Hi Rob,
Thanks for this . . .the Architects' Journal has a lot of interesting items
dotted about. Others might like to know that the url is:  www.ajplus.co.uk
and the article you quote (which I have attached) and others, can be found
among the archives.

As for dear Selwyn, bless him, if you can control your exasperation long
enough to get through the offensive remarks, downright silly statements and
distorted perspective, there are two valid points hiding there amongst all
that, and these are that the minimalist approach which can derive from
architects slavishly following the minimum standards in Part M will not make
buildings accessible for all; also that the needs of other excluded groups,
such as women and single parents need consideration during design.  These
are hardly the most insightful comments of the century and Part M itself
repeatedly advises that its recomended dimensions should be exceeded
wherever possible, but they are nonetheless worthy of discussion.  These
comments however would be much better received minus the offensive invective
accompanying them.

It is quite amusing that Selwyn believes that the non-disabled adult male
cannot comfortably reach down below 1200mm!  No wonder he thinks they will
have trouble using the sanitary fittings!  Presumably we should be calling
for longer trouser zips as well?!

Selwyn quotes DoE figures to show that a very small number of disabled
people make use of public buildings. This is a self-fulfilling prophesy!  He
appears unaware that disabled people have been excluded from most social and
civic amenties and activities for many years.  There are still pitifully few
accessible public buildings (none in Gwynedd according to the Audit
Commission) and almost no accessible public transport.  That is why few
disabled people are visible in public buildings: because we are unlikely to
be able to reach those few that are at all accessible.  His approach to
statistics is remeniscent of the shock report that revealed that shoe size
was found to be a reliable indicator of ability to read . . .yes toddlers
with very small feet cannot read and adults with large feet tend to read
well!!

His endorsement of mob rule inherent in putting washbasins where the
majority can reach them regardless of the effect on the minority is
counterintuitive. The real issue is that a high sink would be impossible for
a wheelchair user to reach whereas a low sink may be very slightly more
difficult for non-disabled people. That does not constitute an oligarchic
situation, simply an atmosphere of social consideration.  Likewise, lowering
the height of a urinal inconveniences no-one(pardon the pun).

Design has traditionally been based on the requirements of adult males of an
average 5 feet ten inches height, because that was the profile of those who
held the power.  I hope that human beings are evolving beyond that level,
albeit depressingly slowly.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Bracewell, Robert" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 2:29 PM
Subject: Comments?


> Dear all,
>
> A rather interesting article was dropped on my desk today by one of the
> architects here. It is from the journal "The Architects' Journal" written
by
> Selwyn Goldsmith. Entitled 'Access all areas - Designing for the disabled
is a
> statutory duty. But is it always appropriate, or does it discriminate
against
> the majority? - Mr. Goldsmith describes the DRC as an 'oligarchic agency
> controlled by disability activists and bemoans the fact that architects in
the
> business of designing public buildings, minority rule prevails. He also
claims
> that special for-the-disabled design is socially exclusive and offensively
> discriminatory........
>
> It would be interesting to hear what others on the list have to say about
this
> article..
>
> Rob
>
> ============================================
>
> Rob Bracewell
> Access Officer
> Lancaster City Council
> Palatine Hall,
> Dalton Square,
> Lancaster,
> LA1 1PW
> Tel. 01524 582372
> Fax. 01524 582323
>
>
>
___________________________________________________________________________
> The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally
> privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to
> this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the
> intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any
> action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited
> and may be unlawful. Although this e-mail and any attachments are
> believed to be free of any virus, or any other defect which might
> affect any computer or IT system into which they are received and
> opened, it is the  responsibility of the recipient to ensure that they are
> virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Lancaster City
> Council for any loss or damage arising in any way from receipt or
> use thereof.
> Furthermore the views contained in this e-mail are those of the
originator.
> Unless they state otherwise they are not the views or opinions of the
Council.
> _____________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> This message has been checked for all known viruses, by Star Internet,
> delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre.
> For further information visit:
> http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp
>
> ----------End of Message----------
>
> Archives for the Accessibuilt discussion list are located at
>
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/accessibuilt.html
>
> You can JOIN or Leave the list from this web page as well