BDP Podcast

Hello. I'm Alan Davis. I'm an architect and Heritage Lead at BDP. 

Welcome to the first ever BDP podcast series. It's called Old Buildings New Beginnings.

In this series, we discuss the current thinking relating to the reuse of old and existing buildings. We will discuss topics including adaptive reuse, sustainability, accessibility, improving performance, as well as the cultural significance of keeping old buildings. Why build new when you can repurpose the old. 

Welcome to The Conversation. 

So this week we discuss in our series Old Buildings New Beginnings, the question ‘Can we make historic buildings inclusive for all?’.

With me to discuss this question, I have some interesting colleagues from BDP. First of all, Jesse Klimtz, is principal and architect in the Toronto studio, and the director of Human Space, which is BDP’s global inclusive design consultancy.

Secondly, we have Christine Davis, conservation architect, in our Manchester studio.

And David Artis, architect director in our London studio. 

Thank you all for joining. 

So I'm going to start by asking you to explain a bit about accessibility, inclusivity and equality. When we think about inclusivity and architecture, we may immediately consider how we address physical barriers to using spaces and how we might improve accessibility. 

But is this the extent of what we mean by inclusive, accessible and equal?

Yeah. So I think and again, just touching on what you've just said there Alan, for me, inclusion is the removal of barriers and their physical barriers, but they're also perceived barriers because I think everyone's very familiar with the concept of step free access and also looking at areas of sort of colorblindness, partial sighted, hearing impairments and those kind of physical issues and barriers to being able to enjoy, appreciate and experience our historic landscape.

But it's more also about the perceived barriers, about the perception that people feel a building is not for them. I mean, particularly with very high profile buildings such as town halls, civic buildings, and you know that buildings that were designed by men for men of a wealthy background, a privileged background. 

And how do you, in this modern age, welcome people into those buildings so that they feel engaged, they feel like it's a place that they should be and they should be able to participate in the activities that happen there and also enjoy the beauty and the artistry of that architecture, really.

Yes. I think just to bridge off Christine's point, I think, you know, they're very similar in that what we see as inclusivity in design means realizing outcomes to benefit a greater extent of people and their personal experiences. 

Inclusive design in particular is an approach that is used, that focuses on the vast human experience and needs of our differences and with respect to for example, abilities, gender identity, age, race, neurodiversity, culture, socioeconomic status. These are ways in which we can look at and address inclusion within the built environment and the ways in which these needs also intersect. And it does it offers an opportunity to problem solve, to innovate and to explore solutions. So inclusivity and design is really about process and realized outcomes.

David, can I ask you what do you think the problem with historic buildings is or the problems with historic buildings are? 

Why is it that we are being challenged in this way by our historic buildings?

I guess fundamentally it's a kind of the value systems that were in place when these buildings were conceived/built is very different to the value systems that we have now. And as Christine mentioned, it's the kind of physical and emotional barriers that we have to break down to kind of liberate historic buildings to make them sustainable and enjoyable for everyone today.

That’s the trick, isn't it? That's the skill. And what we you know, what we relish. And in the work that we do and-

They are, yeah. I mean, the borough is very diverse. The borough desperately needs spaces where the community feel comfortable going and where the community can enjoy these very special spaces. I think, you know, we often talk of the sort of pedimented museum, the classical architecture you know, communicates a certain way and is, you know, very simply speaking at Leighton, you know, the museum was approached by quite a, you know, the grand steps of the front door that clearly immediately, you know, sends a particular message.. part of our work is resetting the entry sequence so that there is equality to another way in which, you know, is as dignified as the historic entrance, but can still allow the historic entrance to read as the original key entry point. 

I mean, one of the key issues with Leighton was being able to introduce a new lift now that is, you know, giving the building step free access, although it's the first time in its history and in a very compact, you know, domestic scale setting, that was perhaps one of the biggest challenges is where you can situate building mass that is not going to undermine the character of the original building, allow the original building to read and be clearly understood, and that was always a big drive for the project.

You've picked up on a general characteristic of many historic public buildings, particularly from the great age of building in the 19th century periods of colonialism, and those buildings tend to be grand and sometimes pompous with the grand steps up to them. And that is both problematic from a physical barrier point of view, but also from a psychological aspect.

And for many people, it might say keep out rather than come in. It's exclusive rather than inclusive. Is that also, Jesse, your experience of public buildings in Canada?

Yes, it is. It is. It is similar. You know, Canada celebrating its 155th birthday this year. And I think similarly, we're in Canada dealing with heritage sites that are heritage listed, heritage designated, you know, from different decades and generations and to David's point earlier, many of these buildings were recruited in at a time when there were different considerations around the purpose of these buildings and how they're used today.

And so I think is it is problematic in the way that as we move from today and forward into the future, these buildings are becoming more and more used for everyone's enjoyment and experience, both from landmark locations for tourism, workplace environments, many different purposes for these buildings and it's how do we successfully find ways to preserve their historical integrity while balancing these needs to make them accessible and inclusive to a greater number of people?

I guess we should then question... Yeah, if these are such challenging or such imperfect buildings by today's standards, why is it important that we that we make them, that we correct them? 

There will be, I think, for us, particularly those of us who work with historic buildings, we may take it for granted. That's what we are used to dealing with. But there may be others, colleagues who say, well, if these buildings are so imperfect, if they convey the wrong messages, if they're from a different era, why is it so important that we make them work?

You know, there's many, many statistics out there, you know, most recently from the World Health Organization that, you know, recognize as the growing aging population and more evidence around the diversity of people and statistics from physical, social or mental health perspectives, whether it be a disability or age related. 

There's a lot of evidence out there that is showing how diverse our global population is and how we're also an aging population. And for those, you know, for some of those reasons, I think that the importance of historic buildings are being used in different ways and will be used in other ways in the future through adaptive re-use opportunities or, you know, through just different occupancy needs. 

So we're seeing in Canada that the Federal Heritage Building stock is, you know, from administrative buildings to banks, tourist attractions, retail spaces, you know, all different aspects.

And so it's really a balance of how do we create a usable and welcoming environment to a greater extent of people while maintaining the heritage integrity of these built of these buildings.

And so it's about richness and variety, as well as it is being capable of dealing with all the different demographics and the various types of ability and an inclination. 

I guess one aspect we haven't touched on, but which is a very current topic in the UK is contested histories. It's what buildings tell us, what architecture tells us about the past and whether, you know, grand architecture, good architecture, always is allied with good things.

You know, a lot of our country houses, a lot of our wealth, a lot of our good buildings are the result of a period of history which also had its dark side. I think, you know, that is something that we are grappling with in things such as the debate about statues, the debate about how the National Trust represents buildings and presents our buildings.

And I guess that also speaks to the aspect of culture, identity... So I'd just like to investigate again, you know, with that kind of baggage, how do we deal with that in the historical moment with historic buildings?

Yes. I think, as you say, it's a very challenging topic and welcomes a kind of a broad range of input from a wide variety of people's backgrounds, but just from a kind of a conservation architect's perspective, obviously, when we evaluate and buildings, historic structures, we're looking at their heritage values, their history their communal and evidential values.

What do they tell us about the past experiences, which, again, can inform where we were and where we are now? Which can actually be could be a positive thing if it's sort of directed in the right way and understood and interpreted in the right way. 

But I think one of the other challenges that people have sort of said, perhaps you could take something and just move it somewhere else, put it into a museum. But again, that's sometimes the significance of the thing that you're analysing is in what where it's been put and why it is there. So again, it can be quite challenging to determine a good way to sort of represent these things in a way that they aren't barriers, that they don't cause offense and that actually they can be used in a positive way.

And I'm sure David and Jessie have some good follow ups to that.

I mean, it's interesting. It's like what power do we have as architects to make positive change? And how much can our interventions change perceptions undermine preconceived ideas that are, you know, inherent in in fabric, in places, in spaces. It is, as we've said, you know, time marches on, buildings change the way buildings are understood, changes.

And we need to do what we can to help institutions re-orientate or represent themselves through the work that we do. Um, and creating physical spaces is a part of that. And as much as, you know, digital representation, the way engagement happens more broadly, Um, and I think it's, you know, this is our opportunity, this is our, this is how we can help and how we can support a kind of more equitable society and an equitable built environment.

I think there's a great potential to innovate and a great potential to co-create with equity deserving groups. I think through, you know, through that process of, as Christine pointed out, conservation planning, combined with accessibility and inclusive considerations for interventions, would help to both mitigate any detrimental impact to character defining elements and as well be able to evaluate these places to support through the lens of inclusion.

So I think it is it is a balance and engaging and bringing others to the design process and getting input from a diverse set of people through that lens can also you know, create opportunities that may not have been considered previously.

All right. I'm going to finish by asking you to do a bit of future gazing and just for reference, I think yeah, our generation, my generation in particular has seen the rise of the disabled lobby as it was called in the early days.

And the inclusion of requirements for lifts and stairs and provisions for people with wheelchair disabilities, which is pretty much the bottom, you know, the basic aspects of accessibility. But that's, you know, that has grown during the time that I've been architects from very simple beginnings around 1980s, I guess late eighties and is very well established now in legislation.

Jesse, you've referenced demographics, the aging population. So, I'd like to have your opinions of… what does the future look like, what do you think will be the landscape in this respect in terms of access, inclusion, equality for building design, for the next generation, for the youngsters who are coming up after us?

I think I think it is about the engagement process and thoughtful engagement, which I think is different in many ways to what's been done in the past where, you know, there would have been the guideline or certain requirements or legislations in place that would have supported some of these considerations. And I think moving forward that it's becoming more about designing with us, not for us and I think through that inclusive design process and engagement is a way to move this challenge forward, to find solutions. 

I think that that's going to that's a big part of it and I think that's just the way the industry is moving and what clients and city policymakers and city builders and, you know, that's what that's what they're looking for.

So I think that's just one big change.

We're in a much better place these days. You know, there’s more understanding and more knowledge around, you know, persons with protected characteristics.

There are lots, there are people that we work with who are experts in enabling us to understand the needs and requirements of a very diverse population. Um, and as Jesse said, design is a participatory process. And the more that we can engage with the, you know, the broadest spectrum of users, you know, ultimately that the better the architecture is... We I mean, we all want to create spaces that, you know, we can all come together in… we're lucky enough to work on some very prestigious important buildings that are kind of key parts of our cities and key parts of our kind of cultural DNA. And I think even now sort of post-pandemic having places that people can come together in, you know, in real as it were, you know, is becoming you know, is so critical to our own societies and, you know, where we can move forward.

Yeah. And just to sort of agree with David and Jesse there, I think one of the core principles that BDP is founded upon is collaboration. It's collaboration between professions, but it's collaboration with the public. 

And I think we pride ourselves on the level of consultation that we undertake with clients, end users and the wider public, the communities that these buildings serve.

And I think it's just really important that we just meet people's expectations of where they are and what they need. And that can be through tours, talks, interpretations, but also sort of touching on, again, the discussion of art and statuary commissioning, new works of art that are representative of the background and the lives that people are living now and sort of installing those in those places so that people can kind of really take ownership of enjoying those places and knowing that they do represent them as they are now.