Although the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum is completing a $57 million dollar project which includes placing a gorgeous new facility on the historic site and modernizing the historic Palace, they requested Variances to exempt them from modernizing certain details so that people with disabilities can have equal opportunities to work in, and visit this Museum, same as nondisabled people. The MA Historical Commission supported their request for a Variance by stating,"The MHC has reviewed the proposed variance requests and believes that without the variance, a significant amount of historic fabric would be damaged, required to be removed, or completely altered beyond recognition. Additionally, the museum may find it impossible to meet the intent of Ms. Gardner's will and its mission." This letter, a response from DisAbility Rights advocates to the Museum and MA Historical Commission, was sent to the State Board as testimony during the Gardner Museum's Variance Hearing, November 28, 2011.

1. November 28, 2011
FROM: Boston Center For Independent Living & Community Access Project
Karen Schneiderman, Senior Advocacy Specialist Eileen Feldman, Director
60 Temple Place P.O. Box 434
Boston, MA 02111 Somerville, MA 02143
TO: MA Architectural Access Board
Thomas Hopkins, Executive Director
Donald Lang, Chair
One Ashburton Place - Room 1310
Boston, MA 02108
RE: Public Comments on Application for Variance, The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum
280 the Fenway
Boston, MA 02115
Dear AAB Board and Staff,
The Boston Center for Independent Living and the Community Access Project have a partnership
in reviewing, analyzing and providing comments and recommendations regarding architectural
accessibility topics impacting the Greater Boston area. We submit the following comments
regarding the Variance Application for the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, sent to MA AAB on
July 21, 2011.
The Museum seeks a variance during ongoing reconstruction and preservation work of the historic
Palace Building in order to exempt them from creating useable access for people using wheeled
mobility devices in eight rooms, plus the elevator serving first through third floors; plus, to keep the
historic handrails on the Main stairwell, which also serves First through Third floors, as-is.
1. We ask that the variance regarding the Handrails for the Main Staircase (which serves the 1st
through 3rd floors, as does the existing elevator) be granted.
2. We ask that the Accessible Route decisions regarding the Buddha Room and Spanish Cloister
be continued, so that the architects can examine all possible solutions, including raising and
reinstalling the original floor, to create at least one ramped entry into this room while there is still
an opportunity (the already-planned complete rebuild/restoration of the Buddha Room1). Since
these important sustainable design considerations may also affect a more durable and aesthetic
solution for accessible route into the Spanish Cloister, we include that space for a continuance.
3. We ask that the Elevator and Doorway Width portions of this Variance be denied, since asking
wheelchair users to re-position themselves into narrower wheelchairs in order to save money on
widening and resetting doorways is about as competent as asking non-wheelchair users to re-
1
page 7, text of the application states, "In addition, the Buddha Room will be reconstructed to its
original form."
page 1 of 6

2. position themselves in size 4 shoes prior to entering these six rooms. In addition, since the existing
elevator is smaller than the minimal 48 by 48 inches standards required by some 21st century
wheelchair models, this elevator's accessibility upgrade is a necessity to ensure access for a
broader diversity of potential visitors and staff.
4. We ask that the AAB question why the applicants include
• Gallery Preparation (climate control, packing of objects for storage during reconstruction
work),
• Security and Operations (allowing outside contractors to work within the Museum's public
spaces), and
• Reinstallation (reinstalling stored objects to the historic gallery spaces)
as "additional" and "unique" costs in the application's pricing scheme, when applied to 21st
Century Accessibility upgrades;
yet, these normative costs were not considered additionally burdensome when applied to non-
Accessibility-related renovations in the historic Palace, such as:
! relocating an art installation at the south end of the east cloister;
! fully reconstructing the Buddha Room to its original form;
! completing a decade-long restoration of the Tapestry Room;
! installing new period-style pendant fixtures and fiber optic lights to improve the lighting in
the Tapestry room, Yellow Room and other historic galleries; and
! recovering and reinstalling artifacts and other materials to be displayed "in the historical
perspective as originally intended."
5. We ask that the AAB question why the applicants tack on separate "architectural, legal and
management fees," for each element requiring Accessibility upgrades. This increases the cost for
these feasible renovations by 51%.
Please see pages 5 and 6 for an element-by-element discussion of this questionable costing
scheme.
6. We request a fuller understanding of why the Applicants and the MA Historical Commission
director conceptualize certain Accessibility-related construction and renovation issues as the
prohibitive "loss of historic features" within this "totally preserved" historic site, such as
• moving and resetting the Tambour opening;
• stockpiling and retoothing masonry;
• reframing openings;
• touch-up painting; and
• rebuilding a jack arch
while, at the same time, the original site has been enormously transformed without equivalent
historic preservation-related cautions, including the following:
! removing a total of 12,000 cubic yards of dirt from the site during excavation;
! installing eight geothermal wells, reaching depths of 1,500 feet to provide energy efficient
page 2 of 6

3. heating and cooling in the new building;
! creating an entirely new building within 50 feet of the Palace;
! pouring 110 trucks-full of concrete to form the base of that new building's foundation;
! relocating the Museum's main entrance to Evans Way; and
! creating a new glass atrium entrance to wholly replace the original entrance in order to
physically link the historic palace to the new facility.
7. Finally, we question the presumption that the current stakeholders have any more ability to
discern the "original intent" of Ms. Gardner's will than we or anyone else does.
• We note that Ms. Gardner's will created an endowment of $1 million for the preservation of
the Museum's objects; but that the language does not appear to prohibit necessary structural
improvements that will allow persons with disabilities to enjoy equitable and integrated access
and opportunities, side by side, with nondisabled members of the general public.
Ms. Gardner's will states, “I bequeath all my interest in the pictures, statuary, works of art,
bric-a-brac, furniture, books and papers…in trust as a Museum for the education and
enjoyment of the public forever.”
– Will and Codicil of Isabella Stewart Gardner, 1924
• We note that Ms. Gardner's will also included "sizable bequests to the Massachusetts Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Industrial School for Crippled and Deformed
Children, Animal Rescue League and Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals."2
One of the writers of these comments is an alumnus of the "Industrial School for Crippled and
Deformed Children"(renamed Cotting School).
The "Industrial School for Crippled and Deformed Children" was founded during Ms. Gardner's
lifetime (in 1893) as the nation's first day school for students with disabilities.
We don't believe that the Museum's stakeholders, nor the Massachusetts historical Commission,
has the capacity to presume to understand what Ms. Gardner's considerations would be today,
when it is considered standard and legitimate practice to find solutions to design challenges so that
people with disabilities are afforded non-discriminative, equal, integrated and usable built
environments that are, at the very least, minimally compliant with accessibility regulations, such as
521 CMR, which has been enforced in Massachusetts since 1968.
• We note that the applicant's have interpreted Ms. Gardner's will broadly enough to allow
necessary modernizations of the building's mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems, and
to install new lighting fixtures, and to create a wholly new entrance that is linked to a wholly
new building;
yet,
regarding Accessibility upgrades, such as widening doorways to allow potential staff and
visitors who use wheelchairs into 6 galleries, the interpretation narrows to disallow the
2
http://www.gardnermuseum.org/about/isabella_stewart_gardner
page 3 of 6

4. expansion of door widths in lieu of "alternate accessibility by way of museum-provided
wheelchairs and staff assistance."
Such concepts overlay a definition of dependency upon an entire class of individuals. This
preserves the historic devaluation of people with disabilities as substandard individuals, rather than
keeping pace with modernized 21st century human rights values and ideals.
• We note the Mission Statement adopted by the Board of Trustees, 2000:
Mission Statement
The museum exercises cultural and civic leadership by nurturing a new generation of talent
in the arts and humanities; by delivering the works of creators and performers to the public;
and by reaching out to involve and serve its community. The collection is at the center of
this effort as an inspiring encounter with beauty and art.
Nothing in that statement tells us that the fullest inclusion and nurturance of the talents, enjoyment
and employment of people with physical disabilities is outside of the scope of the Mission and
goals of this world-class Museum and programs.
• Finally, we note that, while there is extensive mastery involved in this Project from the start,
this application was prepared by the Project's Code Consultants, who are noted experts in fire
protection, fire prevention and fire incident forensics- but not Universal Design and
Architectural Accessibility.
We strongly encourage the applicants to invest in hiring master architects who have
demonstrated knowledge in utilizing Universal Design and Architectural Accessibility principles
and codes in order to create usability solutions in the Buddha room, Spanish Cloister and linked
Courtyard passageways, and to check over the Project's existing designs at this time, when the
Museum is closed to the entire public, so that this Project can enable people from all over the
world with a diverse range of physical and sensory attributes to visit, work in, and learn from the
Gardner Museum's offerings, without qualifications and exclusionary distinctions, for years to
come.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Eileen Feldman, Community Access Project
CAPSom@verizon.net
and
Karen Schneiderman, Boston Center for Independent Living
KSchneiderman@bostoncil.org
page 4 of 6

5. Argument that it is "impracticable" includes "architectural, legal and management fees," which
increase the costing estimate as follows:
Elevator Project
In order to enlarge the cab by 2 1/2", the existing cab will be removed. The total cost is estimated
at $203,695.
The estimated sum of the "architectural, legal and management fees" is $102,517 = ~ 50% of the
total estimated cost.
Widening 5 Doorways to 32" :Gothic Room, Long Gallery, Dutch Room, West Cloister, McKnight
Room
Gothic Room. In order to widen the door passage from elevator hall, the masonry opening
and associated finishes would need to be altered and the wooden passage would need to be
altered and relocated. The total cost is estimated at $239,105.
The estimated sum of the "architectural, legal and management fees" is $125,682 = ~ 53% of the
total estimated cost.
Long Gallery. In order to create an accessible doorway, the masonry passage would need
to be widened and the finishes would need to be repaired and replicated. The total cost is
estimated at $149,784.
The estimated sum of the "architectural, legal and management fees" is $83,406 = ~ 56% of the
total estimated cost.
Dutch Room. In order to create an accessible doorway, objects would need to be
temporarily removed and the interior finishes and wall fabric altered. The total cost is estimated at
$213,310.
The estimated sum of the "architectural, legal and management fees" is $119,715 = ~ 56% of the
total estimated cost.
West Cloister. In order to create an accessible doorway, the masonry opening would need
to be disassembled and reconstructed, the deinstallation of a stone relief surround at the door, and
the possible relocation of an adjacent relief sculpture embedded in the south wall of the West
Cloister. The total cost is estimated at $163,348.
The estimated sum of the "architectural, legal and management fees" is $102,382 = ~63% of the
total estimated cost.
McKnight Room. In order to create an accessible entry to the gallery, two doors will need
to be widened. The finishes surrounding both doors would need to be replicated Objects in the
wallspace adjacent to the gallery would need to be removed and relocated. The total cost is
estimated at $204,026.
The estimated sum of the "architectural, legal and management fees" is $107,559 = ~53% of the
total estimated cost.
page 5 of 6

6. Accessible Route Compliance for the Spanish Cloister, Chinese Loggia and Buddha Room.
The Variance states that lifts would be the least invasive, but would still require significant
changes, loss of historic features and "significant cost compared to the increase in accessibility."
Actually, the creation of accessible routes would increase accessibility 100% for people that
require accessible routes, so the applicants appear to be saying that they subjectively do not
consider it a valuable investment to allow people who require accessible routes into these spaces.
In addition, the Project has already integrated a complete re-build and re-installation for the
Buddha room. Therefore, we are requesting that the Accessible Route variance portions be
continued so that the applicants have an opportunity to consider more up-to-date, aesthetic, and
durable solutions for this as well as the linked Spanish Cloister access.
Spanish Cloister. In order to create any access for people using wheeled mobility devices,
a platform and lift would be constructed at the north end of the Spanish Cloister, providing access
to the Chinese Loggia. Historic tile and finishes would be permanently covered in the Spanish
Cloister.
The total cost is estimated at $209,694.
The estimated sum of the "architectural, legal and management fees" is $96,271 = ~46% of the
total estimated cost.
Buddha Room. In order to create any access for people using wheeled mobility devices, a
lift would be provided from the Chinese Loggia into the Buddha Room. "The lift would occupy a
footprint large enough that reinstallation of the gallery would not be feasible."
The total cost is estimated at $205,770.
The estimated sum of the "architectural, legal and management fees" is $95,930 = ~47% of the
total estimated cost.
Main Stairway - Making Handrails Compliant
This is the centerpiece stairway to the Palace Building, connecting the 1st through 3rd floors. The
handrails are currently marble handrail/guardrail on inner side and a brass handrail on outer side
and are each 2 inches or larger in diameter.
Since there is an existing elevator provided to the floors served by the stairway,
it seems reasonable to grant this portion of the variance request rather than alter the historic
fabric of the stairway.
However, the code specialists once again create the impression that "architectural, legal and
management fees" are an extra costing; rather than integrating these into the cost of doing
business, which is to create a world-class museum.
The total cost has been estimated at $95,966.
The estimated sum of the "architectural, legal and management fees" is $32,244 = ~34% of the
total estimated cost.
page 6 of 6