This research organisation publishes a range of research papers – some providing an excellent overview in 2-4 pages, evidence reviews, and fully researched reports on all issues related to housing and urban development.
They also organise events to showcase their work and for others to provide their comments, questions and input.
This is a major work by Bruce Judd, Diana Olsberg, Joanne Quinn and Oya Demirbilek (2010). It challenges the often held assumption that older people are “taking up space” in big houses that they no longer need – assumptions that their homes are “underoccupied”. This qualitative research shows a very different picture.
Click here for the slideshow presentation for a NSW AHURI seminar.
in achieving health, community care and housing outcomes in later life
by Andrew Jones, Desleigh de Jonge and Rhonda Phillips for the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, 2008.
The aim of this AHURI report was to provide evidence for ongoing policy development for home modification programs in Australia given that homes have not been designed to cater for disability or frailty in older age.
Edited transcript from live captioning of Margaret Ward’s presentation at the Australian Universal Design Conference 2014.
Synopsis: While major industry players support the Livable Housing Design Guidelines, their implementation in mass market housing is not yet evident. This presentation takes the perspective of the Australian Network for Universal Housing Design and plots the history from the setting up of the National Dialogue for Universal Housing Design, to the development of the Livable Housing Design Guidelines, and the achievements to date of Livable Housing Australia. It asks the question – what more can be done to progress universal housing design in Australia?
Edited transcript from live captioning of Kay Saville-Smith’skeynote presentation at the Australian Universal Design Conference 2014.
Synopsis: The Christchurch earthquakes which flattened much of the city provided an opportunity to start from scratch and implement some of the good design ideas, including universal design, that have been around for some time. However, this has not happened and there are many reasons for this, not least of which is the stance of the insurance industry. The issue of affordability is a complex one, as it is a market driven issue where the actual cost of the building is not the main issue. Universal design and affordability can co-exist, but there are many attitudinal barriers and well-worn arguments touted in the industry that say it cannot be done.
This document was compiled by the Delta Centre in Norway after the 2012 International UD Conference in Oslo. The conference gathered researchers, students, users, planners, public officers and other practitioners from 44 countries. More than 150 presentations were given. This multidisciplinary anthology contains examples from around the globe. Download PDF Trends in Universal Design here, or access via the web.
The Delta Centre is the Government’s National Resource Centre for Participation and Accessibility, and works for an inclusive society for a diverse population.
Article by Margaret Ward and Jill Franz, published in Housing and Space: Toward Socio-Spatial Inclusion (Social Inclusion, Vol 3 No2). An Open Access Journal.
This article outlines the findings from interviews with industry personnel about incorporating the 8 features agreed in the Livable Housing Design Guidelines. This is a telling paragraph: “In summary, when providing the eight features for visitability, the interviewees identified two themes for non-compliance (“lack of thought” and “otherness”) and three themes for compliance (“fashion”, “requirement’ and “good practice”). Although all dwellings provided some features, no dwelling provided a coherent path of travel necessary to make a dwelling visitable. Some examples of this incoherence were: a step-free driveway which led to a step at the door; a wide front door which led to a narrow corridor; and a narrow internal doorway which did not allow entry of a wheel-chair to a spacious bathroom. The provision of these access features separately and severally did not provide visitability as an outcome in any of the dwellings.