The ADA doesn't allow new buildings to not comply, unless the job itself couldn't be done. Thus the roof can be not accessable, but only maintanence goes there and job has many parts that cannot be done in a wheelchair
It doesn't seem irrelevant to me. It means there's a broken system and the regulations aren't hitting the right spot. Responsibility is being split in a way that allows the accomodation to never happen.
It's irrelevant because it has no relation to what ADA says about accommodations being made. Even if the ADA proscribed that new constructions had to have reasonable accommodations, it wouldn't really change anything about the fact that the ADA doesn't mandate accommodations in all circumstances, reasonable or not.
Please explain how the fact that the ADA only requires reasonable accommodations is a failure of the ADA model? It's just a model. You're talking about it's implementation and practice in the world, I am just correcting a common misconception about what the ADA actually requires as it currently exists.
The failure is that the accomodations would be reasonable, but the disconnect between builder and buyer lets the bad design get solidified.
And someone else already replied saying the ADA forces new buildings to comply. So if we did that with planes in this comparison, new models would fit more people out of the factory. Would have done so for decades.