Author: Jane Bringolf

Universal Design includes DeafSpace Design

Two people walk down a ramp signing to each other. DeafSpace Architecture.

Ramps are not just good for wheeled mobility devices, they are good for people who communicate by signing. DeafSpace Design means a few extra tweaks in a universal design approach to design thinking. Examples of DeafSpace Design are few and far between. One reason they are hard to find is because the term “DeafSpace” is not used in design briefs. Nevertheless, aspects of DeafSpace Design are sometimes included without fanfare. 

Julia Coolen explains how DeafSpace design is, or could be, integrated into general universal design principles. She explains which design aspects are particular to people who sign and/or lip read. Images help with the explanations. 

The example of the ramp is a case in point. Importantly, the width of the ramp should allow two people to walk side by side so they can continue signing. Steps and stairways interrupt their vision and therefore their conversation. Coolen discusses three principles: Mobility and Proximity, Space and Proximity, and Sensory Reach.

The title of the article is, DeafSpace and Disability: A research into DeafSpace design and its peculiarities in relation to other architectural adaptations for disabilities.  It is an open access thesis, which is relatively short with text that is to the point. The university page has a link to the PDF at the bottom of the page.

If you prefer to get a quick grab of the concepts, watch the video featuring Gallaudet University. 

Abstract

Throughout history the built environment has mostly been designed from an able-bodied perspective, which causes a set of challenges for people with disabilities. In the 20th century however, a growing attention for disability in architecture took place that resulted in a shift in architecture. This thesis focusses on DeafSpace design and how architecture has historically responded to the need to design for people with disabilities. This leads to the research question of this thesis: What makes design for DeafSpace so special compared to other architectural adaptations for other disabilities?

By analysing three buildings that follow the DeafSpace design principles, this thesis shows what makes DeafSpace special compared to other architectural adaptations for other disabilities. DeafSpace concerns design principles that go beyond the mere application of a ramp for wheelchairs. DeafSpace creates spaces that benefit ‘every-body’, it refuses the ‘normalisation’ and ‘standardisation’ of the able-bodied perspective.

It is about creating awareness and it seeks to design and improve spaces to be functional for the deaf and hard-of-hearing. In saying so, it is to be concluded that, in contrast with its name, DeafSpace and its five design principles—Space and Proximity, Mobility and Proximity, Sensory Reach, Light and Colour, and Acoustics—are beneficial to ‘every-body’.

Designing homes with dementia in mind

Graphic showing the design process.
The design process

In most cases, designing homes with dementia in mind does not mean a special type of design.  It’s not news that people prefer to live at home as they age. So, universal design for dementia-friendly dwellings helps people live at home for as long as possible. However, for some people with dementia this can prove challenging for them and their family members.

Once basic accessibility features are considered, as they should be in all homes, it’s about the details. The research that underpins the guidelines for dementia friendly dwellings found four key design principles:

      1. Integrated into the neighbourhood
      2. Easy to approach, enter and move about in
      3. Easy to understand, use and manage
      4. Flexible, safe, cost effective and adaptable over time

Heading for the Dementia Design GuideThe Dementia Friendly Dwellings Guideline is from Ireland, but the good ideas are not country specific. The online resource produced by the Centre for Excellence in Universal Design is divided into separate downloadable sections: 

      1. Home location and approach
      2. Entering and moving around
      3. Spaces for living
      4. Elements and systems

The Dementia Friendly Dwellings Guidelines complement Universal Design Guidelines for Homes in Ireland and are intended as a first step in raising awareness. They provide a flexible framework for designers to apply the guidelines creatively to all new home types through incremental steps.

 

Universal Design in Housing: Builders are doing it

A blank checklist with tick boxes yet to be filled in. Builders are doing it - doing some of the features.Builders are beginning to incorporate some basic universal design features in new home designs. An audit of 10 of the largest home builders in Australia revealed some interesting results. But it is still a hit and miss affair – the features are not consistently applied. So builders are doing it – just some of it and so it is not yet universal design in housing. 

The Summer Foundation and University of Melbourne carried out the research. Their preliminary findings show that many of the new homes meet several criteria of the Livable Housing Design Guidelines. That means it can’t be too hard or too costly as the housing industry claims. However, these features are probably by default rather than design.

Three key features that would make a home accessible are absent from all designs. These are wider doorways, circulation space in front of the toilet pan, and a shower on the ground level. Those three features are the ones that cost the most to modify later. 

The short report has a chart comparing the accessible features across the 10 builders. The report concludes that housing to suit people with mobility impairments does not compromise the design for others. The title of the report is, Preliminary Findings: Audit of Accessible Features in New Build House Plans.

Ageing in Place vs Aged Care: The Costs

Three stacks of coins sit alongside a wooden cut-out of a house shape.Most people want to stay in their own homes rather than go to an aged care institution. The Royal Commission into Aged Care report confirmed this. And the obvious follows – it’s also beneficial for governments because the costs of home care are less than institutional care. But are our homes designed to support care at home?

According to an AHURI Brief, on average, someone on a home support program costs the Government around $3,900 per year. The cost of a person living in residential care costs around $69,000 a year. These figures are the annual ongoing cost per person. The cost of a home care package ranges from $9,000 a year to $52,000 per year depending on the level of support. 

The AHURI Brief includes a chart comparing the various costs of of the different packages and support against the cost of residential care. Another cost that could be reduced is the need for home modifications. Not only can people stay home more safely, care hours are also reduced. In rental accommodation such modifications can be denied by the landlord. That will lead to early entry into an institution. 

The AHURI Brief concludes, “We note that there is currently no discernible connection between the Australian Government aged care program and any Australian or State or Territory Government housing program. This must change.”

The title of the AHURI Brief is, Better supporting older Australians to age in place. 

AHURI (Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute) is a national independent research network. AHURI’s work informs policy about housing and urban development. They have not engaged with the proposed reforms to the National Construction Code for improved accessibility in all new housing.  

 

Aged Care: Are institutions still the way to go?

An older woman using a walking cane walks over a paved section towards the roadway.Why is it still OK for older people to be “put” in aged care institutions? We closed such places for people with disability and mental health conditions last century. There will still be a need for some people to receive care in a place that is not their home. But the vast majority could be better served with homes and neighbourhoods designed to support them. And that doesn’t mean these places won’t suit everyone else – they will. 

The Conversation has an article that discusses this issue arguing it’s time to support healthy ageing in place. “Age-friendly places aren’t just good for older people. They also support the needs of children, people with a disability and everyone else in a community.” The article includes the well-established global age-friendly framework devised by the WHO many years ago. It is still relevant today. As the authors say, the WHO framework covers the essential ingredients of liveable communities. And it supports well-being for all. 

The title of the article is, Aged care isn’t working, but we can create neighbourhoods to support healthy ageing in place.  

A previous post, Ageing in the right place, has links to more on this topic.

Community engagement and civic innovation

An international group of adults stand with a big board in front of them. It says, Make Things Happen. There are lots of coloured post it notes on the board.Community engagement sounds like there’s more interaction than community consultation. But is ‘engagement’ enough, or is there a way for the community to also innovate? That is, to be part of the Civic Innovation process.

Civic Innovation is a global movement embracing smart city technology and social innovation. Citizens can play an active role in democracy if they have good information to inform their views and ideas. 

The Future of Place website has an article that outlines this new social and technological movement. It explains social innovation, the role of civic-tech, citizen activation, and collective impact. 

“Citizens often identify social and infrastructure problems before planners and developers. But are city leaders thinking community engagement strategies are enough? Or are they tapping into these valuable networks?” The question posed is whether current community engagement processes are recruiting the next generation of active citizens. Doing more with less is also an outcome of collective impact.

The title of the short and straightforward article is, When community engagement might not be enough – Let’s talk ‘why?’ civic innovation.

The Future of Place website has other useful resources.

 

Disability and Planning Research

A book and notepad lay open on a desk in a library.Planning research has not yet evolved to include disability perspectives. Is it because the medical model of disability still prevails? Or is it mistakenly believed that disability is not a design issue? Some might say it’s because the needs of people with disability are fragmented across government departments. Practitioners in the planning field are required to engage with communities, but it seems the researchers are not keeping up. 

Two Canadian researchers took a look at the situation. A search of five prominent planning journals showed that people with disability largely remain invisible. The researchers found just 36 articles – most of which come from the US and the UK. Only 20 had people with disability as the central topic. 

The authors describe the content of the papers that go back as far as 1916. Attitudes towards people with disability clearly changed over the years but including them in research did not. Papers that did mention people with disability generally added them to a list of other groups considered vulnerable or marginalised. 

The paper concludes:

“Planning researchers and practitioners, therefore, must continue to question what knowledge, assumptions, and biases we may have toward PWD and experiences of disability that manifest through our environment. More broadly, planning scholarship can be strengthened by continuous questioning of self—on the processes through which certain knowledge is produced or a pursuit of certain knowledge is prioritised within the discipline. The development of critical discourse focusing on PWD can be a vehicle for such self-reflection.

The title of the article is, The Precarious Absence of Disability Perspectives in Planning Research. It is open access on cogitation press website, or you can download directly. 

Housing to 2040: Scotland’s strategy

Front cover Housing to 2040.Scotland has a grand vision for housing. It’s strategy encompasses all the vexed policy issues in one document. The central principle is that housing impacts all other aspects of life. Health, wellbeing, life chances and job prospects are all affected by our housing situation. With this in mind, Scotland’s ambitious strategy sets out a 20 year work program to 2040. 

The policy issues addressed are: homelessness, affordability, security of tenure, affordable warmth, independent living, the housing market, housing standards, and zero emissions. The section on independent living is where the specifics of accessible housing sit. One aim is to change the accessible housing standard to incorporate accessibility into all new homes. But not yet. However, it is a good example of how to draw all the vexed housing issues into one document.

Universal design elements still require good overall planning and design, consideration of climatic conditions, and connected communities. Scotland’s Housing to 2040 weaves them all together. The government website has additional downloads related to the document.

There is a short PDF version incorporating an infographic for those who want a quick overview. However, the page on Principles has little contrast between words and background so it is difficult to read. 

Key sections related to accessibility

“To make sure that we build in accessibility and adaptability to new homes and future proof them, we will introduce new building standards to underpin a Scottish Accessible Homes Standard which all new homes must achieve. This will mainstream a high standard of accessibility, delivering a step change in the availability of housing options for disabled people and enable the delivery of new homes in all sectors which can be readily adapted to meet varying needs. (p56)

“We will build on the review of the Housing for Varying Needs Design Guide and the implementation of all tenure wheelchair accessible housing targets, intending to introduce these new requirements into building standards from 2025/26 alongside the new Housing Standard. (p56)

“Provide help to older and disabled home owners who want to move to a home that better meets their needs. We will work with all those involved in making a house move happen, from the solicitors to removal companies, to develop a scheme that helps with every step of the process. We will also consider with banks the potential for cost effective bridging loan schemes to help people to move over several days and take the pressure off a single-day move. (p57)

Key Action

“Action 20: Ensure that everyone who wants to is enabled to live independently in a home of their own.
• Review Housing for Varying Needs.
• Introduce a new focus on increasing the supply of accessible and adapted homes and improving choice, particularly for younger
disabled people.
• Use NPF4 to help make more accessible homes available by helping to deliver tenure-neutral wheelchair housing targets, supporting sites for self-provided housing and delivering homes in accessible locations.
• Introduce new building standards from 2025/26 to underpin a Scottish Accessible Homes Standard which all new homes must achieve. (p 63)

The timeline shows that the housing standard will be introduced in 2026 and will be fully enforced in 2030. It remains to be seen whether the ideas are implemented or stay as words on a page. Twenty years is a long time. 

Great Public Spaces Toolkit

Public Spaces Toolkit cover.The NSW Government’s Great Public Spaces Toolkit has all the elements for anyone interested in public space. It’s a collection of free resources to support local government, state agencies, industry and the community. 

The Great Public Spaces Toolkit includes:

A four page Fact Sheet about the Evaluation Tool which has four key questions: Am I able to get there? Am I able to play and participate? Am I able to stay? And am I able to connect? These key indicators are an extension of those developed for the Everyone Can Play guide. They were: Can I get there? Can I play? and Can I stay? and represent a universal design approach to the design of spaces. 

Evaluation Tool for Public Space and Public Life 

Great Public Spaces Guide Ideas and opportunities.

The Evaluation Tool Engagement Report

The Evaluation Tool is also available in Arabic, Chinese and Vietnamese. Print versions are also included. 

Tokyo’s Olympic legacy acknowledges population ageing

The two mascots, one blue one bright pink for the Tokyo O,ympics.Although Japan has the oldest population in the world, creating accessible urban spaces is making very slow progress. Tokyo aimed to have all parts of the city that linked to the Olympic venues completely barrier-free. That includes buildings, transportation, services and open spaces. Tokyo’s Olympic legacy is discussed in a book chapter, which is open access. 

Deidre Sneep discusses the issues regarding the urban design legacy in the Japanese context and commercialisation. The title of the book chapter on page 91 is, Discover tomorrow: Tokyo’s ‘barrier-free’ Olympic legacy and the urban ageing population. It’s free to download, but if you have institutional access you can access the journal article version.

One interesting aspect is that some argue that the government’s guide to promote a ‘barrier-free spirit’ makes it sound like an act of friendliness. Any kind of patronising attitude or slogan only serves to maintain marginalisation as the norm. Posters focus on young people and make barrier-free a special design. There are no older people in the pictures.

The implementation of the universal design concept is increasingly commercialised says Sneep. This is likely due to the history of universal design in Japan. One of the first international universal design conferences was held in Japan in 2002, and was led by giant product manufacturers such as Mitsubishi. The International Association for Universal Design (IAUD) remains active. 

In 2020 Tokyo will host the Olympic and Paralympic Games for the second time in history. With a strong emphasis on the future – Tokyo’s slogan for the Olympic Games is ‘Discover Tomorrow’ – Tokyo is branded as city of youth and hope. Tokyo’s demographics, however, show a different image: in the coming decades, it is expected that well over a third of the citizens will be over 65. Despite the focus on a youthful image, Tokyo is well aware of the fact that its demographics are rapidly shifting.

Governmental bodies have been actively trying to find solutions for anticipated problems related to the ageing population for decades. One of the solutions that is being discussed and implemented is highlighted by the 2020 Olympics: the implementation of universal design in public spaces in the city in order to make it more easily accessible – in other words, making Tokyo ‘barrier-free’ (bariafurī).

This chapter presents the concept of ‘barrier-free’ in a Japanese setting, critically analyses the history and current implementation of the concept, pointing out that it seems to be increasingly commercialised, and evaluates the purpose of implementing the concept in the light of the 2020 Olympic Games.

 

Accessibility Toolbar