Beyond the Ramp - Reimagining Accessible Architecture as a Political Act

 

By Akriti B, TYBA

The discourse on disability-friendly architecture in India is predominantly framed through a compliance-based approach, wherein accessibility is reduced to a set of functional accommodations such as ramps, elevators, and designated parking spots. This approach often fails to consider the lived experiences of disabled individuals and their interaction with urban spaces. As a result, accessibility becomes an afterthought rather than an integrated principle of urban planning. Drawing on insights from disability studies and urban sociology, I argue for a paradigm shift in architectural praxis that moves beyond reactive modifications toward a transformative and inclusive design philosophy. Such an approach acknowledges disabled individuals as active agents in shaping urban environments rather than passive recipients of accessibility accommodations.

In India, accessibility is primarily governed by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which mandates the inclusion of ramps, tactile paths, and other infrastructural modifications in public buildings (Government of India, 2016). While these provisions are necessary, they are often implemented in a superficial manner, fulfilling legal requirements without addressing the broader socio-spatial exclusions faced by disabled individuals (Boys, 2017). For instance, ramps are frequently constructed at inaccessible gradients, and elevators remain non-functional due to maintenance neglect. Furthermore, accessibility audits reveal that many urban spaces remain largely exclusionary despite appearing compliant on paper (Imrie, 2012). It may be argued that this apathy in infrastructural changes is merely a manifestation of the larger public’s attitudes of dehumanisation and detachment of personhood towards people with disabilities. It thus becomes crucial for accessibility to be understood not just as a technical issue but as an inherently political one that intersects with broader structures of oppression.

Urban environments in India have historically been designed with a normative able-bodied subject in mind, reinforcing systemic exclusions that affect disabled individuals in profound ways (Gleeson, 1999). The very fabric of cities – from the layout of streets and transportation networks to the architecture of public and private buildings – prioritises the ‘abled’. As a result, public infrastructure often lack even the most basic accessibility features, making navigation difficult, if not impossible, for disabled people. Public transportation systems, including buses and trains, frequently fail to accommodate wheelchair users, individuals with low vision, or those with neurodivergent needs, leaving them with limited or no options for independent travel.

The inaccessibility of commercial buildings further compounds the issue. Many shops, restaurants, workplaces, and cultural institutions remain physically inaccessible due to staircases, narrow doorways, and a lack of elevators or ramps. This exclusion is not incidental but structural. Scholars within disability studies and urban planning emphasize that spatial exclusion is not merely an accident of poor planning or lack of awareness; rather, it is a deliberate product of deeply entrenched ableist norms that dictate whose bodies are considered in the design process (Soja, 2010). This reflects a broader socio-political reality where disabled individuals are not seen as full participants in public life, reinforcing their invisibilisation in urban landscapes. Consequently, inaccessible environments act as systemic barriers that deny disabled individuals the right to independent mobility, employment, education, and social participation, further marginalising an already disadvantaged group.

Moreover, the privatisation of public spaces has exacerbated these exclusions. Many shopping malls and gated communities claim to be disability-friendly but often restrict access through high entrance fees, stringent security measures, or a lack of consideration for cognitive and sensory disabilities (Friedner, 2015). These exclusions reinforce the notion that accessibility is a privilege afforded to a select few rather than a fundamental right. The uneven distribution of accessible infrastructure across urban and rural areas further highlights this disparity. While metropolitan cities may have a few well-maintained accessible spaces, smaller towns and rural areas largely lack basic provisions such as wheelchair-accessible pathways or public transportation (Singh, 2014). This geographical disparity makes mobility and participation in public life highly conditional upon one's location, class, and financial ability to afford alternatives.

This is further exacerbated due to the fact that infrastructural accessibility often hinges on economic status. Private establishments, such as upscale malls, hotels, and corporate buildings, are more likely to invest in accessible design because of legal compliance and the potential economic benefits of serving a diverse clientele. In contrast, public infrastructure – including government offices, railway stations, and affordable housing – frequently remains inaccessible due to bureaucratic inefficiency and lack of funding. This creates a two-tiered system where accessibility is commodified, benefitting those who can afford it while excluding economically marginalised disabled individuals.

Universal Design (UD) is often proposed as a solution to accessibility issues. Developed by Mace (1985), UD advocates for environments that are inherently accessible to people of all abilities without the need for later modifications. While UD represents a step forward, critics argue that it still operates within the framework of technocratic solutions rather than addressing deeper socio-political exclusions (Hamraie, 2017). A truly radical approach to accessibility must move beyond UD and incorporate principles of disability justice, which emphasise community-led solutions, intersectionality, and the redistribution of power in architectural decision-making.

One promising approach is participatory design, which actively involves disabled individuals in the planning and development of urban spaces. Case studies from cities such as Curitiba in Brazil and Barcelona in Spain demonstrate how participatory planning processes have resulted in more inclusive and accessible urban environments (Gleeson, 1999). In the Indian context, local disability rights organisations have initiated similar interventions, advocating for greater representation of disabled voices in municipal planning committees. These efforts highlight the potential of a grassroots, community-driven approach to accessibility.

However, for accessibility to become a central tenet of urban design amongst disabled as well as non-disabled individuals, it must be integrated into mainstream architectural education, policy-making, and professional practice. Architectural curricula in India currently offer limited engagement with disability studies, often treating accessibility as a niche topic rather than a fundamental design principle (Tandon, 2024). Incorporating critical disability perspectives into architecture and urban planning programs can challenge ableist design paradigms and foster a new generation of architects committed to inclusive design.

Policy frameworks must also be restructured to prioritise accessibility as a human rights issue rather than a compliance burden. The government’s Smart Cities Mission, which aims to modernise urban infrastructure, provides an opportunity to embed accessibility as a foundational principle. However, current smart city projects largely overlook disability-inclusive design, focusing instead on falling in line with larger neoliberal ideologies of digital infrastructure and economic growth (Malhotra et al., 2020).

Finally, accessibility must be understood as a collective responsibility rather than an individual burden. Disabled individuals should not have to constantly advocate for basic access; instead, society as a whole must recognise and address barriers to inclusion. Public awareness campaigns, legal advocacy, and community-driven initiatives can all contribute to fostering a culture where accessibility is seen as an essential component of spatial justice.

Thus, reimagining accessible architecture as a political act requires a fundamental shift in how urban spaces are conceptualised and designed. To move beyond the limitations of compliance-based accessibility, it is imperative to adopt a radical approach that centers disabled people as active agents in shaping our built environment. This requires, on one hand, a shift from reactive accommodations – such as adding ramps to pre-existing structures – to proactive design strategies that integrate accessibility from the outset. However, at its core, this shift demands recognising disabled individuals as autonomous agents with the capacity to shape and influence urban planning, rather than reducing them to passive recipients of accessibility measures rooted in dehumanising perceptions.

References

Boys, J. (Ed.). (2017). Disability, space, architecture: A reader. Routledge. 

Friedner, M. (2015). New disability mobilities and accessibilities in urban India. City & Society, 27(1), 9–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/ciso.12054

Gleeson, B. (1999). Geographies of disability. Routledge.

Government of India. (2016). The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. Ministry of Law and Justice.

Hamraie, A. (2017). Building access: Universal design and the politics of disability. University of Minnesota Press.

Imrie, R. (2012). Universalism, universal design and equitable access to the built environment. Disability & Rehabilitation, 34(10), 873-882. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2011.624250

Mace, R. (1985). Universal design: Toward a barrier-free environment. Center for Universal Design.

Malhotra, C., Manchanda, V., Bhilwar, A., & Basu, A. (2020). Designing inclusive smart cities of the future: The Indian context. In P. Raj & P. Evangeline (Eds.), Advances in smart cities: Smarter people, governance, and solutions (pp. 547–563). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816816-5.00029-2 

Singh, P. (2014). Persons with disabilities and economic inequalities in India. Indian Anthropologist, 44(2), 65–80. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/43899390

Soja, E. (2010). Seeking spatial justice. University of Minnesota Press. 

Tandon, R. B., Hajela, A., & Dewan, A. (2024). An approach towards total quality in architectural education in India track: higher education (architecture education). Brazilian Journal of Development, 10(5), e69571. https://doi.org/10.34117/bjdv10n5-034