Isla Powell and Stephanie Thompsons Accessible Date- GSWS 320

Accessible date:

We, Isla and Stephanie, stared our date meeting at the Waterfront station in Vancouver to take the sea bus to North Vancouver where we were going to have our date. We found the elevator to be accessible and in the same area as the escalators, therefore we felt that there was little exclusion of disability from the public space. However, getting onto and inside the sea bus was a bit more difficult. To get onto the sea bus, there was a noticeable amount of nudging of shoulders between the passengers and therefore we had concern for the level of comfort for a passenger with a disability. As we were going to the marked area for people with disabilities, we imagined that it could be a bit hectic getting through the narrow aisles and around the many passengers who were trying to get a seat. We felt that the sea bus could make a better effort in accommodating to people with various disabilities as it seemed that the seating area was primarily built around the able-bodied person. The space could be constructed in a more universal design, where an area of seats could be removed or folded up so that it would provide to many individuals, such as people in wheel chairs, people with strollers, or bikes.

When we departed the sea bus, the wheel chair ramp going up to the main level was very accommodating. We did come into some complications when moving along to dinner.  We had a quick option of going up Lonsdale hill to where the restaurant was located, or we could go around the sea wall, to the elevator on the opposite side of the street.  The added time for the longer route was roughly ten minutes. Taking the shorter route would bring upon the possible dependencies that a person in a wheelchair would have to an able-bodied person, if the person in a wheelchair required assistance in getting up the hill. Although an alternative route did seem to be a bit of an inconvenience, it did exist, and it was the route we chose to bring us to our dinner location.

Raglins

Anatoli Suvlaki

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Raglins

 

 

 

 

 

When we arrived at the restaurant called Ragins, we were immediately faced with the knowledge that the space would not be accommodating to someone in a wheelchair. It would be extremely hard to enter the restaurant as the doorway was very narrow.  The operations of ableism were apparent as it was visible that only able-bodied persons could easily use the space, as very little room was provided to move around. When we asked the server if the dining experience could be accommodating to a person in a wheelchair, she replied, “We can shift some tables around to create a space for a wheelchair to fit, as long as the wheelchair isn’t too big.” This space was certainly constructed with the assumptions of the “normal” body. The tables were set up in the centre of the restaurant, making the aisles very constricting and which made it virtually impossible for a wheel chair to fit through and to either use the washroom facilities or to pay at the cash register.  The entrance to the bathroom was not possible to a person in a wheel chair for it was extremely tight to get in and there was no bar to aid in assistance. We decided to go somewhere else which was two doors down called Anatoli Souvlaki. It was extremely accessible with an open area so the staff could easily move tables and chairs around, comfortably creating a space for a person in a wheel chair without causing any issues of discomfort.  The washroom facilities were also very accessible.

After dining at the restaurant, we went to our entertainment portion of the date which was to see a movie.  Going to the movie theatre was a bit challenging for there were many cracks and uneven breaks in the pavement and therefore we noticed the possible difficulty for a wheelchair to move along the sidewalk. There was also only one way of getting to the theatre, which was up a hill, filled with these breaks in the sidewalk. It presented the idea that it would be hard to push oneself in a wheel chair up the hill, and it seemed that the individual with the disability would need to be pushed up the hill to access the theatre. To require this sense of dependency on a date, we thought, could possibly make either person perhaps feel a little uncomfortable. After purchasing our tickets, we realized that the film we chose was being played on the upper level. We only saw the escalator and stairs to get to the second floor, but no elevator. When we asked the concession worker, she could not answer our question to where we could find the elevator, and so she directed us to the theatre manager. Here we noticed the problematic situation of how people with disabilities can be excluded from public space. In order to access the elevator, we would have to enter through a door into an area that was segregated from the public and which required a worker to assist us in using the elevator to access the upper level of the theatre. Unlike an able-bodied person having easy access on their own, within a space that is included to the public, a person in a wheelchair would have to first ask for help and then be separated from the rest of the public. We thought of how this helps to perpetuate paternalistic ideas of dependency as people with disabilities are faced with needing to ask for extra assistance, instead of making the space readily accessible as it is to able-bodied people. When we went into the theatre, there was a space for a wheel chair to fit alongside a line of chairs. We therefore felt that an intimate connection could be made and in this instance, it was a setting that provided an opportunity for all movie-goers to feel a sense of physical connectedness to the person they were sitting next to.

 After the movie, we decided to continue our date by going to a coffee shop to talk and to get to know each other more in an intimate setting. We found a space at the back of the coffee shop with a table marked as one for “disabled customers” which gave us some privacy. The coffee shop was accommodating in this respect,  however as children’s toys were placed next to the table, it took away that private feel and presented the idea that it is not as equally important for people with disabilities to need an intimate setting.  We felt that it would have been unconformable for example, to hold hands, if children were to be playing right next to us, and therefore we would be stopped from having an intimate connection. Others spots in the café that were away from the children’s toys could have created an opportunity for more intimacy, however they did not have the same tables that were accommodating to people with disabilities. In this particular setting, for people with disabilities, the divide between public and private space in relation to sexuality seemed to be quite sharp.  It felt that acts of intimacy would have to be limited to the private space and therefore not be expressed in public.

Despite some problematic issues, for the most part, the date was accessible.  We had a wonderful time together, and had fun exploring a beautiful part of North Vancouver.