Hey, there! Log in / Register

State orders Newbury Street sneaker store shut for lack of access for the disabled

The state Architectural Access Board has ordered Converse to close its year-old store at 348 Newbury St. because the entrance does not comply with state accessibility regulations.

In a cease-and-desist order issued yesterday, the board said the sneaker vendor has repeatedly refused to do anything about the lack of access and said the store can only reopen after an inspection shows the store is actually handicap accessible. The store says it has been unable to do the work because of more pressing problems fixing leaks from the neighboring Hynes Green Line station.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
Free tagging: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

First off, they're obviously halfassed attempt at a ramp was such an eyesore and it was disruptive...

Second, the store was pretty crappy and overpriced. I can find better deals on their shoes elsewhere. Not to mention, most of the shoes they did have there were the stupid "skinny" soles, and they offered customization (ie: you can dip it in what looks like food dye to make it look like you dipped it in food dye). They didn't have much selection on clothing either, and what they did have mostly sucked/was overpriced.

Yawn. Love the Chucks, hate the store.

up
Voting closed 0

They chose Boston (of all places in the country) as the location for their first Converse retail store. It is unfortunate that the space they got to launch their brand was so challenged to begin with. There is no excuse for whoever designed that ramp (even an architecture student can tell you that a cross-slope shall not exceed 2% on ramps) though. I think the brunt of the anger should be directed toward the incompetent architect that told the Converse company they would build them an ADA ramp. That's really who the state needs to be shutting down.

I think that this Converse fiasco will unfortunately set an example (whether it is a fair example or not) for future businesses that might want to open a store or furthermore, launch their brand, in Boston. It very well could come back to bite us in the ass.

up
Voting closed 0

You know what this is over?

This is over a 6.5% sideways slant in their brand-new, smoother-than-a-baby's ass, nice and wide handicapped access ramp:

https://secure.flickr.com/photos/artsnsociety/5813...

https://secure.flickr.com/photos/artsnsociety/5813...

The federal regs apparently say 2% maximum, and as you can see, someone has a bug up their ass about that extra 4%. Children, dying in the streets. Wheelchairs tumbled, scattered like seeds in the wind. Cats and dogs, living together. Terrorists "won"ning. Aaaaaaaand meanwhile 3/4 of Newbury street is below-ground or up front steps, nothing "accessible" about 'em. So why is Converse being singled out?

Here's a good example of how fussy our roving reporter friend is:

https://secure.flickr.com/photos/artsnsociety/5777...

See that? A temporary wheelchair ramp during construction...but it's not good enough for our little snowflake. Snowflake is also perplexed by how to navigate the sidewalk when a few items are placed in it:

https://secure.flickr.com/photos/artsnsociety/5776...

Someone fetch me some vapors...it's a 3.8% slant in a sidewalk!

https://secure.flickr.com/photos/artsnsociety/5600...

up
Voting closed 0

Handicapped people don't wer chucks, they wear orthopedic sneakers.

up
Voting closed 0

hey, you go! I hope you ridicule other groups of people with as much wit as you display here.

up
Voting closed 0

anon (not verified)'s get into it!

up
Voting closed 0

Follow them to begin with and avoid being shut down?

up
Voting closed 0

What, do cripples actually want to be able to GET PLACES and DO THINGS now?? Don't they know that they should just sit at home and watch TV all day, like normal Americans?? Geez, the angle of the sidewalk is only THREE TIMES more slanted than it's supposed to be, what's the big deal? These freaks should consider themselves lucky that normal people even let them out in public!!!

up
Voting closed 0

There's no need for all that offensive language.

Do you know for a fact if actual people with disabilities are unable to use this ramp? If not, then your post is useless.

up
Voting closed 0

a)Nobody called you a freak, or a cripple, or said you're not normal. Believe it or not, the general public doesn't hate/despise/pity you. On the street you're barely a blip on people's radar as being a little different, but no more so than the hot or ugly guy/gal next to you, or the dude with the cool beard next to them, or the BU sorority ditz talking too loud to her gaggle of friends, or the person reading Murakami. In fact, standing there taking pictures (blocking the sidewalk!) of a level on the sidewalk (tripping hazard!) probably draws more attention than anything else.

b)Nobody's trying to keep you from GETTING PLACES or DOING THINGS, you little narcissist.

c)Non-Americans like to visit stores too, you bastard (did you see what I did there?)

The objection is that you forced the closure of a store because of a slight slant in the pavement and claimed that the slight slant would cause people in wheelchairs to fall over (bullshit) or those walking to fall, trip, poke themselves in the eye, etc - all a bunch of bullshit.

up
Voting closed 0

Then why is this store one of the few that ignored some pretty basic design criteria that most architects seem to be able to work with - and have worked with - for going on 20 years or more now?

What exactly is the scientific or functional testing that you base your comments on regarding what will/won't happen to people with disabilities who use this out of spec ramp? Please share your sources and we can all learn.

up
Voting closed 0

Just curious, have you ever been to the site? I think it's tough to gauge the complexity of the site conditions from a few pictures on the internet.

up
Voting closed 0

... was based on the assertion that such a high tilt on a ramp would not be a problem.

The criteria for building ramps, which the complaints are based on, says otherwise.

up
Voting closed 0

[snark]They need them to get a good grip on their Segways when they go veering frightfully fast and out of control around the sidewalks, horrifying pedestrians![/snark]

Think about all the "almost sorta maybe nearly hurt somebody" events that can be avoided here!

(ps to the commenter I am replying to: use yer [snark][/snark] tags!)

up
Voting closed 0

Just as a point of reference, the area where that person called out the slanted sidewalk is *not* related to Converse's legal issues. That sidewalk area is in front of the property next door.

up
Voting closed 0

Simple. Because they chose to remodel and update their property, whereas the other "inaccessible" properties you mentioned haven't.

When and if those other owners choose to remodel their stores and properties, they will also be required to make accommodations for the disabled as well.

up
Voting closed 0

I can't believe I took the time to log in and get this up under my name. This is directed to everyone in this stub of the thread.

• I posted this below, but that the second pic is in front of a different store. Presumably any reasonable person would not expect Converse to bring a sidewalk they aren't responsible for into compliance.

• The first pic is very misleading, taken at an odd angle (almost to imply the entire sidewalk is raked more than it is ... along with the building though!)

• I'm not privy to any of the conversations here, but know of a similar situation on a nearby street where the sidewalk had significant cross slope. It took over 10 years of negotiations with various property owners, AAB, the City, the historical groups, and pretty much everyone, to come up with a solution. I'm not saying Converse is right or wrong for continuing to use their temporary ramp.

I'm just saying it's not always as easy as "designing" it right. There are many factors at play.

But by all means, I bet shrieking on the internet will help ...

up
Voting closed 0

Well, gee, a 6.5% cross slope is actually pretty dangerous. Wheelchair users can't stay straight, crash into the rails,or even fall over. But what's that to you?

I've never heard of the Architectural Access Board actually closing down a building, so it turns out that this case is over two years old, and the photographs you included were taken four months ago! The store was given many opportunities to fix the problem, and were continuously given temporary occupancy privileges.

And then, why you go off complaining about a Somerville activist is beyond me. What's your point?

up
Voting closed 0

A process question: the cross slope highlighted on the Flickr is of adjacent properties. How is Converse responsible for the conditions of other businesses?

up
Voting closed 0

is for the ramp, not the sidewalk. the photos that baloney (anon#2) highlighted are not associated in any way with any complaint filed against Converse. baloney's just a good researcher- and jumped to conclusions. Must be that WaveSpring® Technology.

up
Voting closed 0

thanks for all the attention, anon #2

however, the photographer, who you call "snowflake" does not happen to be the organization or individual that filed the worthwhile complaint on this store's inability to provide a minimally accessible entrance.

keep coool, boy- you're sounding like a raging fool.

as for this complaint, thanks to the people who took the time to file it. New construction should obviously comply with current building code. Otherwise, it generates an ongoing safety liability for the public, and a financial liability for the store.

up
Voting closed 0