Accessibility (3)

Increasingly, the need to have wider and bigger turning radius and dimensions for wheelchair users and their wheelchairs are being debated. Even the recent British Standard 8300: 2001 - Design of buildings and their approaches to meet the needs of disabled people, had been criticised for not giving more reserach into this problem.

In a recent posting of an e-group among accessibility experts, Dave Croft, from Swansea, had mentioned this problem, as follows, "It is unlikely that BS8300 12.4.7. dimensions were ever acceptable, as a typical wheelchair is 1200-1350 long and 700 mm wide (wider for heavy people). This dimension does not take into account the increasingly popular sport style wheelchairs which have a wheel span 900-1000 wide. Nor does it take into account indoor/outdoor or outdoor powered wheelchairs, nor other mobility vehicles. At best this dimension is only suitable for domestic use experience and research since the publication of BS8300 suggests a minimum of 1800 long by 950 wide for general public use clear of the door swing, in sport premises and where outdoor power chairs and scooters etc. need to be accommodated the space needs to be even larger."

When I went to Montreal, Canada, in 2002 for a conference, I noticed that the toilet cubicle doors for accessible toilets have about 1000 - 1100 mm opening. I have never encountered a large opening like this in the UK, and more so in Malaysia.

In Malaysia, I find that people usually use the 'domestic use' type of wheelchair with smaller widths, operated manually, rather than the powered ones used more commonly in the UK. I had assumed that in Malaysia, because of high pavements, lack of gentle sloping curbs, and motor vehicles that could be modified easily and cheaply to accommodate these powered wheelchairs, the users have no choice bu to use manually operated ones. But in the near future and the advent of technology and perhaps cheaper technology, is it possible that more of the powered wheelchairs and sports wheelchairs be mad eand used in Malaysia.

In that case, we should anticipate the building design standards to be achieved when such a need happens in the near future.

Access to Historic Buildings - Case Studies

I would like to share a few interesting examples that illustrate best the current issues on Access to Historic Buildings in England and Wales.

Historic buildings are protected by a listing process. There are currently about half a million buildings in the UK being listed. If any work is needed to be done on a listed building, there will be rigorous scrutiny in the planning approval process after the client submit drawings and reports to the local authority concerned.

Let's quickly jump to the two examples of listed buildings that had undergone alteration, refurbishment and additional work in the last five years, since the Disability Discrimination Act started in 1995. The Act, with reference to the Code of Practice Part 3, requires that the duty is on the service provider to make it possible for everyone, including disabled people, to have access to the services provided.

I have mentioned about the Manchester Art Gallery in earlier postings. Another building is the National Gallery, which faces Trafalgar Square in London. Both buildings are Grade One listed. This means that the buildings are highly significant, usually historically and/or architecturally. After DDA (1995), Manchester Art Gallery was altered and added from the year 2000-2002 and the National Gallery was only recently altered and should be completed by now.

MANCHESTER ART GALLERY

This is the front portion of Manchester Art Gallery, where a gradual ramp was built behind the new plinth from the left side as we face the building. The ramp is hardly noticed, hence it is a good example adhering to the principle of 'not creating any visual intrusions' to the facade of the building.

The Athenaeum building sits behind the front building and is part of the Manchester Art Gallery complex. The was a vacant lot besides the Athenaeum building that now houses the new addition to the gallery.
Most of the ancillary spaces such as the main stairs and lifts were built in the vacant lot. In terms of access for those with impaired vision, the glass threads of the main stairs could appear to be unstable, thus unusable.
The front building, a Grade One listed building originally designed by Sir Charles Barry is about 300 mm lower than the Athenaeum building. The new built was set to be the same level with the Athenaeum building in terms of floor levels. Hence there was a need to have a ramp to connect to the front building's 1st floor. Again, the glass ramp could appear to be a 'void' to partly-sighted people. Further more the gradient of the ramp was a bit more steep than it should, which resulted in people using manual wheelchairs having problems negotiating it.
The architect had intended to accentuate the front building by highlighting and separating the new built and the historic, by providing floor lightboxes. Partially sighted people find walking across them to be scary as they could not make out a 'solid' floor.

THE NATIONAL GALLERY, TRAFALGAR SQUARE

Previously people using wheelchairs had to go much further down to the Sainsbury Wing to use the lifts in order to enjoy the gallery.The middle pavillion has a set of stairs, and so do the two sets of pavillion on the left and right as shown in the photo above.
The idea is to 'push inside' the set of stairs and a lift could be found behind the plinth before the stairs, for people to use. This was ingeniously done to the right plinth as shown in the photo above.

Disability Issues (2)

I had just read Peter Tan's blog entry that also included the Ministry of Family, Women and Community Development's reply to his letter. I had commented on the blog and presented my comments as such:

Hi Peter,

Thanks for sharing with us the letter.
This letter gives us the following facts:

1. MFWCD can only do so much. Write letters to other ministries and state ministers, as they do not have in their power to do more than that. Hence, the suggestion to push for the Disabled Persons Act even more to be passed in Parliament and the demand to have a Commission set-up to enforce the Act. The Welfare Department exists to only facilitate issues concerning disabled people.

2. The letter indicate that MFWCD interestingly enough does know of the three by-laws and the knowledge required to understand accessibility in the country. They even had the minister undergone a simulation awareness exercise. This means, we can lobby further for accessibility.

3. The Director General is the administrative mouth-piece of any ministry and it is common that they write on the behalf of the minister. This means that your matter is purely administrative and not personal. What I am trying to say is that, the minister is telling you that she cannot do more than what she had told you, and that administration means that the jurisdiction of this matter lies with others.

The important lesson here is, we cannot wait any longer. We have to get the Act or a discrimination bill push through Parliament. There's no other way, but to get a STATUTORY BODY WITH TEETH to fight for disability issues.