design questionable?
The issue is what exactly is inaccessible--a small part of the library. The rest of the building is accessible. Every building needs minor tweaks and fixes. Coming out with a lawsuit just proves the point that its not really about making it accessible, its journalists and lawyers trying to make a buck
If you are saying that stairs themselves are anti-ADA, then that would be more accurate with the ultimate spirit of the lawsuits and mob rage.
Agree with you that the parties involved have their own agenda. The fact that a starchitect designed it to much fanfare also made it a juicy target for trial lawyers and journalists looking for a headline. I suppose its reasonable to ask 1) if the architect failed to perform to a professional standard of care in not complying with ADA guidelines to the letter and 2) if a building could still considerably reasonably accessible if the degree of ADA compliance could be less than 100%. Tempted to question whether the powers that be would have been more stringent with a non-starchitect when assessing ADA compliance.
It's pretty simple. If a portion of the building is intended for free use and access of the public yet is out of reach for any portion thereof, the design is lacking. Debate whether that's something you agree with all you like, but that's the intent of the law.
That article fails on many levels. It fails to indicate how the lawyers make money through settlements (damages? fee reimbursements? eh?), fails to indicate whether the uptick in lawsuits is related to buildings or other areas which fall under the purview of the ADA, etc. But sure, I guess I'll just use one (or jeez, even a few) badly written articles which align with your obvious biases and OPEN MY EYES.
Some fun FACTS from the report the article (poorly) discusses:
Under Federal law, Title III of the ADA does not give individuals the right to sue for monetary damages for public space claims, but critically allows attorneys to recover fees. In California, Florida and New York, the civil rights laws allow individuals with disabilities to file claims seeking monetary awards in addition to legal fees
In 2015, California passed a bill that tracks plaintiffs who frequently file ADA lawsuits and charges them an additional court filing fee of $1,000. In 2016, California passed another bill that makes small businesses with 50 or fewer employees exempt from the requisite $4,000 in damages to plaintiffs.
Lawyers will do the legwork for a case and then refile it against multiple businesses, with no additional work required. Thus they get to claim the same amount of 'costs' although they did no extra work.
TL;DR: The thing the article is discussing isn't an issue with people who have disabilities. It is an issue of unscrupulous, shitty people being money hungry vultures. It does not validate your claim of 'the social justice mob overreacting to a small issue' nor does it remove the need for architects to pay attention to the ADA not just to the letter of the law but to the spirit. God forbid any of us become reliant on the opinions of people who would rather throw out the ADA simply because there are terrible lawyers out there.
Good resources and argument sir!
Have the architect and contractor fix the shit.
Seems like a valid lawsuit; not sure what the architects were thinking.
after seeing the building in person, I find the commentary/photos to be misleading. the controversial stairway in question has a forth, extra wide level that is accessible via a 1.5 level elevator. The other two or three levels are too narrow even if you installed a mini escalator. The rest of the five floors are accessible via an intricate system of paths and spaces. So the problem is more about the books themselves. But if you are in a wheelchair, how do you access any books without assistance? I find it interesting that this has been left out of the images and commentary. The architects did offer the equivalent of handicapped parking spaces. Is that enough?
The building is nice but the problem perhaps is not this individual space, it’s the overall size. If it were bigger, it would have offered more room to add space for capacity which seems more of the issue than accessibility per se.
These are all questions the team should have been asking during the design phases.
It seems like it was addressed, not just in a way that satisfies an underlying radical (Marxist?) notion of equality whereas the goal isn’t to offer accommodation but to make the handicapped experience the only valid experience. It ends up collapsing in its own contradiction
So, the goal of Marxism isn’t to offer handicapped spaces, but to make all space handicapped.
You were SO CLOSE to having a valid point. SO FUCKING CLOSE.
Which was......?
You tell me. You started off asking interesting questions, then went off the deep end with conspiracy nonsense.
Conspiracy? My point was that people hear “building not accessible” instead of descriptions of reality and everyone loses their mind. At a certain point stairs themselves will become suspect.... when the victim-fetish currency is minted by the treasury. The building may clarify some toxic values in that regard.
Conspracy (noun) : the action of plotting or conspiring.
"It seems like it was addressed, not just in a way that satisfies an underlying radical (Marxist?) notion of equality whereas the goal isn’t to offer accommodation but to make the handicapped experience the only valid experience."
"So, the goal of Marxism isn’t to offer handicapped spaces, but to make all space handicapped."
It’s not a conspiracy if it’s the woke water we are all swimming in. More about making everyone suffer than offering accommodation to the less fortunate — I don’t think ADA was meant to be a license to kneecap the world
Nor has it been. Your fear mongering requires ignorance of the facts in favor of a narrative supported by few examples.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.