Category: Magazine and newspaper articles

Lifemark promotes universal design in housing in New Zealand. Lifemark’s new website has a fresh look but stays true to it’s core value of inclusion. Similarly to other countries, New Zealand faces strong resistance by the housing industry. However, Lifemark is making inroads slowly, but surely.

The core element of Lifemark® is their standards based on universal design principles. As they say, “Universal design is essential for many, necessary for others, and comfortable for all”. Image from iStock in Lifemark Standards

The ABC of universal design

Lifemark’s new website continues the theme of the ABC of universal design which is, Access, Bathroom and Circulation.

Access: at least one level entry, step-free pathway and entrance.

Bathroom: well positioned toilet on the entry level with reinforced walls for later grab rails.

Circulation: spaces are easy to move between with wider doorways and hallways.

Lifemark® Design Standards

The standards are based on five key principles: Usability, Adaptability, Accessibility, Safety, and Lifetime value. There are three levels to the standard based on a star rating similar to that of Livable Housing Design Guidelines.

The three star level is based on visitable requirements and improved comfort similar to Livable Housing Silver level. The four star level offers a higher level of comfort and is suitable for ageing in place – Livable Housing Gold level. It also supports people with reduced mobility. The five star rating is specifically for wheelchair users and others with higher support needs – Livable Housing Platinum level.

Individuals can access Lifemark’s Design for Life brochure on the website by providing an email address.

Lifemark’s Case Studies

Case studies on the website cover three scenarios. The first is an example of using incentives to include universal design at the planning stage. The second is incorporating universal design into a master housing plan. The third is a case study on a retirement village development. The video below gives an occupant perspective. (Note the automatic captioning does not account for a New Zealand accent.)

One thing they shared in common was the absolute resistance for change from the housing industry lobby.

Livable Housing Australia

The Australian Building Codes Board adopted most of the Livable Housing Design Silver level in the National Construction Code in 2022. It is known as the Livable Housing Design Standard. Queensland was the first jurisdiction to adopt the Standard followed by ACT and Victoria. Other jurisdictions have either watered down the elements, or in the case of NSW and Western Australia they have refused to adopt the Standard.

The power of the housing industry lobby, not to be confused with ordinary developers and builders, over the political process is obvious. This was pointed out in a recent study by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.

The story of getting the Australian Building Codes Board to incorporate universal design into housing into the National Construction code is told by Ward and Bringolf. This paper is from the proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Universal Design.

Imogen Howe writes that wellbeing goes beyond the physical and mental health of an individual. It is a holistic concept of health and wellness. It encompasses social connectedness, belonging and inclusion and the ability to contribute meaningfully to society. Wellbeing is also about feeling valued and respected, and environmental contextual factors such as connection to community and place. She explains wellbeing by design as:

“The relationship between the built environment and wellbeing is well known. But, when it comes to wellbeing, buildings and urban spaces frequently disappoint people with disabilities by being inaccessible, stigmatising, creating the feeling of being out-of-place, a misfit in places you have a fundamental right to be in.” Signs such as the one pictured, say that “we didn’t think about you in our design”.

Exclusion of people with disability because the problem arises from older buildings is no excuse. Howe says building upgrades are essential when considering the barriers beyond access standards. She says that designers must consider psychological and emotional aspects of wellbeing as well. It’s more than just getting into a building.

Howe also says that designers must be respectful of users’ energy and time. People with disability and/or long term health conditions have less energy available to them each day. It takes longer to do basic tasks, so they also have less time to spare. The built environment can whittle away, bit by bit, precious energy and time so there is nothing left for fun things.

The title of the article is Wellbeing for Whom? and published by the Australian Institute of Architects magazine, Architecture Bulletin.

What do you think accessibility means? Does it mean compliance with AS1428.1 or the ability to enter a building and spaces within it? Is it about usability? Even if it means all these things, the word accessibility is too limited to encompass all the considerations for people with disabilities…

Imogen Howe, Wellbeing for Whom?

An article in Architecture and Design magazine makes the point that architects have a creative responsibility to ensure designs are not just accessible but also inclusive and future proofed. In most cases renovating a building to be accessible costs significantly more than making the building accessible from new. Consequently, it makes economic sense to make places and spaces inclusive from the beginning.

There are three easy changes architects can make to their design process to make more inclusive places and spaces. First, involve people with disability and other marginalised groups in the design phase. In other words, co-design.

Co-designing with a diversity of building users is an essential element of a universal design approach. Architects get to understand the challenges and barriers as well as the solutions that come from this process. The second change is to look beyond access consultants.

Access consultants typically focus on regulatory compliance to make sure they meet standards. However, if given more scope, they can also provide solutions beyond the standards within a co-design process. The third change is to avoid exaggerating the design challenges.

The co-design process brings practical solutions to the table that are often outside the usual architectural ideas about universal design. For example, the cost of a ramp can be saved if it can be designed out.

The article concludes, “Ultimately, the true measure of architectural excellence lies not just in the beauty of the structures we create but the lives changed by making accessibility non-negotiable”. 

The title of the magazine article is, How architects can help create a more inclusive Australia.

Some background research

A research project by Ielegems and Vanrie compared the costs of new-build with renovation. They found that both have costs but they are significantly lower for new-builds. The aim of their study was to find a research method to calculate the cost of universal design. Their paper is necessarily technical and covers different types of public buildings. The findings vary according to the scale of each building. 

However, economic arguments usually favour the users of the building and not the builders and developers. Consequently, going beyond compliance becomes a political and ethical decision rather than an economic one.

The title of the article is, The cost of Universal Design for public buildings: Exploring a realistic, context dependent research approach. It is covered in more detail in a previous post and was cited and downloaded from the CUDA website for the magazine article above.

Ageing in place and ageing and place are intertwined but distinct. Both place and home need to support people as they age – one is insufficient without the other. Generally, ageing in place means ‘staying put’. That can mean the staying in the same home or staying in the same community or neighbourhood. 

Research with older people suggests that ageing in place is more nuanced than just a home or neighbourhood. It’s also about personal and cultural values, priorities and connections to people and places. It is layered with social, material and symbolic meaning. And it’s about having choices about where and how to age. 

Janine Wiles and Tara Coleman found that older people valued highly the ability to have choices about their living arrangements and access to services. Familiarity and connections brought a sense of belonging and security. 

Meaning of home

Housing is basically an infrastructure concept whereas home is where personal routines and interactions take place. This is what brings meaning. This is why we become attached to places. Wiles and Coleman found that this sense of attachment has positive functional, physical and mental health outcomes all contributing to wellbeing. 

Home maintenance

The ability to carry out maintenance tasks contributes to attachment. However, when these tasks become difficult, either through ability or financial constraints, the sense of home is disrupted. Homes in disrepair are not only hazardous but lessen the attachment to the home. 

‘Home and aging’ by Wiles and Coleman is a chapter in Handbook on Aging and Place. Editors are Malcolm Cutchin and Graham D Rowles. It is available for purchase from ElgarOnline. 

Chapter Introduction

Home is a concept both underpinning and animated by ideas about ‘aging in place’ and experiences of place and aging. Home is an important resource during older age. At a time when people typically face changes and challenges, having a secure sense of home and strong attachment to place can give a sense of agency, autonomy, and resilience. A sense of home is intricately entwined with our preferred sense of who we are, and with how we build and sustain relationships with others and with places. Conversely, disruption to the sense of home can create instability and accentuate the feeling of being ‘at the end of life’ or of vulnerability and fragility.

Is there such a thing as non-mandatory when it comes to the Disability Discrimination Act? Access consultant Bryce Tolliday writes a thoughtful piece in Access Insight on this topic. He bemoans the way building certifiers, designers and others who request design changes. This is because, they believe the consultant’s design advice is non-mandatory. They just think it is “nice to have”. However, in the mandatory vs non-mandatory debate, it’s the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) they should be thinking about.

There is a misunderstanding of the laws affecting new building work as well as the value a good access consultant can bring to the project.

A mandatory requirement is something you must to do and is non-negotiable. Tolliday argues that it’s not possible to have a non-mandatory outcome under the DDA. That’s because the objects of the law are to eliminate, as far as possible, discrimination on the grounds of disability.

Which law comes first?

It’s the mix of different laws, standards and regulations that confuse people. Some are enacted at a federal level and some are enacted by states and territories. Federal laws always trump state and territory laws.

People who want to press the non-mandatory argument rely on the NCC being the primary building regulation in Australia. But this is not the case. Each state and territory has to adopt the NCC elements into their respective building codes. Consequently, the Commonwealth law, the DDA together withe Disability Standards, becomes the law to follow.

The problem for designers and certifiers is that the DDA does not specify design standards or outcomes in the same way as the NCC. How can one know whether a design feature will discriminate or disadvantage a person with disability? Tolliday’s response is:

If they cannot provide an evidence-based reason demonstrating that disadvantage will not occur then what the access consultant is proposing is a mandatory requirement under the DDA.

The outcomes expected by the DDA are not covered by Australian Standards related to disability access. This is due to the minimal requirements of the Standards that do not cover the full diversity of disability.

Case study confirms what’s mandatory

In the case of Ryan v the Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service the mandatory requirements went beyond the NCC, the Premises Standards and AS1428. The late Peter Ryan who was blind brought the action. He argued he was disadvantaged by the design of the Hospital. Shorelines, glare, and luminance contrast were not covered by the NCC but covered by other design guidelines and international standards. Tactile and braille signage for the entire hospital was not covered by the NCC or AS1428 either.

Ryan frequently got lost when he visited as an outpatient. He posthumously won the case and it will cost the Hospital millions to address the 17 breaches of the design.

The Judge found Peter Ryan and been indirectly discriminated against. The Hospital had not considered key features that could impact patients who were blind or had low vision.

The key issue for Tolliday is that the Australian Building Codes Board, which looks after the NCC, has said it will not regulate internal fitouts. Office buildings, for example, are not fitted out at completion, so that is reasonable. However, schools, hotels and hospitals are fitted out at completion.

The title of Bryce Tolliday’s article is Mandatory vs Non-Mandatory published in Access Insight.