The new $41 million branch of the Queens Public Library at Hunters Point South has an accessibility problem.
The branch, designed by Steven Holl Architects, is compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act; there’s an elevator in the building that stops at each of its five floors.
But as Gothamist points out, there is one section of the library that is inaccessible to those in wheelchairs or with other mobility issues: a series of stepped seating areas, located just off the lobby, which holds periodicals, part of the fiction collection, and places to work or charge phones. The elevator can take people to the lowest level of this mezzanine, as well as the top section, according to a rep for Holl’s firm. However, access to the levels in between is limited to those who can comfortably use stairs.
The building is still ADA compliant even with that oversight, and according to a representative for the QPL, library staff will assist any patrons who can’t access books on those levels, or any other floors. But it is worth questioning why part of the building was designed in such a way that it excludes some patrons, especially considering how long the project has been in development, and how much money was spent on it.
In its Library Bill of Rights, the American Library Association has a section devoted to people with disabilities, stating that libraries should provide “equal access to collections, services, and facilities for all library users. When this is not possible, reasonable accommodations and timely remediation should be employed to provide an equivalent experience to people with disabilities.” Arguably, the Hunters Point Library abides by this; its staff will provide reasonable accommodations if a book is not reachable, and many of the building’s perks—expansive views, places to sit and charge phones—are available elsewhere.
But as Justin Davidson writes in New York, “meeting legal requirements is a false standard; even vertical buildings can and should always be designed so that they offer the same quality of experience to everyone.”
Or, as design writer Bess Williamson (the author of a recent book on accessibility in architecture) puts it:
There are plenty of ethical issues for everyone involved. Basically, you need vigilance at every stage. Of course this is less likely to happen with disabled people involved - among bosses, workers, and the public.
— bess williamson (@besswww) October 4, 2019
A similar issue was raised with Thomas Heatherwick’s Vessel, which opened earlier this year at Hudson Yards. Technically, it’s accessible to people with disabilities, as there is an elevator that can ferry people to the top of the conical structure. But that conveyance deposits people on the south side of the sculpture, where they can look out at the Shed before going back to Vessel’s base. It’s impossible for a person with mobility issues to fully experience the structure as intended, which should raise red flags.
While Holl’s building is far from Vessel in terms of limiting access throughout the entire structure, that there are limitations at all is a disappointment. The building is, in many other respects, a stellar example of good civic design. But to refer back to Davidson again: “Maybe there’s a workaround, but the design flaw makes it tougher for the building to succeed, a problem that people with mobility issues face every day.”
Loading comments...