Since we’re brand spankin’ new and no one has shared their stories with us yet, we’re going to drag out a story from our past. For legal reasons, no names will be used in the telling of this tale. (That sounds so dramatic.) As you will see, this little story is a frustrating one, but, sadly, not that unusual.
In a galaxy far, far away (OK, in the State of Texas), registered interior designer John Doe had a law firm for a client. They were expanding their offices to accommodate new growth, and their office building had 5’-0” mullion spacing.
[Let’s stop here and explain a few things. For those of you who don’t know, a mullion is the vertical piece in between adjoining windowpanes. When space planning, it is quite common to place the walls so that they align with the mullions because it’s easy and provides a clean look. In this case, the result would be rooms essentially with widths of 10’-0”, 15’-0”, 20’-0”, and so on. Notice we said essentially. Since the spacing is from centerline of wall to centerline of wall, you must take into account the width of the walls; therefore, you would need to shave off anywhere from 3.5” – 5” (depending on the width of said walls), resulting in a nominal width of approximately 9’-8”, 14’-8”, 19’-8”, and so on.]
Adjacent to a conference room, the client wanted a closet to store chairs, tables, etc. Mr. Doe made this closet the width of the mullion spacing, rendering the inside width of the closet approximately 4’-8”. Additionally, he put double doors on this closet, providing the client with a generous 6’-0” wide opening, and changing the depth of the closet at the doors to something close to 4’-10.5”.
[Another lesson before we proceed with our story. A warning: it involves an alphabet soup of initials. You may have heard of the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines, most commonly referred to as ADAAG. The goal of the ADA and its guidelines is to make spaces more easily accessible to those with physical disabilities. The State of Texas uses the ADA as a basis for its Texas Accessibility Standards [TAS], a set of standards which the state requires all interior designers, architects and landscape architects to follow when designing spaces accessible to the general public. Since the State doesn’t have the manpower to review drawings and inspect projects all on its own, it contracts out to Registered Accessibility Specialists, known as RAS. Now back to our story.]Just as he was required to by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation [TDLR], John submitted to a RAS of his choice the construction drawings, a completed Project Registration form, and a check for the RAS and TDLR fees. Following TDLR guidelines, John submitted these items all before the fifth business day following the issue of construction document to the contractor for submission to the city for a building permit.
The project was small and relatively simple, so the contractor had the walls up and the door openings framed before the RAS returned the TAS review to John. Everything on the report was in compliance except for one thing: you guess it… the closet.
In Section 4.2.3 of TAS, it states: “The minimum space required for a standard wheelchair to make a 180-degree turn is a clear space of 60” or a T-shaped space.” [Note that graphics are included in the document, but they aren’t included here. Yet. Give us here at PLiNTH & CHiNTZ time.] The RAS marked the closet as non-compliant because all she cared about was the fact that there was only a 4’-10.5” turning radius in the closet and not a 5’-0” turning radius: a difference of 1.5”.
Let us think about the logic involved here. For this condition to occur, a person in a wheelchair would have to open the out-swinging double doors, go completely inside the closet (which is most likely filled with chairs-n-tables-n-stuff), and somehow reach out and close the doors (because the doors did not have closers). OK, maybe someone could get mad at the person in the wheelchair and lock the person in the closet, you say. They would have to do so by putting a chair up against the doors because the doors didn’t even have locks. (Let us just point out that if fellow employees are locking each other up in closets, this company has more serious problems than accessibility. Of course, it is a bunch of lawyers…)
Our poor designer John raised these obvious points to the RAS, who actually agreed him; however, because of the bureaucracy of the process, she still had to mark it as in non-compliance. John asked her, “What if the doors merely had touch latches, therefore eliminating the need to even turn a handle” Then a person in a wheelchair could simple back out into the doors, opening them quite effortlessly.” Again, the RAS applauded John on his rational solution, but the answer was still NO. As a last resort and almost as a joke, he implored, “What if the client just leaves the doors off all together and installs curtains instead”” Surprisingly, the RAS agreed that this condition – as silly as it was for the client – would work.
Dreading doing so, poor John then had to face the client and explain the situation. The options: 1) Spend the money to move the wall 1.5”. 2) Don’t install the double doors and install a curtain instead. 3) Install the double doors and risk non-compliance status with the state. The client found the situation ridiculous, and John whole-heartedly agreed. Since the client was a lawyer, he wanted to fight it on legal grounds. John agreed that, yes, the client could do that, but did he really want to spend the money and time to fight “city hall” and leave his firm open to other blood-thirsty lawyers” John did not advise him what to do, wisely allowing the client to make up his own mind.
We’re sure our readers are asking: “Why on earth did John space plan the closet this way in the first place” Though a bit unaesthetic, he should have known that he needed to jog the wall, making the conference room a little smaller.” Good point. The answer: John was designing based on his past experience, and in his past experience – and he had designed probably 10+ closets in the same fashion – no RAS had ever marked it as non-compliant. So what was he to think”
If the contractor hadn’t been so quick, it would have been no big whoop. (This is probably a first, huh” Being upset that a contractor was ahead of schedule.) John would have issued the simple dimensional change and all would have been well. But the walls were up, the door framed, and no one wanted to spend the time or the money to make the change.
Now, don’t get us wrong. We do believe the spaces should be accessible to those with disabilities, but we also think logic – not blindly enforced rules – should have something to do with it. It’s obvious that John was trying hard to follow governmental procedure and the spirit of the guidelines. The moral of the story: many times good intentions are not enough and logic does not prevail. Don’t be scared – just be aware. You’re not the first one to gets frustrated by the system, and you won’t be the last. Now go to your Happy Place.
Are you a designer or an industry guru who has a backstory to share” Truth is usually stranger than fiction, and our readers want to hear about it. The goal is not to scare away the idealists, but rather to prepare them for whatever comes their way. Be sure to leave out the names of the guilty. (That would definitely be TMI.) Email us at contact@plinthandchintz.com and put REAL WORLD in the subject line. Sometimes it feels good to confess.
