To think that any one who designs a town, building, theme park or attraction should have to spend the day navigating it in a wheelchair?

[Flufferblub]

Needed a wheelchair on some days since my early 30s, and the experience has been eye opening. Some spaces seem well designed such as airports, but others it feels like disabled people are a complete after thought. Even in new places that have just been built in the past few years. You can understand in historic towns and places, but if some where has been designed and built in the 21st century, you'd think that they'd put a button to open the disabled toilet door.

The people who design and run these places need to spend a day getting around in a wheelchair. Design it with wheelchairs in mind first, and everyone else will be alright. Who doesn't like a ramp and automatic doors any way?

If you became disabled at my place of work you wouldn't be able to get in the building much less to the first floor offices . Apparently old buildings don't need to be disability compliant . We had a lady who needed a hip replacement and she has to WFH.

So employ a wheelchair user or two for a couple of days.

Also a blind person, a deaf person etc etc.

Some things that can seem like a good idea often are not when someone actually tries to use what ever it is.

I went to a meeting of the 'disabled people's parliament' in Birmingham many years ago.

The hotel claimed to be, "fully accessible" which no where can be.but.

The reception was up three stairs.
The car park was under the hotel with stairs but no lift.
The meal was a buffet.
The loop system didn't work, because the decorators ho had been in the week before didn't know what it was so removed it.
To get to the disabled toilet you had to get into the ladies or the gents, the doors were wide enough for wheelchairs but then there was a big square column type thing.

As the parent of a long cane using child, I also add to this discussion the needs of visually impaired people?

It's not that they don't 'need' to be, it's often that they are either listed buildings and cannot be altered as it would compromise the structural integrity of the building. Or that due to how the building was constructed, there's no physical way of altering it without knocking half of the building down, due to the much sturdier materials used to construct the building, such as stone etc.

Yep. A friend of mine worked for the School of Architecture a while back, another area overly dominated by fit young white men. Only one of the lecturers got his students to think out of the box like this and actually consider what it's like to have to try to navigate the world with a disability. He's a professor outside the UK now and a great loss. I think town planners could also do with an injection of empathy.....

It’s appalling, my mum has significant complex needs including using a wheelchair and it’s not understood.

I also think there’s a trend of thinking that ground floor means accessible when it’s clearance, smooth floors, manoeuvrability. Saw it most recently in a little gift shop saying they’re accessible when you couldn’t fit my mum’s chair through the doors and would knock over multiple displays once you were in the shop if you tried.

I feel like there should be government grants that could be offered for things like fitting accessible toilets in pubs as so few have them but equally I can understand how a small business can’t invest in that kind of infrastructure.

For example, in the next town to me there's a building that's being used as a 'Ye Olde Shoppe' that was constructed in the 1600s. The building itself is absolutely tiny and any attempt to make it accessible would almost certainly result in the building collapsing

YA so NBU! I spent most of my 30’s needing crutches / a wheelchair / a mobility scooter and it was an incredibly eye opening experience. So many buildings that were inaccessible altogether. Either no dropped curbs at all, or they still had a lip at the bottom, meaning you could only go up or down them backwards (not easy in the few seconds a pedestrian crossing might give you!) So many things that would actually be easy fixes that just weren’t thought of. I think there needs to be a complete overhaul in planning law / procedures to take account those who have different needs.

My mother's local town has had a huge redevelopment to the section that leads to the shopmobility (you know, where the disabled parking is) bit. So a redevelopment designed and signed off in the last 10 years.

For some insane reason the entire walkway leading to/from the shopmobility and the shopping area is canted - the only part of it that's actually horizontal is criss crossed with dipped drainage channels or the flower beds.

It's a nightmare trying to safely push a wheelchair through that section and not tip my mother into the flower beds. I can't even imagine how much more difficult it would be for someone to navigate it themselves. I'd also expect people who have visual impairment to struggle on the section.

As for buildings access, the amount of places...including hospitals that have bumps on the floor in doorways is nuts. Have you ever tried to get a wheelchair over one of those without causing the wheelchair user more pain? Impossible!

This is the 21st century, we are constantly being told we need to be inclusive but day to day councils, hospitals, government officials, businesses don't actually try to be inclusive beyond waving a stupid sodding flag now and again.

As for buildings access, the amount of places...including hospitals that have bumps on the floor in doorways is nuts. Have you ever tried to get a wheelchair over one of those without causing the wheelchair user more pain? Impossible!

This is potentially one of those areas where there are incompatible needs and purposes (not in all cases - it often is just crap design!).

but there can be reasons why a lip at a threshold might be more accessible to some point but less accessible to others. It’s often quite complex to meet all needs (and other requirements that aren’t obvious).

I agree OP. My DF was a lecturer in design, and he used to run a module where he made the students spend time in a wheelchair and wearing a blindfold navigating buildings / transport etc so they could experience the challenges of getting about day to day with a disability, and hopefully design better to meet everyone's needs.

Yes, it should be central to how buildings / public spaces / transport is designed in the first place. It also strikes me (without wanting to sound flippant) as not being terribly difficult to do, PROVIDED people give it some thought in the first place - ie it actually seems fairly obvious to not have unnecessary height differences, where there are height differences to include a ramp, to put buttons to open things at wheelchair height, to make doorways and openings wide enough, to put handrails in certain places etc etc.

100% this.

I think, conceptually, this is one of the drawbacks of a purely social model of disability. There’s some sort of utopian aspiration/hope embedded in it that, if only we could get the design of social and material environments right, no one will be excluded (or disabled by any impairment they may have).

It’s not that this is entirely wrong or anything. But pragmatically it’s not going to work out that way. And some kinds of impairment are going to be experienced as disability in all circumstances.

(I also hate the term impairment, but it’s used in disability studies for a reason).

Inclusive design is so important. But there are always complexities and trade offs. One person’s accessible is another’s totally inaccessible. And it’s not always obvious where these complexities will arise.

Exactly the same in my office. Then once you're into a secure floor, half the meeting rooms and offices have heavy, manual sliding doors which need a real tug to open

it actually seems fairly obvious to not have unnecessary height differences

part of the problem is that accessibility is not the only design constraint in play. There may be other issues that are in no way obvious.

And budgetary constraints … that is very often the biggest barrier. It’s not always immediately obvious why eliminating a height difference might be considerably more expensive.

yes, most people will be parents with a baby in a buggy at some point.

As a parent of small babies, bus travel was only accessible to me when they intorduced the wheelchair accessible busses.

Ideally people with a wide variety of disabilities would be involved in the process. You can obviously never make anywhere fit everyone’s needs but by having a range of people in the discussion you can make it as accessible as possible.

too many places just do a box ticking exercise for disabled facilties rather than thinking what is actually needed.

Yes! I'd add that they should also include people who use mobility aids -they also need accessible buildings but their needs are not always the same as wheelchair users.

I've just spent a few days going to university open days with DD (who uses a mobility aid). I appreciate that a lot of the buildings are old, and accessibility was worked out afterwards, but it was shocking how difficult it was in some places. And that some places had zero signage and you were somehow meant to work out that getting to the only lift involved going in the side door and through a maze of corridors.

I remember being in a newly refurbed outpatient department once, waiting for my (as usual, very late) appointment. In comes the trust CEO and entourage going a PR exercise to show how accessible the new building was. He'd decided (or his PR people no doubt) to do this from an actual wheelchair, although he didn't need one.

There was much fanfare, photos and Hoo-haa. One of the on duty nurses then suggested that he try the disabled toilet that was a door directly off the main waiting area. It turned out that got a wheelchair in there that you couldn't actually close the door 😂😂😂😂. Cue much embarrassment and "erm, please note that down for remedial action" to his beleaguered assistant, and much chuckling behind hands from his staff and 'helpful' suggestions from the smirking staff that maybe it wasn't a problem for him to have a wee with the entire waiting room watching? Appalling design though clearly done by someone with no insight or ability or understanding.

I did then have a bit of fun when the CEO cheerily asked me "well young lady. What do you think of our lovely new building?" Me: "I'd prefer it if didn't have to wait for overrunning appointments for 2-3 hours every time I visit (which was very regularly). He then blamed the consultants for packing their lists too much and that they were incompetent in their scheduling. I answered the case of the overworked drs and asked him to consider , maybe employing more doctors instead of slagging them off? He was mid- blathering some pathetic answer when I finally got called in. Apologising to the consultant for making him wait for me, I explained why, and also what his CEO had just said to me publicly about his incompetence. "Would you mind waiting a few minutes whilst I go and talk to him ?" Asked the lovely consultant. Me: "no problem, full your boots mate". Consultant came back a few minutes later and thanked me for the heads up. I'd love to have been a fly on the wall for that conversation 😬

That CEO, such an imperious wanker. No wonder services for disabled people were so shit. Some PR afterthought for what is a core demographic for hospitals.

I do agree re accessibility though. I despair when new buildings have a beautiful staircases at the front and a titchy scruffy side entrance for people on wheels. Like you're the second rate visitor.

And buttons always high up out of reach.

I'm not a wheelchair user but even I can spot the obvious issues. It's not rocket science to think about it and design spaces that work for everyone. Infuriating.

Fairly obvious to not have unnecessary height differences......if you are designing something to be accessible. Which really, all public spaces / building / transport should be. I would say have a duty to be, surely it's a mark of a civilised society that public life is accessible and possible to navigate for all.

Which may well add costs of course and there will be complexities. But one of the challenges of good design is to meet all the requirements within the allocated budget.

I really think more should be done around disability and street design. I have a blind friend and its mad how many bloody hanging baskets or street signs are at bump your head height. My town has a vision charity that will walk round with the town council when they put new things up but thats only recent.

New larger public buildings should also have to have a changing places toilet installed in them too. Disabled toilet facilties are shocking for most but even worse for those who need hoisting/tables etc.

Yanbu. I was on crutches for part of the summer and that was an eye opener. I am now obsessed with good stair design. Deep steps, holdable (?), not too slippy or chunky hand rail etc.

YANBU to say that buildings should be designed appropriately for all users.

However, YABU to think everyone prefers a ramp to steps - I would actively avoid a ramp given a choice.

I have also struggled when a voice intercom was placed at wheelchair height, as I struggled to bend low enough to make myself heard.

Yes, wheelchair access is essential, but the needs of everyone need to be considered - and that may well involve duel systems to cater for everyone.