The location is a heritage site dating back nearly two thousand years and important enough that people want to visit it. But without making adjustments, many people will be denied the opportunity to experience the attraction
Is it ok for people to miss out because their impairment makes it impossible for them to navigate the existing routes around the property? Or should more effort be made to create safe approaches? Even if that means sacrificing some of the heritage site?
That’s the question facing the architects, the site owners, and the operators. We think it’s worth losing a small proportion of the property if the outcome is that many more people can enjoy it, but it’s not up to us.
How many more people would find the changes accessible?
Under the proposals for consideration, the area that would have to be given up to accommodate a safer route is about 5% of the entire area. It’s difficult to calculate how many more people would find the changes accessible – nobody knows how many people currently don’t go because they can’t get in!
The question has arisen as part of a consultation to improve facilities – primarily the construction of a new visitor centre, which it is hoped will be complemented by the provision of accessible routes to the main attractions.
Spread across more than five acres, the site includes boundary walls, others that define the remains of historic buildings, and grassy mounds that now cover some original features.
Challenges of providing accessible routes at historic sites
It’s a sprawling site rather than a compact one; the terrain is rough and uneven, which creates challenges when planning accessible routes. There are few opportunities to draw straight lines, and gradients create more issues.
The architect, working for the site’s operator, identified a route that is quite long because, to make it as accessible as possible, they proposed a shallow gradient of 1:15. The site owner’s view is that the plan isn’t appropriate because it cuts across areas of the ruins. Their alternative is a more direct route, but in some areas it has a gradient of between 1:5 and 1:7.
That’s a steep hill, and not accessible. In this scenario, such a feature works against an idea from the site’s operator to provide Trampers – mobility scooters designed for outdoor use on more challenging surfaces.
They’re generally a good idea and, after testing, it was agreed they could work. However, there are some things they can’t do, and the view is that using them with a gradient of 1:5 or 1:7 was borderline and could be dangerous. That’s certainly our position.
Striking a balance
There’s a need to strike a balance on two fronts.
First, with the question of giving up part of the site to improve the accessibility of the rest of it. Losing 5% of such a large site shouldn’t be too much to ask, given that much of the area is grass and mounds that cover artefacts you can’t see anyway. It wouldn’t amount to wholesale desecration of the site, and it would open the rest of it up for more people to enjoy.
The second question is with the gradients. If they’re too steep, going uphill or downhill becomes perilous. If they’re too shallow, it takes a lot of effort over a longer period of time to get where you want to be.
Someone also suggested the more drastic idea of taking down part of the boundary wall to create a new entrance to the site. Everyone recognised that would create problems for the site’s storytelling. By bringing people in through an entrance that previously didn’t exist, the story would no longer fit the reality.
Exploring other options to make heritage sites accessible
The only sure way to preserve the site would be to close it to the public and only allow maintenance crews through the gate. Nobody is suggesting that. The other extreme might be to carpet the site with footpaths and ramps, yards of tarmac and concrete, creating a sound surface throughout, improving access but removing any authenticity or reason to go there.
The operator wants to do its best to make it accessible, but it’s felt that the site’s owner is focusing on heritage, not users. The whole thing is about compromise; progress is slow, and the architects are currently exploring other options.
The post Heritage site revamp needs to balance ups and downs of accessibility appeared first on Planning, Building & Construction Today.
