There are many tools for measuring environmental sustainability features in the built environment. But measuring access for all, is based on legislation and cost rather than user-based. Indeed, building standards for disability access have filled this knowledge gap but in the process, held back learning at the same time. That’s because you learn how to complete checklists but you don’t gain understanding of the issues this way. This is one reason that architect Mary Ann Jackson says built environment practitioners do not understand disability.
Neighbourhood scale accessibility measurement tools show how improvements can be determined in a planned way rather than ad hoc reactions.
Built environment knowledge and the lived experience of people with disability need connection. We need a tool that measures the overall accessibility of the built environment by incorporating the lived experiences of people with disability.
Increasingly, assessment of the built environment is becoming interdiciplinary. However, despite all the many built environment performance tools, input from people with disability are often left out of the equation. The move to co-design methods for new work is helpful, but does little to deal with existing built environments.
The title of Jackson’s 2019 article is, Accessing the Neighbourhood: Built Environment Performance for People with Disability. It explains the rationale behind the the development of the Universal Mobility Index. The key aim is to address the fragmented nature of current access across all areas of the built environment.
From the abstract
The existing built environment still fails to meet the needs of people with disability. This is despite rapid urbanisation, population ageing, failing infrastructure, and evidence that the built environment affects health and well-being,
In a parallel universe, improving built environment ‘sustainability’ performance, via measurement, receives much attention. Analysing the built environment at micro-scale (buildings), meso-scale (neighbourhood) and macro-scale (city-wide) is undertaken from various multidisciplinary perspectives.
Built environment performance is measured in many ways, but accessibility performance for people with disability, at neighbourhood scale, is rarely considered.
People with disability continue to experience lack of meaningful involvement in research, participation in decision-making, partnership equality, and direct influence over policy, with the built environment arena increasingly becoming a private-sector activity.
The actors involved, however, have little understanding of either the accessibility needs of people with disability, or the inaccessibility, particularly at neighbourhood scale, of the existing built environment.
This paper explores the design, planning and politics of an inaccessible built environment. Assessing the accessibility of the built environment for people with disability, at neighbourhood scale, is an essential component in the process of built environment accessibility improvement.
Walkable and wheelable neighbourhoods
Being free to move around and get out and about helps build and strengthen connections to place and people. Mobility and participation are closely linked and together they improve our sense of wellbeing and belonging. It’s about having choice and control and being able to easily go walking and wheeling in the neighbourhood.
Absent or poorly maintained footpaths, lack of safe crossings, unsafe road speeds, competing with cars, poorly lit streets, and nowhere to rest, prevent people from getting out and about.
An article in The Fifth Estate argues it’s time to stop designing our streets for cars and start to design for the diversity of people. The article is by Lisa Stafford and her work on planning and justice. She lists some must-dos for walkable wheelable neighbourhoods:
- footpaths are essential infrastructure in the same way as stormwater in neighbourhood development
- confront ableism and plan and design for our diversity
- embed inclusive design thinking in the system and day-to-day practice
- integrate planning well: we know universal design and sustainable smart growth approaches work seamlessly together
- utilise inclusive urban design codes to promote mobility equity, wellbeing, connectivity, and accessibility
- active and public transport infrastructure advocacy must include the perspective of all users
- Queensland Walks and Victoria Walks are good examples of public policy.
As Lisa Stafford says, we have the technical resources, good examples and the skills to do this. It is societal attitudes that are holding us back.
The title of the article is What do truly walkable, wheelable neighbourhoods look like? It is part of The Fifth Estate’s Spinifex collection.
Happy homes, friendly neighbourhoods
The notion of age-friendly cities is not new, and neither is age-friendly housing design. However, researchers tend to look at one or the other but not both. A study by a group at University of South Australia has sought to join the dots showing the dependency of one upon the other. Creating age-friendly environments begins at home, across the threshold to the street and on to the broader environment. Like any chain, it is as strong as it’s weakest link. While some local authorities are doing their best to be age-friendly in their area, they are not able to influence the design of mass market homes. That is the role of state governments and their control of the National Construction Code.
The report of the study titled, Towards Age-Friendly Built Environment, supports previous research and recommendations. Given that not much is changing, this is another worthy paper. The key point is linking life at home with life in the community and showing how it supports the health and wellbeing of older Australians. This in turn takes the pressure from government funded home modifications and support services – not to mention tax payers.