One of the things that has regularly surprised me, as we have expanded our services to include Accessibility Assessments, is the different attitudes that we hear from people in different jurisdictions regarding the issue. As we operate in a North American market, my perspective is really going to be limited to Canada and the U.S. Things may be different internationally. I would love to hear from any of you about your experiences in other markets. 

In the U.S., the ADA has been around for decades. The upside is that there is a single set of standards that is applied across the country.  However, very few of our customers mention ADA compliance as a top-tier concern for their facilities and sites. Some will ask for checklists (high-level visual assessment with no measurements), but very few are considering a detailed ADA assessment. My read of the market is that it is driven not by compliance but by risk management. The driver seems to be based more on avoiding legal action and meeting the requirements of the legislation than creating an accessible environment. As a result, it does not appear to be on the radar for many facility and asset managers.

In Canada, there is no national standard for accessibility. Some provinces have developed their own standards, while some lower-tier jurisdictions have developed their own Facility Accessibility Design Standards (FADS) that they apply within their municipalities or on their campuses (higher education institutions).  

The level of interest in Accessibility compliance really does depend a lot on where you are in the Country. Ontario, for example, has a requirement that all public places be AODA (Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities) compliant by 2025. They are going to miss the goal. However, the existence of the goal has resulted in many institutions across the province assessing their facilities and developing compliance plans that integrate with their capital renewal plans. In other Provinces, when we ask clients about Accessibility, there are either no legislative requirements or the requirements have no teeth, so organizations are generally not concerned. Furthermore, since the legislative accessibility design requirements are tied to the building code, which has a “grandfather” clause, there are no immediate incentives to improve the built environment until a particular element is due for capital renewal.

There is a business case to be made for creating a built environment that is universally accessible, regardless of the legislative requirements. We are always pleased to see individual organizations that proactively set the standard for their buildings to become accessible, even if the external forces (legislation, risk management, etc.) are not applying significant pressure.