hi andy,
having also recently visited the gallery the feature which struck me as
overwelmingly poor was the floor covering.
this you mentioned in your summary of the article but I'd just like to make
clear the covering was just poor on ramps but on almost all of the ground
floor and on ramps in the upper restraunts.
Not only is it slippery for wheelchair users but my guide dog had
considerable difficulty walking on it.
colour contrasting was also a problem, although colours were bright and
visible floors and walls were frequently the same or similar shades making
it difficult to tell them apart.

heres hopingperceived part M compliance won't be seen as "reasonable
provision"

Adrian Higginbotham.

SURFACE  (Salford University, Research Focus on Accessible Environments).

tel:  (44_-161-2953949,
fax  (44)-161-2955011,
textphone  (44)-161-2953599.

web:  http://www.scpm.salford.ac.uk/surface/

----- Original Message -----
From: <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 3:36 PM
Subject: Lowry Centre - Salford


> The July edition of Disability Now included the following article
> which has been summarised.
> ART GOOD, ACCESS POOR.  Salford's new Lowry arts centre
> may look impressive, but is it accessible?
>
> Problems listed include:
> Parking on an unmade road.
> Electric doors that open towards you when you press the pad.
> Few staff around, no plan available, so difficult to navigate around
> building.
> Floor covering that was difficult to wheel over.
> Signs were set in silver / metal on walls therefore not very
> distinguishable.
> Steep ramp to loos in basement with one accessible cubical in
> each sex loo.
> Article did point out that workmen were still working on painting
> etc.
> Article does point out that the displays are well set out in an open
> plan area with lots of space around them.
>
> Having visited the building myself a short while ago it was evident
> that some of the matters listed above had been attended to whilst
> some of the other deficiencies still remain, during the visit other
> examples of bad and in some cases dangerous practice were
> noted.
>
> For such a new, landmark project I was extremely disappointed
> with the standard of accessibility achieved.  In my opinion there
> were certain features that do not comply with even the most lenient
> interpretation of "reasonable" provision.
>
> The building has obviously obtained Part M approval but the burning
> question for me is:
>
> Will the relevant section of the DDA when it comes into force in
> 2004 enable disabled people to bring an action against the
> operators of such a building that has received Part M approval in
> line with today's interpretation of the regulation even though, in my
> opinion, certain features do not comply?
>
> Any suggestions
>
> Look forward to hearing from you
> Andy
> SURFACE
> Salford University, Research Focus on ACcessible Environments
> http://www.scpm.salford.ac.uk/surface/
> Tel: 01874 636826
>



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%