I think this can be a good idea, but it must not stand alone.

"Regular" parks must never ever think this replaces their responsibility toward accessibility. They should still have ramps, braille/audio info, signed info, etc. They have the entire world as their potential audience, and the universal access approach benefits us all. I went to Disneyland when I was a little girl. If I came back there as a squinting, hard-of-hearing old lady in a wheelchair, I'd expect the same fun experience! (Or I'd give them what-for!)

That said, I like the community idea raised by "Mum". I can imagine it would be nice to go to a place where you as caregiver don't have to do double-work: you don't have to cater to the needs of the person you are with as well as compensate for flaws in the facilities. You can relax and focus on your friend, family member, or whoever you are caring for.

A "regular" park can do things like have time slots set aside for such visitors. I mean, big corporations rent out parks from time to time. Why couldn't there be days when visitors with certain requirements are given a bit more room, so to speak. Why can't they simply learn to design for better accessibility?

The segregation concerns me in that children are where we should evangelize. Kids need to accept how we are - with or without crutches, wheelchairs, service dogs, etc. If you "hide" away those with "special needs", you miss a learning/awareness-raising opportunity for all. There should be room for all of us. After all, theme parks are supposed to be happy places. To me, that excludes exclusion!

The big benefit of this special park is that it SHOWS the mainstream parks what they need to do to make it work and how it isn't that hard. Eventually these things will move across.

My favourite is the tracking of the kids to the parents. When we take our kids to major attractions we write our mobile number on their arms (they know them anyway) and instruct them to go up to a family if they get lost and ask for help - technology could simplify this.

On balance, I would much rather have this than not - all access started as a "special need" and often ends up mainstream.

I do think there is some positive to this venture, yes. Greater accessibility of more locations would be better. As someone just told me: "Why can't Disney just be more accessible?". But this looks like it has its benefits as well :)

@mum, never feel you have to limit what you want to say. This is a good place to have these kinds of discussions. We may not agree, but being able to talk about it is important, and good.

Also never liked noise or people running round (maybe why I hate sport?) so like the Quiet Playground concept that Lisa mentions. Although, as a child, I'd also have wanted there to be no other children there, so I don't think I'd have been a good candidate!

Accessability, however, is high on the benefits it offers. Disability is broad - accessability may mean a swing built for a wheel chair, it may mean a quiet corner for those with sensory issues, it may mean climbing/exploring equipment designed for certain disabilities or to cater for sensory needs.

I don't think it is taking away from the goals of inclusion - it is simply supplementing that by meeting the needs, in a single location, of all that is diverse about disability - in an environment that is safe and stimulating. It also allows for carers to meet, in a safe supportive and comfortable environment. Maybe a strange example but a little like a playgroup - infants can play anywhere, but playgroups enable all of the same for that 'community' at that time. I hate that example but with young ones of my own it makes sense to me.

I can't agree with your point on special olympics (although I HATE the term 'special'). I don't have anything to do with the special olympics yet, but it would, in my opinion, serve a fantastic opportunity to celebrate individual (and team) achievement. I think for those that are smack in the middle of it (and from speaking to parents of those individuals) it is bloody well awesome.

Could say plenty more but am taking up more than my fair share of comment space :)

In a nutshell, I take your point about inclusion and agree with it. However, I find nothing wrong with the broader picture making room for both (and especially as disabilities are not cookie cutter in how they present themselves).

The thing that really impressed me was the Quiet playground for autistic kids and other kids that need quiet play spaces.