Accessibility

The use of Universal Design is not considered a basic element of design by many architects. For many decades, people with disabilities have been segregated to specific areas and spaces. Why is so easy for an architect to incorporate new styles and techniques and so difficult to create accessible buildings? It may be budget, ignorance, etc...It may be than it is time for Architectural Schools to explain to students that not all clients are the same and that firmness, commodity, and delight are not selective?

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gautam Trivedi T on March 18, 2008 at 11:58pm

dont " inclusive" and "universal" mean the same thing ?.......mmhmmm....must investigate this......

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Deborah M. Deck on March 19, 2008 at 6:50am

I did a quick search and I found the following definitions:

Inclusive: adjective 1 including all the expected or required services or items. 2 (inclusive of) containing (a specified element) as part of a whole. 3 after a noun between the limits stated: the ages of 55 to 59 inclusive. 4 not excluding any section of society or any party.

Universal: adjective of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases.

Personally, I think the word inclusive is more attractive because it makes you part of something. The term universal sounds open and impersonal. At the end, terms are terms. The important aspect is our efforts to see architecture and accessibility as one and not as separate areas of design.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jelena Pascuttini-Kurdian on April 1, 2008 at 10:52pm

Your comments are always so spot on!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gautam Trivedi T on March 17, 2008 at 12:18pm

C'est magnifique !
Long live Julie !

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gautam Trivedi T on March 18, 2008 at 3:09am

Martian Headsets
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/03/17.html

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gautam Trivedi T on March 18, 2008 at 1:14pm

that is an interesting suggestion. have put that question to dear mr. joel
( joel@joelonsoftware.com) a bit complex for me .....hope he responds, however the info on nvda was an eye opener, thankyou....wonder if anyone on this site can throw some light...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Anthony on April 4, 2008 at 5:21pm

my opinion is that architects don't think about things like this unless they have to. A good example of this is Michael Graves. His buildings ignored those with handicaps until he himself became handicap. Now he's jumped on board to try and create awareness.

The fact stahnds that it's hard to save space with ADA ramps. If you don't know, ADA requires that the slope of a ramp is to be 1:12 (rise:run). This means that for an incline of only 24" the ramp has to be 288" or 24' which is crazy.

Ramps, as far as I know, are the only non-electrical form of vertical transportation that those with disabilities can access (and are in fact the safest because well, in the event of a fire, I wouldn't suggest using an elevator).

Now, I don't want to seem like I don't care about those with dissabilities, I do. I'm just presenting the facts. Feel free to disagree.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael McKenzie on April 15, 2008 at 8:09pm

Kimbo reminds us with exellent examples..that there is often more than the mainstream solution to a problem..and as creators of the built environment it seems to me that the responsibility to find/create/envision those alternative solutions is always OURS.