Accessible Entry in a Landmarked 1926 Bank Lobby
A 1926 bank branch, 3,100 sq ft and locally designated as a landmark, is being converted into a credit union branch. The public entry vestibule sits at sidewalk grade; the main lobby floor is 28 in. above the vestibule, reached by four marble steps and a 6 ft landing. The historic teller screen, marble wainscot and terrazzo floor must remain. The program requires an accessible route from the sidewalk to the teller counter, two new-accounts desks and a new all-gender restroom in the rear. The only straight run available along the north wall is 24 ft between the vestibule and the teller screen, and it is the same path the teller queue uses. The corridor from the lobby to the restroom is 40 in. wide for 18 ft and ends at a 30 in. door. A contractor has quoted $4,800 for a 'temporary' aluminum ramp at roughly 1:10 with no handrails, and the client likes the price.
1. Determine whether a code-compliant ramp can be installed in the available 24 ft run.
Read the worked answer
Do the arithmetic before discussing anything else.
- Required run. A 28 in. rise at the maximum 1:12 slope requires 28 × 12 = 28 ft of sloped surface minimum. Add a level landing at the top and bottom (60 in. long each) and required handrail extensions, and the assembly needs roughly 38 ft end to end.
- Available space. 24 ft. The ramp does not fit, and shortening it means exceeding 1:12, which is a compliance failure, not a design choice.
- The contractor's quote. At 1:10 with no handrails, it fails on slope, on handrails on both sides at 34–38 in., on edge protection, and on the landing requirement. A 'temporary' ramp that remains in place to serve the public route is not exempt; it is the accessible route.
- Additional problem. The run occupies the teller queue path, so even a compliant ramp would create a conflict between the accessible route and the primary circulation.
Conclusion. State plainly that a compliant ramp is not feasible in 24 ft and that the 1:10 option is not an acceptable alternatthat should go into the set. Then bring the client alternatives with cost and schedule attached instead of leaving them with a dead end: regrade or create a new at-grade entrance, a vertical platform lift inside the vestibule, or relocating the accessible services to the grade level.
2. Recommend a solution for the 28 in. level change and describe how you would justify it to the client and the historic review body.
Read the worked answer
Recommend a vertical platform lift inside the vestibule, with a new at-grade entrance studied in parallel.
Why the lift:
- Platform lifts are permitted in existing buildings where the slope of the site or the configuration of the space makes a ramp infeasible. That is exactly the finding here: 38 ft of required ramp in a 24 ft run.
- It occupies roughly the footprint of a small closet, preserves the marble steps and terrazzo as the visible historic entry, and keeps the teller queue clear.
- It must be self-operating, sized to accept a wheelchair and an ambulatory companion where required, and served by a level landing at both stops so a user does not have to back off a slope to reach it.
Why not a full elevator: a 28 in. rise does not justify the shaft, machine room and structural work; the lift is proportional.
Justifying it:
- To the client: compare the lift against the true cost of the ramp (ramp + lost teller stations + lost queue space) and note that the lift protects the feature they are paying to restore.
- To the historic commission: submit the lift as interior equipment inside the vestibule with no alteration to the street elevation, no change to the steps, and reversible anchorage. Bring a plan showing the accessible route from the sidewalk through the vestibule to the counter.
- Operationally: require a maintenance contract and a documented backup procedure in the branch operations plan. A lift that is out of service is a closed branch for some customers.
3. Evaluate the rear corridor and restroom door as an accessible route, and state what must change.
Read the worked answer
Two separate failures, one easy and one structural to the layout.
- Corridor width: acceptable. A 40 in. corridor exceeds the 36 in. minimum clear width for an accessible route. Because it is narrower than 60 in., confirm that passing spaces of 60 in. by 60 in. are provided where the corridor is long or where turns occur; 18 ft is short enough that this is a documentation exercise, not a redesign.
- Door: not acceptable. A 30 in. door yields roughly 28–29 in. of clear opening once the stop and leaf thickness are accounted for. The accessible route requires 32 in. minimum clear. Replace with a 36 in. door (typically providing 34 in. clear), verify the hinge-side clearance and the approach maneuvering space, and check that the closer force and hardware are operable with a closed fist.
- Downstream consequence. The restroom itself must now be reviewed as an accessible room: turning space, grab bar locations, lavatory knee clearance, and mirror and dispenser heights. Enlarging the door often consumes wall length the room needs, so test the fixture layout before releasing the door to the hardware supplier.
Process note. Bundle the ramp/lift decision, the door change and the restroom layout into one accessibility narrative for the permit set. Reviewers respond better to a single coherent route drawing than to three isolated corrections, and the client sees the total cost once rather than in installments.