People want to stay put as they age. That means housing design is critical in supporting this desire, as well as ageing-in-place policies. A study from New Zealand looked at issues of appropriate housing for older people, and how people and communities can develop resilience to adverse natural events. The findings relate to ageing societies across the globe and within the context of changing environmental conditions. The decision tools that researchers devised from this participatory research are useful for older people and for architects and other designers.
It’s critical that older people continue to live and participate in their communities. ‘Ageing in place’, rather than in residential care, is desired by older people themselves and promoted as policy in many countries. Its success, both as policy and practice, depends on housing.
House performance, resilience, functionality and adaptability are all essential to maintaining independence. Three New Zealand research programmes have worked with older people to investigate issues around housing. They include ageing in place, and resilience to adverse natural events.
Using participatory research techniques, we developed evidence-based decision-support tools to help older people maintain independence. These tools have been co-designed and widely tested with older people and others. The tools help older people identify priorities and assess diverse factors determining thermal performance. They also help improve decisions around: repairs and maintenance assessment and solutions; dwelling and location choices and housing options.
This work demonstrates how research outputs can be used to facilitate older people’s housing choices while also giving architects and designers guides for meeting older people’s housing needs.
The current standard design ideas for homes goes back more than a century. It’s time for a rethink on home design to suit the way we live our lives now is the claim in an article by Kirsty Voltz in The Conversation. She says that flexible housing offsets risk.
Home designs are not keeping up with societal changes that include affordability, size of homes, accessibility across the lifespan, and designing so that as lives change, the interior of the home can adapt to suit.
The risks are in not recognising the need to change and adapt to current circumstances, lifestyles, societal changes and personal aspirations. The article contains links to other references and concludes, “Existing housing stock is designed around the numbers of bedrooms and bathrooms that appeal to the market and so fails to be responsive to what people need from housing in the 21st century.”
The picture is of the 3 bedroom home that Kirsty Voltz designed to fit in the space of an obsolete driveway.
All presentations were converted to PDF before being provided to CUDA. If you are unable to access the content of the documents please email udaustralia@gmail.com.
Ever wondered what the long term effects of a home modification are? A longitudinal study shows that household improvements in social housing can reduce risk of hospital stays.
The study picked up major improvements in chest and heart health as well as a reduction in falls and burns.
Over ten years, researchers found that modified and upgraded homes correlated with reduced hospital events. That means savings in the health budget or beds freed up for other patients. Obviously it is better for occupants too.
The title of the study is, “Emergency hospital admissions associated with a non-randomised housing intervention meeting national housing quality standards: a longitudinal data linkage study”. Sarah Rodgers et al. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.
Universal Design drives Housing Quality
Fundamental changes in the building code and regulations have occurred in Norway. However, it seems that none of this has guaranteed improvements in quality on the usability of homes. Perhaps there are some lessons for Australia in implementing the Livable Housing Design Standard.
Architects, more than any other group in the construction industry are trained to break conventional frameworks. The way regulations are applied is the key to success. This is where the education of architects and building designers comes in.
Changes to the Norwegian building code in 2010 gave a clear framework for the implementation of accessibility and universal design. However, neither increased awareness of accessibility requirements and universal design, nor compliance with the building code guarantees improvement of housing quality and usability.
The Norwegian regulations have gone further in the direction of performance requirements than most other countries. This applies to all types of requirements, including requirements for usability, functionality and accessibility. Hardly any specifications are to be found in the regulations.
Ideally, this lack of specifications should give designers the opportunity to develop innovative answers and to respond to different contexts. Still, many architects and builders ask for clear specifications, to speed up design processes. Many architects understand guidelines as minimum requirements. Consequently, they are reproducing the identical solutions without considering users.
They see accessibility as another regulatory pressure and requirements as restrictions rather than positive incentives. However, there are examples of designers who have internalised the regulatory framework. These designers are able to create and integrate inclusive design in their daily work.
This paper presents examples of practice where dwellings have been developed within a framework of universal design. Focus is on the approach of the design team and their understanding and use of the regulatory framework to create better homes.
Relationship between housing and health
A systematic review of the literature found there is a strong association between housing and health. However, it is not clear that there is a causal link. Findings showed that provision of adequate heating, improvements to ventilation and water supply were associated with improved respiratory outcomes, quality of life and mental health. The title of the article is, The relationship between buildings and health: a systematic review.
From the abstract
The built environment exerts one of the strongest directly measurable effects on physical and mental health. This study provides a systematic review of quantitative studies assessing the impact of buildings on health. In total, 39 studies were included in this review.
Findings showed consistently that housing refurbishment and modifications improved health. Adequate heating, improved ventilation and water supply were associated with improved respiratory outcomes, quality of life and mental health. Prioritization of housing for vulnerable groups led to improved wellbeing.
This review found a strong association between certain housing features and wellbeing such as adequate heating and ventilation.
Guy Luscombe did a great reporton his findings from a study tour of residential settings for older people. He found aspects such as natural light were of important to residents. A similar study was undertaken in Hong Kong looking at age, gender, marital status, etc., to see the preferences of older people in residential design
The importance of living in a space you like has ongoing health benefits (or detriments if not). This is a thorough study using qualitative techniques which looks at residents preferences. Differences emerged about windows, but there seemed to be some general agreement about bedroom size. The title of the paper is, Comparison of facilities management in private domestic buildings among different elderly groups in Hong Kong. Here is the last part of the abstract:
The result shows that satisfaction with natural daylight was significantly different among older people of different genders. However, there was satisfaction with the size of bedrooms, turning spaces at doors, temperature in bathrooms and/or toilets, and use of colour. Accessibility and ease of closing or opening the doors were significantly different among older people belonging to different age groups and of different marital status and education level.
Luscombe recommends designers and private developers increase the sizes of bedrooms, and install windows on opposite sides of walls in flats. Also, ensure there is an adequate light reflection for wall and floor colours.
Rachelle Newman‘s Masters thesis provides some valuable insights into some of the issues in creating accessible homes. Written in 2010, the content remans relevant as the changes to the National Construction Code are pending in two states. The Home is for Every Body is a great title.
The thesis is well researched, well written and well presented. It discusses the role of Livable Housing Australia, Landcom Guidelines, national standards, state planning instruments, and legislative frameworks. The section on the relationship between adaptable housing and universal design is very useful for anyone confused by it. Tables and photographs add to the explanations throughout. The title of the thesis is: The home is for every body? An investigation of the statutory and strategic planning implications of inclusive housing design.
Abstract excerpt:
This thesis explores the employment of two types of inclusive design – adaptable and universal – in Australia-wide and NSW contexts. There is a lack of coordination at the national level which has resulted in a divergence of approaches and interpretation between states. This thesis offers an understanding of the planning implications of inclusive housing design so that better policy and legislation may be developed.
This is the fourth and last in the series of stories about wheelchair users building a new home. Steve is married with two children and tells his story about building a two storey project home. Similarly to George, he had to make compromises when the builder failed to deliver on promises. However, when allowed to speak directly with tradespeople, some of the problems were easily solved.
I interviewed four wheelchair users who had recently built a home as part of my PhD research project. I was interested in the process and the interaction with house-building professionals. In coming newsletters I will feature the other three interviews. Mike tells how he engaged an architect because he had little confidence in a project home builder understanding what he wanted. However, this did not result in plain sailing.
George who comes from a family of builders. He relates his experiences with a project home builder and how he had to overcome resistance to incorporating basic access features.
Tomas tells his story about designing a home for two wheelchair users and their children. Unlike Mike, Tomas and Lisa had an easier time. Tomas also provides some comparisons with Europe.
This is Sam’s story. As part of my PhD research project I interviewed a family member who built a home for a relative who uses a wheelchair. It transpired he was also a builder. The interview shows that being a builder with a family member with a disability does not always make for a better understanding of when and where regulations apply. It also shows how misunderstood the whole area of accessibility, public domain standards and housing design can get mixed up.
I interviewed four wheelchair users who had recently built a home as part of my PhD research project. I was interested in the process and the interaction with house-building professionals.
Edited transcript from live captioning of Kay Saville-Smith’skeynote presentation at the Australian Universal Design Conference 2014. Titled: Making universal design a reality – confronting affordability.
Synopsis: The Christchurch earthquakes which flattened much of the city provided an opportunity to start from scratch and implement some of the good design ideas, including universal design, that have been around for some time. However, this has not happened and there are many reasons for this, not least of which is the stance of the insurance industry.
The issue of affordability is a complex one. It is a market driven issue where the actual cost of the building is not the main issue. Universal design and affordability can co-exist. However, there are many attitudinal barriers and well-worn arguments touted in the industry that say it cannot be done.
From the Editor: I prepared a 2000 word version of my PhD thesis for easier reading. The title is Barriers to Universal Design in Australian Housing. I wanted to find out what the barriers are and if we could do something about it.
The simple answer is that the industry runs on regulations which holds the house building system together. So nothing will change without regulation. Outdated ideas about market segmentation, general resistance to change, and risk avoidance are key issues. Cost was cited most often as a barrier, but without any evidence of the costs.
The graphic shows that the house building industry is a system with several stakeholders. This system relies on everyone doing the same thing in the same way. The best way to achieve this is through regulation.
The full thesisis available from the Western Sydney University archives. I did my best to make it as readable as possible within the constraints of academic writing.
(FICCDAT is, Festival of International Conferences on Caring, Disability, Aging and Technology.)
Hope I die before I get old
I presented this paper and presentation at the 2011 State of Australian Cities Conference (SOAC). It raises the issues of housing an ageing population in a context of industry believing retirement villages and aged care are the places to put older people. However, the majority of people will age in their current home – a home that is not suitably designed for this purpose. Around 200,000 new homes are built each year – each one a lost opportunity.
The cost of NOT including accessibility in new homes
When talking about the costs of including basic access features in new homes, we should also discuss the cost of NOT including those features.
Download an academic article from the Journal of the American Planning Association, by Smith, Rayer and Smith (2008) that spells out the economic argument using economic methodologies. The key point is that conservatively, a new home built today with a minimum of four different households over its lifetime is 65% likely to have an occupant with a permanent disability. If we include visitors the likelihood rises to 91%. It is often forgotten that people with disability live in families – not alone. This is an open access article.