I have two votes of examples withing public buildings. They are not
successful overall as buildings - but....
Both designed by I.M.Pei
The glass pyramids installed as the new entrance to the Louvre
(Paris). As I recall, when I entered the central pyramid (I use a
wheelchair), I was able to enter alongwith other nondisabled
visirtors, then there is a platform elevator with no real cage/cab,
just a railing. It appears, when it is level, as just part of the
floor in the entranceway. The lift holds a number of people, so I got
on, someone with a stroller got on, and others. The platform descends
into the main lobbby of the museum, and runs along the same wall as
the escalator. Because it is open, like the escalator, I saw what
others saw, I landed at the lowe level about the sameplace the
escalator users did, and the lift is so interesting I didn't feel like
I was being shuttled off to the side, hidden, and made to work extra
hard to get in as I do in most other buildings. In fact, a number of
people wanted to ride it rather than the elevator.
The second example is the West Wing of the National Gallery in
Washingotn, DC. I find it an exciting builfing overall, and the access
features are embedded into the overall design in a way that makes the
features less specific and conspicuous than other features that are
tacked on as an afterthought.
In the Louvre, the lift is prominant, I think that prominance was
purposeful and I experienced it as a positive statement by Pei. It is
the first time I've seen (that I remember) an access feature that was
even more inviting (not just more convenient) than the general-use
entrance, or pathway. The design seemed to be used as a commentary on
the phenomenon of access, and I took pleasure in its prominance, and
the way its beauty and functionality are so well integrated.
In the West wing, the features are not so much hidden as invisible.
The distinction i'm making is that hidden features, i think, seek
tohide users and their needs, but invisible features, following the
principles of universal design, make the feature less specific and
conspicuous than many that follow the code to the letter, and seem
only to exist to meet code rather than to be elements of a building
for all to use and enjoy.
Cheers, Simi Linton
---"Z.Holland" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> Are any of you able to let me know of any innovative buildings which
> you feel are really successful examples of inclusive, accessible
> design? Perhaps such as the Sadlers Wells Theatre in London, for
> which architects consulted with a group of potential users
(including physically
> disabled people and people with learning difficulties) throughout the
> design process. Architecture students need universal design role
> models, and I really want to help introduce these to them. Any
> suggestions would be really appreciated. Many thanks,
>
> Zoe Holland
>
==
|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|
Simi Linton
[log in to unmask]
212 580 9280 (phone and fax)
|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|