Image: Entrance to the Rotterdam Kunsthal, designed by Rem Koolhass' OMA: a gently sloping floor enclosed in walls of glass, with massive dark cement columns. A small ramp to the left leads up to a sign reading "entree."A friend started this thread at Archinect asking about interesting examples of Universal (specifically wheelchair/walking accessible) spaces, sparking a wide-ranging discussion of what architects can, should, and do design for accessibility and inclusion. My quick observation-- some of the contributors to this discussion are quick to shut down the conversation with comments like "what would be the point" of designing a ramped area/space in a building that is not ADA compliant, or, alternatively, that buildings should not be the target of new design but that better wheelchairs and, indeed, re-engineered bodies should be the way to go. It strikes me that pointing away from the design problem is always an easy way to wriggle out of it. Yes, the ADA like all building codes can be shortsighted, but what does that mean-- keep addressing accessibility just as code and not as a real functional or formal issue in a building? Generally speaking, creative experiments may have gotten us all into a lot of messes but I still think it's worth it. I used the example of the Guggenheim in my post on the idea of a "world without stairs" knowing that Frank Lloyd Wright did not design its interior ramp with wheelchairs in mind-- but to show that the unintended consequences of design decisions can be delightful as well as disruptive (as in the case of the zillions of buildings/landscapes/products designed without thought of what they require of the body).
This thread also makes me more sensitive to the obstacles architects face to innovation, given that they have no more severe critics than their colleagues. And yet.. does all the criticism produce better architecture?
(side note-- Susan, if you are reading this, I can't comment on Archinect without being a member, but you might be interested in a few posts on Wheelchair Dancer's blog about her and her partner's and their architects' design process for ramps inside their house: for example 1 2 3.)
Posts
3 comments:
Gary, my blog is not read by many people but I would like to write a post at some point about memoirs, so will keep yours in mind too.
i'd counter, bess, that almost everyone is a more severe critique than architects' colleagues, but that each have their own primary concerns and agendas - very seldom understanding the huge number of stakeholders that might have an interest in a given project.
ada has been a huge action because it has given architects the authority (basically) to say that accessibility is necessary. without it, we had very little leverage to be innovative with accessible solutions. believe it or not, a lot of clients still 'allow' it begrudgingly.
universal design has become a focus for a lot of the work i pursue and, as i note in the archinect discussion, architects wanting to believe that their buildings provide some sort of beautiful positive experience but don't recognize that that MUST mean universal design are blindered.
thanks for your blog. i've been enjoying it.
steven ward
steven-- thanks for your comments. It's interesting that you say that ADA gives architects leverage w/ clients-- that makes sense. So often I hear the reverse-- that it makes architects "tack on" accessibility rather than integrate it because there are so many rules involved. I think it may be a question of scale-- do you get to make an ideal Universal Design project for one or two clients, or ADA-compliant for all of them. Thanks for reading!
Post a Comment