Forum

Hi everyone. I wanted to bring up something that I feel we keep skirting around in our meetings: the whole accessibility vs. heritage protection thing. We have this one building from the twenties (last century), beautiful staircase, narrow doors, zero ramp access, and the staircase is part of the protected facade. So what do we even do here? Has anyone dealt with something similar?

Yes Jelena, this is THE problem. The heritage protection laws were written way before anyone was thinking seriously about accessibility, and now they kind of clash. What I find really frustrating is that in a lot of countries the heritage office and the disability rights people don't even talk to each other. Different ministries, different agendas, nobody coordinating.

Wait, I kind of disagree with how this is being framed. Saying they "clash" makes it sound like we have to choose one or the other. We don't. I've seen cases where they managed to put in a lift inside a really old listed building without damaging anything protected. Took forever (like 3 years of back and forth) but it got done. The solutions are out there, we need patience and the right people in the room.

Sonja I hear you, and I agree in principle, but 3 years is a long time. A lot of municipalities are small, they don't have dedicated staff for this kind of process. So my question is: what's the simplest version of this we can recommend to everyone? Something realistic, not the best-case scenario.

I have to say something here. We keep talking about "processes" and "timelines" and I feel like we're losing sight of actual people. There are wheelchair users who cannot get into buildings that are publicly funded. That's not a planning issue, that's a rights issue. Heritage is important, yes, but it's a cultural value. Accessibility is a legal right. I don't think those two things have the same weight.

Helga, you're totally right about the people part, I wasn't trying to dismiss that. My point was more like: if we go in with an adversarial attitude it sometimes makes things slower, not faster. Both obligations exist legally (there's the CRPD, there's UNESCO guidelines etc.) and we have to work within that. But yes, the urgency is real. I think we need to be strategic about how we push.

Can I jump in with something practical? From what I know about Serbia, protected buildings are split into tiers: tier 1 is the serious stuff where almost nothing is allowed, but tiers 2 and 3 are way more flexible. And most of the buildings people use everyday (schools, post offices, community centres) are in those lower tiers. So maybe before we panic, we should check which tier each of our pilot buildings falls into. Might be that a lot of them aren't as restricted as we think.

Anita this is really helpful, thank you. Each municipality has that matrix: protection tier vs. type of barrier vs. what kind of intervention is possible. That could be really useful if we could create such a map. Maybe through another project.

Good morning all. Catching up on this thread, really good discussion. Wanted to add one thing: from what we've been doing in Bulgaria, using 3D scanning of buildings before any work starts has made a huge difference with getting approvals faster. Heritage people feel a lot more comfortable when they can see that everything is documented precisely before anything is touched. We cut our approval time by more than half. Not sure if other partners have tried this?

Lazarinka that's great to hear. But also, and I don't mean this harshly: while the approvals are going through, people still can't get in the building. Is there any way we can push for some temporary stuff in the meantime? Like a portable ramp, or clearly marking an accessible secondary entrance? Nothing that needs approval, something so people aren't stuck outside waiting for bureaucracy to finish.

OK team, this has been a really valuable thread. Let me pull together what I think we're agreeing on:

1. First step for every building = check the protection tier (thanks Anita)
2. Temporary/interim solutions need to be part of recommendations, not permanent fixes only
3. There's clearly a coordination gap between heritage and disability authorities in most countries
4. 3D documentation (like Lazarinka mentioned) can speed up approvals, worth flagging as good practice

Great summary Dragan. One thing I'd add, and this has been bugging me for a while: disabled users need to be involved from the start, not asked for feedback at the end when everything is already designed. We keep doing this thing where solutions get proposed first and then people are "consulted" on them. That's not real participation. Co-design from day 1 should be in our methodology.

Helga, yes, the temporary ramp idea is so simple and I don't know why we don't talk about it more. A basic modular ramp with no fixings costs almost nothing and you can have it there in days. Heritage office can't complain because it doesn't touch anything. I think we should put together a small guide of these "quick wins": things municipalities can do right now without waiting for approvals. Practical, cheap, no excuses.

I've been thinking about something and wanted to get your thoughts. We talk a lot about making buildings physically accessible, but what about virtual access? 3D tours, VR walkthroughs, digital reconstructions. Could that be a valid alternative for people who can't access a space physically? Or is that a cop-out so nobody has to deal with the hard stuff? Not sure where I stand on this.

Such a good question. Where we have virtual tours, people loved it. Even people who CAN physically visit were using it to "preview" the space before coming. And for people with mobility issues it was really well received. So I'd say yes, it adds real value. Not sure about "substitute" but definitely complement.

"Complement" yes, absolutely. But I get a bit nervous when "virtual access" starts being used as a reason NOT to fix the physical access. I've seen this happen: someone proposes a ramp, and the response is "oh but we have a virtual tour so it's fine." It's NOT fine. A virtual tour doesn't let you enter the building, smell the place, meet people. It's not the same experience and we shouldn't pretend it is.

Fair point Helga. I totally agree it can't replace being there. I guess what I meant is: for some people virtual might be the ONLY option ever, not temporarily but permanently, because of how severe their condition is. For them a good virtual experience is genuinely meaningful, not a consolation prize. But yes, if it's being used as an excuse to avoid fixing things then that's wrong.

This is a debate that comes up a lot in accessibility circles and there's no clean answer. Legally speaking, virtual access does NOT satisfy accessibility requirements in most jurisdictions. You can't tick the box with a VR tour. But in practice, for heritage sites where physical modification is genuinely impossible (like a Roman ruin or a cave), virtual is sometimes the only realistic option and it should be done really well in those cases. The problem is when it becomes the default lazy answer instead of the last resort.

So what I'm hearing is: virtual is valuable but only when it's genuinely the best available option, not when it's cheaper or easier. That makes sense. But then my next question is: what makes a GOOD virtual experience for someone who can't visit physically? What's the minimum we should be asking for? Audio descriptions? Haptic feedback? I've seen some really terrible "virtual tours" that are a few blurry photos stitched together.

Andreja, YES the "3 blurry photos" tours are everywhere. From what I've seen the good ones have: proper narration that tells you something meaningful (not "this is a door from 1847"), the ability to move around freely not click through fixed points, and ideally some contextual info: history, stories, why this place matters. The ones that treat it as a real product and not an afterthought are genuinely impressive.

And also: can we add to that list that the virtual experience should be made WITH disabled users, not designed by people guessing what they need. Same principle as co-design for physical spaces. I bet a lot of those blurry photo tours were designed by someone who never asked a single visually impaired or wheelchair user what would be useful to them.

One thing I keep thinking about: virtual access might also be really important for buildings that are in the process of being restored. Like during construction when even physically able people can't visit, a good virtual experience keeps people connected to the place. So it's not for people with disabilities only, it has broader value. Maybe that's an argument for investing more in it, because more stakeholders benefit.

Anita this is a really smart point. The "curb cut effect": when you design for disabled users you usually end up with something better for everyone. Virtual tours during restoration is a perfect example. Also elderly people who find travel difficult, people with chronic illness who have good days and bad days, people who live far away. The audience is much bigger than we think. That's a good pitch for funding too.

OK so I think I've landed somewhere. Virtual access can NOT substitute the real thing. But it's also not a consolation prize. If it's done properly, with real users involved, it's a genuinely valuable layer on top of physical access. The question is not "virtual OR physical" but "what's our minimum standard for BOTH", and make sure virtual is never used as an excuse to skip the physical work.

Hi all. We had a study visit and this question came up in Bulgaria and I didn't know what to say. The man in the Cultural Centre asked us: "OK so if we make the space accessible, do we also need to have someone on staff at all times who is trained to help disabled visitors?" Is that required? Is it good practice? Is it maybe even a bit patronizing? What do you all think?

My honest opinion: NO, you should not need a dedicated person. If the space is properly designed, if the information is clear, if the entrance works, if the toilet is accessible, then a disabled person should be able to visit independently, like anyone else. Needing a "helper" on standby kind of implies the space isn't accessible, it's managed. There's a big difference.

I see the point but I think it's more complicated in heritage buildings specifically. Even with best intentions, some spaces are hard to navigate if you've never been there before. Narrow corridors, unexpected steps, confusing layouts. I think having someone available (not hovering, but available) is good hospitality. I wouldn't call it patronizing if it's done right. The key word is available, not assigned.

OK yes that distinction is important. Available for anyone = good. Someone specifically assigned to follow disabled visitors around = not good. I've been in places where staff basically shadow you the entire visit "in case you need help" and it's so uncomfortable. Let me look at the painting without someone standing next to me.

From a legal/regulatory side, most frameworks don't require a dedicated support person. What they DO require is that staff are trained to assist IF asked. That's a crucial difference. So the question has a pretty clear answer: no, you don't need someone on standby 24/7, but you do need to make sure your regular staff know how to help and don't make people feel weird about asking. Training matters a lot more than headcount.

This makes me think of something we saw at a museum visit during one of our study trips: they had a small button near the entrance (like a doorbell almost) that visitors could press if they needed assistance. Not intrusive at all, totally optional, and staff would come when called. Nobody following you around, but help was one press away. Felt like the right balance. Low cost solution too, no need for a whole extra person on the payroll.

Love that button idea. But also, can I raise something slightly awkward? What about smaller sites that have one or two people working there? Like a small local museum? They can't always guarantee that someone trained is even physically present all day. Should those sites not open to disabled visitors? Or is there another way to handle this? Asking because we have this exact problem in Belogradchik.

For small sites I think the honest answer is: if the space genuinely cannot be made safe and navigable without assistance, then at minimum they should be upfront about it. Clear information on the website beforehand so people can plan. Maybe offer to arrange a visit by appointment so they can make sure someone is there. It's not perfect but it's better than nothing and it's respectful of people's time.

We all have some sites/museums with pretty limited budgets. They can either invest in improving physical access (ramp, better signage, accessible toilets) OR they can invest in content, like proper interpretation panels, audio guides, maybe marketing. They genuinely can't do both at the same time. What to prioritize?

Accessibility. I feel very strongly about this. What is the point of amazing content if part of your audience cannot get in the door to experience it? You're not choosing between good and better. You're choosing between inclusive and exclusive. And I don't think that's a hard choice when you put it that way.

What if the site already has some level of basic access (like people can get in, it's not perfect but it's manageable) and the content is SO thin that visitors leave feeling like they got nothing out of the visit? Then nobody comes back, word spreads that the place is boring, visitor numbers drop, and eventually there's even less money for everything including accessibility. I'm not saying content is more important, I'm saying it's more complicated than it looks.

That changes things a bit. If basic access is already there I'd agree the calculus is different. But "manageable" worries me a little: manageable for who exactly? What seems fine for most people might still be a real barrier for someone with specific needs. I've heard "oh it's mostly accessible" so many times and then you arrive and there's 3 steps with no alternative.

Can I reframe this slightly? I think asking "accessibility OR content" is already a trap. Good accessibility IS content. Audio guides, tactile models, large print, BSL video: all of these are content AND accessibility tools at the same time. So if you're designing your content investment smartly, you're solving both problems together. The question should be "how do we make content that works for everyone" not "which of these two things do we do."

Rafael this is a really nice way to put it but I want to be honest: in the specific case I'm dealing with, we're talking about a site where the entrance still has steps and no ramp. An audio guide doesn't solve that. I wish it were as clean as you're describing but sometimes it really is a binary choice between the physical stuff and the interpretive stuff.

I want to throw something in: have any of these sites asked their disabled visitors what they'd prefer? Because I have a feeling the answer might surprise people. I spoke to a wheelchair user last month who told me she'd rather have a great experience once she's inside than fight to get in and then find the place has nothing interesting to say. And another person said the opposite. So maybe the answer depends on who you're asking.

One thing nobody's mentioned: phasing. Separate funding streams for infrastructure vs interpretation. They don't have to come from the same pot. Maybe the real answer is help these sites find two budgets, not force them to choose from one.

Here's what I'm taking away for the further discussion and a topic that can be presented during the pilot trainings:

1. Below a minimum threshold of physical access, accessibility comes first, always
2. "Accessibility vs Content" is often a false choice: good content can serve both (Rafael)
3. Phasing/segmentation is a valid strategy IF there's a real commitment to follow through on both phases
4. Separate funding streams for infrastructure and interpretation: always look and be proactive in finding new sources of funds