# Being told that our set on the stage is not ADA compliant.



## RJC (Apr 21, 2015)

I have just been told by our campus facilities department that our set is not ADA compliant. I tried to explain to him that the set was not a public space and scenery doe not need to be ADA. Does anyone know where to find the ADA information about scenery on the stage? I would like to send them some form of documentation but haven't been able to find it. Everything I find is for the theater as a whole. Thanks.


----------



## Footer (Apr 21, 2015)

You won't find it spelled out that way. What I would do is find the code that covers "art installations" and see what exemptions that brings on, if any. 

What specifically makes it not compliant and what does he want you to do about it? Is there someone in the cast that is disabled and can't participate?


----------



## MNicolai (Apr 21, 2015)

There is specific ADA language about accessible routes to the stage area, but nothing called out for scenery one way or another.

The general rule for application of ADA is that "reasonable accommodations" be made where such accommodations do not "fundamentally alter" the nature of the service, program, or public accommodation. By that measure, it could be argued that it'd be unreasonable to design a set for traditional theater that you have to be a gymnast to get around on (ship's ladders, firefighter poles, narrow, unlit pathways), but you would not be able to make any argument that the set for something such as Cirque du Soleil needs to be accessible. That, by it's nature, is a show requiring gymnastics. To make everything wheelchair accessible would fundamentally alter the nature of the performance.

There's a fine line in here though. You can't use this argument as a get-out-of-jail-free card. If everyone who claimed that accessibility requirements required unreasonable accommodations, the entire purpose of ADA would be defeated.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Apr 21, 2015)

ADA is fundamentally about discrimination on the basis of disability. So, first, has your set or the concept on anyway discriminated against a person with a disability? For instance, did someone with a severe mobility impairment come to tryouts, and were not cast. In that case, you loose and have to redesign.

Michael has good points.

You need to find out if it is the ADA guidelines, or actually some state or local regulation. If ultimately it is the federal ADA regulations, I suggest you contact the access board for help. http://www.access-board.gov No place to start like the top.


----------



## RJC (Apr 23, 2015)

Thanks for the Replies. To answer some of the questions, our campus facilities director said that we needed to have a wheelchair ramp on the set since we have different levels on the stage. There is nobody in the cast with physical disabilities nor was anyone not cast because because of that. 

Thanks again for the input


----------



## MNicolai (Apr 23, 2015)

Please keep us informed how this shakes out for you.


----------



## robartsd (Apr 23, 2015)

Although the opinion of strangers on the internet is that your set is not an ADA violation based on your response, it is the opinion of the person responsible for the space that matters (even if some of the strangers on the internet may be experts in the field). I could see a facilities director being concerned about a set that is not accessable if it is intended to remain in place for an extended period of time as the usage of the set may drift and a legit ADA concern arises out of a currently unknown future use. Good luck.


----------



## Footer (Apr 23, 2015)

RJC said:


> Thanks for the Replies. To answer some of the questions, our campus facilities director said that we needed to have a wheelchair ramp on the set since we have different levels on the stage. There is nobody in the cast with physical disabilities nor was anyone not cast because because of that.
> 
> Thanks again for the input



How do you get to your booth? Your Flyrail? Your FOH lighting positions? Are all those places accessible? (The booth should be, the rest is up for discussion).


----------



## MNicolai (Apr 23, 2015)

Footer said:


> How do you get to your booth? Your Flyrail? Your FOH lighting positions? Are all those places accessible? (The booth should be, the rest is up for discussion).



_"Should be_..._"_

It's not an excuse for inaccessible booths in new construction, but for existing inaccessible facilities I've heard persuasive arguments made about how with digital consoles and networked infrastructure, having an accessible booth isn't as high a priority as other means of accessibility are. It's much easier now to pick up and move a console to an in-house mix position as-needed than it is to make an existing booth accessible.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Apr 23, 2015)

MNicolai said:


> _"Should be_..._"_
> 
> It's not an excuse for inaccessible booths in new construction, but for existing inaccessible facilities I've heard persuasive arguments made about how with digital consoles and networked infrastructure, having an accessible booth isn't as high a priority as other means of accessibility are. It's much easier now to pick up and move a console to an in-house mix position as-needed than it is to make an existing booth accessible.



It all goes back to discrimination. Is the experience of working in the booth unique and different than mixing or calling the show in the house or backstage?


----------



## robartsd (Apr 24, 2015)

BillConnerASTC said:


> It all goes back to discrimination. Is the experience of working in the booth unique and different than mixing or calling the show in the house or backstage?


Yes, the law is about discrimination, but the law also provides some leeway for exsisting places in the case that making it fully accessable is not feasable (not that some lawyers pay attention to that part). I'm aware of a local "hole in the wall" resturant that fought_ and won_ a case on the basis that they did all that was feasable to provide access. Unfortunately nothing prevented annother case from being brought based on the same lack of access. They came to the conclusion that they had to abandon their historic location for a new accessable one. Even though they technically could win the legal battle, they couldn't win the economic one because they had no protection from being dragged into court repeatedly. Fortunately the community rallied behind the business and they have been running the "replacement original" for years.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Apr 24, 2015)

There are some allowances in the guidelines for existing conditions but because every case is unique and for any one building, it could get tried again and again. It becomes like moving something every 6 months so its "temporary". I prefer to try to follow the intent of the laws and regs, and I prefer to not discriminate on the basis of disability.


----------



## robartsd (Apr 24, 2015)

BillConnerASTC said:


> There are some allowances in the guidelines for existing conditions but because every case is unique and for any one building, it could get tried again and again. It becomes like moving something every 6 months so its "temporary". I prefer to try to follow the intent of the laws and regs, and I prefer to not discriminate on the basis of disability.


I don't see grandfathered in accessibility problems as similar to moving something on a schedule solely to protect "temporary" status.

The law does clearly state that old facilities are to be retrofitted as much as feasable; however, I don't see the value of shutting down a historic facility simply because it cannot be retrofitted. I do not view operating a historic facility which cannot be made fully accessable to be an act of discrimination. I find forcing (ecomomically) such facilities to close by taking them to court to be an abuse of our legal system which is intended to provide the discriminated against the power to take on their discriminators.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Apr 26, 2015)

Well, the problem is everyone puts a different price tag on if something is feasible or not. And with so much of our money going to Washington, they feel like there is a lot of money so almost everything is feasible. Frankly, I have not seen many examples of accommodations to not discriminate against a person with a disability not being feasible.

Claiming something isn't feasible because you don't like the impact of changes is very much like the portable examp!e. You don't like the rule so you are trying to evade it.

What, abusing the legal system? I've stopped expecting it to not be adused.


----------



## sk8rsdad (Apr 26, 2015)

Here's an example. We were considering an addition. In order to do it we were told we would have to provide access for motorized wheelchairs to the front row. In order to provide the access it we would have had to use the entire addition as a ramp and remove about 1/3 of our seating to accommodate the turning radius of those motorized scooters. Consequently, we shelved the renovation because we cannot afford to operate with 1/3 of our revenue gone.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Apr 26, 2015)

Too much unknown to comment. An addition usually means some significant budget. More importantly, who is "someone" ? I don't believe front row spaces are ever required, or not in US.


----------



## DuckJordan (Apr 26, 2015)

Yeah front row is a bit strange,

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk


----------



## sk8rsdad (Apr 26, 2015)

At the time of the renovation we had a very vocal activist wanting to look out for the combination of a theoretical patron with visual, aural, and mobility impairment. Building codes have changed since it was built, so any major modifications can trigger an accessibility retrofit of the whole facility. There is level access from the street to the stage and the auditorium but not level access from front to rear within the building.


----------



## JonCarter (Apr 26, 2015)

I worked in a facility for 22 years which was required to be (at great expense to the owner) handicapped accessible--the whole thing, ramps, rest rooms, doors, exits, everything--and _NOT ONCE _in that time was there ever an employee, contract worker, client or visitor who used the facilities. I'm not in favor of discriminating against anyone with a handicap, and I believe that provisions should be made _as needed_ however I think that now the pendulum has swung a bit too far. I think the reaction is coming . . .


----------



## robartsd (Apr 27, 2015)

sk8rsdad said:


> Here's an example. We were considering an addition. In order to do it we were told we would have to provide access for motorized wheelchairs to the front row. In order to provide the access it we would have had to use the entire addition as a ramp and remove about 1/3 of our seating to accommodate the turning radius of those motorized scooters. Consequently, we shelved the renovation because we cannot afford to operate with 1/3 of our revenue gone.


The feasability exception only applies to retrofits of existing locations. If making an addition or major renovation accessable is not feasable, then the renovation itself must be considered infeasable.

I believe existing facilities that do not meet current accessability standards are required to use at least a certain percentage of any renovation budget on improving accessability - and must prioritize that budget to make the biggest gains in accessibility first; however, in addition to budget, availible space can sometimes make accessibility retrofits infeasable (the case with the "hole in the wall" resturaunt I mentioned earlier).


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Apr 27, 2015)

Exceptions or allowance or existing to remain non-compliant varies a lot on jurisdiction - from a rural community in the mid-west or southern parts of eh US where there ins practically contempt for these regulations to cities in California, where it seems the more regulations the better; not to mention other countries such as SK8RSDAD here. Certainly basing how much is required on how much you are spending and whether or not you must make changes even if not doing anything all vary. One tactic that I find never successful is is to show contempt, discrediting the regulations, and looking for loopholes in the words. Some authorities will never be reasonable, and maybe that is cause to call the mayor's or legislator's office, whom ever is in charge of the unreasonable one, but I think education and patience pays off more frequently, and a sincere intent to accommodate everyone.

I will say that beginning with the accessibility issue rather than designing what you want with no regard for accessibility and then trying to incorporate it is bound to cause problems. I usually develop a sprat sheet of all elevations, try to determine the physical and budget feasibility of ramps versus lifts and elevators, and then figure out the most efficient place to locate them. One project began with a single elevator to serve orchestra pit, fifth row, control room, and balcony. Started design with an 8' X 8' shaft and worked from there out for the entire small PAC. Just like laying out all the wheelchair space sin a seating plan first, and the seats second.

In the OP's case, seems like there needs to be an accessible route in the addition that connects the various places a wheelchair needs to get to in order to not discriminate, and maybe starting with a discussion with the authorities about what those places are would be more productive then a here's our plan and we cant do what you want.

With out a doubt and perhaps - just perhaps - with the exception for electricity, accessibility has had the biggest impact on theatre planning in hundreds of years.


----------



## robartsd (Apr 27, 2015)

BillConnerASTC said:


> I will say that beginning with the accessibility issue rather than designing what you want with no regard for accessibility and then trying to incorporate it is bound to cause problems. I usually develop a sprat sheet of all elevations, try to determine the physical and budget feasibility of ramps versus lifts and elevators, and then figure out the most efficient place to locate them. One project began with a single elevator to serve orchestra pit, fifth row, control room, and balcony. Started design with an 8' X 8' shaft and worked from there out for the entire small PAC. Just like laying out all the wheelchair space sin a seating plan first, and the seats second.


Certainly planning the accessibility first goes a long way - and if done well, everyone benefits from good circulation planning. Tacking on accessility after the primary design phase tends to be a pain and lead to compromises that negatively impact the use of a space regardless of if the accessibility is being added to an existing built facility or a deficient design that has yet to be built.


----------

