Couldn't resist getting a photo of this "handicap access solution" I found recently. The venue isn't important. The concept is important.
The concept is "separate but equal." You have a restroom in your building. It's supposed to have levers for the sink faucets. So far, so good. You're OK with that. . . But, note, only for one of the sinks. The "special" one.
"Special" has done more to harm the cause of access than about anything I can think of.
Why aren't all restroom stalls larger, for example? Why does the stall door open outward only on the "accessible" one?
Aside from accessible parking, which really does mean spots need to be set aside, close in, I can think of very very few instances when it doesn't make more sense to just make EVERY COMPONENT accessible:
- Flat entrance, rather than ramps-and-steps
- Automatic doors, rather than manual doors and one "special" door with a "button"
- Light switches lowered throughout
- Wider hallways throughout. . .
The list can go on and on.
One benefit of the avoidance of "special" -- that is to say, integration -- is that if you can't segregate out those items that are "special," it's much harder to point to this or that as being "too costly" -- as in, "That ramp cost us xxx" or "That special automatic door cost xxx" -- if the building is simply "barrier-free" then it's just "barrier-free." (You don't hear the term "barrier-free" as much nowadays. Wonder why?)
The other benefit of integration is, of course, the avoidance of stigma. If it's all the same, no one need feel embarrassed by needing the "special" entrance, toilet stall, menu, seating...
Enuf said.
I'd love to get some comments about ths idea.
