Hi Bob
Thanks for adding your comments and you have as much right as anyone on
this list to make your views known and I encourage others to take Bob's
lead and share your opinions.
I agree with you Bob that I was over reacting and am sure that the
activists in the USA are unlikely to allow this to be the only means of
vertical circulation. Besides the ADA should mean that alternative means
to the stairs are provided. I suppose what I was trying to use the
article to show is that architects may easily start to take an approach
that increases the length of travel for everyone -which is good in terms
of exercise, but then forget that they also need to provide alternative
routes that are shorter, or more direct. If we are introducing stairs as
a means of exercise then let us also have ramps as well. I often use the
stairs rather than take the lift, but that is a choice I have, which
other people may not have. What we do not want, however, is the
architect deciding to raise the building up, or lower it, in order to
introduce extra steps just for the sake of it.
Our Local Ikea is an example where they want you to go all the way
through the store in order to see every product and not to go directly
to want you came in for. There are short cuts you can take but they
deliberately hide these to make you go around the long way. That is fine
is distance is no object, but if all your energy is taken up fiding out
that you could have saved the travel then you may not be as impressed
with the products.
What other views do people have on this article/debate?
Regards
marcus
----------End of Message----------
Run by SURFACE for more information on research, consultancy and MSc. in Accessibility and Inclusive Design programme visit
www.inclusive-design.it/
Archives for the Accessibuilt discussion list are located at www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/accessibuilt.html
|