Discuss: Refuse to review restaurants with difficult access?

A reader sent me a long note on Facebook, the kernel of which is this:

Five years ago I lost both legs. I have prosthetics,but use my chair when we go out. I now find MANY places I use to visit deny access to me. We feel the TU should not be reviewing any restaurants that remain unaccessable.

What do you think?

While I understand why the reader feels as he does, I would ferociously resist a proposal to ban reviewing restaurants that have difficult access for those in wheelchairs or other mobility issues. Case in point: The Wine Bar and Bistro in Albany. Given its location, in adjoining rowhouses on Lark Street, with a basement entrance, it seems impossible to make accessible by wheelchairs (short of putting a hole in the brick wall around the back courtyard and digging half of it up to make a ramp). To refuse to tell people about one of the most exciting places to eat in the region because of wheelchair inaccessibility would be a ridiculous.

The info box that accompanies every review addresses handicapped accessibility.

Categories: News, Q&A, Restaurants/chefs
Steve Barnes

37 Responses

  1. non_foodie says:

    Agree with continuing to do such reviews, Steve, but accessibility is a point that is worth mentioning in reviews. A restaurant may be wonderful and exciting, but that will mean nothing but frustration to those who can’t enter, navigate or exit the place easily (or at all).

  2. Steve Barnes, senior writer says:

    Steve responds:

    Accessibility is a standing category in the info box that accompanies every review. Detail added to post.

  3. turtle says:

    The reader will just have to find restaurants that are accessible. Its unfortunate but its also life.

  4. Joe Brown says:

    I don’t believe they should be able to open a restaurant that is not ADA compliant. Somehow this is possible? Code enforcement in my town would not allow such things. Since they do and Im a foodie not a ADA advocate, review it.

  5. Commenter says:

    While I can certainly empathize with the reader, I find no merit in banning all such reviews.

    Would you stop reviewing steakhouses because they don’t serve vegetarians?

    Would you stop reviewing restaurants that have no Gluten Free items for those with celiacs?

    Would you stop reviewing sweet shops because diabetics would have a difficult time ordering?

    Would you stop reviewing expensive restaurants because many people can not afford them?

    Where would it end?

  6. derryX says:

    If the TU reviews were giving the impression that a place was accessible and it turned out that information was false, that’s one thing, and it’s clearly not the case. I have friends who are disabled, and regardless of what we read in the newspaper or on the internet, we always call ahead to inquire about accessibility, because, even in cases where a place is accessible, the accommodations may not be optimal; it’s better to find this out before making the trip.

  7. Ed says:

    How selfish of some people to want certain businesses not to exist due to their agenda.

  8. Ann says:

    Wait a minute. Every other building needs to be handicap accessible, how did restaurants slip through the cracks?

  9. Chad9976 says:

    @#4 dude, do you think every single building that’s been standing for literally hundreds of years must undergo massive renovations to accommodates a very tiny percent of the population? It’s called being grandfathered in. It’s Law 101, class 1, day 1, lesson 1.

    That being said, I understand the reader’s plight, but like everyone these days – he’s part of a minority to whom the majority must bend over backwards to accommodate by force of law. I feel for you, but to institute a ban on non handicapable venues (most likely being due to their being grandfathered in under the laws), is silly. Life isn’t fair.

    Here’s a million dollar idea the reader can literally steal from me: invent an app for iphone and android that tells where all the handicapable restaurants and other establishments are. Charge $1 a download. You’ll be rich. Capitalism FTW!

  10. KateC says:

    How are restaurants allowed to be handicap inaccessible? Is it a grandfathering in type of thing?

  11. DanCF says:

    The ADA does not require that all public buildings be handicap accessible; it only states that reasonable accommodations must be made to make it accessible to all people. In some cases, such as the one Steve points out, making a particular space handicap accessible would be near to impossible, and therefore it is not reasonable to expect it. Having said that, I think it is a cop-out simply to say that there is a little box in each review that tells everyone whether or not a restaurant is handicap accessible. I think this is something that the reviewer should bring up with each owner of a non-accessible restaurant in the post-review interview. Some restaurants are not accessible simple because they were grandfathered in, because the building was operated as a restaurant before the ADA was passed. In that case, the owner’s refusal to even try to make the restaurant accessible should be noted in the review. In these types of cases, it is akin to a restaurant not serving blacks because they operated before the Jim Crow laws were repealed. Steve, I think, you are way too quick to dismiss this readers point. I do think it is the reviewer’s responsibility to look further into this point and not simply list the restaurant as non-accessible.

  12. Steve says:

    I have to agree with DanCF (#11). You were extremely quick in dismissing the reader’s point. Gluttony is ugly.

  13. Steve Barnes, senior writer says:

    Steve responds:

    I in no way dismissed the reader’s point. In fact, I thought enough of it to bring it over from Facebook and have the discussion opened to a wider audience. I said I understood why he felt as he does, and I said we include accessibility details in every review, which is more than we do for any other disability (such as mentioning whether a restaurant has Braille menus). And Cheryl Clark, beyond a simple notation of accessible or not, does a good job of being specific about accessibility considerations. About the Klamsteam Tavern’s accessibility she wrote, “Yes, but gravel lots could cause some difficulty on the way to the ramp.”

    It’s not a critic’s job, nor are critics qualified, to determine how well a restaurant complies with ADA and, if it’s lacking, to grill the owner about the shortcomings. There are legal procedures in place to promote compliance, and if an exposé needs to be done, that would be the job of investigative reporters, not the dining critic.

  14. Chad9976 says:

    “it is akin to a restaurant not serving blacks because they operated before the Jim Crow laws were repealed.”
    Wow, really?

    Worst. Metaphor. Ever.

  15. Mark says:

    The person says they are “denied access.” Does that mean that the establishment is not letting them in? The sentence is very vague. Nonetheless, the handicapped person needs to call the establishment to see if the staff can help him/her in. Even though a restaurant does not have a ramp, more than likely the waiters/staff will be able to help the person in on their wheelchair. I always did when I waited on tables. If the establishment cannot accomodate the handicapped person, sorry, but, they will have to go somewhere else. It’s just the way it goes.

  16. SeanB says:

    “I now find MANY places I use to visit deny access to me.”

    Clarify that. Was he actually told he can’t be served? Or was the place simply not accessible?

  17. DanCF says:

    #13 Chad, a bit over the top, perhaps, but the worst ever? Blacks were not served in all-white restaurants simply because of the color of their skin. A restaurant that refuses to make a simple accommodation, such a replacing a small stair with a ramp, or widening a door way, is refusing service to person simply because of his or her disability.

  18. Lilly says:

    This reminds me of an MSNBC.com article just this morning that was in essence, warning the disabled from Canada and the US to be aware that London is not as handicapped accessible as we are accustomed to in terms of transportation for the Olympics. Same thing as this, and I work for an architecture firm, so I know all about ADA compliance. You can’t expect someone to spend a million dollars to install a ramp and widen doors and aisles and adjust tables, and in some cases add elevators in buildings that were built prior to 50 years ago just to accomodate a small percentage of the population, it would put undue strain on the business. In the case of London transportation, they were talking about bus shelters and the metro stations (mind the gap!) can’t be retrofitted appropriately. Also the Paris metro was mentioned.

    You can’t expect 100% compliance by everyone in these situations. Why hate the restaurant owner so much if it clearly is something that could put him out of business all together?

  19. Mr. Sunshine says:

    Really? So unfair. It also pisses me off that handicapped people are denied access to great mountain vistas because of those discriminatory hiking trails. Really!

  20. DanCF says:

    Steve: “I see your restaurant is not handicap accessible.”

    Restaurant owner: “Yeah, what’s it to you?”

    Steve: “What do you think it would take to make it accessible?”

    Restaurant owner: “Stop bugging me. No more soup for you!!!”

  21. theshakes says:

    @#14- seeing that disabled persons are a protected class, just as race, color, relgion, sex, etc., makes it more of a good metaphor, than a terrible metaphor.

    ADA laws do not allow for “grandfathering” when renovating buildings as #9 said, except in the case of buildings that are either individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places, or designated as historic under a State or local law, so long as the proposed renovation to make them ADA compliant will compromise the historic nature of the building. With that said, I think it’s a bit much to discount all restaurants that are not ADA compliant from being reviewed, so long as a note is made in the review acknowledging ADA access or lackthereof. Afterall, a food critic should not have to know the ins and outs of what constitutes ADA compliance or not.

  22. K says:

    I don’t think the black/white analogy stands. There was no incremental cost/effort to serve blacks, other than the effort some whites needed to make to accept blacks as fellow human beings. The accessibility issue is generally different in that there is typically a cost involved in providing access, both in terms of ingress/egress, potentially “extra” space to allow a wheelchair to maneuver and park, and also that the bathrooms must also then be accessible. For a smaller business in an existing building, the costs could be pretty significant. Its a different matter where you are talking about public buildings providing required services, i.e., schools, courts, municipal offices, etc. These clearly need to be accessible.

    Reviewers have no business functioning as advocates in these cases, unless they so desire. Simply letting readers know the situation is sufficient.

  23. Goldenjake says:

    Thank you Lilly……some people are incredibly self-centered….not to mention clueless about business

  24. Buck Peterman says:

    The handicapped should boycott establishments that offer no accessibility!

  25. Phil Lander says:

    Businesses often spend thousands to make a business handicap accessible. They jump through all kinds of hoops to be compliant. Sometimes though it’s not up to the biz owner. I have a buddy who owns a bar in a building that’s deemed historic. From what I understand, a ramp would have compromised the historic character of the building so no changes were allowed in regards to a ramp to use to enter. However, on the inside he has the bar lowered, bathrooms adjusted, etc. I think it would be foolish, as some of you have suggested, to blame the owner for some of the handicap shortcomings when we don’t know the whole story.

  26. Bill In Glens Falls says:

    1. The places should not (cannot?) deny access.

    2. (Apology if I sound crass). The vast majority of readers have both legs.

    You write to your majority.

  27. Maggie says:

    #19 Mr. Sunshine: Please don’t dismiss efforts to accommodate those with physical limitations so flippantly. Obviously, parity of access is not possible in all locations, but as #11 DanCF and #12 Steve mentioned, it is the accommodation for them that they seek; not a guarantee of access. In the Adirondacks High Peaks area, for example, there are access roads that are open only to emergency vehicles and those used to provide access to areas inaccessible by many. These people may now enjoy these semi-remote areas by using these roads, which are closed to the general public. I’m sure you would agree that this is not an unreasonable accommodation.

  28. Josho says:

    There’s a difference between “denying” access (which implies that the owners are deliberately and actively attempting to prevent access) and simply offering reasonable access which various people may or may not be able to utilize through no fault of the owners.

    Using the word “denying” makes it sound as if the owners are deliberately refusing access. That’s an unfair and prejudicial characterization. Wheelchair can’t navigate the stairs? Maybe you can be carried. Health aides have to do this regularly for their clients in all sorts of situations. Should every building in the country for which a ramp is an impossible (or impossibly expensive) alteration be razed, or at least barred from housing commercial establishments?

  29. Colin M says:

    The definition of reasonable accomodation seems to be pertinent here. In the case of the wine bar on Lark Street, the tables at the sidewalk cafe seem to be a suitable option for anyone who can’t make it into the restaurant itself. A simple phone call in advance to the establishment asking for one of those tables to be held would probably solve the dilemma, weather permitting, of course. Reasonableness works in both directions.
    Many historic buildings have been satisfactorily ramped. There is a brownstone a couple doors east of my house that was attractively modified a few years ago. Such ramp modifications don’t have to be budget busters, although they will clearly be an expense. But perhaps that expense would be offset by being able to have the customer base of the business expanded.
    A larger and more expensive issue is the bathroom modification requirements of ADA. Most businesses located in buildings similar to the Wine Bar have amazingly teeny bathrooms already. Not only is it ridiculously expensive to rip those out and replace them with something new that meets ADA, but the amount of square footage that such a project would eat up would make the commercial lease on the space absurd. I can’t imagine how a business owner would overcome that obstacle.
    Steve- here’s an idea for you. Why don’t you challenge the creative architecture and engineering types from, say RPI, to come up with some design solutions for some of our handicapped accessibility-challenged dining spots that don’t involve creating a bathroom with a 5 foot turning radius? Or some new ideas on ramping entryways. Seeing design alternatives might encourage some business owners to bring their buildings into compliance with this terribly complex law.

  30. EZ says:

    Unlike in the segregated south that could deny blacks from any establishment they wished, access to eat from the restaurant isn’t being denied based on your handicap. You could order their food and ask them to bring it outside to your car.

    In a fair world, restaurants would be able to create ways to be handicap accessible and for the most part they are. If the review mentions the lack of accessibility, they are doing their job.

  31. hotrod107 says:

    i hope yopu nay sayers are never in a chair. you would be the first screaming bloody murder that you capable of getting in.

    i have a relative whos adult life is being spent in a wheelchair. it sucks but he has adjusted to it. one more slight against a aging segment of our population, 60 plus age group.

    old people have the discretionary imcome to dine out more than young people.

  32. Sometimes curious says:

    For all you attorneys and those of you who think you are…..given that many Albany area restaurants are in leased spaces wouldn’t it be the responsibility of the building owner (and not the restaurant owner)to make the building accessible??? Just askin’.

  33. Uncle Joe says:

    Who said the world was perfect. I have a friend that requires a wheelchair. We have no problem finding restaurants that are wheelchair accessible serving ALL kinds of ethnic foods. For example–there might be some Italian or Asian restaurants she cannot get into, but there are many many that she can. Same for watering holes. As one reader suggested–if she likes a particular chef/meal from a particular restaurant she calls ahead and they will bring it to her car. Try getting around in China or Bavaria or Africa.

  34. Cheryl Clark says:

    I am a former restaurateur who spent six months using a wheelchair after an accident. I think every restaurant would prefer to be accommodating in every way to every customer, but there are situations where it can’t be done. We opened in a vintage diner nearly 20 years ago that was grandfathered under the ADA. Major interior renovations were necessary, but we were told we couldn’t make structural changes to the exterior without a lengthy site plan approval process that would have made it financially impossible for us to open without exhausting our seed money. The building was a pre-existing nonconforming use on an undersized lot, and if we had tried to make structural changes, we would have lost the exceptions that made it possible to run a business there at all.

    We were, however, very interested in ADA compliance. Many of our long-time customers from previous locations used wheelchairs. We thought we had a verbal understanding with town inspectors about an exception for ADA compliance and proceeded to pour a concrete ramp at a side of the restaurant not visible from the street. We were in the process of cutting a new entrance to the ramp in the wooden building attached to the historic diner when town inspectors shut us down and fined us heavily for making exterior structural changes without site plan approval. Apparently the owner of the neighboring property objected to the insufficient side yard clearance, which didn’t meet modern day code.

    We ended up being forced to rebuild the wall over the doorway and chip out the concrete ramp, and we were allowed to open after a four month delay. Our customers with wheelchairs showed great tolerance over the next decade as we lifted their chairs over the unwieldy front steps, or rigged a temporary ramp through the kitchen for the larger, motorized wheelchairs. It always bothered us deeply that our attempts at reasonable accommodation under the federal law were considered impossible under the local law, but sometimes you play the hand you are dealt.

    My next restaurant was a renovation, and I was thrilled that the building was completely accessible from the outside. Once we began the interior changes, we were again dismayed to realize that there was no way to build a ramp to the lower dining area (two steps down) without losing a full third of our seating. We were ADA compliant because of ample seating on the entry/bar level, but even I couldn’t get to the lower dining room while recovering from my accident without having the staff lift my chair over the steps. One of our favorite customers preferred the lower level, and we always planned ahead to make sure she was safely and quietly helped with the steps.

    These combined experiences make me, as a restaurant critic, more aware of how easy or difficult it is for customers with special needs to have equal access, and I try to note obstacles in my reviews. But some of the best venues in this area would not exist at all if they were required to be fully accessible under current ADA standards on all levels. There is a difference between denying someone service because of a disability and making the arrangements needed to accommodate based on the limitations of the space.

  35. Alex says:

    Steve and Cheryl have made their points pretty well. One thing that I would like see added to reviews is whether or not the restrooms are wheelchair accessible. This would be a tremendous service to your loyal readers.

  36. Jack says:

    You forget people with physical disabilities do not choose to be in the “minority.”

  37. Joyce Singer says:

    I think that it is important to mention whether or not a restaurant is accessible. To say it is “ridiculous” not to review any is kind of dismissive. Surely you can say this another way.