A project launched to produce a blueprint to futureproof a cherished old building as a visitor attraction has instead left participants scratching their heads after overlooking a key element in the research
The consultation programme for creating a masterplan to guide the development of visitor experience and commercial opportunities at the property appeared to cover all the bases, including a dedicated workshop on accessibility.
However, the limited time allocated raised more questions than it answered, with everyone involved recognising the importance of the principles yet left unsure how to apply them to their own areas of activity.
Not enough is being done to address accessibility requirements
After completing an access audit of the building and its facilities some time ago, we were invited to join the team working on the masterplan.
In planning a new future for the building, the architects leading the project set out to identify the project’s aims and goals and shape a strategy to achieve them.
They ran a series of workshops covering themes such as mechanical and engineering, building condition, and potential use for hospitality and events.
Each session lasted about three hours, except the one we did covering access and accessibility. We were allocated just half an hour.
We pointed out that 20% of the UK population is disabled and they were spending just half an hour – or just over 2% – of the 24 hours of workshop time on investigating and addressing their requirements.
We wouldn’t expect a direct correlation between the number of disabled people in the UK and the time you need to spend assessing accessibility, but this looked as though it had been allocated randomly, as a tick-box exercise.
The participants included staff whose work areas are used by disabled people and who said they would have found it useful to discuss examples and scenarios relevant to their day-to-day duties.
The architect admitted halfway through the dedicated accessibility session that they may have given too little time to the subject.
Accessibility is a cross-cutting theme
We are aware that one other session mentioned accessibility, but only in passing as part of a conversation about how the space was used. The subject may have come up in other sessions, but not to any great extent.
If it was planned in, the architects should have advised people in advance that it would be covered. That way, people for whom accessibility is relevant to their work could have made a point of attending.
But given that people were invited to specific workshops depending on their areas of work and expertise, it seems the problem arose from failing to recognise that accessibility is a cross-cutting theme.
Within the property there are commercial tenants, visitors, staff and contractors. The staff work across a variety of job roles – driving, cleaning, catering, serving, stocking, guiding. That 20% figure could just as easily apply to them as to people visiting the building for leisure use, a meeting, an interview, or whatever.
They all need to be considered.
The building masterplan should have a better understanding of the services needed
A better approach would have been to identify the building areas and the services the consultation was meant to cover, and to consider how people get to those spaces in the first place.
By doing that, you should develop an understanding of the journey and experience for everyone who uses the building, from arriving as a pedestrian, car driver, or public transport user, to navigating the building and leaving at the end of a visit. By not doing it, you increase the risk of denying access to some people.
Making your area of the organisation accessible, and understanding the customer journey, should be a common theme in any department, any organisation, and any masterplan.
The post Blinkered accessibility approach taken to building’s masterplan appeared first on Planning, Building & Construction Today.
