socially constructed also applies here, as the municipality of Amsterdam is constructing these places, literally and figuratively, with the inclusion agenda. They are attempting to be more inclusive and boost social inclusion by the fact that anyone should be able to participate all around every neighborhood in Amsterdam (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2021). With being able to navigate the entire city and particularly cultural sites like museums, then social inclusion happens, since by creating physically inclusive (accessible) sites, then there is a space for everyone to come together and participate in the same experiences. Physical changes are done by the municipality and workers, but behaviors and cultural shifts are done by people, which are both social constructions. People are able “to create a fair and equitable distribution of space and socially valued resources” by physical constructions or changes within them, which is happening now in cultural venues all around Amsterdam (Soja, 2009). Since these spaces are being modified to create an equal distribution for everyone to experience and enjoy, Soja’s spatial justice theory can be seen in Amsterdam’s cultural sector, since they are working towards a completely accessible space for everyone to participate, including disabled people. When this project is done, I presume that in these sites spatial justice will be achieved because the spaces will then be evenly shared between everyone and accessible for everyone.
But there needs to be a clear mark on who gets to enforce accessibility in the city, who rules over each other, and who checks for these accessibility and inclusion projects to occur.
whose job is to make sure that their venue is accessible for everyone. In addition to this, UNESCO rules in regard to the Canal Ring, the Water Lines, and their buffer zones can make modifying these sites and the areas surrounding them for better accessibility difficult at times, though it is not impossible. This affects how “evenly” distributed accessibility is around the city since it can take weeks just for a permit to be approved for a small change like “P1”
mentioned. There is always a possibility to discuss modifications with “P1’s” and their colleagues to create something that is the least damaging as possible, and that works for everyone, but there is no “one size” solution for the entirety of Amsterdam to modify protected buildings to make them accessible, and it is a process that takes time. Because of this, accessibility modifications might be happening unevenly. But even going further than this, how does this inclusion policy and accessibility requirements apply retroactively? As mentioned by “P6,” new buildings are required to be accessible based on the Amsterdam Public Space Design Handbook (HIOR in Dutch initials) but these instructions are for
architects only for new structures, but what about the buildings that were built centuries ago?
(Gemeente Amsterdam, (2021b.). As mentioned in the Research Context chapter, Amsterdam is a very old city, with the buildings in the Canal Ring being as old as the year 1300, with a majority of them being built before the year 1800 (TU Delft, 2020), (BAG, 2015). All of these buildings are still in use, especially in the Canal Ring area, which also holds a lot of touristic and leisure places and activities that remain inaccessible for people with disabilities.
New infrastructures and activities are built to be accessible, but how does the new inclusion project apply to buildings that were built before this project came to mind, before the handbooks were used, that were built without these spearpoints in mind? How does the municipality apply the inclusion goals in the buildings that are in the buffer zone, many that are old and that are totally inaccessible for people with disabilities, with the inclusion and accessibility criteria aimed by the municipality and described by “P4” earlier? While it is not
impossible to modify these sites, and the point is to protect them as much as possible, then what do you do to increase the accessibility to boost inclusion in buildings that were built in the 1600s and 1700s? Many of which hold a multitude of leisure activities, which were the most inaccessible features of Amsterdam reported by residents (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018?) How does the municipality apply the inclusion requirements to the majority of the buildings that were built before this project even started, while respecting the UNESCO requirements? Uneven applications, while comprehensible since the program is ongoing, are something that I observed during my research. Similar to the section discussed before, it puts in question who is in control and who is supposed to enforce it.
Uneven applications are glaringly similar to the uneven mobilities discussed by Sheller. If the accessibility of cultural sites is partially limited by UNESCO preservation policies, and delays in making these sites more accessible occur, since a one-size solution is not available for the entire city, then this leads to uneven experiences, access, and qualities of experiences (Sheller, 2018). If only one part of the city is accessible, then people with disabilities are limited by outside obstacles to a certain part of the city, or a certain museum, which is what Sheller talked about when these uneven mobilities also highlight the daily barriers that, in this case, people with disabilities face while attempting to move through a city, or accessing a museum (Sheller, 2018). These limitations end up creating delays, exclusions, and
disruptions in and around these sites, due to their incomplete accessibility, and the difficulty that comes from attempting to enter an inaccessible site (Sheller, 2018). This makes people with disabilities feel excluded, which was also seen in the Accessibility Not Considered section. A more evenly rolled out strategy, like having all museums hire a team that is responsible for ensuring the accessibility of the museums, would maybe guarantee a more even and universal accessible experience in Amsterdam for people with disabilities. As per
the social model of disability, it is the environment that makes someone disabled, unable to do something, it is not on the ‘impaired’ person to create accessibility, but on everyone else responsible for the environment to make it accessible for anyone (PWDA, 2020). When accessibility is unevenly spread around cultural venues, and when there are struggles on who gets to enforce it, then this only further disables people from experiencing these sites and limits their space. Like this, spatial justice is hardly achieved, since valuable space is not shared evenly with everyone, and uneven mobilities are still present.