This event will be live captioned.
Please bear with us as we let you all into the room. If you would like to let us know where you are coming from today, that would be fantastic. Pop it into the chat.
I will be speaking with you via the chat function during the session today, and letting you have any relevant links and information that you might need.
The number looks as though it's starting to slow down for you, Lucy. So if you want to start, that would be fantastic.
LUCY: Thank you so much, Elysia. Good afternoon, and thank you to everyone who is joining us. We are absolutely thrilled to have you all here with us today.
I am Lucy Osborne and I am one of the co-founders of Studio Three Sixty. I have short, slightly messy brown hair! I am white, wearing a dark blue denim shirt.
We are delighted to be presenting this event are the originator of the project, Dan Daw. This event is in collaboration with the Association of British Theatre Technicians and we would particularly like to thank the ABTT for their generous support with this project.
They have been fantastic collaborators and supporters.
This webinar forms part of the programme for the ABTT Theatre Show Online and the London Festival of Architecture.
In a moment, I will introduce our speakers. But just before that, I have some reminders about the arrangements this afternoon.
As with other Zoom webinars, we recommend selecting Gallery view, so that you can see all the panellists at the same time.
The button for this can be found in the top right corner of your screen.
We have live closed caption subtitles this afternoon from Jean Gough, on behalf of Stagetext, which have been generously supported by the ABTT.
If you need the closed captions, please go to the closed caption button at the bottom of the screen, and please click on show subtitles and view full transcript.
You can adjust the size of the subtitles in subtitle settings.
Our BSL interpreters, Ali born and Max Marchewicz have been sponsored by Studio Three Sixty and Dan Daw Creative Projects.
Please do use the chat function to talk amongst yourselves. The chat button can be found on the bar at the bottom of your screen.
Elysia, the ABTT co-ordinator, will be looking after this today and she will say hello to you all in the chat now.
It would be brilliant if you could post your thoughts in the chat box, and as a starter for ten, it would be great if you could let us know where you are joining from today.
Feel free to chat to one another and give your thoughts throughout the event.
This event is all about hearing from as many different voices as possible, and we would love you to contribute as we go along.
Elysia will also be posting useful links and information in the chat throughout the webinar, so do keep an eye out for those as well. Snulz when we use the screen share function this afternoon, the skreern will reorganise itself to display the shared visual content, but it will return to the previous screen when the sharing stops. You don't need to do anything.
Most importantly, this session gives us an opportunity to address your questions.
At any time during the webinar, please do post questions you would like our panellists to discuss, using the Q&A tab. This is also found in the bar at the bottom of your screen.
We will try and discuss as many questions as possible, so do post them as we go along.
Today's webinar will be recorded and the recording will be available on the ABTT website, along with all relevant information, after the event.
It's just over a year since Dan first came to Studio Three Sixty. We were in the depths of Covid and it was hard to think positively about the future.
But Dan came to us and asked, "Have you ever wondered what a universally accessible arts centre would look like?" and in that moment I think Dan did something extraordinary.
It was to bravely challenge us all, as a community of architects, theatre owners, consultants, building managers, artists, educators and designers, to set aside everything we think we know, and imagine a future which is truly open to all.
We are so excited to begin this journey with you all today.
It is now my great pleasure to introduce our speakers.
Our panel will include Dan Daw, Joao Barroso and Doron von Beider from Adjaye Associates.
Robin Townley from the Association of British Theatre Technicians, and Kate Marsh, a contemporary dancer and thought leader.
Kate will be facilitating the event today, so, Kate, over to you.
KATE: Thank you, Lucy.
Welcome everybody. It's really great to have so many people from different areas with us today.
Lucy has already brilliantly spoken through our panel.
To describe myself, I am Kate Marsh, and I am, I love the term "thought leader".
I rarely say it about myself, but I will take that. My background is in contemporary dance, and most recently in contemporary dance research.
This is how Dan and I have really developed our relationship. We are long-term research collaborators.
Much of our professional and personal relationship is around asking sometimes difficult questions, and just to reiterate Lucy's point.
I am really hoping that today will give a space for as many different voices and questions.
I am a white middle aged woman. Today I am wearing a turquoise jumper, that I am slightly too hot in!
I have my hair in a pony tail. I have one hand which is actually visible on my Zoom screen now.
Erm, so, I think before I hand over to Dan, just to - and I will facilitate later on in the discussion, where hopefully we will have more space for more of you to comment, to add into the chat, and grow the discussion.
This discussion has been happening, as Lucy said, over the last year.
It feels really exciting to be in a space where we can present our thinking and hear and experience your thinking also.
So, I guess I will be back later to talk a little bit in more detail about my thinking and my research in relation to this project.
And then I will be facilitating a wider discussion later on in the panel.
So I will now hand over to the originator of the project, Dan Daw. Thank you, Dan.
DAN: Thank you, Kate. Dan Daw speaking. My pronouns are he/him.
I am the artistic director off Adjaye associates.
I am a white male, a mohawk style hair in the middle of my head, both ears are pierced, I am wearing a green T-shirt.
Behind me is a white wall with various pictures and postcards relating to dance.
So, thank you all very much for taking the time to be with us today.
As we all resurface from this pandemic, there is a growing awareness that we need to care for each other better.
During lockdown, as a disabled person, I made a commitment to myself that I was no longer going to accept living in a world that knowingly and actively exploited me and the people I care about.
So, I think now is the time to actively do something to change that, by creating long-lasting and systemic change,
And I will be doing this by consulting with historically excluded artists and influencers up and down the country, to interrogate the violence of inaccessible architecture and design in arts performance facility,
That is as universally accessible as it can be.
Although the majority of performing arts venues are compliant with current legislation around accessibility, there is much more work needed if cultural activities are to be truly accessible, and for our users to experience freedom in the most generous, unapologetic way.
Now, what do I mean when I say "truly accessible?"
As a disabled performer, I hold so much anxiety over whether or not a theatre I am presenting my work in is going to be step-free.
I worry about there not being enough seats.
I worry about not being able to control the sound in the auditorium for myself.
I worry about the seating rake being too steep.
I am interested in what an art centre might look like if I no longer had to kwoer about any of those things.
So I brought together this extraordinary team to find out, with the aim being that we build a performing arts venue that centres care.
As a team, we are interested in finding out what shape buildings actually need to be if they are (a) inclusive and (b) designed in a way that everybody, every body, has the same user experience.
So we have very much taken matters into our own hands here, to make the change we need to see in the world, by launching this project we are calling Reimagined Futures.
Now, how do we see this playing out?
We have broken it up into two stages.
Stage one is centring community consultation from the very beginning, and throughout, is what sets this project apart.
We are partnering with arts venues across the UK, visiting six cities, including Shoreditch Town Hall in London, Manchester International Festival, Leeds Playhouse, and Ealing Court Theatres in Inverness.
Others are still to be confirmed.
At those venues, we will lead two consultancy workshops per venue, in which we intend to capture what it is historically excluded people want, and need, from an arts venue to feel free and to feel cared for.
In line with this, we will be running an online workshops and launching an online survey, so that we can gather as many responses as we can.
With the information we gather from participants, we will work in partnership with Adjaye Associates to develop a digital rendering of an arts facility that includes all of everybody's needs.
This stage is about saying "yes" to absolutely everything, by producing what we are calling a Disneyland version of the arts facility, and that will work digitally.
Of course, the outcome of this first stage will be shared with audiences online.
Now, that takes us into stage two.
Working again with Adjaye associates and a task force of historically excluded members of the disabled community, we will design the architecturalle elements that need to be included in a new arts facility build in the future.
The ABTT, the Association of British Theatre Technicians, will be part of these discussions as they look to update the Yellow Book with our findings.
Our aim is to create a benchmark that will inform and inspire new architectural, institutional and cultural approaches to the design or refurbishment of public arts buildings,
Looking towards a future accessible to everybody.
The second stage will result in a set of building plans being produced that we hope investors will be excited enough about to invest in, and to see that what we imagine can then be built.
So, it's an ambitious project. People we have spoken to have described it as delightfully bonkers - and yes, they are right, it is!
But, and, to make it happen, we do need investment from the arts and building sectors to take Reimagined Futures from the theoretical into the practical, to actually build this thing. Thank you very much.
JOAO: Thank you very much, Dan. I think this is now my turn, so good afternoon everyone. My name is Joao Barroso. I am an architect and director at Adjaye Associates.
I have been asked to describe myself. I am a Portuguese man, a male. I am of average height, around six feet, with white or perhaps dark brown skin depending on exposure to the sun.
I am wearing a blue T-shirt and dialling in from home. My background is my living room. I have white walls and I am by a window.
I would like to start by saying thank you for the invitation to take part in this webinar, but also to take part in this project, which as Dan described is incredibly ambitious and exciting, so thank you, Lucy and Emma.
I would also like to thank the Association of British Theatre Technicians for supporting and hosting. We are very happy for the honour and are grateful to take part in this extremely important project.
A few words about why this project is exciting to us, but also why we think it's urgent for the industry, and great as a whole, before I hand over to Doron.
-- this project is specifically about performance arts buildings to be open to everyone.
It's a core belief of our practice and our ethos as architects.
It is an extremely difficult task, and we are not always successful, but it's certainly a goal that we establish at the start of all our projects.
It's also something very urgent, now, and one that we believe has been gaining momentum recently.
As architects, and speaking for myself, but I hope what I am going to say resonates with others, we deal in translating abstract ideas into objective representations of space.
If we are lucky, we may get to build buildings.
This sort of alchemy or synthesis most of the times involves impersonating the user.
We need to think within the space as the user.
This space may vary but it's fair to say that architects most times tend to design buildings for themselves and from their point of view.
It is a hard thing to escape, and in the process guidance are created which are used to design the spaces.
Even though it's very challenging and an ambitious proposition, we try to make a conscious effort to avoid prejudice, preconceived ideas and acknowledge our own biases which arise from our circumstances.
It's seeing through someone's eyes is essential to successful design. I believe this is also why this project is important, urgent, and incredible learning opportunity.
It's very exciting for us to be able to consult with artists and audience members who have been historically excluded from these buildings in the UK.
It is in itself a very exciting project, and a good learning opportunity.
By doing so, I think we hope to better understand the brief of the project, exactly what is needed for a building to be open to everyone, and how can we translate this into space and form.
Allowing equal access for everyone, raises a series of interesting questions which we are open to exploring. We accept our ignorance and we want to ask you, and we hope that in this process we can recognise our prejudice and ignorance,
And hopefully be better representatives of a larger group of people, and as a consequence become better architects, being able to design buildings in which more people, if not everyone, feels represented.
Yes, I think this is a summary of why this project is so great, and I will hand over now to Doron, who will share our presentation with you. Thank you for putting up with me.
DORON: Hello everyone. Thank you for having us here representing Adjaye Associates.
My name is Doron von Beider, and I am, I would say, it was wonderful to think for a moment how to describe myself!
I would say Mediterranean sort of a look, but with European descent.
I have black hair, a black beard and a black moustache, with green-blue eyes.
I am almost two metres high, which in a wonderful way leads me directly into describing why I am very much interested in this fantastic project.
Beside the fact that I think we at Adjaye are quite interested with trying to re-invent or plan new sorts of architectural types and mechanisms.
But I think that being almost two metres high always has evoked thoughts within me.
Especially as an architect, on how I experience space, and what sort of obstacles I deal with, as being out of the very specific norm that architects and planners are working towards.
I think, from a different perspective, since most of my work at the practice is involved with research, I think that being approached to participate in this project, I just reflected through my time within the academy, or later in my professional career.
I couldn't really remember the amount of times that different aspects or obstacles within architecture were discussed, or were even considered.
Although, in the recent years, with a few projects, we always invested a lot of time and energy to try to find solutions, in order to give all visitors the same experience of space,
I would really thought a lot about how could we answer some of the solutions, or how could we find some solutions to create that very specific new mechanism, or new sort of architecture.
I am going to share my screen now.
What we, what I am about to show you now is not at all an historical review, or as it is not a lecture, but we tried in a visual way to raise some questions, plant seeds of doubts, and have some ideas
On how we could start to tackle some of the issues, and try to find some solutions.
Starting with quite an interesting drawing of a sceneic design which comes from a beautiful time at the Italian renaissance.
The idea is described here, they are by Nicola Sabbatini, a 17th century designer.
We call that slide "the ideal viewer".
It is really the beginning of all performance spaces, and with this radical example of a specific man, sitting on a chair, on a plinth.
Perfectly located from the stage, with having all ideal environment in order to see the performance.
The idea here was to use a mechanism of sliding boards and revolving triangles, in order to give a depth and to create, with artistic tricks of sorts, an ideal scenery.
Again, we could have looked at that image and thought what could be the obstacle with that.
But then again, you would need to have perfect vision, perfect hearing, senses, and perfect views while you are sitting at the exact location, in order to receive the picture in full.
Within this slide, called the ideal setting, again, we can see a description of the Theatre of Dionysus built in Athens, in Greece, late 6th century.
On the left-hand side, we can see sort of a drawing of the theatre.
We see almost the facade of a large building, with many, many levels, steps, and in front of it quite a large set of three stages.
And a viewer sitting in an am if I theatre setting. (amphi theatre)
Almost a mechanism that offers the viewer a very specific set of conditions in order to enjoy the perfect performance, and that would be sitting in a very specific location,
Very clear height, with a very clear acoustic condition. On the right-hand side, we see an image of the front-row seats.
These are quite heavy, beautifully carved marble seats.
Almost like an armchair.
Again, an extremely specific set of users in a specific location, that get the priority from the performance.
In other words, the best seats in the house. This is one of the obstacles that keeps returning throughout our view.
A different set of examples, this medieval stage in bonon market-place in Belgium in the 16th century.
We see a performance taking place, with some audience walking around into the city square.
The stage, again, quite roughly, I might say, is located on a raised platform.
Again, from that same understanding that, in order to provide the best performance, a very specific set of ideas and conditions needs to be kept.
Obstacles as solutions.
Here we can see the Teatro Olimpico by Vincenzo Scamozzi Vicenza in northern Italy, 16th century.
On the left-hand side, we see the floor plan, with the same idea of creating a sort of a visual trick, of creating depth of the space, and creating a scenery deep enough to convey a sort of a reality.
In order to make that visual trick perfected, we need the very specific conditions of where the viewer sits, and how they see it.
In the centre where we see the section, we see the depth of the scenes that is built as the set design, and the very different levels of seats.
On the right-hand side, an actual image that allows us in the centre.
Funnily enough - well, not funnily enough - but the camera taking that image has created almost the perfect seat, again, in the house, and allows you to see that depth of street within the centre of the stage.
Again, a visual trick to what they have seen as the perfect eye.
A more recent example is the auditorium building by Lewis Sullivan and Dankmar Adler in Chicago.
Here, within this section, we see how the amount of different levels, different steps, with the front of the house, the circulation that allows people to get to their seats.
We see various stairs and different corridors designed for very specific users, and the seatings are all on different levels.
But that's what really - I've got an opportunity to speak about the performance and the performers, that also needs to be within these very specific sets of conditions, in order to perform on this stage,
And how do they get to the stage, what do they see from it, and what are the conditions that they have in order to perform.
We also wanted to think of what we could think of with accidental solutions as we call them.
On the left-hand side, we can see a theatre as a machine by Joseph Furttenbach from 1650.
Here we see a drawing of a central hall for viewers an around it stages.
The idea is the users walk around the main circular space, and they see the performance, or different performances as they revolve.
So that gives us an empty space in the middle, and we start to think of how does a theatre that doesn't have a specific set of seats, that doesn't have the best seats in the house,
But allows the viewers to walk around, to look at different angles and different views.
Then, on the right-hand side, we see the Bayreuth Festival a Hall in Germany, in 1876.
The intention behind this drawing wasn't to offer any different solution, or anything out of the ordinary.
It's just the capture of the hall, just before the seats have been organised within these different levels.
But this gives us, again, an architectural solution or a thinking.
Can we actually have halls without seats? Can we move seats around?
Could we change the perfect condition? Could we eliminate this idea of a perfect seat, for releasing or easing some of those conditions that we spoke about before.
And we will finish with another set of intentional solutions that we have noticed happened during the Covid pandemic.
Different halls had to find solutions on how to have different users, by numbers, keeping new rules that were introduced to us, like the Berliners Ensemble.
They just freed the hall from sets of seats, and we see there are gaps in between, keeping a proper or a required - not really a proper, but just a gap between seats and viewers, that sort of excites us and gives us a glimpse of how a solution might be found.
On the right-hand side, there is the Donmar Warehouse production of Blindness, which was a social distance sound installation.
Here we see viewers sitting in different directions.
They have earphones on their heads.
Different sets of lighting. There are interesting gaps in between.
Some viewers see one another.
So there is a whole different and interesting set of possibilities there as well.
So, again, I think the idea behind these images is just to show, and to raise some questions or some ideas of more radical thinking for finding a different solution for this fascinating project.
Thank you.
KATE: I think it's me now to speak? Good, Dan is nodding.
Thank you for those really interesting provocations so far.
I am a little bit aware of time, so I am going to try and be succinct in the next part that I talk about, before I hand over to Robin.
This is something, a big part of my research in dance has been in an umbrella term around disability and leadership, or lack of representation by othered marginalised or disabled people in leadership roles in the arts.
So what is particularly exciting about this project, for me, and this is something that Dan and I have spoken about over the years, is to imagine what it means to be in spaces of ownership that we feel autonomous within.
So listening to Dan's provocation at the beginning, and then listening to the wonderful context from the architectural side,
I want to kind of offer a slightly upside down provocation, that we perhaps consider what it actually means to borrow space.
What that means for us in terms of us as consumers of the arts, as audience members, as artists, in all the spaces in the venues that we engage with.
What does it actually mean to us to live and exist in a culture where we are essentially "borrowing" spaces that exist to serve normative bodies, normative lived experiences.
However we understand normative, and that will differ from person to person.
It made me think. And Dan, you gave such a great introduction at the beginning.
I can't remember your specific wording, but you talked about how you access things, but also how the people you care about access or don't access things.
It made me think really anecdotely, it's pandemic related, anecdotes are so important.
We don't use them enough in the arts. It's personal experience, so indulge me, I am going to be anecdotal.
It made me think about all the times I have entered into a venue, with colleagues or friends, via a back door or a side door.
Or all the times my collaborator, who I have worked with for 20 years, has - even though it doesn't suit her in any way - has walked up the stairs, rather than taking a lift, because the lift is unavailable.
Or non-existent.
So I really want us to consider what that does for us, as artists, as people, when we are borrowing space.
I think, once we can sit with that, and think about that, then we can really start to imagine what these new spaces might be like.
One of the most exciting aspects of this, for me, when Dan first started talking about this project to me, in all honesty, when Dan asked me what would access look like, I actually wasn't sure what to say.
Because I think we are so embedded in a culture of making do; in a culture of being allowed in, just enough.
Actually, it was quite hard for me to imagine what that access might look like, and it may be something as small as, for me personally, it may be about having banisters on either side of stairs, so I can hold on.
But then it may also be, what does access mean to me, in terms of me as a wider community.
So I am not just dreaming about what I want. I am dreaming about what I want for the communities that I live and work in, that are my peers, my colleagues, my friends, my family.
That, I think, is the most important thing about this invitation.
Yes, we may have to adjust the dream. But I think when Dan invites us all to really imagine what access looks like, for us and our communities, and to think really broadly about that.
I can't remember the exact phrase, Dan, but brilliantly bonkers, or fantastically bonkers!
Let's engage in that and indulge ourselves.
It's time. We have done enough of coming in through back doors and politely finding an alternative when the lift doesn't work, or when the hearing loop isn't working.
This is about practical and philosophical access.
We must consider how it feels to physically be able to access a building in the best way.
But also I warrant us to consider what that feels like to be entering a space that we have designed, that we have ownership of.
So there is the philosophical aspects around access, as well as the practical, and it feels really key that we hold on to that.
I am only 13 minutes over to handing over to robin.
I am really looking forward to talking more about this in the Q&A.
Keep on putting questions in the comments. I will hand over to Robin.
ROBIN: Thank you very much, Kate. Hello. Robin speaking.
My pronouns are he and him.
I am Chief Executive of the Association of British Theatre technicians. Numz I am a white middle aged man, I have short dark hair and have squareish rimmed glasses.
I am wearing a headset with a mic, a light blue sheurd and a dark tie.
I must, first of all, thank Dan for his "brilliantly bonkers" conception, and also Lucy and Emma at Studio Three Sixty, for connecting with the ABTT.
I have been invited to explain why the ABTT is very interested in supporting and helping to move forward this brilliantly bonkers idea.
We might not be familiar, as an organisation, to many of you this afternoon.
We were founded in 1961, as you will see, and so we are pleased to be celebrating our Diamond Jubilee this year.
And in what is perhaps a little bit "quaint" language now, our purpose was stated in 1961, and remains to this day, as follows:
The advancement of public education in the technical subjects connected with the theatre and theatrical presentation, and the promotion, for the benefit of the public, of excellence in theatre design and technical presentation of theatrical works.
And that purpose has served us brilliantly over the last 60 years, and allowed us to not only support technical and production practitioners, who make live performance and present it,
And run buildings in which that presentation takes place, and to which audiences are invited, but we have also supported those people who are involved in designing and constructing places of entertainment,
Both from new, and also when existing premises are refurbished.
But because we are a membership organisation, we have developed mechanisms to allow people who work in the theatre industry to set down the good practice that they are developing on a night-by-night basis,
And codify that for the use of everyone in the sector, and also to demonstrate to other parties, third parties, how things can be done in a way that meet certain requirements.
A huge amount of our work has been focused on setting standards for technical excellence, safety and compliance.
We produce a number of publications that capture ways of meeting statutory duties.
But, as an industry, we are known to grab any and every new development from other sectors, as the creative process sees ways of using them and exploiting them in the process of live performance.
And so we have to be quite nimble to cope with using new innovations from other sectors, or techniques from other sectors in new and innovative ways, to meet the requirements of our creative teams, and our potential audiences.
And so, although the guidance we produce is not statutory, it has become "soft" law, in that it is used by both the national regulators for safety, and also by people who work within our industry,
As a common reference as to how to approach undertaking the process of production and the operation of places of entertainment, in safe and compliant ways.
And it means that that body of work, which is in a code of practice for the theatre industry in the United Kingdom, is hugely influential in going beyond statutory compliance,
Seeking to achieve excellence, as our purpose states, and moving beyond the minimum or the required,
So that we do things in a way that will support as many participants in the process as possible.
I am sure many of you are familiar with the statutory framework that governs accessibility,
Both in terms of the Equality Act, and in terms of physical access through the building regulations and the building regulations in Scotland, and the supplementary guidance that is statutory and supports those acts.
But we recognise that guidance can go beyond statutory minimums, and the way to set appropriate guidance is, as Dan has already mentioned, to consult with those that it will affect.
And so our hierarchy, very much in the way Dan has already expressed, at the lowest level, is the statutory minimum.
Guidance can take you further, but consultation should be at the heart of developing appropriate strategies.
That is true for all that we do, and including access.
So we very much hope that any of the learning that Reimagined Futures is able to produce can be captured and included in the documents and guidance that we provide,
So that it becomes a universal benchmark for all practitioners, and the best practice learned by multiple participants can be brought together in one easily accessible reference, so everyone can use it and everyone can benefit from it.
I will hand back to Dan now, so that we get back on time.
KATE: Robin, thank you. I am going to steam-roll in over Dan, just in the interests of time keeping.
So the time is now 1.22.
There has been such interesting provocations and sharing so far, so thank you everybody.
I think what I would suggest now is if we take a 5-minute break, just so our BSL interpreters and our live captioner can have a short break.
Then, when we come back, we will get back into the Q&A, and also get into a discussion between the panellists.
If I can be strict, and ask people to be back in five minutes, that would be really good, so we have enough time to chat at the end. Thank you everybody. Back at 1.27. (break)
KATE: I think we are all back. That's 27 minutes, 28 minutes past.
So, what we would like to do, as a panel, for the next half an hour or so, is I will work through some of the brilliant questions that have come in to the Q&A.
But I also want to invite panellists to question each other.
There is obviously a vast diversity of knowledge, experience, and something that always interests me, that when we come from a position of acknowledging what we don't know,
And what our experience does not include, that's when we can really open up to finding out, or kind of getting new information.
So my first offer, I suppose, is, is there anything emerging from the panel, or anything that's come up from listening to each other, that you would like to share?
DORON: I think there is a lot, looking at the questions, and also hearing the other members of the panel -
It seems like - I am going to rephrase that.
It seems like there is a need for an index, to begin with, that defines the different aspects.
Because just questions on who, who are we defining? Who are we planning for?
What are the obstacles, and maybe some of the solutions?
And it brings me back to a thought that we have discussed before the panel started, that spending five long years in architecture school, you invest a lot of time in trying to find solutions on how cars can park in a building,
But hardly no time at all on how you use a building with a wheelchair, or how do we - what happens when you can't see clearly?
And I think that starting to define, or have a set of definitions,
So an index sounds really big, but it could start with being very simple.
Sets of definitions, also linguistic definitions, that will help us to be clear on what are the different aspects that we are interested in.
But also, that goes back to that idea of school, or of an academy.
And on the much larger scale, on how do we offer different tools to planners and designers from the very early stages of their career,
To always carry that in the back of their mind when approaching a project.
KATE: Yes. Thank you. That's really interesting.
I think it's incredibly levelling, to me, and probably everybody here, and alarming, but also predictable, that cars would be a priority in accessing culture, than people with disability.
I think that's something we should all kind of let that land!
I think we know it, but it feels, to hear it from your own experience, was really important.
I am going to try and bring together a few things, because I think, Doron, your point is really a great one,
It's about how we look at technology, and how we look at some definitions.
As Dan has pointed out, this is an incredibly ambitious project, as it should be.
It needs to be ambitious, because it needs at this stage to include everything and everyone, in the best way that they can be included.
I think that feels very important, to me, and I just want to point that out.
Just being in this brilliant group.
I am rarely involved in projects that are, "This is how massive we want it to be, and then we will look at what's possible."
Once we know what the dream is, then we will see what's possible.
I think we in the arts often come at it from the other thing. We think this might be possible, so we start very small.
I think, in terms of definition, what is coming up, and what I think is good to acknowledge, Andrew and Raquel both nod to this in different ways.
That is about how do we make space for the multiple different requirements, that don't always, er, rub well together.
I think that's a really interesting discussion in how we move forward in this.
Actually, when we think about access, sometimes one access requirement may make another one really difficult.
Raquel, I love your idea - I am familiar with your brilliant work - when you talk about horizontal seats,
I think, "Yes, great, brilliant. Let's do that!"
Then there is a question of what does that do to other parts of the access.
That's a really interesting part of this research.
How do we make space that is agile?
How can these spaces be accessible and agile, to include access for everybody?
And, Andrew, I am not very good at scrolling up and down Q&As.
(pause)
Oh, I can't land on it now.
To create a perfectly accessible space, we need to define what ableist architecture is in the cultural sphere. This is a huge piece of work as it must cover all impairments and users,
Artists, participateants, audiences. How do we achieve that? Anyone want to have a go at that, on the panel?
How can we - perhaps the question is, on one level, how can we, as a panel of thinkers, or originator, Dan, of the project.
How can we approach this huge piece of work so that it is covering, as Andrew says, everything?
I don't know if anybody wants to have or make a comment on that?
DAN: Yes. Thanks, Andrew. For me, it's around that's why the first stage of the project is key, for me, and it's existing in a digital sphere,
So that we can legitimately, and actually design this virtual space, that captures and caters for everybody's needs, and what that might look like.
And that's where, with stage two, we go, "Okay, we take that."
I use this example a lot. For example, in our Disneyland version, we might have 80 entrances to the venue, and digitally we find a way to create that.
But when we put together the plans in stage two, to then get it built, well, 80 might not be possible.
It might, but then it might not. So we've got to get it down to, say, four or five,
And what's the process, and I guess what are the common denominators in those 80 doorways, to get that down to, I guess, essentially, I guess, a compromise on what those five entrances to the venue might be.
KATE: Great. Thank you, Dan. Does anybody else on the panel want to comment on the subject of how we include everybody?
It's fine if not, but I just want to make the offer.
Okay. Sorry, Joao.
JOAO: Simply, Andrew's question I think encapsulates the focus of the project.
I think the first step, at least in my opinion, would be the consultation with people,
And trying to understand individually how people experience these issues.
It's not apparent to me because I have a completely different circumstance.
And I think, by acknowledging this, and understanding this experience, then we should be able to put together a space like Dan said, that includes everyone.
This might be a utopia, but I think the challenge for us, as architects - a lot of architecture is based on trying to make compromise between two contradictory solutions.
I think that this initial step is exactly about avoiding that compromise, and saying yes to everything, and understanding how each person should have the same or equitable experience in the performance venue.
Designing that as a Disneyland bay acies, and then understanding is this possible, and what do we need to make the compromises, and what those compromises are. In consultation. Sorry if that's long-winded.
KATE: No, it's really clear.
It reminds me that a big part of access, in its broadest sense, is actually around a genuine openness to have the conversation about the fluidity of access requirements;
To be open to what isn't working and what isn't there, and what needs to be there.
I think, historically, there is a kind of building culture, or an access culture in the UK, anyway, that I have seen, that might be sticking a ramp in the front of a building, and some - I have forgotten what they are called -
Doors that do that - automatic doors!
And then the conversation around access stops. So it becomes very difficult to come into those spaces and say, "This would make my experience better."
It goes back to my point, access is being defined on the terms of normative bodies. So we are borrowing space, but we are also borrowing the concept of what access means, from people who do not experience our bodies.
Or have lived experience of.
I just want to bring together Catherine and Jamie's point, because this might again be one for Joao and Doron, but we will all contribute.
I am merging the questions. Jamie asks about whether total inclusion access is possible.
Oh, no, I am jumping around, Jamie. You have asked two. It's the first one.
Are you thinking about the whole journey experience. So where the journey will be, the links and infrastructures, or primarily focusing on the venue, and Catherine earlier in the Q&A has asked about the visual, which I think is really important.
-- it's about the aesthetic of the building, that often access is not beautiful, or the beauty of accessible buildings and venues is not thought about; it's functional.
And actually, I think we don't have time to get into it now, but for those of you who are not in this discourse, I would really invite you to have a look at the social and medical model of disability,
And how they speak to each other in terms of architectural design, and how they often manifest as quite functional solutions.
I will see if I can put something in the chat, or maybe someone else can.
What do we think about that? Is this just about the venue?
Is it about where it is? Obviously, in the Disneyland stage, it could be anywhere, right?
But how important will that be?
And then what about the journey, the holistic sense of the building?
DORON: It's interesting, because every single question or an idea here are sort of interweaved with one another, which I think is quite a step forward in finding a solution.
But Disneyland, in that sense, is not such a bad idea.
I mean, it's really got to do a lot with the previous question, or the discussion that you and Joao just had.
It's are we - maybe, actually, it will be as challenging - not as challenging as it might be.
Maybe we do need to create that one example, to study with and to develop, and to try.
That goes hand in hand with building that index that I referred to before.
Defining it. Because some of the aspirations we have sound almost impossible.
What - I mean, when do we stop drawing and press "print" and we start construction?
When is this stage? And who did we include in this stage?
And what condition did we create in this stage?
It seems like there is always going to be someone who has been left out.
So I think a great triumph, or a great success of something of that sort, would start with small examples, with small tests.
It could be one venue.
It could be even not a whole venue.
It can be perhaps a pavilion, something that has been built and then dismantled, so we can try to see how it works.
Practice in real scale, in full scale.
And going back again to that idea of a book of standards, and what we have been taught in architecture school, I think that we sort of need to come to a point
That is being extended to, into try-outs and into different ideas, that can be explored and experimented with.
But, again, starting with small actions and small tests.
KATE: Yes. Thank you, Doron. I think that's really insightful.
I just want to remind us all of something that Dan said at the beginning.
And I think this may be something that we keep on reminding ourselves of.
So, at the beginning of this, Dan, you talked about "care".
I think, when we get into these discussions about the practical, and about problems and solutions,
Sometimes we forget about care, or care gets left behind.
I think, when Doron you are talking about how do we do this, how do we make sure,
I think at every point, there is something about not being afraid to come back to care.
Not being afraid to make space for people who say, "What about me?" or, "This is what I would need."
That's what's so exciting for me.
That we can do this with a sense of care for our communities, and for each other, and I hope we can hold on to that.
I didn't say this at the beginning, and I meant to.
I think we must acknowledge how unique and important it is that the originator of this project is a dance artist, and a maker, and a disabled dance artist and maker. A crip disabled artist.
I am lengthening your title, Dan!
But I think that's super important, because I would be perhaps a bit controversial. I think that artists care differently.
And I think that that would be a really important part of this project.
Raquel asks if it's possible for venues to join the consultation process. Would love a venue in Bristol to be involved.
Elysia is answering that question live. Very technologically advanced.
From my conversations with Dan, I think Dan wants as many people involved in the conversation, and contributing, as possible.
DAN: Can I just feed in to that?
Speak to your kind of - I guess we need a conversation around dance and choreography.
I very much think of this project as approaching it how I make a piece of choreography.
It's about thinking about, okay, so if I've got a thousand non-normative bodies in this space, navigating space and time, in this way together.
What structure is built around that? So, essentially, what's the set to that choreography?
So the choreography of using the bathroom. The choreography of drinking and eating.
The choreography of being assisted.
The choreography of watching a show.
The choreography of entering.
Okay, the choreography of exiting.
We've got the choreography of doing that in that space, and how do we create a structure around that?
That's what I am interested in exploring.
Also, can it be a structure that is able to shift and change, based on a different constellation of normative bodies you within the space.
Can the space be moved around? Can the barb be raised or lowered?
So thinking of it in that sense. I guess structurally, and also culturally as well.
KATE: Yes. That's a really interesting point.
On this note of the choreography of buildings, which is really a great analogy, Dan.
I know we talked about this a lot, but as I think, as Doron pointed out, it's coming up a lot.
Jamie asks if total inclusion is actually possible.
We talk about it a lot, and that's often unhelpful, which I would wholeheartedly agree with.
Jamie goes on to talk about more honest appraisals.
I think that's really interesting.
I think that's what this project is all about, is the being honest about what isn't there, and what might potentially be there.
I wonder whether what we will end up with is, whether it is complete, because access changes and it's fluid and there's this choreography.
But actually my absolute, my gut and my heart is telling me, "We have to try."
Because actually, in the process of trying, and seeing where we get to, even if the access still needs to change, or it's not perfectly inclusive,
If it is a space that is owned by the users who it is aimed at - if we have a sense of ownership, then we will be able to ask for change.
We will be able to ask for something different, for something more, because we will feel like it's ours to have that view, an to have that stake in.
I think that that's what's lacking now.
Largely, we don't feel like we can impact change in existing venues or cultural providers.
I am skimming through. Does anybody in the panel want to comment on anything, because you are seeing the Q&A as well?
DORON: There is a set of tools that designers and planners use now.
It's to find solutions to the different aspects that we mentioned.
That really relates to a discussion of care, not just from whoever visits a venue, but also from the performances.
That brings a very unique element.
As planners, we have to use sets of rules and regulations.
There are no sets of rules and regulations to designing an experience of space.
How one experiences an entrance to a place, or the space itself.
It's on a different, and perhaps more philosophical level,
But with intentions and care, as part of a definition that we add to these sets of rules and regulations, for this specific project to begin with, that will have a great potential to set an example, perhaps.
KATE: Yes, absolutely. I agree.
One practical question, which might be good to share with the audience.
We have a question about - and this is a very interesting notion - the idea that there is only so much accessibility to go round, and that priority is often given to audience members.
It is very interesting, when you think about art, the arts as a capitalistic model, that it would be the people who are paying that have the priority access.
So this question goes on to ask, what about accessible technical spaces for technical staff?
What about accessible, more accessible back-stage areas for performers?
Again - and this came up in a recent project that I have been involved in, and I just want to flag up - when we talk about access for performers, that might be access around information.
It may be how - I think that's important - obviously this is not an architectural issue, but about how people are invited into a space.
It may not be about whether the changing rooms are accessible.
It may be partly about that, but actually how do we make sure - and this ties in with someone else's question, which is really interesting - I don't know, Dan, if you want to comment on it.
It's around the relationship we may have or the priority we may give to companies such as can do co, Graeae, paraorchestra, about access.
Do you have any thoughts on what the relationship may be to these companies. You may not have an answer to that.
DAN: Yes. I mean, a lot of those companies could be part of the consultation process.
Also, as part of the collective whole, and we should acknowledge that I know it's not going to be accessible to everyone.
Like, I know that, but I want to give it a good go, and there's work being done, but there needs to be more work,
Because I think that's, I guess, the complacency that comes in, "well, nothing is accessible to everyone anyway", so then that's why nothing changes.
So I think we all need to collectively hold that and place that collective care around it.
We know it's not going to be accessible to everyone - we get that - but we're going to give it a shot.
It's advancing thought beyond the current, "Oh, well, everything can't be accessible to everybody anyway, so we won't bother changing."
I guess that's the kind of "political" standpoint, but we're going to give it a real go.
KATE: I am letting that settle, because that feels really important.
I feel like, as a project, this may welcome up against that.
Because, because we are individually and collectively deeply passionate and moved, by not just the subject of access, but how we experience and how we consume art.
How we make art. How we go and see things. How we are part of a community of audience members.
So, of course, there is a frustration with not feeling included.
And I think what's very clear, Dan, from conversations that I have had with you, and at points the rest of the team, is that this might not be right at every stage.
It may be that we have to be open to people going, "What about me? Can we try this? Have you thought of this?"
But absolutely, it feels like that effort, that the time is right.
Because actually, as you quite rightly say, the alternative is we stay as we are, borrowing small corners that actually are good enough, and that we continue to "make do".
I don't want to do that any more, not for myself or for the people I care about and work with.
I think that's the opportunity here.
It's two minutes to. Lucy, you have popped up. Shall I hand back over to you?
LUCY: Yes, that would be great, Kate. I am really sad to end the discussion there.
Thank you so much to our panel, to Kate, to all of you, for turning up.
This has absolutely blown our minds in terms of the feedback we are getting and the responses from everybody. Thank you so much.
We can't progress this project without your help.
We need a broad range of lived experience and expertise to help us think outside the box. And to come up with new design solutions, as Kate says.
We need partnerships and consultations.
With that in mind, there are lots of different ways you can get involved and help us design and build our dream art centre.
Please follow us, email us, call us, DM us.
We really want to hear from you if you would like to get involved and attend the consultation session.
Or if you have heard something today which has made you want to offer something else. Pick up the phone.
You can also head to our Go Fund Me page.
We will be adding information on to our website and social media as we go along.
We will be writing to everyone who attended today on how to keep in touch.
The second way you can help is, as an organisation or a business, each consultation session is going to cost us £6,000 to run.
We believe it's really important that we pay the people who participate properly for their time, and we also want to make sure we have all the support necessary in place for people to be able to contribute fully, regardless of their disability.
If you would like to join us as a host venue or sponsor a consultation session, please do reach out to us.
You can also offer your time or expertise. We are going to need a lot of both, I think!
I can't help feeling as I look around this virtual room that, between us all, if we work together, we have the skills and knowledge we need to create something truly ground-breaking.
Thank you so much everyone for your time today.
I can't help feeling incredibly excited about the future.