University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Theses (Historic Preservation) Graduate Program in Historic Preservation 2000 Historic Preservation and the Americans with Disabilities Act: The Problem of Handicapped Entry to Historic Buildings Kristin Marie Milley University of Pennsylvania Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses Part of the Historic Preservation and Conservation Commons Milley, Kristin Marie, "Historic Preservation and the Americans with Disabilities Act: The Problem of Handicapped Entry to Historic Buildings" (2000). Theses (Historic Preservation). 376. https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/376 Copyright note: Penn School of Design permits distribution and display of this student work by University of Pennsylvania Libraries. Suggested Citation: Milley, Kristin Marie (2000). Historic Preservation and the Americans with Disabilities Act: The Problem of Handicapped Entry to Historic Buildings. (Masters Thesis). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/376 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Historic Preservation and the Americans with Disabilities Act: The Problem of Handicapped Entry to Historic Buildings Disciplines Historic Preservation and Conservation Comments Copyright note: Penn School of Design permits distribution and display of this student work by University of Pennsylvania Libraries. Suggested Citation: Milley, Kristin Marie (2000). Historic Preservation and the Americans with Disabilities Act: The Problem of Handicapped Entry to Historic Buildings. (Masters Thesis). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. This thesis or dissertation is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/376 fmKm HSUmil MmTBKBm&BnHtS WSmUSBaSt JHi lllilslill •.''..:: HMi 11H 1181111Ml wflmm m mmKKHiL.H I m Im wKm UNIVERSITY^ PENNSYLVANIA LIBRARIES - HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT: THE PROBLEM OF HANDICAPPED ENTRY TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS Kristin Marie Milley A THESIS in Historic Preservation Presented to the Faculties of the University of Pennsylvania in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE 2000 — O / •^-_VJC_>sI>x tervisor Reader David G. De Long, Ph.D. Samuel Y. Harris Professor of Architecture Adjunct Professor of Architecture Ma,Ua^ G/aduate Group Chair 'Matero Associate Professor of Architecture UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LIBRARIES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS While the writing of this thesis has primarily been a solitary effort, there are many people who have generously contributed to its completion. I would like to thank David De Long, my advisor, for the guidance and counsel he provided me throughout the thesis process. Additionally, thanks are extended to Sharon Park of the National Park Service and Samuel Harris of the University of Pennsylvania for their time and willingness to share information and insight regarding historic properties and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Special thanks to Westfield Architects for their generous provision of photos and drawings of Lucy the Elephant in Margate, N.J. And, finally, I would like to recognize the support and patience of Don Milley not only during my thesis, but my entire graduate school career. 5 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii ILLUSTRATIONS v INTRODUCTION 1 Methodology 4 CHAPTER 1 - Secretary of Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties 6 CHAPTER 2 - The Americans with Disabilities Act 1 History 16 Title II 20 Title III 21 The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) 27 CHAPTER 3 - Analysis of Existing Solutions 38 Ramps 39 Grade Change 42 Window to Door Alteration 44 Lowering an Existing Door 45 Folding Ramp , 47 Lifts 48 Additional Solutions 52 CHAPTER 4 - Design Methodology 54 Experiential vs. Functional Buildings 54 Architectural Significance 55 iii Documentation 61 Entrance Determination 62 Additional Design Considerations 64 CHAPTER 5 - Case Study Analysis 67 Lucy the Elephant 67 River House 73 APPENDICES 87 APPENDIX A - The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation 88 APPENDIX B - The Americans with Disabilities Act 91 APPENDIX C - Bibliography 126 INDEX 129 i\ ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1 - Figure 25, Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines 32 Figure 2 - Figure 25, Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines 33 Figure 3 - Photograph, Women's Museum, Washington, D.C 41 Figure 4 - Photograph, Locust Walk, Philadelphia, PA 42 Figure 5 - Photograph, Old South Meeting House, Boston, MA 43 Figure 6 - Photograph, The Beal Building, Boston, MA 45 Figure 7 - Photograph, The Oakwood, Boston, MA 46 Figure 8 - Photograph, 4201 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 48 Figure 9 - Photograph, 4601 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 49 Figure 10 - Photograph, The Old State House, Boston, MA 51 Figure 1 1 - Photograph, Lucy the Elephant, Margate, NJ 68 Figure 12 - Plan, Lucy the Elephant, Margate, NJ 72 Figure 13 - Section View, Lucy the Elephant, Margate, NJ 73 Figure 14 - Photograph, River House, Philadelphia, PA. Northeast facade 80 Figure 15 - Plan, River House, Philadelphia, PA 82 Figure 16 - Elevation, River House, Philadelphia, PA. Northeast facade 84 Figure 17 - Section, River House, Philadelphia, PA 84 INTRODUCTION It is estimated that currently 38 million Americans experience some form of limitation 1 due to chronic disability or illness. This number does not include those with temporary impairments such as broken limbs or pregnancy. With such a large percentage of the population under some form of limitation to their mobility or activity, it is imperative that their needs be addressed and they be allowed to function to the fullest extent possible in our society. The Americans with Disabilities Act (Public Law 101-336) (ADA), passed in January of 1990, sought to redress the deficiency in the treatment of disabled people by making it illegal to discriminate based on that disability. While most of the Act addresses the discrimination of the disabled by people's actions. Titles II and III were included to attempt to address discrimination of the disabled by the built environment. Now that the Americans with Disabilities Act is a decade old, its impact on the built environment can be analyzed for its effectiveness. The ADA has greatly affected all building types, but has been especially difficult to reconcile with existing structures. Historic buildings are often at great odds with the Act. Preservation professionals, in their quest to preserve the historic integrity of their structures, often find themselves confronted with the difficult task of finding an appropriate compromise between the requirements of the ADA and the preservation of the historic building. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties further confuses the issue by recommending as little alteration to the historic fabric of the building as possible. The fact that these Standards are used during the evaluation process for Federal funding as well as many local and State level reviews creates a constant tug-of-war between the need for access and the desire to retain historic integrity. The different levels of historic integrity required for the different uses of the buildings further increases the tension. In general, two broad categories can be used to encompass these uses: functional buildings and experiential buildings. If the building is to be reused for a public function, more of a functional building, it is easier to argue for more destruction of historic fabric in order to gain greater access for the general public. However, if the building is to be used as a museum, in a sense as an artifact for the education of the public about some aspect of our heritage, then in these experiential buildings it becomes more difficult to sacrifice integrity for access. There are not only discrepancies between preservation and the ADA but within the ADA as well. The intent of this Act is to provide access to as many people as possible. However, it seems from a non-legal analysis that when it comes to gaining entrance into a building, those with mobility and visual impairments are favored by the ADA. Some disabled individuals, such as those who have the use of their legs but not their arms, would find it difficult to enter a building no matter what the dimensions of the ramp or John M. McNeil. Americans with Disabilities: 1994-1995. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1997). [cited 6 January 6. 2000] Available from Disability Statistics Center. Dsc.ucsf.edu/UCSF/pub.taf. 2 the width of the door since they would have trouble simply opening the door. Other people, such as those with weight problems, may exceed the 32" clear door width established by the dimensions of a wheelchair. While trying to create equality for all people, the ADA must still fall short of its goal since it can not account for every disability. In the end these issues must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. However, it is possible to derive a design methodology from the experiences of the past decade to guide the decision-making process when confronted with this perplexing issue. The entire issue of the ADA and historic preservation almost always hinges on the entrance to the historic building. It is from this point that the path of accessible travel begins, and it is often the most difficult design issue to reconcile. The main entrance to historic buildings