Older people know what they want in terms of housing and their neighbourhood. But has anyone asked them? Two researchers in Queensland have. This research came about because of serious concerns about congregate living during the COVID-19 pandemic. In their research findings, the researchers challenge the ideas of local planners. They say we need to look at ageing in neighbourhood rather than retirement villages.The researchers found that local councils can act as a catalyst for the market to change and innovate. They propose infill developments with a mix duplexes and mid rise apartments with easy access to services. The article in The Conversation has lot of images and diagrams to illustrate their arguments. The title of the article is, Ageing in neighbourhood: what seniors want instead of retirement villages and how to achieve it. It is time to move away from focusing on what older people can no longer do to what they can be encouraged to do. That is the healthy ageing approach. Older people know what’s best for them. Given the opportunity they can create solutions.The table below shows the key features that make a home and neighbourhood a good place to live as they age.The Fifth Estate has an article that extends the discussion on this topic into smart cities. The title of the article is, This is how we create the age-friendly smart city. Australia was one of the first countries to contribute to the WHO’s age-friendly cities project, but how much has been implemented? The late Hal Kendig explains the situation in a book chapter, Implementing age-friendly cities in Australia, which can be found in Age Friendly Cities and Communities: A Global Perspective. Or you can access a similar publication on ResearchGate.
COVID re-think on retirement living
Retirement living has to factor pandemics into design now. Separation rather than isolation is the key. Much of the value of specialist retirement living is the easy access to amenities and socialisation. But the pandemic put a stop to both. The constant reminder that older people are more vulnerable to the infection was the last straw. Especially as everyone fell into the vulnerable category. Consequently, everyone got isolated from each other. But how to design for this?Australian Ageing Agenda has an article discussing these issues. If residents have to stay home for prolonged periods, they will likely demand more space. Pocket neighbourhoods could work so that only a section needs to be cordoned off. Other ideas are:The title of the article is, COVID-19 is shaping design of future facilities.
Green building and universal design have a lot in common. They both aim to improve the lives of building users. When it comes to our homes, the brave new world of working from home will no doubt stay with us post pandemic. But there is more to creating a suitable home than just adapting for work. Our homes also need to protect us in both pandemic and post-pandemic modes. Universal design has a role to play here. An article in the Journal of Green Buildingtackles the issue of designing for a world where we should expect further pandemics. Public buildings, transportation, tourism, open space and events were all affected by COVID-19. Of interest here is the section on designing new homes. Author Dirk Spennemann argues for universal design and acknowledges the slow uptake in new homes. However, future proofing requires a universal design approach so that occupants can function in both pandemic and post-pandemic mode. Spennermann goes into detail about the four conceptual spaces a home needs and uses drawings to explain. See Figure 1 below from the article. Existing housing stock is discussed in terms of retrofits. The title of the article is, Residential Architecture in a post-pandemic world. It represents some forward thinking in home design.
Abstract
COVID-19 has highlighted the disruptive, cross-sectorial effects a sudden-onset pandemic has on a globally interconnected world. A particularly insidious component is the high percentage of asymptomatic cases allowing the virus to seed undetected. The design of residential architecture will need to adapt to the new reality that COVID19 will not be the last coronavirus epidemic. This paper discusses the implications of COVID-19 for new residential construction. It argues for a containment space, separating the largely uncontrollable external environment from the internal threat reduced residential space, for a separation of visitor entertainment areas and private sleeping areas, as well as the design of a spatially separated master bedroom that can double as a self-isolation space if the need arises. The implications of this new design on existing housing stock are also discussed. The advocated concepts are novel and advance the design considerations for future residential developments.Editor’s note: This article cites my paper, Barriers to universal design in Australian housing.
A better than average accessible bathroomNot surprisingly, relatively wealthy countries have the best adapted hotels for accessibility. The US, Canada, Ireland, Qatar, Australia, Singapore and New Zealand come out top of each region’s list. That’s according to a study of Booking.com’s website of hotels. Despite government and community organisations promoting the need and benefits of inclusive tourism, hotels are slow to provide accessibility.A study using the international Booking.com data compares continents and countries for the level of hotel accessibility. The researchers worked with a sample of 31,868 hotels in the 100 most popular tourist destinations. They found some type of adaptation in 18,368. Even in the countries with the highest levels, wheelchair accessibility is only provided in 30%. Other features are just 5% or less.
Is it or isn’t it accessible?
Booking.com is a popular website for booking tourist accommodation. It leads the market by having the greatest distribution of beds worldwide. In the filter search there is a section on accessibility features. However, the information is not always reliable because standards vary across international borders. Although an hotel states it is adapted or accessible there is no guarantees it is. This is why disability groups and individuals have set up their guides to accessible and inclusive tourism. They use the personal experiences of travellers to provide the access details that matter most. Examples are Travel Without Limits, Getaboutable, Access Advisor, and TravAbility.The title of the article is, Accessibility in Inclusive Tourism? Hotels Distributed Through Online Channels. The authors conclude that the “vast majority of the world’s hotel industry has serious deficiencies in accessibility”. The accessible features included in the Booking.com filter search are: wheelchair accessible, toilet with grab rails, higher level toilet, lower bathroom sink, emergency cord in bathroom, Braille, tactile signs, auditory guidance. The hotels themselves provide the information on Booking.com. So, the information is not always reliable. The Inclusive Hotels Network has published a guide for including people with hearing loss. The guide includes the business case, customer profiles, fixtures and fittings, technology, customer service and management systems.
Slide from Jeavons Landscape Architects presentation.
It’s not often a conference presentation slide deck becomes a mini training course. But Mary and Sally Jeavons achieved this at the inaugural Australian Universal Design Conference. The slides show lots of different examples of inclusive, creative and adventure play. It’s a quick tour of inclusive, creative and adventure play.
The title of the Jeavons presentation is, Designing Play Spaces for Inclusion: Devilish details that make a difference. This presentation focused on the design of parks and play spaces and their potential for intergenerational play, social interaction and community building. And, of course, for interaction with the natural world. As Mary Jeavons said, play equipment in a neatly fenced rubber space, cannot meet all of the play needs of today’s children and families. A very useful presentation using images that tell the story.
Photo courtesy Jeavons Landscape Architecture.
It is not easy to successfully include “un-designed” elements into playspaces. Plantings, sand, and large river pebbles need maintenance and resistance to local residents complaining about “mess”. There are also budget considerations. With increased urban density the need for adventure play becomes more important. All children have a right to use parks and open spaces. Time to move beyond the “plonk down” catalogue swing set and slide.
See other posts with more practical information and research on adventure play:
Image of Library design courtesy Clive Wilkinson Architects.The open office design is dead. That’s according to the designers of offices for big corporates such as Google and Microsoft. The COVID pandemic has caused a major re-think of office design and how people best function in office settings. Many workers have found open offices less than ideal workplaces. According to an article in FastCompany, apart from being noisy they reinforce sexist behaviour and make people leave their jobs. The three design typologies in the article indicate good circulation spaces, but there is little in these designs that indicate inclusive design principles. For some people, working from home is still the optimum if office design and office culture do not make them welcome. However, these designs offer space to move around and interact with fellow workers rather than being tucked away in a nook.The Library is an open floor plan with large working tables, individual nooks and comfortable chairs. Rather like an airport business lounge. The Plaza is a kitchen and lunchroom space and encourages social activity. This is the part that people miss by working from home. It might encourage people back to the office.The Avenue is, as the name suggests, a place for chance interaction with tables and stools and little nooks.The title of the article is, These architects popularized the open office. Now they say ‘the open office is dead’.
Open plan offices: what’s the verdict?
The debate about whether open plan offices make good places to work continues. A team of Harvard researchers found that they weren’t. But it seems they were looking at the extreme of open plan offices, and poorly designed at that. In defense of open plan design, architect Ashley L Dunn argues that the Harvard study chose offices where there were no partitions and no separate meeting rooms or places for private conversations. These are elements that make open plan effective. You can read more from Dunnin the FastCompany article. By chance, most open plan designs end up being more accessible for people using wheeled mobility devices. Toilets and staff rooms might be another matter though.
What about accessibility?
It would be good to see an article such as this also tackle issues of inclusion and accessibility in office design, particularly for people who for example, are deaf or hard of hearing, have back pain, or have low vision. Some solutions are simple such as moving clutter from walkways. The video below from the Rick Hansen Foundationshows how simple things make a big difference – it doesn’t have to be perfect.
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’.
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.
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.
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. So, are institutions still the way to go for aged care?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 elsein 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 outlining alternatives to aged care institutions.
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.
Older people know what they want in terms of housing and their neighbourhood. But has anyone asked them? Two researchers in Queensland have. This research came about because of serious concerns about congregate living during the COVID-19 pandemic. In their research findings, the researchers challenge the ideas of local planners. They say we need to look at ageing in neighbourhood rather than retirement villages.
The researchers found that local councils can act as a catalyst for the market to change and innovate. They propose infill developments with a mix duplexes and mid rise apartments with easy access to services. The article in The Conversation has lot of images and diagrams to illustrate their arguments. The title of the article is, Ageing in neighbourhood: what seniors want instead of retirement villages and how to achieve it.
It is time to move away from focusing on what older people can no longer do to what they can be encouraged to do. That is the healthy ageing approach. Older people know what’s best for them. Given the opportunity they can create solutions.
The table below shows the key features that make a home and neighbourhood a good place to live as they age.
The Fifth Estate has an article that extends the discussion on this topic into smart cities. The title of the article is, This is how we create the age-friendly smart city.
Australia was one of the first countries to contribute to the WHO’s age-friendly cities project, but how much has been implemented? The late Hal Kendig explains the situation in a book chapter, Implementing age-friendly cities in Australia, which can be found in Age Friendly Cities and Communities: A Global Perspective. Or you can access a similar publication on ResearchGate.
Retirement living has to factor pandemics into design now. Separation rather than isolation is the key. Much of the value of specialist retirement living is the easy access to amenities and socialisation. But the pandemic put a stop to both. The constant reminder that older people are more vulnerable to the infection was the last straw. Especially as everyone fell into the vulnerable category. Consequently, everyone got isolated from each other. But how to design for this?
Australian Ageing Agenda has an article discussing these issues. If residents have to stay home for prolonged periods, they will likely demand more space. Pocket neighbourhoods could work so that only a section needs to be cordoned off. Other ideas are:
The title of the article is, COVID-19 is shaping design of future facilities.
Green building and universal design have a lot in common. They both aim to improve the lives of building users. When it comes to our homes, the brave new world of working from home will no doubt stay with us post pandemic. But there is more to creating a suitable home than just adapting for work. Our homes also need to protect us in both pandemic and post-pandemic modes. Universal design has a role to play here. 
The debate about whether open plan offices make good places to work continues. A team of 
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. 
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?
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. So, are institutions still the way to go for aged care?
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.