
Heritage, Access and Ancient Greece

What makes good design in the built environment, and who is it good for? And how do you measure the value of good design? These are vexed questions when it comes to everyone who has a stake in urban environments and housing. Property developers will have one idea of value, designers another, and users and occupiers will have yet another view. So how to bring this together and measure good design? It’s not an added extra.
An article by urban researchers and the Victorian Government Architect discusses these issues. The construction industry is considered a major contributor to Australia’s economy. Consequently, measurements of value will be in dry economic terms. But value to citizens cannot be measured with existing economic models. This requires qualitative measures – that is, asking people about their experiences with the built environment. The article has charts comparing different perspectives on design and value that make the points well.
The title of the article is Placing a value on good design for cities: evidence and prospects. Although published in 2014, the content remains relevant today. The article joins the dots between the public environment and our homes.
“The challenge is to broaden from readily measured elements of design such as cost per square metre or apartment size, to include the less readily measured ones such as sense of security or good ventilation…” One architect argued that good design “improves the function and usability of the house, while reducing building costs.” This was achieve by reducing the “‘wasted’ hallway space by 5%, translating to a reduced construction cost of around $18,000.”
There is a companion article with an emphasis on apartment design.
The built environment has value. Most commonly, that value is established through market prices for rent or purchase. Some elements of value, while recognised as important, are under-appreciated as it is difficult for them to be directly monetised or quantified in other terms. The value of the built environment to the community of public stakeholders, may differ and conflict with those of individual private stakeholders.
This paper works with the proposition that good design in the built environment imparts value and that there is a need to articulate value in order to inform decisions about what is good design and how to achieve best value built environment outcomes.
Arguments for good design must rest on a rigorous evidence base, with a clear methodology for establishing a cost-benefit assessment process or other consistent measurement approaches. Research addressing these issues has been investigated internationally, particularly from the UK. However, the value of good design is under researched in Australia.
This paper presents a review of the current state of research into the value of good design for the built environment, both in Australia and internationally. Following this, methods to address key gaps for valuation are presented and steps for further research outlined.
Businesses and organisations can increase sales with inclusive design. When a UK theatre embedded inclusive design in their new building they had a 25% rise in ticket sales from people with disability. This is one example in the Design Council a video showing what is possible with some preliminary design thinking. It showcases several organisations and their approach to embedding inclusion into the design of buildings and services – that includes social inclusion.
Community engagement was a big part of the design process: “A lot of ordinary people were involved in the design”.
One interviewee explains how people don’t always use buildings the way you think they will. Consequently it is important to understand the diversity of users with lived experience of the built environment. The video shows several examples – a playground for children and adults alike, transport systems, information systems and devices. It’s down to the details that matter – Barclays bank has a teller machine that includes a spot to hang your walking stick. The theatre mentioned above is also featured. The video is 8 minutes and is captioned.
Transportation’s latest buzz-word is “new mobility”. The focus of transportation has moved from infrastructure to people getting out and about. That is, a move from what it is to what it does. Our mobility, whether walking or riding, is key to everything else in our lives. Transportation connects us to people and places. The impending changes to the way transport services will be delivered in the future is the topic of a new strategy document.
The Smart Cities Council released a transportation strategy, Mobility Now: Connecting Communities, Smarter, Sooner, Safer. We are on the cusp of major change with electric and automated vehicles. But this change will offer little to our sustainability and inclusion goals if the only thing that changes is the type of car we are likely to buy.
The strategy outlines steps including redesigning the urban environment, introducing more accessible mobility, and creating an incentive regime. Of particular concern is solving the problem of “first and last mile” options.
You can read an overview of the strategy and also download the full document. It is a call to action for a coordinated approach across government, the private sector and the community.
Signing up to a United Nations (UN) convention isn’t just a feel-good affair. It actually brings obligations. That means reporting on a regular basis to the relevant UN committee. In Australia, the Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department is responsible for government reports on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. But it isn’t all up to the government: people with disability must be involved. Their reports are known as “Civil Society Shadow Reports”. This is where the story gets interesting when it comes to universal design in housing.
Margaret Ward’s paper, Universal design in housing: Reporting on Australia’s obligations to the UNCRPD, traces the reporting history specifically relating to housing. She writes that the Commonwealth Government has avoided action by doing nothing. Further, it has not adequately reported on this failure to act. But the story does not end here.
This peer reviewed paper was written for the UD2020 Conference that was to be held May 2020, which is now to be held May 2021. It is published on the Griffith University publications website where you can find other papers for the conference.
The UNCRPD obliges Australia to embrace the concept of universal design as a guide for its activities. The UNCRPD triggered significant changes in the last decade directed by the 2010-2020 National Disability Strategy. This paper reviews Australia’s national and international reports on these obligations over the last decade. Both the Australian government and the housing industry largely disregarded the National Dialogue agreement, and misrepresented the progress made in achieving accessibility within the housing stock. The question remains whether a net benefit to society will be found to be of greater priority than the self-interests of the private housing sector and the political vagaries of government. Again, it will take the voice of people with lived experience and those who represent them to make the argument.
Margaret Ward and Jill Franz inspected eleven new dwellings in the Brisbane area. They found that none of the dwellings were visitable.
When providing the eight features for visitability, the interviewees identified two themes for non-compliance. They were “lack of thought” and “otherness”. There were 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.
The title of the article is, The Provision of Visitable Housing in Australia: Down to the Detail.
Observations during the 2011 Tsunami disaster in Japan showed that the colour of signage matters a lot. A short research paper outlines the colours and colour combinations that are easily seen and interpreted quickly by people who have one of the colour blindness conditions. The result is colour combinations for everyone.
The results of this study and other colour studies are reflected in the Japanese standards for the paint, printing and design industries. The colour scheme-set contains 20 colours and is divided into groups depending on whether things are small scale or large scale. Bright pink turned out to be a colour for large signage. For more on the colours go to the Open Journal of Social Science and download the five page article, “Color Barrier Free Displays in Disaster Situations”.
It would seem that green spaces are only part of the story when it comes to urban design and health. Beautiful buildings also rate highly according to a study in the UK. However, beautiful landscapes need to be enjoyed by the whole population. But we still have architects thinking of children, disability inclusion, and ageing as a ‘tacked on’ afterthought or special add-on feature. Architecture and health go together.
Obvious ramps and rails detract from the look of the building for everyone. People who need them don’t like the look either. Beauty is lost when a place excludes and is inaccessible.
The Sourceable article by Steve Hansen explains how beautiful architecture positively affects health. Based on research findings, green space did not always gain top spot with residents in urban areas. Being green does not necessarily make it “scenic”. The research involved participants viewing photographs of open space and buildings and rating them as scenic or un-scenic. The conclusion is that “scenic-ness” is more important to health than just being green.
Hospitals and and health facilities are supposed to make us well, but are they designed with healing in mind? Michael Murphy’s TED talk critiques the design of spaces for healing. He asks, “if hospitals are making people sicker, where are the architects and designers to help us build and design hospitals that allow us to heal?” Michael’s talk begins with how his father’s illness caused him to study architecture.
Watch the 15 minute video in the link below. A transcript is also available: