deconstructing 'visitability'

Ruth Murrow

Building regulations are strangely fascinating documents. They are put together under the most fastidious of circumstances by people who employ exactitude as a way to contain political pressures. Surprisingly the introduction to the building regulations resembles in part a moral manifesto, it states that they are there to 'provide, in relation to buildings, for the health, safety and welfare of persons'. At the same time these regulations are deliberately conceived as a document of minimum standards. They represent the last stand against any ill-considered or unscrupulous actions of a building industry intent on easy profit. Despite their restraint, the interests and tensions which exist in our society are imbedded in the text. As a socio-political document, an examination of each section, sub-section, paragraph, or word potentially offers an insight to our times.

The revision to Part M of the Building regulations that came into effect on January 2001 introduced a new term to our vocabulary : visitability. Disregarding the suggestions of the spell checker and avoiding the political hype that equates 'visitability' with social integration, visitability is quite simply about coffee, biscuits and a pee� in someone's home... where one of the participants is a visitor� and where the visitor is a person with a disability. It wouldn't be in Part M (Access for People with Disabilities) if it didn't address disability.

So how have we arrived at a point where a term needs to be invented to repackage a fairly normal activity ? It is of course not the act of visiting that causes the difficulty rather the needs of the visitor. But even then, when analysed, the visitors needs can be met simply by ensuring that the elements which accommodate the visit, i.e. doors, rooms and WC, are on the same level and 'big' enough to manage the disability. This seems like pretty basic stuff.

However those organisations representing people with disabilities have had to lobby long and hard for the concept of visitability to be written into the building regulations and for good reason. As architects we have proved ourselves unable to design in a way that includes people with disabilities. The problem stems from society's general lack of understanding of disability but it is reinforced by the fact that we, as architects, are inclined to design in the image of ourselves, 'ourselves' being a relatively privileged and 'able' section of society.

The lack of knowledge about disability is surprising given the figures : 1 in 10 Irish people have a disability and approximately 1 in 5 households have a family member with a mobility problem. Its relative invisibility is of course due to the fact that the built environment is barely accessible to those with disabilities. In recent years there has been an increase in the provision of housing which specifically accommodates people with disabilities but the difficulty in socialising beyond this 'special' world ensures that disability remains largely unseen and persistently misunderstood. Instead disability is perceived as a state of 'otherness', being associated with uncomfortable and at times distasteful images. It seldom inspires a creative response and is usually believed to be the domain of architects with heart but little design talent.

The building regulations mirror society's segregation of disability by placing 'access for people with disabilities' within one part : Part M. The revised Part M however is straining under this containment. Within its text it acknowledges that 'buildings should be accessible and usable by everyone, including people with disabilities.' Going further, the minister for the environment said at its launch, that the changes 'benefit not only disabled members of households and disabled visitors but all householders and their families.' This indicates the start of a shift in perception. It seems that by addressing the needs of people with disabilities we might learn how to better address the needs of the wider population.

In reality, the line between disabled and non-disabled is difficult to draw ; the definition of disability being fluid and expanding. As our society becomes more adept at staying alive for longer, we will soon reach a point where 'the other' will include and eventually become 'us'. Perhaps before then, Part M will be dissolved and its technical guidance, addressing access for all people, will finally be dispersed throughout the building regulations. At that point the regulations will be less an indication of where we are and more a statement about where we need to be.

Ruth Murrow is an architect and is currently teaching at the University of Sheffield.