This paper explores the attitudes and practices of property developers and related agents in facilitating or constraining disabled people's access in the built environment. While acknowledging that the development process is characterised by a range of socio-institutional structures and relations which are insensitive to and ignorant of the needs of disabled people, we develop the proposition that developers' responses to disabled people are not necessarily invariant, predictable or reducible to a cost calculus. Rather, our evidence is illustrative of a heterogeneity of developers' attitudes and responses to the needs of disabled people. We conclude by commenting on practical and political possibilities for changing the social relations of the development process in ways which will incorporate access as an integral element of the design and development of the built environment.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arts Council (1998) Beyond Barriers. London: Arts Council for England.
2.
Ball, M. (1998) Institutions in British property research: a review, UrbanStudies, 35, pp.1501-1517.
3.
Barnes, C. (1991) Disabled People in Britain and Discrimination. London: Hurst and Company.
4.
Barnes, C., Mercer, G. and Shakespeare, T. (1999) Exploring Disability: A Sociological Introduction . Oxford: Polity.
5.
Bromley, R. and Thomas, C. (1988) Retail parks: spatial and functional integration of retail units in the Swansea enterprise zone, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 13, pp. 4-18.
6.
Cousins, C. (1998) Social exclusion in Europe: paradigms of social disadvantage in Germany, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom, Policy and Politics, 26, 2, pp. 127-146.
7.
Disability Discrimination Act (1995) Code of Practice: rights of access, goods, facilities, services and premises. London : HMSO.
8.
Drtf (Disability Rights Task Force) (1999) From exclusion to inclusion. Final report of the Disability Rights Task Force . London: Department of Education and Employment.
9.
Gleeson, B. (1997) The regulation of environmental accessibility in New Zealand, International PlanningStudies, 2, pp. 367-390.
10.
Gleeson, B. (1999) Geographies of Disability. London: Routledge.
11.
Gleeson, B. (2001) Disability and the open city, UrbanStudies, 38, pp. 251-265.
12.
Gooding, C. (1994) Disabling Laws, Enabling Acts: Disability Rights in Britain and America. London: Pluto Press.
13.
Gooding, C. (1996) Blackstone's Guide to the Disability Discrimination Act. Oxford Black-stone' s.
14.
Gould, A. (1996) Sweden: the last bastion of social democracy, in: V. George and P. Taylor-Gooby (Eds) European Welfare Policy: Squaring the Welfare State, pp. 72-94. Basingstoke: MacMillan.
15.
Greed, C. (Ed.) (1999) Social Town Planning . London: Routledge.
16.
Guy, S. ( 1998) Developing alternatives: energy, offices, and the environment , International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 22, pp. 264-282.
17.
Guy, S. and Shove, E. (1993) Leaping the barriers. Paper presented to the BSA Risk and Environment Study Group Meeting, University of York, December. (available from S. Guy, Centre for Urban Technology, Department of Town and Country Planning, University of Newcastle , Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU).
18.
Hall, P. and Imrie, R. (1998) Disability rights and wrongs: a survey of chartered surveyor's in the United Kingdom, Chartered Surveyor Monthly, October, pp. 42-43.
19.
Hall, P. and Imrie, R. (1999) Architecture and disabling design in the built environment, Environment and Planning B, 26, pp. 409-426.
20.
Healey, P. and Barrett, S. (1990) Structure and agency in land and development processes: some ideas for research, UrbanStudies, 27, pp. 89-104.
21.
Imrie, R. (1996) Property development and access for disabled people: comparative evidence from Sweden and the United Kingdom. Research proposal to the Economic and Social Research Council. (available from the author, r.imrie@rhbnc.ac.uk).
22.
Imrie, R. (1999) Property development and access for disabled people: comparative evidence from Sweden and the United Kingdom. Final report to theEconomic and Social Research Council. Swindon: ESRC.
23.
Imrie, R. (2000a) Disabling environments and the geography of access policies and practices in the United Kingdom, Disability and Society, 15, pp. 5-24.
24.
Imrie, R. (2000b) Responding to the design needs of disabled people , Journal of Urban Design, 5, pp. 199-219.
25.
Imrie, R. and Hall, P. (2001) Inclusive Design: Designing and Developing Accessible Environments. London: E F & K Spon.
26.
Imrie, R. and Kumar, M. (1998) Focusing on disability and access in the built environment, Disability and Society, 13, pp. 357-374.
27.
de Jong, G. (1983) Defining and implementing the independent living concept, in: N. Crewe and I. Zola (Eds) Independent Living for Physically Disabled People, pp. 4-28. London: Jossey Bass .
28.
Laws, G. (1994) Oppression, knowledge, and the built environment , Political Geography, 13, pp. 7-32.
29.
Luithlen, L. (1994) Office Development and Capital Accumulation in the United Kingdom. Aldershot: Avebury.
30.
Matrix (1984) Making Space: Women and the Man-made Environment. London : Pluto Press.
31.
Oliver, M. (1990) The Politics of Disablement. London: MacMillan.
32.
Room, G. (1995) Poverty in Europe: competing paradigms of analysis , Policy and Politics, 23, pp.103-113.
33.
Rydin, Y. (1997) Planning, property and the environment, Planning Practice and Research, 12, pp. 5-7.
34.
Sibley, D. (1995) Geographies of Exclusion. Harlow : Longman.
35.
Us General Accounting Office (1998) Building Audit. Washington, DC: GAO.
36.
Us General Accounting Office (1999) Building Audit. Washington, DC: GAO.
37.
Wilkoff, W. and Abed, L. (1994) Practising Universal Design. London and New York: CanNostrand Reinhold.
38.
Young, I. (1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press .
