Hypothetically, what should a young 'architect-in-training' do when the client consistently demands modifications to the design which are counter to the prescribed laws, specifically the ADA?
They mention that they will "modify" the rooms if the individual to be living there were to be handicapped, but that's not really a legitimate argument, except in the case of reinforcement for grab bars, shower seats, etc.
The young architect's Project Manager plays right along with this, also suggesting that they could "modify" things later to provide compliance.
The young architect doesn't want to create waves, but this seems to be a rather large liability issue, and even though the client is demanding these concessions, the buck seems to stop with the design firm.
Information of any kind would be interesting in this discussion.
the ada is not a building code; it is a federal law. if the owner is found in violation of the ada, he or she could be sued to bring the building into compliance. subsequently the owner could sue your firm for knowingly issuing documents that were non-compliant with the ada.
you also have a problem in that much of the ada overlaps with ansi 117.1 which is supplemental to the ibc, the model building code for many cities and states. if you include modifications that are not in accordance with ansi 117.1, you will most likely be unable to obtain a permit from your ahj. if you are somehow able to obtain a permit, the building inspector could force the removal of non-comforming work. again your firm would be liable.
in any case, the issue needs to be brought to a principal's attention.
If the owner keeps pushing, you can explain how certain things don't meet code and suggest seeking a variance - that your firm will apply for with appropriate compensation - to build things not to current code. If a variance for these items seems far-fetched, tell the owner your professional opinion that seeking a variance is a waste of time - s/he may realize it's easier to just do it right without spending money trying to skirt the law.
Check the Fair Housing Act if this is a unit in a multi-family building. To the best of my knowledge, there is such a thing as an adaptive unit and the stricter rules don't apply.
what kind of building is it? if its residential ie some sort of multiple dwelling unit the rules as i recall are that a percentage of units must be ada compliant but not necessarily be equipped. for example, if you are designing a condo and have four different floor plans and six stories a certain percentage of each of those plans on each of those floors must be ada compliant. this all may have changed but this is what i recall when i worked on projects like this.
Assume for the sake of discussion that the young architect knows the law and other codes pretty well. The issue is not the interpretation of the law or what it requires, but the attitude of capitulation to the clients demands at the expense of the firms protection from liability.
The young architect is new, the PM has been around forever. At what point does seniority stop mattering?
The ada is federal law and must be followed. Check the ADA, because i think you can come to a compromise based on that the not every single room or space in a bulding has to comply it is based on a percentage of rooms or spaces. So if anything this would become one of those spaces that does not comply with the ADA completely and you should be talking with your AHJ asap about this, after doing your own research.
Won, that's what I think as well, I was wondering what the consensus would be. It's a tough call, though. They could appear too big for their britches, eh?
If the young architect tells the PM the problem, and the PM says "Ignore the law, this is how we do it", then the young architect has a great case for blackmailing the PM later for failure to perform the professional duties required by his/her license.
Just, you know, keep that in mind. I don't think you should blackmail your PM. A good architect doesn't break the laws, especially those that are directly related to the special areas in which we are charged with compliance: health, safety, welfare of the public.
It's not being too big for your britches to know the law and expect that others will too.
oh nevermind - anyway - i'd just print out the sections in the code and show the PM, then their boss if they don't shape up. it's not your stamp, right?
we have lots of questions because your first post is too vague.
yes, there are allowances for adaptable units that can be made ada-compliant in the future. that's what the A vs B question above is about.
if, in your inexperience, you're trying to make every unit compliant, the client isn't asking you to be unethical, simply to know what is acceptable/reasonable and what isn't. the burden of knowledge is on you (or your project manager/the architect), not the client.
if he's teaching you how multi-family residential works, or she's being patient enough to let you learn your way, you should thank him/her later.
correct me if i am wrong, i havent worked on a residential project in several years, but dont you need to show that your rest rooms are accessible to get your building permit?
you would be pretty negligent to deliberately leave off accessibility features from your documents, as would the PM.
As long as your documents follow code and all accessibility laws, i doubt the firm would be liable. Sounds like a client pinching every single penny he can
I agree with toaster though, its not your stamp, and there is only so far you should bother pushing it for some shady clients/ PMs
My understanding is that the project includes an apartment covered under sections 809.2-809.4 of the 2010 ADA. It has a bathroom which would be covered under 809.4, which refers to 603, the ADA section for accessible bathrooms.
The suggestion that the room could be "adaptable" doesn't seem to fit because this isn't a privately owned residential facility.
I would very much be interested in learning more, though.
how does your PM plan to get a permit if he is deliberately violating the code? This seems like an obvious spot for a code officiall to easily see something wrong
Matters a lot. According to HUD Guidlines, public housing and housing provided for state colleges and universities are covered by ADA. ADA does not use the language "Type A" or "Type B". That is from ANSI 117.1 and is provided to be consistent with the intent of the Fair Housing Act, which, like I said, shunts you to ADA.
I dont get it. How are you planning to get a permit if you are violating a building code? Or are you hoping they just miss it when you submit your drawings for permit?
Lack of familiarity doesnt seem plausible for a standard basic code like this.
Residential units comply with the Fair Housing Act not ADA. Common spaces within the buidling comply with ADA.
Rooms are not made to be adaptable. Components within the room are made to be adaptable such as cabinetry or swapping out a non-compliant toilet for a ADA compliant toilet later on down the line. You still need to provide all of the clear spaces in front of fixtures and at the doors.
No matter what your state code says the project still needs to comply with ADA or FHA because they are federal laws. It's the architects duty to inform the client about laws, codes and regulations applicable to the project. The architect cannot arbitrarily decide to not comply with federal, state or local laws.
"How are you planning to get a permit if you are violating a building code? Or are you hoping they just miss it when you submit your drawings for permit?"
Planning and permitting loves high value starbucks giftcards, envelopes filled with money, unscrupulous land swaps, 18-year single malt scotch and Sobranie cigarettes.
But did your PM or client have any ideas on how to get an actual building permit while wanting to get past this code requirement?
My comment above wasnt sarcastic, just saying that lack of familiarity wont really get you past a permit
I am just curious, because that seems like a big road block to get past, even at just a discussion level
And the only way around it (that i can think of) is for you to document it correctly to get your permit, then the client and contractor build it the way they really want it and hope no inspector notices
Section 303(a) is the only part the defines that non-accessibility in commercial architecture is discrimination. However, several readings of this law exclude architects from liability. In that case, the liability falls on owner and contractor (United States Vs. Days Inn). This has been further explained in 42 U.S.C 12183? (I'm not sure which section it is in).
The only way an architect can be held liable for non-compliance is in a situation when the architect is both the designer and builder. The ADA only covers 5 areas-- employment, public services, public accommodations, telecommunications and miscellany.
Technically, most residential work is not technically considered "public" unless it is owned by the public by agency or that the owner has made significant portions of the building available to the general public.
Despite this, state and local codes carry the brunt of enforcement in these situations. And many states and communities often do not have to follow their own codes unless it can be proven in a court that they were working in bad faith.
Ethical Realities of Codes and Clients
Hypothetically, what should a young 'architect-in-training' do when the client consistently demands modifications to the design which are counter to the prescribed laws, specifically the ADA?
They mention that they will "modify" the rooms if the individual to be living there were to be handicapped, but that's not really a legitimate argument, except in the case of reinforcement for grab bars, shower seats, etc.
The young architect's Project Manager plays right along with this, also suggesting that they could "modify" things later to provide compliance.
The young architect doesn't want to create waves, but this seems to be a rather large liability issue, and even though the client is demanding these concessions, the buck seems to stop with the design firm.
Information of any kind would be interesting in this discussion.
Thanks.
the ada is not a building code; it is a federal law. if the owner is found in violation of the ada, he or she could be sued to bring the building into compliance. subsequently the owner could sue your firm for knowingly issuing documents that were non-compliant with the ada.
you also have a problem in that much of the ada overlaps with ansi 117.1 which is supplemental to the ibc, the model building code for many cities and states. if you include modifications that are not in accordance with ansi 117.1, you will most likely be unable to obtain a permit from your ahj. if you are somehow able to obtain a permit, the building inspector could force the removal of non-comforming work. again your firm would be liable.
in any case, the issue needs to be brought to a principal's attention.
What won said.
If the owner keeps pushing, you can explain how certain things don't meet code and suggest seeking a variance - that your firm will apply for with appropriate compensation - to build things not to current code. If a variance for these items seems far-fetched, tell the owner your professional opinion that seeking a variance is a waste of time - s/he may realize it's easier to just do it right without spending money trying to skirt the law.
Check the Fair Housing Act if this is a unit in a multi-family building. To the best of my knowledge, there is such a thing as an adaptive unit and the stricter rules don't apply.
what kind of building is it? if its residential ie some sort of multiple dwelling unit the rules as i recall are that a percentage of units must be ada compliant but not necessarily be equipped. for example, if you are designing a condo and have four different floor plans and six stories a certain percentage of each of those plans on each of those floors must be ada compliant. this all may have changed but this is what i recall when i worked on projects like this.
Assume for the sake of discussion that the young architect knows the law and other codes pretty well. The issue is not the interpretation of the law or what it requires, but the attitude of capitulation to the clients demands at the expense of the firms protection from liability.
The young architect is new, the PM has been around forever. At what point does seniority stop mattering?
The ada is federal law and must be followed. Check the ADA, because i think you can come to a compromise based on that the not every single room or space in a bulding has to comply it is based on a percentage of rooms or spaces. So if anything this would become one of those spaces that does not comply with the ADA completely and you should be talking with your AHJ asap about this, after doing your own research.
if the "young architect" knows the laws and codes, it sounds like the "young architect" needs to have some balls and talk to the pm about the problem.
Won, that's what I think as well, I was wondering what the consensus would be. It's a tough call, though. They could appear too big for their britches, eh?
If the young architect tells the PM the problem, and the PM says "Ignore the law, this is how we do it", then the young architect has a great case for blackmailing the PM later for failure to perform the professional duties required by his/her license.
Just, you know, keep that in mind. I don't think you should blackmail your PM. A good architect doesn't break the laws, especially those that are directly related to the special areas in which we are charged with compliance: health, safety, welfare of the public.
It's not being too big for your britches to know the law and expect that others will too.
sneaky - do you know the number of required type a and type b units?
your first post sounds a little fishy because there is such a thing as "adaptable" dwelling units.
oh nevermind - anyway - i'd just print out the sections in the code and show the PM, then their boss if they don't shape up. it's not your stamp, right?
we have lots of questions because your first post is too vague.
yes, there are allowances for adaptable units that can be made ada-compliant in the future. that's what the A vs B question above is about.
if, in your inexperience, you're trying to make every unit compliant, the client isn't asking you to be unethical, simply to know what is acceptable/reasonable and what isn't. the burden of knowledge is on you (or your project manager/the architect), not the client.
if he's teaching you how multi-family residential works, or she's being patient enough to let you learn your way, you should thank him/her later.
correct me if i am wrong, i havent worked on a residential project in several years, but dont you need to show that your rest rooms are accessible to get your building permit?
you would be pretty negligent to deliberately leave off accessibility features from your documents, as would the PM.
As long as your documents follow code and all accessibility laws, i doubt the firm would be liable. Sounds like a client pinching every single penny he can
I agree with toaster though, its not your stamp, and there is only so far you should bother pushing it for some shady clients/ PMs
My understanding is that the project includes an apartment covered under sections 809.2-809.4 of the 2010 ADA. It has a bathroom which would be covered under 809.4, which refers to 603, the ADA section for accessible bathrooms.
The suggestion that the room could be "adaptable" doesn't seem to fit because this isn't a privately owned residential facility.
I would very much be interested in learning more, though.
how does your PM plan to get a permit if he is deliberately violating the code? This seems like an obvious spot for a code officiall to easily see something wrong
Nobody has suggested deliberately violating codes. More along the lines of a lack of familiarity. Willful ignorance you might say.
doesn't matter if it's public or private - is it type A or type B?
Matters a lot. According to HUD Guidlines, public housing and housing provided for state colleges and universities are covered by ADA. ADA does not use the language "Type A" or "Type B". That is from ANSI 117.1 and is provided to be consistent with the intent of the Fair Housing Act, which, like I said, shunts you to ADA.
If this is incorrect, please elaborate.
you're working backwards - start with the building code.
Building Codes are codes. Fair housing and ADA are laws. Laws supersede codes.
I should clarify, Federal Law supersedes State and Local Codes.
so - what in the building code are you superseding?
The bathroom must be ADA Compliant. Therefore it is not "Type" anything, it is accessible.
yeaahhh... go read chapt 11 then report back to us.
No need to get sarcastic.
I dont get it. How are you planning to get a permit if you are violating a building code? Or are you hoping they just miss it when you submit your drawings for permit?
Lack of familiarity doesnt seem plausible for a standard basic code like this.
Marm, the situation eventually resolved itself, no codes (or laws) were violated. I was posing the question for discussion.
Residential units comply with the Fair Housing Act not ADA. Common spaces within the buidling comply with ADA.
Rooms are not made to be adaptable. Components within the room are made to be adaptable such as cabinetry or swapping out a non-compliant toilet for a ADA compliant toilet later on down the line. You still need to provide all of the clear spaces in front of fixtures and at the doors.
No matter what your state code says the project still needs to comply with ADA or FHA because they are federal laws. It's the architects duty to inform the client about laws, codes and regulations applicable to the project. The architect cannot arbitrarily decide to not comply with federal, state or local laws.
"How are you planning to get a permit if you are violating a building code? Or are you hoping they just miss it when you submit your drawings for permit?"
Planning and permitting loves high value starbucks giftcards, envelopes filled with money, unscrupulous land swaps, 18-year single malt scotch and Sobranie cigarettes.
oh i assumed as much
But did your PM or client have any ideas on how to get an actual building permit while wanting to get past this code requirement?
My comment above wasnt sarcastic, just saying that lack of familiarity wont really get you past a permit
I am just curious, because that seems like a big road block to get past, even at just a discussion level
And the only way around it (that i can think of) is for you to document it correctly to get your permit, then the client and contractor build it the way they really want it and hope no inspector notices
which, to be honest, i bet happens a lot
The design changed. The problem went away.
I am sorry, i thought you wanted to discuss this
I do. I was just throwing out a common solution to issues like this.
its not an issue if you decide to follow the code, which i assume is what you mean by saying the problem went away because the design changed
so i dont know what "solution" you are talking about really
Section 303(a) is the only part the defines that non-accessibility in commercial architecture is discrimination. However, several readings of this law exclude architects from liability. In that case, the liability falls on owner and contractor (United States Vs. Days Inn). This has been further explained in 42 U.S.C 12183? (I'm not sure which section it is in).
The only way an architect can be held liable for non-compliance is in a situation when the architect is both the designer and builder. The ADA only covers 5 areas-- employment, public services, public accommodations, telecommunications and miscellany.
Technically, most residential work is not technically considered "public" unless it is owned by the public by agency or that the owner has made significant portions of the building available to the general public.
Despite this, state and local codes carry the brunt of enforcement in these situations. And many states and communities often do not have to follow their own codes unless it can be proven in a court that they were working in bad faith.
But I know nothing because I didn't go to architecture school.
Thanks for that. I'll be doing more digging into that case law.
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.