Anti-discrimination legislation as a basis for barrier-free design:
How could the Americans with Disabilities Act be adapted for the U.K.?
Pauline Nee, London Borough Islington Architects Dept., United Kingdom
My experience is as a designer for a local authority in London and before
that as a community worker. In autumn 1989 I spent three months in the USA
looking at design for people with disabilities in that country. I am non-disabled
myself so I do not speak on behalf of any disability group. I shall confine
my presentation to the areas with which I am familiar and examine the relevance
of legislation in producing accessible buildings. To summarize my position
I feel that we in Britain can learn much from the U.S. experience. However
I feel it would be wrong to confine this to an examination of their legislation.
This positive legislation is a result of and response to the strong disability
lobby and a developing philosophy on rights of access.
What I learnt in the U.S.
My stay in the U.S. proved to me that Americans are way ahead of the British
in creating a barrier-free environment. Commentators on the contrast between
the two countries have put this down to the differing political and cultural
traditions. The importance of the individual and concepts of self-help are
very much part of the American dream. This has lead to a demand by people
with disabilities that they lead independent lives. Eliminating artificial
barriers has always been a foremost demand. In Britain the attitude is different
and provision for disabled persons is too often regarded as a charitable
dispensation rather than an inalienable right. The story of bar owners who
display 'Guide-dogs for the Blind' collection boxes while not allowing guide
dogs in their pubs reflects a not untypical attitude.
The U.S. did not always have this positive attitude. During the last century
some states had passed 'ugly laws' barring disabled people from public places
on the basis that their presence was offensive and posed undue legal liabilities.
By contrast, Britain took a positive approach, passing the Disabled Persons
Employment Act at the end of World War II, to ensure troops of employment
on their return from overseas. This act however was never seriously implemented.
In 1970 and 1981 other acts were passed but as these encouraged rather than
demanded barrier-free design, they had no significant impact on accessibility
in the U.K. It was not until 1985 that mandatory legislation was incorporated
into the Building Regulations and this is minimal in scope.
Since the 1960s the U.S., by comparison, has produced a significant and
extensive body of legislation which has had a very real impact on the lives
of people with disabilities. This legislation has been backed up with extensive
powers of enforcement and monitoring. In true American fashion, it has also
lead to successful litigation. When I was in San Francisco a student at
the University of California, Berkeley was awarded over £250,000 because
she could not enter a newly renovated restaurant.
The disability lobby
I came away from the States convinced that we could learn important lessons
from the disability lobby. Action which had lead to success included high
profile campaigns; direct action; intensive networking across the country,
incorporating independent living centers, pensioners' groups, enforcement
agencies, architectural practices; and perhaps most importantly, leadership
of the movement by people with disabilities.
We can learn from their philosophical and their pragmatic approach, the
latter being they do not want separate facilities as these will not be attained
or repaired if they serve a small proportion of the population.
The effect of legislation
Not least we can learn from American mistakes and make sure that we avoid
them. It has a bearing on the subject matter of this seminar that many of
the mistakes are related to the role of legislation. Legislation has created
many of its own problems:
Those agitating for legislation had to compromise with other vested
interests so standards adopted by statute are invariably minimum standards.
Designers have adopted these minimum standards and designed down to
them.
Those minimum standards have become a textbook for future generations
of architects.
In essence, legislation falls far short of perfection if it does not win
the hearts and minds of designers. If designers are not convinced of the
need for access and feel their design is being compromised it will result
in half-hearted accessibility. I empathized with the director of the Massachusetts
Architectural Access Board who claimed, at a public meeting I attended,
that architects had developed punk designs in order to make access an unacceptable
aspiration. I saw very many ugly ramps, probably installed resentfully,
during my stay in the U.S.
Legislation can also mean expensive - designing special features for a minority
group. In U.S. trade literature, products complying with the standards are
highlighted with the access symbol. I was told by many designers that the
symbol signifies to them expensive and unattractive.
Universal design
So we can learn from U.S. mistakes but we can also learn from their changing
philosophy and adopt the concept of 'universal design'. The development
of language reflects the changing needs and aspirations of society. When
the disability lobby got under way in the 1960s, it demanded 'design for
people with disabilities'. In the 1970s the demand changed to 'a barrier-free
environment' to reflect the notion that people were as handicapped by the
built environment as by their individual disability.
Today the American disability lobby uses the term 'universal design' to
reflect the notion that it is possible to design an environment which benefits
a whole society rather than designing for a proportion of the population
and adapting this with special features to cope with the physical limitations
of the rest.
Universal design stresses that most people will at one time or another benefit
from accessible design - children, parents with baby strollers, people recovering
from an accident or anyone who is carrying a heavy bag, and of course the
family, friends and associates of anyone with a disability. Following this
philosophy one can think of designing for people with disabilities as an
opportunity, not a restriction on creativity.
To conclude, as a designer, I think we need to go beyond legislation in creating
an accessible environment. I am however aware that there is a growing demand from
disability groups, trade unionists and others to pass strong anti-discrimination
legislation and I would support the notion, based on our experience in Britain,
that encouragement of good practice is not sufficient. In Britain we already have
sex and race equality legislation enforced by the Equal Opportunities Commission
and the Commission for Racial Equality. These have had some limited success. I
believe that if we are to go along this path for people with disabilities, we
can learn much from examining the extent and depth of American legislation and
enforcement procedures. the detailed requirements encompassed in the ADA, as outlined
by Marilyn Golden, would reflect a huge step forward in accessible provision.
