RAM - Royal Alberta Museum

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by Hardhatdan

Was it in the project specs for on-site accessible public parking? I don't believe there is any on-site public parking for the museum. Why would you blame the Architect for following the spec?
There is a drop off zone for various forms of transportation.

i am still lucky enough not to require handicap parking and access but that doesn't mean it's non important. and i say "it" because the key thing about "handicap parking and access" is that you can't separate them.

what f'ing good is a "drop off zone for various forms of transportation" for someone who is handicapped but still drives?

whether it's someone in a wheelchair with a properly equipped van or someone with an artificial limb or emphysma or sever asthma who can still drive the same car you do, do you really expect them to wheel or walk from the city hall parkade - if it's open - or the library parkade or canada place or city centre west to the ram even if it's not the middle of winter?

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by EdmTrekker

Read HHDan post 3rd sentence. Self explanatory.

and wrong as noted above...

Originally Posted by Hardhatdan

Oh he's splitting hairs about terminology...

no, he's talking about the inability to readily visit a provincial public building by people who should be able to readily visit a provincial public building.

Originally Posted by Hardhatdan

And after all that, we get back to my original point, that S211 is completely off base and should retract his/her statement as its completely unfair to Donna Clare.
- Public Zealot #1?

i read the statements as more of a comment addressing the buildings' failures than donna per se. and i'm not sure they're particularly inaccurate assessments.

in both cases faults like these belong to the entire teams - including the owners - but if the architect wants to take full credit for the design - as donna has enjoyed doing with both of these buildings - he or she must also accept full responsibility for that design as well. and that includes the faults.

as for being "too harsh", i am pretty sure that i've read much harsher in terms of uncomplimentary comments directed at architects and firms that was based on their work, both specific and in general, than this.

[s211]

Originally Posted by kcantor

i am still lucky enough not to require handicap parking and access but that doesn't mean it's non important. and i say "it" because the key thing about "handicap parking and access" is that you can't separate them.

what f'ing good is a "drop off zone for various forms of transportation" for someone who is handicapped but still drives?

whether it's someone in a wheelchair with a properly equipped van or someone with an artificial limb or emphysma or sever asthma who can still drive the same car you do, do you really expect them to wheel or walk from the city hall parkade - if it's open - or the library parkade or canada place or city centre west to the ram even if it's not the middle of winter?

Ken, thank you thank you thank you. You have expressed much more eloquently than I what the issues are, particularly a wheelchair-bound person in their own wheel-chair-adapted vehicle, and/or the off-site options listed which are not exactly next door.

City Centre West? Honest? Surely written by someone for whom the concept of limited mobility is words on a page, and nothing more.

[240glt]

I know that getting both inlaws in & out of our SUV is a tricky, time consuming and stressful process. Dad's in a wheelchair with no use of one half of his body due to stroke and mom uses a walker but is very unstable and prone to falling thanks to her advanced Parkinsons. We would not even bother going to visit the RAM if there was no on site accessible parking. I wouldn't ever try to get them in & out of the car in a loading zone and suggesting that we wheel them over from two blocks away is ridiculous. I can see this as a significant oversight.

And for the love of god can could they please not do something about the pedway access ? For over half the year when no one walks outside downtown and most will access the RAM through the pedway they'll have to navigate a gauntlet of 5 gallon pails, spill trays and wet floor signs, along with water leaking out of the walls and ceilings and remnants of feces and miscellaneous trash in the alcoves. It's pretty sorry down there given it now connects to this nice new facility

[Hardhatdan]

Originally Posted by kcantor

and wrong as noted above...

no, he's talking about the inability to readily visit a provincial public building by people who should be able to readily visit a provincial public building.

i read the statements as more of a comment addressing the buildings' failures than donna per se. and i'm not sure they're particularly inaccurate assessments.

in both cases faults like these belong to the entire teams - including the owners - but if the architect wants to take full credit for the design - as donna has enjoyed doing with both of these buildings - he or she must also accept full responsibility for that design as well. and that includes the faults.

as for being "too harsh", i am pretty sure that i've read much harsher in terms of uncomplimentary comments directed at architects and firms that was based on their work, both specific and in general, than this.

"It really is a complete fail, but not unexpected from the "architect" aka "the butcher of the convention centre"."


Pointed name calling that doesn't actually address the issue.


It's a competitive P3 with a scope provided by a Client (AI), are you suggesting that the Architect submit a non-compliant bid?


I don't disagree with the point that the accessibility is lacking. That is very valid. However, let's get to the actual cause and party for accountability (AI) instead of obscuring the issue because it's easy to pick on Donna Clare.

[240glt]

^ Not that it really matters but it was a competitive design-build, not a P3.

[Hardhatdan]

Originally Posted by 240glt

^ Not that it really matters but it was a competitive design-build, not a P3.

Apologies. You are correct. Architect should also probably read "consortium".

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by Hardhatdan

Apologies. You are correct. Architect should also probably read "consortium".

which statement would infer that the following quote is indeed accurate would it not?

"...faults like these belong to the entire teams - including the owners - but if the architect wants to take full credit for the design - as donna has enjoyed doing with both of these buildings - he or she must also accept full responsibility for that design as well. and that includes the faults."

[Hardhatdan]

Originally Posted by kcantor

which statement would infer that the following quote is indeed accurate would it not?

"...faults like these belong to the entire teams - including the owners - but if the architect wants to take full credit for the design - as donna has enjoyed doing with both of these buildings - he or she must also accept full responsibility for that design as well. and that includes the faults."

No I don't agree that it does.
The Design-Build Consortium, of which the Architect is part of delivered the project subject to the requirements of the Client (AI), who for whatever reason, did not require on-site parking, accessible or otherwise.
The AI is not part of the Design-Build Consortium.

[240glt]

Going to have to agree with Dan on this, based on my experience. I was part of one of the design teams for the Calgary Law Courts, and the requirements for almost everything related to that project were dictated by Alberta Infrastructure in conjunction with the Solicitor General. There was leeway as to the physical design of the building obviously but very specific quidelines for almost every component of that project. Teams dared not stray from the requirements as it was made clear that packages that did not meet the specific criteria set out in the request for submissions would be rejected

[EdmTrekker]

"I don't disagree with the point that the accessibility is lacking. That is very valid. However, let's get to the actual cause and party for accountability (AI) instead of obscuring the issue because it's easy to pick on Donna Clare."

"The Design-Build Consortium, of which the Architect is part of delivered the project subject to the requirements of the Client (AI), who for whatever reason, did not require on-site parking, accessible or otherwise. The AI is not part of the Design-Build Consortium."

I am in total agreement with these statements and bold text emphasis are mine. We all know full well that AI have extensive staffing that oversaw this project from Development Manager, Project Manager(s) and a cast of support staff - including the RSW that carefully crafted the Perf. Specs then to CDs. I would bet dimes to donut this absence of parking was the result of a VE exercise "sometime" including after contract award and was traded off to compensate for other missed items in the the above docs or costs that had wiggle room. I have a hard time believing it was overlooked in the initial planning with User Groups.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by 240glt

Going to have to agree with Dan on this, based on my experience. I was part of one of the design teams for the Calgary Law Courts, and the requirements for almost everything related to that project were dictated by Alberta Infrastructure in conjunction with the Solicitor General. There was leeway as to the physical design of the building obviously but very specific quidelines for almost every component of that project. Teams dared not stray from the requirements as it was made clear that packages that did not meet the specific criteria set out in the request for submissions would be rejected

you might get me to agree if the quote didn't say "... - including the owners - ..."

i used to have a copy of the rfp but no longer have access to it so i can't quote directly on what was specifically in the program or specifically not in the program or whether it was simply silent when it comes to parking and handicap access but i do recall being in a number of "neighbors meetings" where design changes and alternatives were discussed that including parking and loading access, some of which were incorporated (i.e. not retaining some of the post office annex walls as free standing "homage") and others that were not so whatever was in the program wasn't completely set in stone.

one of the things that was incorporated as a result of those meetings is the potential link from the ram lobby to the proposed underground pedway link from churchill station/city hall to the ram, station lands, cn tower which (a) proves that program and budgeting changes were/are possible to get approved from the owner within the process and (b) will - if it ever gets completed - eventually provide underground access to handicap parking in station lands.

at one time there was even a proposal to complete the east end of the station lands parkade with direct links/connections to the ram that also would have allowed for 97 street to come up to grade and for all of the ram's loading and access to be underground as they are for epcor tower instead of siting them on one of downtown's gateway corners but that probably warrants a different discussion...

[240glt]

at one time there was even a proposal to complete the east end of the station lands parkade with direct links/connections to the ram that also would have allowed for 97 street to come up to grade and for all of the ram's loading and access to be underground as they are for epcor tower instead of siting them on one of downtown's gateway corners but that probably warrants a different discussion...

biggest missed opportunity of that project in my opinion

[Mikemike]

Originally Posted by kcantor

i am still lucky enough not to require handicap parking and access but that doesn't mean it's non important. and i say "it" because the key thing about "handicap parking and access" is that you can't separate them.

what f'ing good is a "drop off zone for various forms of transportation" for someone who is handicapped but still drives?

whether it's someone in a wheelchair with a properly equipped van or someone with an artificial limb or emphysma or sever asthma who can still drive the same car you do, do you really expect them to wheel or walk from the city hall parkade - if it's open - or the library parkade or canada place or city centre west to the ram even if it's not the middle of winter?

It's not unreasonable to expect handicapped drivers to travel the same sort of distances that we expect of handicapped bus or LRT riders.

And if it's not OK for those who drive then maybe it's not OK to subject disabled transit riders to the long walk either - maybe the equitable solution isn't designated parking at the museum and the civic precinct needs one of those carts that airports use to shuttle patrons from both the parkades and from the LRT stops.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by Mikemike

It's not unreasonable to expect handicapped drivers to travel the same sort of distances that we expect of handicapped bus or LRT riders.

And if it's not OK for those who drive then maybe it's not OK to subject disabled transit riders to the long walk either - maybe the equitable solution isn't designated parking at the museum and the civic precinct needs one of those carts that airports use to shuttle patrons from both the parkades and from the LRT stops.

i think you're forgetting that dats is as much a part of the transit system as bus or lrt for those that need it and it's door to door without requiring long walks at either end.

[Mikemike]

Multi-hour waits instead of walks, and you have to book a day or more ahead. Would that be ok for drivers, I wonder? A handicap parking stall but you have to book it the day ahead but you have to be ready waiting at 2 for a stall that is expected (but not garaunteed) to be available sometime before 3:45.

Or maybe a parking stall in city hall parkade kitty corner to the museum with enclosed barrier-free access is perfectly reasonable accommodation. Improving street-level access for all mobility-challenged patrons with level, unobstructed, ice-free sidewalks, low-slope curb cuts without bumps or puddles that don’t angle dangerously toward traffic, there are all kinds of things that can be done to improve access that benefit more people than a little on-site designated parking might.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Mikemike

It's not unreasonable to expect handicapped drivers to travel the same sort of distances that we expect of handicapped bus or LRT riders.

And if it's not OK for those who drive then maybe it's not OK to subject disabled transit riders to the long walk either - maybe the equitable solution isn't designated parking at the museum and the civic precinct needs one of those carts that airports use to shuttle patrons from both the parkades and from the LRT stops.

Do I need to draw you a picture of what a wheelchair looks like?

[Mikemike]

That works too. The cart is just a suggestion for those who feel kitty-corner is too far.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Mikemike

That works too. The cart is just a suggestion for those who feel kitty-corner is too far.

Are you maybe missing the point that the interface between wheelchairs and the carts you describe are middling at best, and insurmountable at most?

I somehow think that most people just expect handicapped people to just get up from their wheelchair and hike up into a cart.

Moving on, so to speak.

[240glt]

Originally Posted by s211

Are you maybe missing the point that the interface between wheelchairs and the carts you describe are middling at best, and insurmountable at most?

I somehow think that most people just expect handicapped people to just get up from their wheelchair and hike up into a cart.

Moving on, so to speak.

That's just it. It takes two of us, with all our might to move my father in law from the car to a wheelchair. He's a big man- retired EPS Sergeant- and not easy to move and even wheeling him a block over uneven surfaces is a potential disaster.

We once brought him to the U of A to visit his wife, and had a minor catastrophe trying to get him back into the car we had at the time in the loading area. Thank god there were two nurses close by to help get his feet in, it was a serious situation, so much so that we bought a new car just so that we could move him easier.

So maybe we just shouldn't bother bringing the inlaws to the museum. But that's sad because both of them are lifelong Albertans whos families built towns like Cadomin and Nordegg, and both have a strong sense of history here. It's great that able bodied people can visit the museum but if any facility should be designed to accommodate Albertans who may be old and not mobile, it should be a facility like that.