A Response to Architects Disable: A Challenge to Transform

James Pike

While I agree with Rob Kitchin's basic message that architects need to change their whole ethos and practice in relation to disability, I see this as part of the whole concept of sustainability. This is a relatively new concept and it is therefore not surprising that society as a whole, and architects in particular, have been slow to change.

The movement has been widely adopted in Europe, but Ireland, the most "libertarian" society in Europe, is being made to acknowledge the vital importance of sustainability only by E.U. legislation. Even in a "libertarian" society like the United States, as with the example quoted by Dr. Kitchin, sustainable, inclusive policies have been adopted, where there is an obvious economic advantage.

However, while I acknowledge that there are still many examples of even the current limited regulations being flouted, there are several architects who have adopted the new ethos, and there has been a small band who have developed new social and physical ideas over the last fifty years.

When I was completing my studies in London in the early 1960's, while Le Corbusier certainly ruled the roost, and the New Brutalism and Archigram were the current buzz, social issues and ergonomics were also to the fore. Indeed Frank Lloyd Wright and Le Corbusier were pioneers in showing the importance of accessible architecture, closely related to the functions of the human body. The Parker Morris Report, and subsequent publication Homes for Today and Tomorrow, published in 1961, still presents the most comprehensive guide to the social and physical essentials of housing and should still be on the desk of every architect designing housing.

It is not, and that is very evident from most of the housing being designed by architects in Ireland today, which takes very little cognisance of the basic spaces required for household tasks and the furniture and equipment for the normal household. So is it surprising that we do not comprehend how to design for the disabled?

The 1960's also saw the development of design concepts for the disabled undertaken by Aldersley Williams and others. As with Parker Morris, these developments were not initiated by architects but were taken up with enthusiasm by a number of architects.

There are many aspects of social exclusion, not just disability, which are being encouraged rather than eliminated by current planning practice, as witnessed by the controversy over Part V legislation, and its subsequent amendment. Action on sustainable energy, water policy and waste management, is only being commenced because of the threat of very substantial fines. There is little ideological drive behind them at a political level.

Architects should be to the forefront in what must be a rapid revolution in the ethos of our society. The R.I.A.I. and A.A.I. should take a lead role, but they face a very tough task; while our undergraduate teaching has to change the ethos for future architects, changing the ethos of those already in practice is the most formidable challenge, well beyond the scope of current c.p.d. courses.

As a profession and as a nation we have to change rapidly from being pushed reluctantly to change our ethos, to embracing a new ethos and playing a lead role in creating a more inclusive and sustainable European society.

This is easily said. Many conflicts and problems of interpretation lie ahead. Costs are a major factor and have produced alternative solutions which some may not consider politically correct. An example is the City of Zurich, where the city transport authority did its sums and decided it was much cheaper to provide a free taxi service on demand for the disabled rather than adapt all its vehicles to be fully accessible.

Our clients who spent considerable sums making their hotel fully accessible were frustrated when three years later they had recorded only 6 bed nights for disabled people, probably a sign of current social and economic exclusion.

Adapting the existing stock is similar to converting practicing architects, a very formidable task, made even more difficult by our recent conversion to the conservation of historic buildings. Our recent experience with our own offices in converting a protected 18th century house are an example where it proved impossible to serve all the levels by lift and the disabled access had to be to the rear of the building to preserve the historic frontage.

Geography also plays a role and I recall major arguments in Cork in the sixties, where we had to agree a maximum gradient for access roads of 1 in 8 and pedestrian ramps and footpaths of 1 in 10, which thus meant that 40% of a major urban site went undeveloped.

Does full accessibility mean that all our future dwellings should either be bungalows or apartments served by lifts? This is part of the long running argument between lifetime adaptability and mobility. Do we enable households to move to more appropriate homes or try to convert their existing ones. We cannot force everybody to live in single level homes to suit a minority nor can we afford to put homelifts into all our enormous stock of two storey houses.

And while we are grappling with these issues we still have to make all our homes more physically and economically accessible, in a more sustainable environment.

James Pike is an architect who has practiced in Dublin since 1964. He is Chairman of the R.I.A.I. Housing Committee and Representative on Comhar, the sustainability forum.