Un cadre pour l'accessibilité des édifices et des structures du patrimoine

Executive Summary - Canada's heritage buildings, which are a testament to the resilience and perseverance of those who shaped the nation, inspiring us to cherish and connect to the past while embracing the future, were built at a time when accessibility was not part of the design. As such, heritage buildings present barriers to people with disabilities who, according to the 2022 Canadian Survey on Disability (CSD), represent 27% of Canadians aged 15 years and older. The need to preserve heritage buildings and make them accessible to all people is a conundrum to social sustainability. This study, which was led by Professor Samir Edmond Chidiac of McMaster University and sponsored by Accessibility Standards Canada, proposes solutions through a decision‐making framework to balance the needs of accessibility and heritage preservation and to guide the development of accessibility standards to include heritage buildings. The three-year study, which consists of three phases, includes a review of the tools, building codes and standards, and documented best practices in other countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Italy, India, and Germany to manage the conflict between accessibility and preservation of heritage buildings; the development of a decision-making framework which employs sustainability guiding principles in developing the decision-making process; and the evaluation of the framework decision process using heritage buildings located in different parts of Canada. The team led by Dr Chidiac, comprises academics from McMaster University, practicing engineers from Engineers in Motion, and technical advisors and partners with lived experiences representing people with physical, sensory, and cognitive/intellectual disabilities. A review of the literature revealed the following observations and findings: • “Bill C-23: Historic Places of Canada Act” and “Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada” provide effective legislative protection for preserving heritage buildings in Canada. • Accessibility standards, CSA /ASC B651:23, and the accessibility provisions in the National Building Code of Canada (NBC 2020), which are mainly intended for new constructions, have limited enforcement on existing buildings, including heritage buildings at present. Moreover, current Canadian standards and codes do not provide paths to resolve accessibility compliance and preservation requirements conflicts. • Accessibility standards, CSA /ASC B651:23, and the accessibility provisions in the National Building Code of Canada (NBC 2020) mostly comprise of prescriptive code requirements, with a distinct absence of performance requirements to promote the application of bespoke and innovative solutions. • The adoption of universal design worldwide, which provides a philosophical approach to removing barriers of discrimination and promoting a more inclusive environment, has led to tangible solutions to creating accessible heritage buildings and to the acceptance of the concept of alternative solutions. • Innovative assisted devices and technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), Geographical Information Systems (GIS), 3D modelling, Augmented Reality (AR), Virtual Reality (VR), virtual and audio tours, software applications, and tactile maps, provide a significant leap forward in accessibility technologies. • Accessibility in heritage buildings has, to some extent, traditionally been arbitrarily decided by a decision-making committee that uses a combination of quantitative measures such as project cost, and qualitative measures such as undue hardship, and the targeted users who could benefit from the retrofits. A consistent and measurable decision-making practical framework was subsequently developed to aid decision-makers in balancing the accessibility of heritage buildings and the value of their character-defining features. The framework accounts for the lessons learned and best practices developed by countries around the world, incorporates cutting-edge technologies as non-conventional alternative solutions, and proposes the sustainability metrics for the complex retrofit cases as a repeatable and measurable decision-making process replacing the decision-making committee. Moreover, the framework complements current standards and codes, adopts the current heritage and accessibility assessment protocols, and acknowledges the intrinsic historical significance of each heritage building. The practicality and completeness of the developed framework were assessed by McMaster University’s research team, in addition to technical advisors, partners with lived experience, and advocates for people with disabilities. Eighteen heritage buildings that include federal and provincial public buildings, office buildings, museums, and two heritage buildings from Six Nations of the Grand River were surveyed. The results revealed three overarching barriers to accessible heritage buildings: 1. Accessibility Standard/Code Compliance issues – Heritage buildings are not meeting the requirements of current standards and codes despite there being no conflict with heritage preservation. 2. Accessibility Standard/Code mandating and completeness issues – Current standards and codes recommend rather than mandate accessibility requirements for people with sensory and cognitive/intellectual disabilities, and are limited in addressing their accessibility requirements. 3. Accessibility Standard/Code and Heritage preservation issues – Making heritage buildings accessible conflicts with the preservation of heritage value. The first two barriers, which are outside the scope of this study, need to be addressed by the accessibility standard and code committees, and are found to be the most prevalent. The third barrier, which is central to this study, is not common and involves entrances, stairs, building layout, lighting and acoustics, seatings, floor areas, and dimensions. To resolve the third issue, the framework provides: 1) solutions derived from best practices and/or case studies from Europe, North America, Australia, and Asia, and/or 2) examples of assisted accessibility devices and technology, or 3) a repeatable and measurable decision-making tool – Sustainability criteria - when alternative solutions are not workable. Accordingly, the following research/development/education tasks are recommended for future work: 1) Accessibility standards/codes be enhanced to encompass all accessibility requirements for people with sensory and cognitive/intellectual disabilities. 2) Accessibility standards/codes be enhanced to include performance requirements as an alternative to prescriptive requirements. Current standards and codes provide requirements in a mostly prescriptive manner, assuming new construction. Performance requirements are limited to non-existent, and objective and functional statements are not sufficiently detailed to allow for alternative innovative solutions to be developed and accepted by authorities having jurisdiction. 3) A quantitative tool be developed to aid in computing the sustainability criteria as a decision-making tool for accessible heritage buildings. Sustainability criteria must include social, economic, and environmental impacts. _______________________________ Résumé - Les édifices patrimoniaux du Canada, qui témoignent de la résilience et de la persévérance de ceux qui ont façonné la nation et qui nous inspirent à chérir le passé et à nous y rattacher tout en embrassant l'avenir, ont été construits à une époque où l'accessibilité ne faisait pas partie de la conception. En tant que tels, les édifices patrimoniaux constituent des barrières pour les personnes en situation de handicap qui, selon l'Enquête canadienne sur l’incapacité (ECI) de 2022, représentent 27 % des Canadiens âgés de 15 ans et plus. La nécessité de préserver les édifices patrimoniaux et de les rendre accessibles à tous est une énigme pour la durabilité sociale. Cette étude, dirigée par le professeur Samir Edmond Chidiac de l'université McMaster et parrainée par Normes d'accessibilité Canada, propose des solutions au moyen d'un cadre décisionnel visant à équilibrer les besoins en matière d'accessibilité et de préservation du patrimoine et à guider l'élaboration de normes d'accessibilité afin d'inclure les édifices patrimoniaux. L'étude, d'une durée de trois ans et comportant trois phases, comprend un examen des outils, des codes et normes de construction et des meilleures pratiques documentées dans d'autres pays tels que les États-Unis, le Royaume-Uni, l'Australie, la Nouvelle-Zélande, le Japon, l'Italie, l'Inde et l'Allemagne pour gérer le conflit entre l'accessibilité et la préservation des édifices patrimoniaux ; l'élaboration d'un cadre décisionnel qui utilise les principes directeurs de la durabilité dans l'élaboration du processus décisionnel ; et l'évaluation du processus décisionnel du cadre à l'aide d’édifices patrimoniaux situés dans différentes régions du Canada. L'équipe dirigée par le Dr Chidiac est composée d'universitaires de l'université McMaster, d'ingénieurs praticiens d'Engineers in Motion, de conseillers techniques et de partenaires ayant des expériences vécues représentant des personnes souffrant de handicaps physiques, sensoriels et cognitifs/intellectuels. Une analyse de la littérature a permis de faire les observations et les constatations suivantes : • « Le projet de loi C-23 : Loi sur les lieux historiques du Canada » et « Normes et lignes directrices pour la conservation des lieux historiques au Canada » offrent une protection législative efficace pour la préservation des édifices patrimoniaux au Canada. • Les normes d'accessibilité, CSA /ASC B651:23, et les dispositions relatives à l'accessibilité du Code national de l’édifice du Canada (CNB 2020), qui sont principalement destinées aux nouvelles constructions, n'ont qu'une application limitée sur les édifices exist

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.