The Bad - Science Museum, London disabled toilets
It's a crying shame. London's Science Museum is a wondrous place. It's been the nearest thing to my cathedral since I was first taken there as a child. I took my own children there many times and they love the place too. When (if) I have grandchildren I hope their eyes will gaze in wonder at the marvels the building contains.
And, almost all of the building is wheelchair accessible. Only a few of the upper-most galleries cannot be reached with wheels underneath you.
So what's to complain about? Simply this - you will search long and hard for a disabled toilet. Those that are there are tucked away in dark corners or hidden behind crowded cafes. A map and a guide is required to find them.
AND ... [drum roll, please] ... the Science Museum gets my personal award (you surely each have your own) for the least accessible accessible toilet in Great Britain.
On the 3rd floor mezzanine it sits. Proudly proclaimed in brochures and maps (for the whole building is big enough to need a map to find your way round) protected by many lifts covered in arcane markings to challenge you as your desperate need for it becomes ever more urgent.
At last! You spy it - hidden behind a pillar, its door facing a blank opposing wall just one wheelchair depth away. You struggle ... the door opens ... in you roll ... to discover that you can neither turn your wheelchair (so tight is the space inside the room) nor ... [here comes the coup-de-gras] can you CLOSE THE DOOR BEHIND YOU as half your wheelchair is still in the corridor even when its footplates are crushed against the far wall !?!?!?!?!
Who designs these things? That's a question so common that I've all but given up giving voice to it. If the rooms aren't too small to begin with, if the "aids", sinks, towels, hand-dryers and assorted paraphernalia haven't been applied to the walls with a shotgun operated by a mad builder who is both a bad shot and who believes that part of disability involves the acquisition of a torso and arms befitting an orang-utan, the building's management decide that a room dedicated "only" to disabled people represents an under-utilised resource ... one that must do extra duty as a baby changing facility, cleaner's storage resource and staff recreation room.
Then come the "hygiene contractors" - the people who fill those precious floor inches left by the architects as the minimum possible space in which you can turn a small wheelchair (thereby complying with "the regs" and gaining the building its "disabled friendly" stickers) with separate bins for wet towels, feminine products, used nappies, recyclable materials, hazardous waste ... each individual bin larger than anything you'd find suitable for your own loo or kitchen and each with some form of cover / catch / flap designed to be impossible to reach or operate from the comfort of a wheelchair.
But that's just the description of a standard "disabled loo".
The Science Museum gets my vote and my award for the sheer, ludicrous, laughable impossibility of that room ever complying with the needs of the disabled.
After I'd recovered from the pain and spasms I suffered when my wife had been forced to help me out of my wheelchair so that I could drag my desperate, worthless hulk into the room (I should really call it a cupboard) ... and back again, we happened upon two young men who made the mistake of revealing themselves as employees of the architect's practice, there to conduct a survey of the facilities (I imagine to see if they could make them any smaller to leave more room for exhibits).
I offered myself as Exhibit A - demonstrated that my wheelchair (just like any other wheelchair I'm aware of) couldn't even make it out of the corridor to close the door - let alone turn or allow any means of transfer to the "facilities". "Ah", they said, "we'll report back that the specs we work to need revising".
Aaaaaarrrrggggghhhh!
Science Museum. It's a crying shame.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Margie Fletcher on
-
I used to work for a prominent architecture practice in London and they absolutely put bathrooms into buildings at the minimum possible legal specs, and I would wager good money none of them would have thought beyond including the bathroom in the first place. There are too many stories similar flying around of accessible bathrooms being tiny and put in extremely inaccessible places. I've heard a story about one on the second floor of a building with no lift and no way for wheelchair users to reach it. Also though it is not only the architects that are at fault, it is also cost saving by the companies commissioning new builds or refurbishing older buildings, they are trying to retain as much profitable space as possible so they won't put in anything better the the minimum. Perhaps someone should loan them a chair and tell them to use their own designs... maybe it could open a few eyes...
-
Permalink Reply by George Perfect on
-
My wife has suggested (threatened?) to strap people into a wheelchair before now (and I'm afraid she's actually getting closer to putting the idea into practice next time we come across one of these "designers" ;>) ) but it's a good point - those responsible for designing accessible spaces should have to be accredted by actually *experiencing* for themselves the outcome of various designs - AFTER they've been delivered and handed over to the clients / hygiene companies etc.. See how they like it!
My large IT services company headquartered itself in a BRAND NEW, purpose built, from the ground up, 3 storey building in Gateshead. Naturally, we specified disabled toilet facilities (though I was a long way off needing such at the time and we actually had no disabled staff who needed to access the building). Just as well. Because between the developer and the builder they managed to place the disabled loo (which they duly fully equipped - hand rails, alarm systems and all) ... on the first floor landing. In a building that had no lift - but had been designed with a fancy "see through" winding staircase that even a flying Dalek would have had trouble negotiating.
Then along came the fire officer. Architectural elegance be darned, he insisted that the entire open stairwell space had to be enclosed in thick, fire-resistant wood and glass with each "aperture" (doorway to you and me) "protected" by an automatic closer so strong that even able-bodied people struggled to reach the stairs!
You might think the local building inspectors would have had something to say about a so obviously inaccessible accessible facility. We certainly did. But the officials signed off the building as fully compliant with the DDA (as it then was).
The mind boggles :>(
Money is behind it all. Companies and public organisations generally HATE the fact they have to spend and "kow tow" to what they see as a minority.
We need an education campaign to nail the error of their ways and their faulty thinking firmly into their skulls.
As organisations like the Sage and the Gala (see my other post in this thread) have shown, all it takes is a little lateral thinking, some good design and a touch of generosity of spirit and *everbody* profits. Each time I go to either of these venues, the accessible spaces are full - usually with wheelchair users, sometimes with able-bodied people. But the point is, these organisations get more paying customers, sell more drinks, interval ice-creams and their restaurants and cafes gain more custom because "the disabled" can just plain get to the places and enjoy doing so.
It's not rocket science, people.
-
-
Well said! The universities could do with making it compulsory for students to spend even just a few hours in a wheelchair experiencing some of these disasters, as with the people that sign them off! Its really just not acceptable!
© 2024 Created by Gordon White.
Powered by
