Savanna Bremer, Matthew Osterholzer, Joey O’Dwyer
The aim of our project is to explore different places across the campus, focusing on accessibility for all individuals and their specific needs. The campus, in its entirety, should be an accessible place for everyone, encompassing cultural, accommodational, and academic considerations. In this study, we closely examine a small selection of campus buildings, considering their successes and failures in accessibility in order to provide insight into how the campus can be improved to better support the physical needs of our peers in a variety of spaces.
University of Michigan Field Hockey
Examining the field hockey stadium at the University of Michigan, like other sports venues on campus, highlights its cultural importance. Sporting events bring people together to support a common university identity. However, a closer look reveals accessibility challenges. The hockey field, being outdoors without any shelter in the stadium, is not suitable for individuals sensitive to temperature, sunlight, or outdoor conditions during games in different weather. Access to the stadium is limited to metal stairs with unstable railings, making it difficult for people using wheelchairs, crutches, or those with stability issues or disorientation due to disabilities. Temporary conditions and disabilities like concussions, cerebral palsy, meningitis, or liver failure exacerbate these challenges. The precarious stadium stairs and railings pose difficulties for individuals navigating such conditions. Adding to the concerns raised earlier, the metal seating in the stadium is notably uncomfortable, especially for people with disabilities.
Those with conditions like fractured tailbones or chronic pain, such as fibromyalgia, failed back surgeries, coccyx pain, find it particularly challenging to endure. It’s important to address these comfort issues to create a more inclusive environment for everyone, considering diverse needs. Moreover, the metal structure of these stadiums poses additional concerns over time. Rusting is one such issue that, if left unattended, can lead to serious infections and illnesses for individuals who may get scratched by rusted metal while attending athletic events at the school.
Additionally, there’s a concern related to social distancing, especially during the peak of the pandemic or even presently, for students or other attendees who are immunocompromised but wish to participate in school activities. The limited seating and exposure to weather elements during games elevate the risk of illness for immunocompromised individuals attending events. To address these concerns, a thorough evaluation of accessibility features is necessary to create an inclusive environment for all university community members and the importance of proactive measures to prevent such health hazards and maintain a safe environment for all attendees.
Hill Auditorium— The Path Forwards
Hill Auditorium is one of the most culturally significant buildings on the University of Michigan’s campus, hosting countless performances, lectures, and even graduations every year. Many events are directly affiliated with the University, such as student performances and the University’s graduation ceremony, but it also holds significance to the local community as the venue for the Ann Arbor Symphony Orchestra, high school graduations, and many major performers coming through the area. What makes Hill Auditorium exceptional is not only its size, but also a commitment to providing access to the community that is particularly remarkable given its origins in the early 20th century.
The auditorium was constructed in 1913, funded largely by a generous donation from Michigan alumnus Arthur Hill, with the explicit purpose of being able to house the entire student body at the time, and was designed such that every seat in the hall could hear an unamplified speaker from the center of the stage (Conlin et al.) After nearly a century of hosting events and performances for the University and local community, Hill Auditorium would undergo renovations between 2002-2004, increasing leg room, improving bathrooms, and installing heating, air conditioning, and two elevators (Eckert.) This substantially expanded access in numerous ways: increased room and greater temperature control allow for better sensory experiences, the improved bathrooms are crucial for anyone requiring consistent access to a bathroom, and the elevators allow for stair-free access to the mezzanine and lower lobby (as well as to the additional bathrooms located there.)
Evaluating Hill Auditorium through the lens of mobility reveals one crucial feature that differentiates it from many other performing venues: while stairs are still used to create a gradient of seat heights down towards the stage (also facilitating sight lines for all audience members) as is typical of auditoriums, a ramp around the side of the hall allows access to the center of the main floor. This means that the accessible boxes are not relegated only to the back of the floor, but also exist at the best location in the auditorium: the center of the main floor. This design is still somewhat inconsistent, as the mezzanine (2nd floor) only has boxes at the back, and the balcony (3rd floor) is not accessible by elevator, but this still constitutes a substantial step forwards. Lastly, while the front entrance is still characterized by stairs, both of the side entrances are accessible by ramp, and it is those side entrances that are actually the closest to public transportation, parking, valet services, local restaurants, and the box office. While it is certainly not perfect, it is substantially easier to navigate with any form of mobility impairment than most other campus buildings, or performing venues in general.
The auditorium is also accessible in other ways. Most shows in the venue provide assisted listening devices available at request, and the ushers who facilitate most performances in the space make the process of wayfinding easy, and not dependent on one’s interfacing with technology or a map (Accessibility, UMS.) Seats are comfortable and easy to use for long periods of time. Bathrooms are available on each floor, and substantial wait times are uncommon (at least in the author’s extensive personal experience.) Lastly, while costs to attend vary quite a bit by event, many performances are available for free or for a minimal price, and even among pricier events, the cheapest seats still provide a high quality experience due to the well designed sight lines and acoustics. The accessible seats are in a range of price zones, from the best available to some of the cheapest (although the balcony seats are not accessible by elevator.)
However, all of these aspects of the physical space also have to interact with the venue’s policies and social environment. Hill Auditorium is used by numerous local organizations, including the University Musical Society, Michigan’s School of Music, Theater, and Dance, the Ann Arbor Symphony Orchestra, the Ann Arbor Summer Festival, and several local high schools, among others. Each of these groups will determine their own policies around pricing, refunds/exchanges, latecomers, if there are gatekeeping processes around accessible seats, expected decorum, and countless other small issues of accessibility. If someone wanted to know what to expect from the sensory profile, the social expectations, the protections on public health, or even where to find this information (the contact information for the “Hill Auditorium Box Office” is actually that of the University Musical Society, which is just one of the many organizations to use the space.) This all also only considers an audience perspective, as little information is available about the experience of performers in the venue (in the author’s recollections from student performances, the backstage area may be somewhat accessible without stairs, but the area is very cramped, and the lower green room can only be accessed by stairs and is very noisy to warm up in.)
All of this is to say that in many ways, Hill Auditorium is a model for accessibility in campus buildings. Designed with egalitarian goals and renovated to increase access while respecting the building’s history, it shows how improving accessibility does not need to be at odds with a building’s history or practical layout. Yet the accessibility of physical spaces is only one part of the larger context of accessibility on campus. Improvements to buildings can only be made truly useful by also interrogating the policies, norms, and values that govern and inhabit these spaces.
Figure 1: The Main Floor of Hill Auditorium
Alt text: A map of the main floor of Hill Auditorium, divided into a front and back half, with rows A-J in the front and rows K-Z in the back, with an aisle in between the halves. The front half is split into 3 sections, with Sections 2 and 4 on the sides and Section 3 in the center. The back half is split into 5 sections, identical to the front half except with Sections 1 and 5 on the far sides. Boxes A and B are located in sections 2 and 4 in front of row K, directly behind the dividing aisle. Boxes C through G are located at the back of the floor, behind sections 1-5 respectively. Text beside the map reads: “HILL AUDITORIUM — MAIN FLOOR SEATING CAPACITY
Section 1: 177 , Section 2: 265, Section 3: 414, Section 4: 265 , Section 5: 178
Boxes A & B (each): Wheelchair 4, Companion 3, Subtotal (each) 7
Boxes C & G (each): Wheelchair 4, Companion 4, Subtotal (each) 8
Box D: Wheelchair 3, Companion 2, Subtotal (each) 5
Box E: Wheelchair 6, Companion 5, Subtotal (each) 11
Box F: Wheelchair 2, Companion 2, Subtotal (each) 4
Mainfloor Seating: 1,299 + 27 Wheelchair + 23 Companion = 1,349
TOTAL SEATING (All Levels): 3,466 + 35 Wheelchair + 29 Companion = 3,530
The Duderstadt Center
Image description: Sunset out the window of the Duderstadt Center Library on the third floor
Community study spaces are important to university life and culture. Meeting up for study sessions, group projects, reservable spaces for clubs and remote meetings, and of course grinding for exams. Any attempt to create a culture of accessibility requires attention to making community study spaces accessible for everybody. For this reason, we will be examining the Duderstadt Design Center and Library and attempting to draw a set of design principles from it, which the university–or any other organization trying to learn from the University of Michigan’s mistakes and successes–might use in future projects. The Duderstadt was built in 1996, half a decade after the passage of the ADA, and as such is one of the newest buildings on campus.
Image Descriptions: An escalator next to a brick wall, two sets of double doors at a right angle to each other exiting a hallway, and a set of double doors leading outside.
First things first, we have to consider getting into the building at all. There are two ways to do this: From the Grove, through a set of double doors with multiple blue buttons to automatically open them; and the connecting hallway from Pierpont Center, whose doors do not have buttons. The lack of buttons coming from Pierpont is mitigated by the fact there is always at least one door locked in the open position, but during busy hours it is often convenient to push through one of the un-propped doors, so this is an unfortunate circumstance. From a sensory perspective the building is composed entirely of glass and stone or brick, employing a lot of natural light when it is available and mellow earth tones. However, the lighting is fluorescent, and this is Michigan; we do not have natural light for most of the day during almost the entire school year.
Image description: A map of the Duderstadt center emergency escape routes.
Once inside the building one must navigate it. As is endemic to most nonresidential buildings, the escape map makes no note of how to manage exiting if one is disabled, and the sole elevator has the standard sign saying not to use it in the event of a fire.The map also employs no braille or other methods for communicating with people who have difficulty taking in pictures or words, such as the B/blind or dyslexic.
Image descriptions: Top left: looking through double doors with a door button into a study space with tables around pillars, surrounded by rolling chairs. The study space is also the center of a four-hallway junction. Top right: One of the Duderstadt Design Labs, a space reservable for classes and club meetings. The sliding glass door is propped open. Inside is a collection of different types of tables and chairs. Bottom left: A door to the entrance of a classroom housed inside the Duderstadt; it does not have a button, and is a heavy wooden door. Bottom right: A hallway between classrooms, with double doors at the end; the doors do not have a button, and are also heavy push doors. The lighting is directed towards the walls rather than the floor, leading to a softer lighting despite the use of fluorescents.
Image description: Left is a hallway, again with the lights directed towards the walls. There are lockers on the side of the hall. Double doors leading outside are at the far end; they do have a door button. Right is a computer lab, with both standing and sitting desks. The height of the desks appears adjustable, but I was not able to get inside to test if they can be lowered to an appropriate height. There are wide lanes between tables, 6-8 feet estimated visually. The doors, again heavy wood, do not have door buttons.
Once inside and oriented, there are three floors. The locations on the main floor are the basis of the descriptions above. With the exception of an appalling lack of door buttons, there are many nods to accessible design here. All hallways are respectably wide, enough for two wheelchairs to pass each other comfortably. The lighting is fluorescent, but it is generally muted in some way. This maintains an environment which is bright enough for the low-vision while gentle enough for the photosensitive.
Image Description: Left is a placard that reads “ACCESS CARD REQUIRED//IN CASE OF FIRE USE STAIRS.” Center is a picture of the elevator to which the plaque is attached. Right is a picture of the same elevator on the second floor, where it has a similar placard which identifies it as a service elevator.
The curious case of the unusable elevator. There is only one elevator in the building, which has some wonderful artwork (unfortunately it is not included here because the pictures came out very blurry, although it is a pleasant case of artistry in accessibility). The building is very large, boasting a quarter million square feet. To have only one elevator despite having four entrances, five if you count the maintenance entryway blocked off to the public, is frankly absurd. The service elevator is on the opposite side of the building and could lessen this problem substantially, but it is locked to student ID access. Having been a maintenance worker for a time myself, I understand the need for staff-only spaces, but other university buildings manage this much better, and without compromising accessibility, by attaching a lift to the same shaft as an elevator so that staff and students can use their respective spaces.
Image Description: Two study spaces. Left: With cubicle-style desks, printers, and large public screens. Towards the back there are a variety of other types of desks and tables. Right: Three lines of benches with desks, and doors to individual study rooms in the background.
The second floor study spaces are decently accessible. The lighting is harsh and the surfaces are a monochrome white, but carpeting and engineered hollows muffle sound. There are a variety of spaces and furniture types available to suit diverse student needs–accessibility is often found in expanding the available options. Some of these spaces are wall-facing and enclosed on three sides, producing the effect of an isolated room without the square footage or rigidity such a thing would require. This produces one of the few public study spaces on campus where one can stim (at least physically, if not auditorily) without fear of social stigma.
I just wanted to note this water fountain, if briefly. Accessible water fountains bring me joy when found in public.
Video of opening the door: https://photos.app.goo.gl/J8FWEV3CMTbXV2YL9
The following paragraph functions as image descriptions for the above. Not mentioned is the small list of guidelines for room use posted on the door.
On the second floor there are many reservable study rooms, which can be reserved for any purpose. They have many admirable accessible features. The light level can be adjusted, the doors swing easily in addition to having a door button, and there are large white boards and computer screens with adjustable heights.
Image Descriptions: Top left: A service desk among the shelves, usually staffed by a student employee, with a raised chair and desk. Top right: A picture of the shelves–significantly less than three feet is between them, and a support column consumes a significant amount of what space is there. Bottom left: A metal and glass door without a door button. Bottom center: Double doors without a door button. Bottom right: A door without a door button.
If you read the image description you will notice a theme, which I am considering calling the tragedy of the third floor. This is the least accessible space I have encountered on campus, and that is not a record which is easy to obtain. There are no door buttons. The shelves are too narrow–not even up to ADA standards, which was passed before this building’s construction. (Supposedly an institution which regularly sends staff to testify before congress, with one of the foremost public policy schools in the world and one of the most prestigious architecture programs in the midwest, did not know about the stipulations of a law passed six years before the multi-million dollar construction project. Renovations to fix this are supposedly in planning stages.) The staff service desk is in excess of five feet off of the ground, which provides insight into who the designers envisioned working in the library.
Image Description: Left: A landing, overlooking the bottom two floors of the building. There are two swivel chairs, low to the ground, and a small table between them. Right: A picture of the top of an elevator on the third floor, which is visible in the background of the picture on the left.
The tragedy of the third floor continues. If the lack of door buttons or other accessible features did not make clear enough who the third floor of the engineering study center is for–or rather, not for–the lack of a student-accessible elevator hopefully will. The elevator does not continue to the third floor, but rather stops on the second and does not continue upwards. The reasons for this can only be guessed at.
Conclusion
This small sample of campus spaces highlight the pervasive and often unnoticed inaccessibility of campus spaces, even those meant to function as communal hubs open to all students. While a bare minimum standard of consideration for wheelchair access is usually achieved, the full complexities of access are often neglected. However, there are also examples of the next steps: buildings that have been designed and renovated to consider a wider array of needs more fully. These cases highlight the potential for the University to improve access, but also more clearly demonstrate how the social context of disability is not only situated in physical contexts, but also in administrative policy, social norms, and digital access to information and resources. Renovations to resolve immediate physical issues in campus buildings constitute an important first step, but must be accompanied by corresponding shifts in University policy, such as reducing accommodation gatekeeping, improving availability of information around accessibility, and countless other small choices that can only be understood on a site-by-site basis. It would require cultivating a culture which acknowledges disability as community members rather than making this very necessary part of us into a them, which would include careful consideration during design processes. An architectural blueprint is incomplete just as surely for lacking elevators and accounting for the installation of ramps as if it lacked gender inclusive bathrooms. The process of developing accessibility is not a simple process without challenges, but it is not a choice waiting to be made: it is an obligation that the University has yet to fulfill, but that offers significant and meaningful improvements for the entire community, within the University and beyond.
Bibliography
“Accessibility.” University Musical Society, ums.org/visit/accessibility/. Accessed 18 Dec. 2023.
Conlin, Molly; Martin, Kai; Shaw-Nichols, Sarah; Gregov, Lilijana; Bellak, Audrey. “Hill Auditorium: A Bridge Between Communities.” Clio: Your Guide to History. November 6, 2023. Accessed December 18, 2023. https://www.theclio.com/entry/173965
Eckert, Kathryn Bishop. “Hill Auditorium.” SAH Archipedia, 17 July 2018, sah-archipedia.org/buildings/MI-01-WA7.1. Accessed 18 Dec. 2023.
