Might I also note that everything that makes a building accessable to wheelchairs also makes it accessable to baby carriages?
You may think the disabled are an insignificant minority - a highly debateable point - but parents sure as hell aren’t.
Indeed, I once lived in a third-floor walk-up myself. And the top results in searches along these lines seem to suggest that it’s not an issue.
However, I’m certain that I’ve read an explanation, by an architect or architectural critic, over how the problem I described could arise (Christopher Alexander? James Howard Kunstler?), and I’m also certain that I’ve been told, by a building owner, that ADA rules were effectively preventing him from converting the second and third floors to apartments.
It may be that the issue arises in structures which have not always been apartments, but which are to be renovated to that purpose. (The renovations-to-apartments that I am aware of have all included elevators.)
In any case, I’ll try to find it, and I suppose my assertion should be set aside until then.
Nobody happened to be using them while you were looking, you mean.
The Americans with Disabilities Act was passed in 1990. Before that, several steps had led to it’s adoption. First of all there were the various civil rights movements for racial minorities and women, which set the template for activism by “disadvantaged” groups. Another factor might have been the creation of the ANSI A117.1 standard, which beginning in 1961 codified what was necessary for a building to be fully accessible to the handicapped. Here’s Wiki’s article on the Disability Rights Movement.
In a nutshell, beginning as far back as the early 1960s, Americans collectively began to feel that making sure that people weren’t held back through no fault of their own was a social and moral necessity. In particular, the idea that if the government could effect change for the better in society that it ought to.
Society is aging. Google “Fastest Growing Age Group” seniors are becoming the biggest age group and will be for a long time.
It makes sense to make buildings as accessible as possible. Thirty years from now you may be the one hobbling up those steps with a cane. 
How did it come to that decision? It wasn’t always the case.
That’s really interesting. Society, as a whole, gains from having all of its members use social services and patronize businesses? Hmm. I have to think about that more.
Why do you think so?
True, but I wonder how often this is the case.
As far as I know, that’s correct.
Because sometimes accessibility costs more than their disabled customers may bring in?
Yes? I don’t know? How did they before the ADA?
Truth be told, I feel the same way (about the fairness and reasonableness), but it doesn’t seem like that’d stand up in a hard debate. How was Congress swayed? Did they immediately agree that it was the right and nice thing to do, to do no opposition? Did businessowners see the wisdom in this right off the bat?
It’s not America vs Sparta, but the shades of gray in between.
Sorry, that’s not what I meant. I meant that if the overarching goal was to equalize society, we could be spending resources on fixing those other issues – i.e., the question would be whether to spend a billion dollars on helping the homeless or on building ramps, not whether to provide ramps for both the physically challenged and the colorblind.
(And I realize that the ADA doesn’t make the government pay [except for public buildings and enforcement], but if businesses weren’t paying for ramps, for example, they could be taxed to better other issues that may or may not affect their direct customer base but would benefit society as a whole)
Eh, you’re taking that “if” way out of context. Replace it with “given”. It’s not that I doubt some disabilities are non-visible, but that useful statistics may be hard to find precisely because not all disabilities are easily seen or otherwise counted.
The ADA and the FHA are both laws passed to protect the rights on individuals with a wide range of disabilities mainly in new construction. Most existing buildings are exempt unless they do a certain amount of remodel work or are public buildings. Th
The expense to make a new building ADA or FHA compliant would be difficult to gauge and in general probably is very small relative to the overall cost of new construction. As I design a building it is just part of the work I do. I personally think it is a good thing to have these sorts of design parameters in place.
Part of my job as an Architect is to protect the healthy safety and welfare of the general public–that also includes those with disabilities. Why do we put smoke doors in buildings–they are expensive and rarely (hopefully never) get used. They serve a miniscule portion of the public (those in the building), but I bet you would be thankful when you are in a building and it is on fire! ADA and FHA access is similar in that it is part of the cost of building a building and it is place to protect those with accessibility issues. Just like smoke doors are there to protect the users in case of a fire. I fail to see the difference frankly.
To be honest, I really don’t know if they’re an insignificant minority. I think I’ll keep an eye out from now on for people using the ramps and such in non-obvious ways… I think this is fascinating.
Hah. As a bicyclist, they’re also great for the rare times I need to get on or off a sidewalk, but that’s still just a nice side effect of the original intentions.
Point taken. By the same metric, most of America’s sidewalks are probably useless too 
Another good point.
Exactly the kind of thing I was looking for… thank you. I never knew there was a disability rights movement.
FHA=functional hazard analysis, or something else?
That’s a very interesting comparison. Thank you.
Do you ever have to deal with retrofits (FHA or ADA)? What’s that like?
FHA = Fair Housing Act.
Every day here in Chicago, I see people in wheelchairs and with crutches going to and from work on public transportation (commuter trains and buses). Due to the ADA, they can hold down a job and support themselves, rather than being a strain on their family or the government.
What has bothered me over the years is that many churches, not being bound by the ADA, simply don’t bother. While helping a wheelchair-using friend of mine search for a new church, I found many that did not have ramps. I was told that they didn’t need ramps because they didn’t have any members in wheelchairs. Of course they didn’t, if nobody in a wheelchair could join! Apparently they were all waiting for someone in the congregation to become disabled.
oh sorry.
FHA Fair Housing Act–it applies to multi family buildings
ADA American with Disabilties Act applies to public buildings
Personally I haven’t done retrofits. The way both the ADA and FHA get compliance is via law suits. They are not building codes (both are laws) so the building department doesn’t review for compliance. Well now they are more integrated so by default if you meet the current proscriptive requirements of the building codes you will meet the FHA and ADA. But in general they are enforced by lawsuit.
Retrofits though would be just a matter of fitting things in. I think you are overestimating the costs of compliance relative to the overall costs of a building. It is pennies relatively. There are few buildings that it would make an impact on - although there are some buildings that would be ruined by meeting the acts in my opinion. But I personally think they are good laws.
I’m sure others can better relate the history. My glib short answer is that the physically disabled had better advocates than some other more-or-less-marginalized groups, probably in part because some people become disabled mid-life, after building wealth and influence.
Sure. Businesses generally want the largest possible pool of potential customers, of course. But beyond that, maximal participation of all groups in public institutions and activities, is pretty much what makes a vibrant society. It’s not just using “services,” it’s about making all people feel that the larger society is theirs, too, and that they have both a right to and an interest in its quality and success. Our overall, shared culture is far richer for having fuller participation of women and black people, right? Civil rights for these groups is not just about them; it’s about all of us.
Accessibility for the physically disabled perhaps isn’t quite the same as civil rights, at a moral level, but it is functionally similar. When we fail, on whatever terms, to include people, we lose the benefit of their contributions.
As I noted earlier, there’s plenty of room for improving accessibility designs for non-disabled people.
As Hakuna Matata mentioned, older buildings are not subject ADA rules unless a certain amount of renovation occurs. Presumably that would include conversion of an existing building into apartments. (And as I’ve said, lots of people aside from the wheelchair-bound find elevators useful, including the unfit, those with children in strollers, those with granny carts containing groceries, those expecting to get furniture or packages delivered, etc.)
I will gladly loan someone my spare wheelchair for them to try living in a chair for a week. Hell, I have 2 spare sets of crutches that I will loan out. You try getting the rather heavy front door to a commercial building open using crutches and then try to get takeout food … carry your drink how? Luggage in an airport? Escalator instead of an elevator?
If we make it virtually impossible for anyone with a handicap to work, then there will be far more people with handicaps on SSI and SSDI. In the long run, it is better for society and our economy if we make it as easy as possible for the largest number of people to work.
If the question is why was the ADA passed, the ADA itself will answer it.
Or else they miss the obvious. I was once a member of a UU church that did some major bathroom renovations, and when I went into the accessible stall, they’d put the purse hook waaaaaay up at the top, like in all the others. I pointed out to somebody that they might want to put the hook down where people in chairs and whatnot could actually use it. This is not an uncommon thing anywhere where stalls exist, but that time I could do something about it! They fixed it pretty quickly.
It’s the little things. I live in a 1940s-ish log cabin, originally built more for tourists but now privately rented. I adore it. However, the light switches are mounted a good five feet up; I am 4’2" and have to reach over my head to get to them. The front door’s doorknob is also really high, about four feet. It’d be a huge pain to retrofit so I haven’t asked if they can do anything about it; after all, I can reach them, it’s just a PITA. But if I were in a chair I couldn’t turn the lights on in the house I rent. Nobody should be in the position of having to look for a place to live where they can reach the damn light switches.
Making buildings and whatnot accessible seems like it’s something that is so obviously a general good thing I can’t imagine anybody honestly thinks it’s a waste of time and money.
That’s where the idea of Universal Design comes in. Makes getting around easier for everyone; not just those with disabilities.
I wonder if the fact that you are from elsewhere is contributing to some of the early confusion in this thread. Is English your first language? What you later describe as mere curiosity about how the ADA came about sounded initially like you were saying that no one should bother trying to accommodate people with disabilities.
I haven’t read anyone else’s responses yet; I felt the need to come right in and say it.
If it’s a public building, it isn’t ‘catering’ - access is a right.