41
EQUITABLE EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENTS UC Berkeley Lecture Halls and the Role of The Americans with Disabilities Act By Kathleen Alice Sheffer Faculty Sponsor: Professor Michael James Dear Individual Major Senior Thesis College of Environmental Design | University of California, Berkeley May 1, 2015

Equitable Educational Environments

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

UC Berkeley Lecture Halls and the Role of The Americans with Disabilities Act

Citation preview

Page 1: Equitable Educational Environments

   

   

EQUITABLE EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENTS

UC Berkeley Lecture Halls and the Role of The Americans with Disabilities Act

By Kathleen Alice Sheffer

Faculty Sponsor: Professor Michael James Dear

Individual Major Senior Thesis

College of Environmental Design | University of California, Berkeley

May 1, 2015

Page 2: Equitable Educational Environments

Table of Contents

Abstract

Introduction

Research Statement

Fixed Stadium-Style Seating

The Americans with Disabilities Act

Equity Vs. Efficiency

Design Proposal

Conclusion

Bibliography

1

1

2

5

13

22

23

35

37

Page 3: Equitable Educational Environments

   

1

EQUITABLE EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENTS

UC Berkeley Lecture Halls and the Role of The Americans with Disabilities Act

Abstract

Through the lens of two case study lecture halls on the University of California Berkeley

campus, the study outlines the origins and flaws of fixed tiered auditorium seating ubiquitous in

large capacity classrooms. Interviews and observation of the case study auditoriums expose

failure to comply with federal design standards in addition to disregard for basic environmental

needs of users. Lack of flexibility and design focused on a single body type contribute to

discomfort in these settings. The paper tackles the dilemma of equity versus efficiency,

proposing a modular spiral ramped auditorium design as a cost-effective solution to the

multiplicity of issues associated with standard lecture hall design.

Introduction

The University of California at Berkeley is one of the forebears of the Disability Rights

Movement. As the first university to admit a student with a serious disability, the first city to

install a curb cut, and first community to build a Center for Independent Living, Berkeley is

famed for its progressive approach to disability. Today, Berkeley attracts a large number of

students with disabilities, many of whom are still turned away by other institutions. As such, UC

Berkeley is a leader among universities in providing services to students with disabilities.

Nonetheless, the University of California Berkeley still has a long way to go before it is equally

accessible to all students. In the 25th year of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), this

paper evaluates the efficacy of the ADA’s regulatory changes in a critical setting.

Page 4: Equitable Educational Environments

   

2

Research Statement

Through the lens of two case study lecture halls on the University of California Berkeley

campus, the study evaluates flaws in auditorium design conventions. The case study sites chosen

are auditoriums with 200 to 300 seats: 145 Dwinelle Hall, completed in 1952 before the passage

of the ADA and 245 Li Ka Shing, completed in 2011 after the passage of the original legislation,

but before the revisions to the Act and accessibility guidelines came into effect.

145 Dwinelle Hall is 2,392 square feet with 217 seats. 245 Li Ka Shing is 6,525 square

feet, accommodating 297 seats. These two are among the largest lecture halls on campus, built

with a similar design strategy nearly sixty years apart. Similar courses are taught in the

auditoriums, including both science and humanities classes, to large groups of students. Both

auditoriums face south in halls built on a grade. The campus map provided in Figure 31

demonstrates their geographic proximity.

145 Dwinelle and 245 Li Ka Shing will be evaluated quantitatively based on the ADA

Checklist for Readily Achievable Barrier Removal and qualitatively through one-on-one

interviews with frequent users—namely, students in classes held in the halls in question.

Relevant literature on the subject will help to better understand the issues being considered,

including the reasons for and intentions of fixed stadium-style seating in auditorium design. The

paper culminates in a design proposal that offers solutions and serves as a vehicle to further

expose failures of standard lecture hall design.

                                                                                                               1 “Interactive Campus Map,” University of California Berkeley (2014).

 

Page 5: Equitable Educational Environments

   

3

 

Figure 1. 145 Dwinelle Hall Seating Plan.

Figure 2. 245 Li Ka Shing Center Seating Plan.

Page 6: Equitable Educational Environments

   

4

 

Figure 3. University of California Berkeley Campus Map.

Page 7: Equitable Educational Environments

   

5

Fixed Stadium-Style Seating

This paper will use the term, “fixed seating,” interchangeably with “stadium-style

seating,” “auditorium seating,” and “tiered seating.” The use of these terms will facilitate the

intention of this paper, which is to examine in context the general seating structure that is

commonly found in assembly areas such as theaters, sports arenas, and lecture halls, including

auditoriums in Dwinelle Hall and Li Ka Shing Center.

The Ancient Greeks pioneered the stadium-style seating structure in stadia known as

“Hippodromes.” These ‘U’-shaped arenas were dug into hillsides in order to construct seating

tiers for spectators around the perimeter. Later, the Romans expanded on this structure. The

Romans established a social hierarchy within the tiered seating structure of the Colosseum,

taking greater care with and employing more valuable materials in the construction of seats in

lower levels that inherently have better sightlines. As the diagram in Figure 5 illustrates, these

lower seating areas were reserved for senators and nobility, with the seats furthest from the arena

allocated to women and slaves.2

Stadium-style seating was introduced to movie theaters in the mid-1900’s to improve the

viewing experience with better sightlines to increasingly large movie screens.3 In addition to

enhancing users’ experience, designers have various practical reasons for choosing tiered seating

of this style: most importantly, its space efficiency and corresponding cost efficiency. Space

                                                                                                               2 Brett Jenaway, "Evolution of Stadiums: A Study in the Design and Construction of Ancient and

Modern Stadia," (2013), 27.

3 Felicia H. Ellsworth, "The Worst Seats in the House: Stadium-Style Movie Theaters and the

Americans with Disabilities Act," The University of Chicago Law Review 71, no. 3 (Chicago:

Summer 2004), 1109.

Page 8: Equitable Educational Environments

   

6

 

Figure  4.  Present day site of the Hippodrome in the ancient Greek city of Aphrodisias.2

Page 9: Equitable Educational Environments

   

7

 

 

Figure  5.  Cross section of the Colosseum, illustrating seating hierarchy.2

Page 10: Equitable Educational Environments

   

8

efficiency is achieved by aligning rows of standardized fixed chairs are on successive steps rising

from a lower focal point—generally either a stage or a screen. Stepped seating enables the chairs

to be placed closer together than in sloped auditoriums where the aisles must be wider to retain

lines of sight in rows further back from the focal point.

Stadium-style theaters are lauded for having “revolutionized the movie-going

experience.” American Multi-Cinema Entertainment Inc. (AMC) was the first to bring stadium-

style seating to its theaters, declaring that the design guaranteed that “all seats” were the “best in

the house.” 4 Contradicting this propaganda, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ)

contends that because most stadium-style theaters limit wheelchair seating to non-stadium

sections in the front—areas that provide “universally poor and uncomfortable viewing angles”—

lines of sight are not comparable to those provided to able-bodied users, violating the standards

of the Americans with Disabilities Act, discussed in later sections.5

The original “Nickelodeon” was the first type of indoor space used for motion pictures.

In the early 1900’s, these simple theaters were erected in converted storefronts and charged five

cents for admission. Their makeshift origins unintentionally eliminated many of the accessibility

                                                                                                               4 Laura K. McKibbin, “The ADA Takes On the Movie Industry: Do the Disabled Have a Right

to the Best Seats in the House?” The University of San Francisco Law Review 38 (San Francisco:

2003-2004), 831.

5 Elsworth, “The Worst Seats,” 1110.

Page 11: Equitable Educational Environments

   

9

issues we have in today’s standard auditoriums. Figures 66 and 77 illustrate this advantage: the

renovated storefronts bring people in from right off the street, with no stairs involved. Early

seating was not tiered, which, in theory, would allow more seating choices for people with

mobility impairments. However, both old and new movie theater designs lack consideration for a

full range of users. In the first Nickelodeon theaters chairs occupied all available space, leaving

no room for alternative seating. The key problems created by fixed auditorium seating persist

with little progress or improvement in the present day.

Sociologist Donna Huse credits Michel Foucault with revealing the connection between

the interior architecture of the mass institution and “issues of uniform behavior, discipline, and

mathematical calculability.”8 Foucault identifies the central feature of this connection as “the

assignment of individual location….to each individual his own place and each place its

individual.”9 He references Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon design as the origin of such a concept.

The Panopticon was a design for factories and later prisons and schools in which “every work

station was visible to a central authority and every worker was subjected to surveillance without

                                                                                                               6 William James, Auditorium Theater in Toronto, Black and White Photographic Print, Fonds

1244, Item 320C (Toronto, CA: City of Toronto Archives, 1910).

7 Alfred H. Saunders, ed., “First Neckelodeon in the States,” Black and White Photographic

Print, The Moving Picture World 1, no. 39 (New York: The World Photographic Publishing

Company, November 30, 1907).

8 Donna Huse, "Restructuring and the Physical Context: Designing Learning

Environments," Children's Environments 12, no. 3 (September 01, 1995), 296.

9 Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (New York: Pantheon Books,

1977).

Page 12: Equitable Educational Environments

   

10

 

Figure 6. Photograph of the theater at 382 Queen Street West. Opened as the Auditorium in 1908, it was renamed first in 1913 as the Avenue Theater and again in 1915 as the Mary Pickford Theater. The photo advertises the film, The Heroine of Mafeking, which was released December 11, 1909, so it was likely taken in early 1910.

Page 13: Equitable Educational Environments

   

11

   

Figure 7. Photograph of the interior of Harry Davis’ theater on Smithfield Street between Fifth Avenue and Diamond, Pittsburg, Pa. In what was formerly a store, Davis opened the first theater in America devoted exclusively to moving pictures in June 1905. The photo was originally published in the November 1907 issue of The Moving Picture World and is now available online through The Internet Archive.

Page 14: Equitable Educational Environments

   

12

knowing whether he was observed or not.” Individuals in these institutions would be confined to

a physical location where they were tasked with performing controlled activities that would

contribute to “the engineered output of the institution.”10 Educational institutions bear some

resemblance to factories in terms of optimizing output with minimal expense.  The university

packs rooms to capacity so that they pay for a single instructor for as large a group of students as

possible. Seats are tightly spaced to avoid new and costly construction required for expansion

and renovations. This is the most cost-efficient way to have a large number of students obtain the

knowledge necessary to be successful in the work force, with the hope that they will give back to

the university. This economic analysis may seem a grim interpretation of educational institutions,

but is important to understanding the factors at play in the design of university buildings.

Awareness of university goals is principal to offering solutions. As such, a primary focus of this

paper, in addition to improving the experience of the student user, is also to increase the

efficiency of seating structures in order to making the design proposal appealing to

administrators.

In The Chair: Rethinking Culture, Body, and Design, Galen Cranz, Professor of

Architecture in the College of Environmental Design at the University of California Berkeley,

provides evidence in support of her hypothesis that chairs and sedentary culture are detrimental

to health. Cranz cites a massage therapist who attests that under-use contributes to significant

muscle pain and spasms that, if left untreated, can be disabling. She says, “As a taxpayer and the

mother of a child in primary school, I am disturbed that sitting still is still considered an essential

                                                                                                               10 Huse, “Designing Learning Environments,” 296.

Page 15: Equitable Educational Environments

   

13

component of public education. We should be teaching our children the habit of shaking loose

five minutes in every hour, from the insidious vice grip of the common chair.”11

Carolyn Frances, a graduate student of Cranz’s, concluded in an environmental design

research project “schoolrooms should offer choice, control, and change (with constancy).” The

reformers of an educational restructuring movement in the nineteen-eighties and nineties agreed

with Frances’s conclusion, challenging what they viewed as “the model of assembly-line control

in disciplinary mass schooling.” Reflecting Frances’s research, they sought freedom of body

movement and interaction with others in a classroom setting.12

The design proposal serves to solve three overarching issues of fixed stadium-style

seating, the first being the seating structure’s inherent inequitable use of space. Second, research

shows fixed tiered seating can have negative effects on health, and that a lack of options and

adaptability contributes to a destructive cultural pattern. Perhaps the most compelling flaw is the

traditional stadium-style seating structure’s failure to physically promote effective learning

environments.

The Americans with Disabilities Act

The Americans with Disabilities Act (hereafter referred to as the “ADA”) was signed into

law on July 26, 1990 by President George H. W. Bush and amended effective January 1, 2009.

The Act is composed of five Titles, each affording protections against discrimination of

                                                                                                               11 Galen Cranz, The Chair: Rethinking Culture, Body, and Design (New York: W.W. Norton,

1998), 100.

12 Cranz, The Chair, 198-199.

Page 16: Equitable Educational Environments

   

14

Americans with disabilities across a range of areas from employment in Title I to access to

public entities and accommodations in Titles II and III.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) enforces the compliance of public entities to Title

II regulations, which include physical access described by the ADA Accessibility Guidelines

(ADAAG) outlined originally in 1991 and updated in 2010.

In the drafting of civil rights legislation for people with disabilities, it became clear to

those participating in the discussions that “individuals with disabilities have been subjected to

widespread and severe discrimination” and that “such persons are an extremely disadvantaged

and underprivileged segment of society.”13 Education has been referred to as “the great

equalizer:” an essential part of The American Dream. It is therefore especially important that the

ADAAG be successful in leveling the playing field in educational institutions. All improvements

in breaking down barriers to admission at universities can be undone if students with disabilities

face significant difficulties accessing classrooms and effectively learning the material presented

in them. Multiple studies have found a strong correlation between seating location and

participation in a classroom setting. For instance, a study of classrooms with straight rows in

which introductory psychology discussions were held found that students in the front participated

more than students in the back and students seated in the center of each row participated more

than students at the sides of each row.14 In another, two sections of the same class were analyzed,

                                                                                                               13 Robert L. Burgdorf Jr., “Americans with Disabilities Act: Analysis and Implications of a

Second-Generation Civil Rights Statute,” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 26

(Cambridge, MA: 1991), 426.

14 Robert Sommer, "Classroom Ecology," The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 3, no. 4

(1967), 489-503.

Page 17: Equitable Educational Environments

   

15

allowing seating choice in one class and assigning seating locations in the other. In both settings,

students in the middle of the classroom received higher grades and enjoyed the course more than

students seated at the sides.15 Designers rarely take these findings into consideration when

determining the dispersion of wheelchair spaces. Without a full range of seating options,

wheelchair users are limited from some potentially beneficial seating locations. The forthcoming

design proposal, in contrast, eliminates this inequity. All seating options are accessible regardless

of ability, ensuring that potential users can take advantage of any and all seating locations in the

auditoriums.

Though 145 Dwinelle and 245 Li Ka Shing were designed before the current accessibility

standards were officially published, for the purposes of this study, it is most valuable to compare

the sites to those standards because they are the bare minimum for access today. By law, the

auditoriums were required to be brought to the 2010 standards in 2012. The ADA Accessibility

Guidelines (ADAAG) fall under Title II of the ADA and are just one part of a larger Federal

Civil Rights Law. At the state level, Chapter 11B of the 2013 California Building Code (CBC)

concerns accessibility to public buildings and strives to set standards that mandate equal or

greater accessibility than the federal ADAAG. The result is mainly overlapping standards, but

some discrepancies do exist, leaving it in the hands of the designer to choose the more accessible

of the two guidelines. The ADAAG and Chapter 2 of the CBC define assembly areas as follows:

ASSEMBLY AREA. [DSA-AC] A building or facility, or portion thereof, used for the

purpose of entertainment, educational or civic gatherings, or similar purposes. For the

                                                                                                               15 Lloyd Stires, "Classroom Seating Location, Student Grades, and Attitudes Environment or

Self-Selection?" Environment and Behavior 12, no. 2 (1980), 241-254.

Page 18: Equitable Educational Environments

   

16

purposes of these requirements, assembly areas include, but are not limited to,

classrooms, lecture halls, courtrooms, public meeting rooms, public hearing rooms,

legislative chambers, motion picture houses, auditoria, theaters, playhouses, dinner

theaters, concert halls, centers for the performing arts, amphitheaters, arenas stadiums,

grandstands or convention centers.16

Clearly, 145 Dwinelle and 245 Li Ka Shing fall into the category of “assembly areas” as defined

by both relevant codes. Looking at assembly areas specifically, there are a few main points that

are important to understand regarding design requirements for auditoriums like those in Dwinelle

Hall and Li Ka Shing Center. Table 11B-221.2.1.1 expresses the minimum number of required

wheelchair spaces based on the number of total seats in an assembly area. For large lecture halls

like 145 Dwinelle and 245 Li Ka Shing, which fall into the category of 151-300 seats, a

minimum of five wheelchair spaces are required. Wheelchair spaces are mandated to be an

integral part of the seating plan, provide comparable lines of sight and therefore be dispersed so

that there are “choices of seating locations and viewing angles that are substantially equivalent

to, or better than, the choices of seating locations and viewing angles available to all other

spectators.”17 Illustrated by seating floor plans in Figures 1 and 2, 145 Dwinelle has one

dedicated wheelchair space at the back of the lecture with a poor view of the stage, and is

therefore not in compliance with the ADAAG. 245 Li Ka Shing, in contrast, has six dedicated

wheelchair spaces, relatively dispersed throughout the auditorium.

                                                                                                               16 "Chapter 2: Definitions," 2013 California Building Code (2013), 47.

17 “Chapter 11B: Accessibility to Public Buildings, Public Accommodations, Commercial

Building and Publicly Funded Housing,” 2013 California Building Code (2013), 534.

Page 19: Equitable Educational Environments

   

17

It is important to understand that full compliance with the ADA Standards for Accessible

Design is only required for new construction and alterations. The Americans with Disabilities

Act Checklist for Readily Achievable Barrier Removal helps to identify accessibility problems

and solutions in existing facilities. The checklist serves as a guide to help building owners

determine what may be readily achievable and suggests solutions to barrier problems.18 While

245 Li Ka Shing fulfills all minimum requirements of the Readily Achievable Barrier Removal

Checklist, 145 Dwinelle fails to meet requirements under Priority 2: Access to Goods and

Services. The section for Seats, Tables, and Counters (ADAAG 4.2, 3.32, 7.2) asks, “Are the

spaces for wheelchair seating distributed throughout?” Suggested solutions include rearranging

tables to allow room for wheelchairs in seating areas throughout the areas and removing some

fixed seating. In an already cramped space like 145 Dwinelle, the main question is what is

“readily achievable?” The DOJ defines readily achievable as “easily accomplishable and able to

be carried out without much difficulty or expense.” Its definition further states that five factors

should be considered to determine if a modification is readily achievable:

(1) The nature and cost of the action needed under this part;

(2) The overall financial resources of the site or sites involved in the action; the number

of persons employed at the site; the effect on expenses and resources; legitimate

safety requirements that are necessary for safe operation, including crime prevention

measures; or the impact otherwise of the action upon the operation of the site;

                                                                                                               18 "The Americans with Disabilities Act Checklist for Readily Achievable Barrier Removal,"

Adaptive Environments Center, Inc. and Barrier Free Environments, Inc. (Washington, DC:

Dept. of Justice, 1995).

Page 20: Equitable Educational Environments

   

18

(3) The geographic separateness, and the administrative or fiscal relationship of the site

or sites in question to any parent corporation or entity;

(4) If applicable, the overall financial resources of any parent corporation or entity; the

overall size of the parent corporation or entity with respect to the number of its

employees; the number, type, and location of its facilities; and

(5) If applicable, the type of operation or operations of any parent corporation or entity,

including the composition, structure and functions of the workforce of the parent

corporation or entity.19

This vague definition leaves room for subjective determination. Whether something is readily

achievable is one of the most contested issues in ADA public accommodations lawsuits. Given

the resources of the University of California and the frequency of use of this particular lecture

hall, it is highly likely that the addition of a couple more wheelchair spaces, including some in

the front of the classroom is readily achievable. The failure of 145 Dwinelle to comply with

minimum requirements clearly demonstrates that Title II of the ADA is not being enforced at the

level it needs to be. Even though 245 Li Ka Shing fulfills ADA requirements, interviews show

that the auditorium design leaves some of their needs unmet. There is still a level of social and

physical exclusion in providing only six options in a 300-person lecture hall. Not a single one of

the wheelchair spaces is located in the middle of the classroom and four are next to the very last

seat in a row.

One informant who uses an electric wheelchair spoke about the narrow door and lack of

automatic opener to 145 Dwinelle. In regards to the accessible space, she said, “Often times I sit

                                                                                                               19 "ADA Title III Regulation 28 CFR Part 36," (Washington, DC: Dept. of Justice, September

15, 2010).

Page 21: Equitable Educational Environments

   

19

next to the DSP table because it’s difficult for me to sit at the table.” There is not enough space

for her power chair to fit into the spot where the Disabled Students Program (DSP) has installed

a designated accessible desk with a movable chair, shown in Figure 8. She noted that every time

she goes to class the chair, which she cannot move on her own, blocks the table. Observational

research confirms this, and notes that the desk is most often occupied by non-disabled students

drawn by the larger desk space and comparative ease of access over the tightly packed fixed

seating. While the student appreciates that the room is accessible from the ground floor and

does not require use of an elevator, she cited lack of access to the front of the classroom as an

issue with this specific auditorium. In order to get to the first floor she would have to go around

the building and take the elevator to the basement, but then runs into stairs leading up to the

lecture hall. The student reported, “When I was taking a class in the lecture hall, it was difficult

for me to hear and see my professor because I was sitting in the back.”20 Disability Access

Specialist at the UC Berkeley DSP, Daniel Kodmur, pointed out that this issue with the physical

layout of the classroom is especially important given the frequency of students with multiple

disabilities, such as low vision in addition to mobility impairments.21

Beyond the ADA is the concept of Universal Design, defined as an approach to designing

products and environments to be accessed, understood and used by all people to the greatest

extent possible without need for modification in the widest possible range of situations.22 Rather

                                                                                                               20 Interview by Author (April 27, 2015).

21 Interview by Author (September 30, 2015).

22 Ron Mace, G. Hardie, and J. Plaice, "Accessible Environments: Toward Universal Design,"

Design Interventions: Toward A More Humane Architecture (New York: Van Nostrand

Reinhold, 1991), 156.

Page 22: Equitable Educational Environments

   

20

 

Figure 8. DSP table in 145 Dwinelle Hall.

Page 23: Equitable Educational Environments

   

21

than a checklist of minimum requirements to be fulfilled, Universal Design is a broad term

encompassing design theory that considers the environmental needs of all users. Universal

Design “encourages an integrative approach rather than multiple separate solutions.”23 The seven

principles of Universal Design are as follows:

(1) Equitable Use

(2) Flexibility in Use

(3) Simple and Intuitive Use -

(4) Perceptible Information

(5) Tolerance for Error

(6) Low Physical Effort

(7) Size and Space for Approach and Use24

Principle 1, Equitable Use, implies the design is useful to people with diverse abilities. A step

further, it should provide identical means of use for all users whenever possible and equivalent

use if not possible. Flexibility in Use means that the design accommodates a wide range of

individual preferences and abilities by providing choice and adaptability. For instance, both

right- and left-handed users should be accommodated. Simple and Intuitive Use, the third

principle, seeks to eliminate complexity to be sure all users can easily understand how to interact

with the design. Perceptible Information is a component of Simple and Intuitive Use, ensuring

that the design communicates any necessary information clearly regardless of the users’ sensory

                                                                                                               23 Polly Welch, "Chapter 1: What Is Universal Design?" Strategies for Teaching Universal

Design (Boston: Adaptive Environments, 1995).

24 Molly Follette Story, James L. Mueller, and Ronald L. Mace, "The Universal Design File:

Designing for People of All Ages and Abilities" (1998).

Page 24: Equitable Educational Environments

   

22

abilities. Pictorial, verbal and tactile modes should all be utilized. Tolerance for Error minimizes

undesirable actions and eliminates hazards through fail-safe features or provides warnings. The

sixth principle, Low Physical Effort, suggests minimization of designs that require repetitive

actions and sustained physical effort, encouraging simple and comfortable use. Some potential

users either become fatigued easily or have different abilities, making this consideration

important to designing appealing environments. Finally, Principle 7 emphasizes the need for Size

and Space for Approach and Use, meaning space is provided for approach, reach, manipulation

and other means of use regardless of body size, posture, or mobility.25 Environments and

products designed with Universal Design in mind should fit all of the above criteria. These

principles should be considered from the start of the design process to avoid ADA compliance

problems later on and make environments enjoyable for all users.

Equity Vs. Efficiency

A common dilemma for architects is the choice between equity and efficiency. UC

Berkeley’s campus landscape makes finding a balance between the two an exceptional challenge.

Attention is paid to the preservation of open space and at the same time, topographical conditions

are challenges in construction. Space efficiency and accessibility conflict from the start—the

steepest rise-to-run ratios allowable for accessible ramps is 1:12, while stairs can be as steep as

1:1.6.26 Wide-open, sprawling spaces are ideal for wheelchair users, but not necessarily feasible

with the given environmental conditions and cost constraints of a publicly funded university.

                                                                                                               25 “The 7 Principles,” Centre for Excellence in Universal Design (Dublin, IE: National Disability

Authority, 2014).

26 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design (Washington, D.C.: Dept. of Justice, 2010).

Page 25: Equitable Educational Environments

   

23

With greater thought and creativity, designs can be both equitable and efficient.

Architects should embrace accessible design as an intriguing challenge and not as a burden.

Greater constraints often result in better designs and more creativity. David Sturt, author of

Great Work: How to Make a Difference People Love, collected data of award-winning work

from 1.7 million people and found that “people who create new value on the job are often

inspired by their constraints.” Architect Frank Gehry agrees, stating that limitations and

constraints are what really inspire his work.27 A willingness to see universal access as a positive

rather than a negative constraint will be vital in the future, as the aging population continues to

grow. Balancing equity and efficiency is not a lost cause: the following proposal is both space-

efficient and accessible.

Design Proposal

To best illustrate the flaws in current design conventions, the author proposes a modular

design: a spiral ramp edged by bench seating with the stage in the center. The ideal lecture hall

facilitates learning by being accessible to all users, providing a necessary level of comfort and

accommodation, and fits a large number of students while being space efficient. Galen Cranz

writes, “Simple forms usually facilitate more choice than complex ones.”28 Choice and flexibility

are crucial to designing with all types of users in mind.

                                                                                                               27 David Sturt, "Creativity: How Constraints Drive Genius," Forbes (July 12, 2013).

28 Cranz, The Chair, 199.

Page 26: Equitable Educational Environments

   

24

Figure  9. Lecture Hall Design Proposal - Research Poster submitted to The College of Environmental Design Circus. March 6, 2015.

Page 27: Equitable Educational Environments

   

25

Figure  10.  Design proposal in plan and section.

Page 28: Equitable Educational Environments

   

26

 

Figure 11. Graphical illustration of spiral r=17θ/(6π) from 5π to 14π applied to design proposal.

Page 29: Equitable Educational Environments

   

27

The spiral form is used in the most well known accessible buildings. A spiral ramp,

shown in Figure 12,29 wraps around the entirety of Frank Lloyd Wright’s Guggenheim Museum

in New York City, making passage between exhibits seamless. The transitional ramp through the

gallery is further illustrated in Figure 13.30 The Ed Robert’s Campus is known for the iconic red

spiral ramp in Figure 14.31 The ramp is the preferred method of vertical circulation by people

with and without disabilities.

The author proposes a spiral ramp 6 feet wide with one foot dedicated to divided bench

seating. The spiral follows the polar equation r=17θ/(6π). Demonstrated in the proposal from 5π

to 14π, the structure is 77’x74’, making it 830 square feet smaller than 245 Li Ka Shing. The

proposed design can accommodate 380 students—more than all but four of the largest lecture

halls on UC Berkeley’s campus and 83 more than 245 Li Ka Shing. The continuous bench is

divided into 2-foot sections on hinges that can be propped up or tucked down to be more flexible.

With this fully accessible design, every single seat has the potential to be converted to a

wheelchair accessible space. Students can stand or sit on the floor, or push seats down to

accommodate wheelchair users. In turn, this means that if there are no wheelchair users present

for a class period, no space is left unused. Below the seat panel is approximately one square foot

                                                                                                               29 William Hall, “The Guggenheim, New York, Frank Lloyd Wright,” Digital image (Disegno

Daily, September 12, 2012).

30 David Heald, “The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, New York,” Digital image

(Archilovers).

31 Barbara L. Stenberg, “Ed Roberts Campus Berkeley,” Digital image (California Travel

Insider).

 

Page 30: Equitable Educational Environments

   

28

 

Figure 12. Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum. 5th Avenue, New York, NY. Designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, the museum is home to a continuously expanding collection of Impressionist, Post-Impressionist, Modern and Contemporary Art.

Page 31: Equitable Educational Environments

   

29

   

Figure 13. Gallery perspective of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in New York City.

Page 32: Equitable Educational Environments

   

30

 

 

Figure 14. Ed Roberts Campus, Berkeley, CA. A universally designed campus, The Ed Roberts Campus houses the offices of collaborating organizations serving the community of people with disabilities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 33: Equitable Educational Environments

   

31

of storage space for backpacks and other items, preventing such items from blocking pathways,

as they often do in lecture halls like 145 Dwinelle and 245 Li Ka Shing.

A power outage on April 24th affected a large portion of the UC Berkeley campus. Robert

Reich’s Wealth and Poverty class moved outdoors from Wheeler Auditorium with a capacity of

705.32 The photograph in Figure 1533 shows that students, without the constraints of an inflexible

auditorium design, naturally formed a ring around the professor in order to better hear the

lecture. With the professor in the middle of a circular auditorium, more students will have front

seats and everyone will be closer to the professor, facilitating more engagement and interaction

between students and instructors. In this arrangement, students will face each other in addition to

the instructor. Students interviewed spoke of multiple cases of attending class for an entire

semester without noticing that a friend of theirs was also taking the course. The spiral form

resolves the issue of students having very little contact with other students save those seated

directly next to them and backs of heads in front of them. The arrangement challenges professors

to mix up their lecturing style so that an interactive classroom is the norm rather than an

exception reserved for classes taught by charismatic professors like Robert Reich. Students will

welcome the unconventional structure and will undoubtedly be more excited about attending

class in a space radically different from what they have grown accustomed to.

                                                                                                               32 Haley G. Massara, "Large Portion of UC Berkeley Loses Power Midday Friday," The Daily

Californian (Berkeley, CA: April 24, 2015).

33 Megan Messerly, “UC Berkeley Professor Robert Reich Teaching His Wealth and Poverty

Class Outside Wheeler Hall,” Digital Image, The Daily Californian (Berkeley, CA: April 24,

2015).

Page 34: Equitable Educational Environments

   

32

 

Figure 15. Robert Reich conducts class outside Wheeler Hall during a power outage affecting the UC Berkeley campus.

Page 35: Equitable Educational Environments

   

33

In multiple interviews UC Berkeley students complained about having to squeeze past

other seated users to get to an open seat, climbing over backpacks, knocking over water bottles,

and, “rubbing elbows all over the place,” as one student put it.34 Not only does the ramped design

allow ample passing space to minimize uncomfortable contact, the benches create step-like

platforms that will allow users to bypass the spiral ramp and maneuver into open seats from any

angle, making finding a seat less disruptive than it is in traditional fixed row seating

arrangements. The spacious ramp and continuous bench will make use of the space simple and

intuitive for users with visual impairments. Knowing that the auditorium is a spiral with the

professor at end in the lower center will help blind users visualize the space. In addition to being

easy to understand, the design proposal is easy to navigate and eliminates the need to maneuver

through narrow aisles of seated students with a cane or service animal.

The bench height ranges from one to two feet, giving a variety of options for users that

standard stadium-style seating is missing. The  bench  will  remain  perfectly  flat,  with  only  the  

vertical  distance  between  the  ground  and  the  seat  changing  as  the  ramp  slopes.  This will

make it more comfortable for people whose legs are above or below standard lengths. Cranz

writes that standard seat height is eighteen inches from the floor, but this height is unsuitable for

all but “some sort of mythical ‘average’ body, which turns out to be a tall male body. So for all

children, most women, and a healthy percentage of men, chairs are too high.” If a chair is too

high for the user, the seat cuts under the knee and puts upward pressure on thigh muscles, forcing

the tissue to take on a load-bearing function it is not meant to have. On the other hand, if the

knees are higher than the hip sockets, “that jams your hip joint, and worse, reverses the natural

forward curve of [the] lower back, stressing the discs.” She allows, “seventeen inches might be a

                                                                                                               34 Interview by Author (December 14, 2014).

Page 36: Equitable Educational Environments

   

34

safe compromise, but multiple sizes or adjustable heights are preferable.”35  Although  the  tall  

male  body  may  be  the  average  that  chair  height  is  designed  for,  the  seats  in  145  Dwinelle  

and  245  Li  Ka  Shing  are  spaced  so  close  together  that  even  at  the  right  height  for  a  tall  user,  

limited  leg  room  can  still  make  the  seats  uncomfortable.  Complaints  about  not  fitting  into  

lecture  hall  seats  were  consistent  in  interviews  with  taller  students.36 The proposed design

will have five feet of legroom available, except when other students are passing by the seats. The  

spiral  design  will  make  finding  a  comfortable  seat  easy  and  active—users  can  simply  slide  

along  the  bench  until  they  find  spaces  that  best  fit  their  bodies.  

The benches will be hardwood, with sliding panels fitted inside them to be pulled out and

used as desks. They are intended as a perch for students, encouraging better posture and greater

attentiveness. Cranz supports this, writing that “an overpadded chair forces the sit bones to rock

in the padding rather than make contact with a stable surface, thereby forcing the flesh in the butt

and thighs to bear weight.”37 An added advantage of the proposed bench seating is the potential

to lie down over multiple spaces, uninhibited by chair arms. Another possible adaptation is to

have students who wish to stand rather than sit collapse seats in the back of the room for standing

room that would not block the views of seated students.

The desk panels will be customizable and less constricting than standard desks attached

to fixed seating. Additionally, the panels are much larger than the desks found in 145 Dwinelle

and 245 Li Ka Shing. Students complained that they were unable to fit both a test and a test

booklet on their desk, making it unnecessarily difficult to take an exam in one of these lecture

                                                                                                               35 Cranz, The Chair, 102-103.

36 Interview by Author (October 24, 2014).

37 Cranz, The Chair, 204.

Page 37: Equitable Educational Environments

   

35

halls.38 Adaptability is the most essential feature of the proposed seating structure and any other

designs that seek to eliminate inequities.

The proposed design has the flexibility to be applied to any sized site. Lengths of the

spiral ramp should be added or removed depending on the space available. Ample exits for fire

safety must be included in the revised design according to the situation. Ramp and seating width

should remain unchanged, but the end of the bench at the center can be added to or subtracted

from to provide the ideal amount of space for the stage.

Conclusion

The Americans with Disabilities Act was a giant step forward for people with disabilities,

but a symbolic one: 25 years later, it is time to reevaluate its efficacy. Two separate issues should

be considered: one, whether the accessibility guidelines are in line with the goals the Act seeks to

accomplish and if so, whether the accessibility guidelines are being met in the physical

environment. This paper evaluates just two of an immeasurable amount of assembly areas that

fall under only a portion of a single title of the five-title federal ADA. The hope is that the

research can contribute to a more comprehensive study.

Designing equitable educational environments is of the utmost importance given the

inescapable link between education and opportunity. Designed with inherently inequitable fixed

stadium-style seating 145 Dwinelle Hall has only one wheelchair accessible space—four below

the ADAAG minimum—and 245 Li Ka Shing Center has six dispersed wheelchair spaces—one

above the minimum. Built sixty years apart, both halls have limited accessible seating and fail to

follow Universal Design guidelines. Many public accommodations go unregulated and remain

                                                                                                               38 Interview by Author (April 21, 2015).  

Page 38: Equitable Educational Environments

   

36

inaccessible. Buildings that fulfill a checklist fail to meet many of the environmental needs of

users. Designing for all types of users, sometimes with conflicting needs, is not easy. However,

the wealth of constraints this challenge presents can spur creativity and lead to better design

overall.

Solutions to the challenge of lecture hall design should have four goals. The primary goal

is to produce effective learning environments so that the setting enhances the learning ability of

students rather than inhibiting it in any physical way. The second goal of healthy learning

environments is related, with special attention to medical considerations. In order to be

implemented, design solutions must be space and cost efficient, while meeting the final goal of

universal design to ensure lecture halls are accessible to all users and appropriately equitable.

Page 39: Equitable Educational Environments

   

37

Bibliography

2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design. Washington, D.C.: Department of Justice, 2010.

"ADA Title III Regulation 28 CFR Part 36." Washington, DC: Department of Justice, September

15, 2010.

Burgdorf, Robert L. Jr. “Americans with Disabilities Act: Analysis and Implications of a

Second-Generation Civil Rights Statute.” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law

Review 26. Cambridge, MA: 1991.

"Chapter 2: Definitions." 2013 California Building Code. 2013.

“Chapter 11B: Accessibility to Public Buildings, Public Accommodations, Commercial Building

and Publicly Funded Housing.” 2013 California Building Code. 2013.

Cranz, Galen. The Chair: Rethinking Culture, Body, and Design. New York: W.W. Norton,

1998.

Ellsworth, Felicia H. "The Worst Seats in the House: Stadium-Style Movie Theaters and the

Americans with Disabilities Act," in The University of Chicago Law Review 71, no. 3.

Chicago: Summer 2004.

Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Pantheon Books,

1977.

Hall, William. “The Guggenheim, New York, Frank Lloyd Wright.” Digital image. Disegno

Daily. September 12, 2012.

Heald, David. “The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, New York.” Digital image.

Archilovers.

Huse, Donna. "Restructuring and the Physical Context: Designing Learning

Environments." Children's Environments 12, no. 3. September 01, 1995.

Page 40: Equitable Educational Environments

   

38

“Interactive Campus Map.” University of California Berkeley, 2014.

James, William. Auditorium Theater in Toronto. Black and White Photographic Print. Fonds

1244, Item 320C. Toronto, CA: City of Toronto Archives, 1910.

Jenaway, Brett. "Evolution of Stadiums: A Study in the Design and Construction of Ancient and

Modern Stadia." 2013.

Mace, Ron, G. Hardie, and J. Plaice. "Accessible Environments: Toward Universal Design."

Design Interventions: Toward A More Humane Architecture. New York: Van Nostrand

Reinhold, 1991.

Massara, Haley G. "Large Portion of UC Berkeley Loses Power Midday Friday." The Daily

Californian. Berkeley, CA: April 24, 2015.

McKibbin, Laura K. “The ADA Takes On the Movie Industry: Do the Disabled Have a Right to

the Best Seats in the House?” in The University of San Francisco Law Review 38. San

Francisco: 2003-2004.

Messerly, Megan. “UC Berkeley Professor Robert Reich Teaching His Wealth and Poverty Class

Outside Wheeler Hall.” Digital Image. The Daily Californian. Berkeley, CA: April 24,

2015.

Saunders, Alfred H., ed. “First Neckelodeon in the States.” Black and White Photographic Print.

The Moving Picture World 1 no. 39. New York: The World Photographic Publishing

Company, November 30, 1907.

Sommer, Robert. "Classroom Ecology." The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 3, no. 4.

1967.

Stires, Lloyd. "Classroom Seating Location, Student Grades, and Attitudes Environment or Self-

Selection?" Environment and Behavior 12, no. 2. 1980.

Page 41: Equitable Educational Environments

   

39

Stenberg, Barbara L. “Ed Roberts Campus Berkeley.” Digital image. California Travel Insider.

Story, Molly Follette, James L. Mueller, and Ronald L. Mace. "The Universal Design File:

Designing for People of All Ages and Abilities." 1998.

Sturt, David. "Creativity: How Constraints Drive Genius." Forbes. July 12, 2013.

"The Americans with Disabilities Act Checklist for Readily Achievable Barrier

Removal." Adaptive Environments Center, Inc. and Barrier Free Environments, Inc.

Washington, DC: Dept. of Justice, 1995.

Welch, Polly. "Chapter 1: What Is Universal Design?" Strategies for Teaching Universal Design.

Boston: Adaptive Environments, 1995.