Life as an access consultant has profoundly changed how I view and experience the built environment. As an ordinary commuter, I previously didn’t know why certain design choices were made, whether they were compliant or if they were a bad outcome.
Now, I’m looking at stairs, handrails, doors, ramps, and toilets everywhere I go. I often call out issues in my head as I’m walking through a hotel lobby or train station. I also share all the issues with my partner, wondering aloud, ‘Whoever signed off on that has a lot to answer for’. It’s just part of who I am now.
Take stairs and seating for lecture theatres, cinemas, and entertainment venues. During a movie outing with my wife, I noticed the stairs had no handrails on either side. What about the AS1428.1 compliant finishes? Why aren’t there warning tactiles? How are they achieving 30% contrasting when it’s dark?
I let it go and watched the movie. But it wasn’t long before I was on a job in a lecture theatre that had one set of stairs and a handrail on only one side. The situation didn’t get any better. Although a wheelchair user won’t be using the stairs, what about low-strength or ambulant individuals who want to sit with their friends? What do they do if they can’t find any seats available at the front of the lecture theatre?
I had to understand what was happening. It turns out that the Building Code of Australia (BCA) had this covered. In a broad comment, it states that stairs in these areas aren’t subject to full compliance with AS1428.1-2009. The client and certifier informed me it wasn’t a requirement and were happy to leave it at that.
As an advocate for accessibility and inclusion, I wasn’t convinced. I’d recently watched David Leposky’s video audit of Ryerson University, pointing out the myriad of issues for stairs like this. I explained DDA issues to the client and certifier, but with no success. They were still going to approve the stairs as they were.
This needed a new angle. I figured that these stairs weren’t just for access to seating in the lecture theatre but they also provided access between levels. The top of the lecture theatre had exits that led to Level 2, while the base had exits to Level 1. This was how I could leverage higher requirements and a better solution for the lecture theatre stairs.
I shared this explanation with the certifier, and they agreed that these stairs were now ‘communication stairs’ as well as stairs that provided access to seating. However, this was far from over, as there was now a conflict between compliance and functionality. The stairs couldn’t achieve handrails on both sides without blocking user access to seating, so we created a performance solution for this issue.
Interestingly enough, since then, this issue of entertainment stairs and communication stairs has come up more than ten times a year. This is a new angle for certifiers and project managers, which can be intimidating if you’re the person who’s pointing it out and creating more work. But I can guarantee you’re providing an important service to people you’ll never meet.
Sometimes access consulting is like parenting – you won’t be thanked for all the hard work, but knowing the lasting impact it can have is hugely satisfying.