I stopped in at a fish-sandwich place the other day for lunch and encountered a "fountain drinks" counter way too high to reach.
It's not the first time I've encountered one like this -- the other one I recall is also at a fish place, but they're everywhere.
The counter all the stuff sits on is simply too high. They've got that soft-drink dispenser unit, those big urns, the cups and the napkins, straws and stuff all up on a counter that's probably about 4 feet off the ground to start with.
What's the point? There are plenty of fountain drink stations in fast-food restaurants that are on counters much lower. So what could possibly be the thinking of those who install these high counters?
Well, there it is -- no thinking.
What it tells me is that, once again, nobody -- not contractors, not owners, certainly not building or restaurant inspectors -- pays the slightest bit of attention to the fact that these things are supposed to be at an ACCESSIBLE height.
"Oh, they'll always help you get your drink for you!"
That's the response to complaints, isn't it?
But it's not the right response. The right response would be to put the counter lower in the first place.
Fountain drinks from on high
"This door to remain unlocked..."
The sign on the door leading out to a side patio read, " This door to remain unlocked when building is occupied." Big white letters on a dark gray background. Can't miss it.
I'm sure it was put up by the fire marshall. Restaurants by law have to have more than one exit.
But it made me think about how often the "handicapped" door remains locked.
That was my experience at the Butterfly Garden. The place I was at where I saw the sign is a new place, just finished being built. Accessible, yes -- so that's not the issue.
The issue is about enforcement.
It has been my experience that almost every business open to the public -- restaurants certainly -- know very clearly what all the fire code requirements are. And don't dare disobey them. What happens if they do? Do they get a big fine? Do they get shut down?
The fire marshal almost certainly required that sign to be posted -- it's a fire code requirement, I'm pretty sure, that a restaurant have 2 exits. The door boasting the sign was the second exit, after the main front door.
Wouldn't it be great, I thought, if such a sign were required on any non-main door that provides the sole "handicap access?" How many of those doors remain locked! That too, is illegal...
But it seems far fewer business owners are concerned about breaking access laws.
Hmmm....
Old bar bars entrance -- again
When Café Lou Lou moved out of its startup location on Frankfort Ave. at Pope Street, I heard a rumor that the move was at least in part occasioned by the fact that the buiding -- at 1800 Frankfort Ave., which I believe used to be a bar -- was violently inaccessible, and that folks had complained.
It's an awful old building: A step up to get through the door, which fronts right onto the corner, and then the World's Tiniest Vestibute with one or two more steps and yet another door to get -- finally! -- into the place. Once inside, there are still more levels. But that seems a fairly moot point, since who can get in??
So I was thrilled when Café Lou Lou left -- but I worried about the next tenant, which I suspected would almost certainly be a restaurant as well.
And sure enough...
Guess who's settled into the old bar? Why, none other than the Kentucky BBQ Company, recently known as Bourbon Bros BBQ back when it was down on Brownsboro Road. It was in an accessible location there. It had started out across the street, in that little building that used to be a bakery right on the corner of Frankfort and Crescent Ave., and that, too, had an accessible entrance, I believe.
Ah, but the BBQ guys seem to have not given access a single thought. And now, once again, the old bar building houses a restaurant that is inaccessible.
It would really really be nice if Metro's Dept. of Inspections, Permits and Licenses didn't allow new restaurants to move into inaccessible quarters. Some legal beavers locally have off and on suggested that a "place of public accommodation" (in this case, a restaurant) taking up digs in an inaccessible place probably violates the state Civil Rights Act, not to mention the Americans with Disabilities Act.
But IPL says "hey! That's not our problem!"
Louisville's heaviest restaurant doors
Well, maybe not the heaviest, but certainly right up there. They're the doors at the entrance to Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant (2901 Brownsboro Road). Great food, but heavy, heavy doors!
And here's the kicker: They've got a massive set of setps up to the entrance, but a great ramp right next to them. The place was initially built as an Indian restaurant (in the late 1980s or early 1990s) and it's clear the owner believed in that "if it sits up high, it's more impressive" fallacy so beloved of architects. But code officials, I guess, made them do a ramp along with the steps. So no complaints there.
But those doors! First off, they're massive. Probably 10 feet high, wood, carved -- probably supposed to invoke the doors into old Indian palaces, I suspect. And they have these big iron rings on them like old fashioned door pulls. No levers here, no siree!
I can just barely pull them open, and I've got a LOT of upper body strength.
I can never figure out why code officials can be so good on some aspects of access and so ignorant -- or maybe it's just lackadaisical -- on others.
The weight of doors seems to be one that they pretty much ignore. They certainly have ignored it here.
Too-common problems: towelbar height
The image is of a restaurant restroom. Which restaurant? Doesn't matter. The picture is so typical it could represent dozens of restaurant restrooms in Louisville; thousands nationwide.
It's clear the folks here were thinking of access -- or at least the contractors putting the restroom in were thinking of it. The state building code's access requirements have things spelled out for restroom access.
Yup. Sure do.
"Reach ranges" are spelled out in the code. Nothing -- like towel dispensers, for example -- is supposed to be higher than 48 inches from the floor.
Somebody wasn't using a tape measure when they installed this towel dispenser.
But this restroom is far from unique. In fact, too-high towel dispensers are common in "accessible" restrooms. Why?
I can't figure that one out. Seems like such an easy thing.
Nobody cares? But why would whoever is putting together an accessible restroom WANT to put a towel dispenser so high? Don't they think? Don't they REALIZE that someone who has limited arm mobility would have a hard time reaching this thing?
Don't they think disabled people need to use towels in the restroom?
Don't they think?
Why not?
Fighting laws
A post the other day about Bistro New Albany got me to thinking about the strange mess that has always existed between the requirements for access under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and those helpful guys and gals in local "code enforcement" offices. Here in Louisville that's xxx
This could be long and detailed, but I'll make it short and simple, fudging over a little bit of stuff but giving you the essential low-down:
Physical access is a bricks-and-mortar thing that belongs in the world of construction and renovation. Thus, those overseeing that kind of thing are the ones who would logically tell owners/contractors about design requirements that ensure wheelchair access.
The way IPL and their cohorts nationwide see things, they're enforcing codes -- i.e. building codes.
If the code in use (there are state codes and local codes) require a design feature, they'll ensure it's done (ensuring it's "up to code.")
However:
The federal Disabilities Act is a different kind of beast -- it's not a building code at all. It's a civil rights, anti-discrimination law.
So we have apples and oranges, or maybe convertibles and SUVs, passing each other in the night, ignoring each other.
Yet the ADA requires access. That requirement is on the operator of the establishment.
The ADA says nothing to code enforcement officials. It's not their law to administer.
And so they don't administer it.
So we have a business owner opening their business in an inaccessible building. The code officials don't say anything to them about the lack of access. If the owner's not doing any kind of renovation, they don't even have any contact with code officials, unless they're a restaurant, and then the officials check things like the number of sinks, the number of tables for the space, etc., etc. -- all that restaurant-y stuff. But not construction stuff, and therefore, not access.
The code officials don't have to do a thing about access unless the building is actually being renovated -- walls removed, new fronts put on, that kind of thing.
Meanwhile, though, there is this federal law, that tells the business owner, "no; you can't open your new business in an inaccessible building." But, you see, that's a nondiscrimination requirement -- not a code requirement. So the code folks who are dealing with the business getting opened, don't say a word about access.
Nobody, it seems, ever tells the business owner about the ADA's requirement for access. They don't learn about it until a wheelchair user (or a group like MetroSweep) tells them.
Or so they say. You'd sort of think that by now, almost 20 years after that became a federal law, that most business owners would've caught on.
But maybe not. At least most of them insist they were "never told" they had to be accessible. Which is why they seem to feel so aggrieved when a wheelchair user dares to tell them.
And all this is the short expanation. You don't want to read the long explanation.
Steps roulette
Blue Dog Bakery and Cafe (2868 Frankfort Ave.) has a nice flat entrance. The folks who run the place had the building gutted and renovated, so the inside is new. And because of that, the access portion of the building code kicked in, and so the restrooms are accessible. The store portion flows into the dining room via a ramped flooring with a slope so gentle you have to be thinking about it to realize it's a ramp.
The tables are spacious and wide apart and it's really a pleasure for a wheelchair user to dine here.
A few doors down you'll find a business with a step at the entrance, though.
That's the way it is all along this section of Frankfort Ave., and I don't know why.
When Just Creations first opened, on the corner of Frankfort and Bayly Ave., its door -- right on the corner -- had a step. So Just Creations wasn't accessible.
But the store right next to it, to the east -- at that time a Home Textiles Outlet -- had a completely flat entrance.
Go figure!!
For a long time Just Creations seemed to dick around with the city (the IPL folks) about putting a ramp on the sidewalk. The IPL folks don't seem to like that ( although they allow every other possible type of "intrusion" onto the sidewalk -- 200-lb planters, street trees, bolted down benches, bike racks, sculptures, sidewalk tables and chairs) and they wouldn't let Just Creations put a ramp in.
I still think that "no ramps onto the sidwalk" is an issue ripe for a lawsuit. But nobody's done one.
Anyhow, back to the Doorways of Frankfort Ave:
Just Creations solved its entrance access problem by simply expanding into the adjoining storefront when the Textile Outlet moved, doing just what Blue Dog had done, expanding the business and ramping the interior rooms together.
That can happen elsewhere along Frankfort, and I hope it does.
The only thing I hope for even more is for someone to get IPL to get over their ridiculous "no ramps onto sidewalks" mentality.