For this reason, revolving doors are only permitted by Part M if an additional, accessible, door is provided alongside them. This door should be available at all times that the revolving door is in use, but all too often they are locked and have an 'out of order' sign directing people to use the revolving door.
This leaves all of the people mentioned above, and people with claustrophobia or cognitive impairment, waiting outside trying to get the attention of someone inside for assistance, making an accessible-but-not-inclusive entrance into an inaccessible inconvenience that segregates people by ability.
Policy 7.2 of The London Plan (2015) states: "The Mayor will require all new development in London to achieve the highest standards of accessible and inclusive design and supports the principles of inclusive design." At least one London borough supports this policy by not permitting any revolving doors but why not all of them?
Episode 93 of American radio podcast 99% Invisible highlights another issue with revolving doors in episode 93, available here. According to the programme, the revolving door was first sold on the idea that it avoided the 'After you,' 'No, please, after you...' conversations that happen with regular doors, although it was based on a previous door that was designed to prevent draughts and energy loss.
The focus of the 99% Invisible programme is investigations by students of MIT and Andrew Shea into how many people use revolving doors when given a choice between them and conventional doors, and how this proportion can be increased with simple signs that highlight the energy saved by using the revolving doors, but also makes comments about ease of use.
Both studies (one in Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the other at Columbia University) revealed that approximately 75% of people use the conventional door when no sign about energy saving is present, perhaps because a conventional door is simpler, quicker and easier to use.
Saving energy and improving the efficiency of buildings is key to creating sustainable developments, but alternatives to revolving doors are available, and should always be used because inclusive design is also essential.
'Revolting doors' is not a typo - it was what an architect I worked called them once I'd convinced him to omit them from the project we were working on.