In the age of climate change Australians are reassessing the risk of floods, fires and severe storms on their homes. But what about assessing the risk of capabilities in later age in home design? Perhaps they should be assessing both. Any proposed renovations should consider both climate and later age to ensure a safe and secure home into the future.
Geoff Penrose makes the point very well in the April 2025 edition of the Lifemark Universal Design Newsletter. Lifemark promotes universal design principles for homes with a focus on health and wellbeing for all occupants. Their design standards provide the necessary information for that 100% probability factor – later age.
“Universal design helps everyone feel at home.”
“A Lifemark® rated home is easy to live in for anyone at any stage and can be life-changing for people living with an impairment, age-related illness or injury.”
The Lifemark standards reflect those in the Australian National Construction Code’s Livable Housing Design Standard. That’s because they are underpinned by a universal design approach. Unfortunately, while the National Construction Code is supposed to be national, not all states have adopted it. That means, many new homes will still have steps to the entry and be unsuited to an ageing population.
In a LinkedIn post, David Chandler wrote about the reaction of powerful voices to the NSW Building Reforms. He said that the development industry “predictably recoils” whenever a new regulation that raises building standards is presented. This is one of the reasons the housing industry has fought the Livable Housing Standard. It would require the building certifier to pay closer attention to the design and construction.
Get it right first time
Chandler goes on to say that rather than costing more, it pays to get it right first time and to resist cutting corners. This is exactly what universal design advocates have been saying for years. Get it right first time – it’s cost effective. Chandler, the former NSW Building Commissioner, addresses this topic in a Radio National broadcast.
Empathy driven design is a catalyst for social change. It challenges architects to consider the broader impact of their designs on social equity to make spaces more inclusive. By integrating empathy into the design process, architects can create more equitable, caring environments that serve the common good. Despite the challenges, empathy driven design is a paradigm shift in architecture, moving away from top-down, one-size-fits-all solutions.
Empathy driven design is based on collaboration. That is, engaging with communities to understand their unique experiences and challenges. The architect becomes a listener and participant in the co-design process. Image courtesy of MASS Design Group from ArchDaily.
An article in ArchDaily explains more about designing with empathy and for social equity. Examples of empathy driven design include, among others, a hospital in Rwanda and a housing project in Chile. Projects in developed countries require the same thought as these examples and show what’s possible.
Challenges and opportunities
One of the most significant hurdles is balancing empathy with practical constraints such as budget, time, and regulatory limitations. Many projects that aim to serve disadvantaged communities are often restricted by tight budgets.
The key issue is the cost of time and project deadlines. Navigating this tension requires creative solutions that make the most of available resources without compromising the project’s empathetic core.
Design alone cannot overcome deeply entrenched societal inequalities. The success of designs depend on both the built environment and broader support systems, such as social services or public policy changes.
Loughborough University has a good track record for inclusive design research. Low vision and manual dexterity are the most common losses for people as they age. Consequently, the study focused on these factors to improve architects’ empathy and understanding of users.
The method involved usingglasses and gloves that simulate loss of vision and loss of hand dexterity. Participants wore the glasses and gloves and then given reading, writing and dexterity tasks.
The results show that the tasks challenged their traditional view of disability. Participants began to see it more as a continuum and effecting a wider population.
Key themes
Inadequacy of the current building standard.
There is no incentive for developers to go beyond minimum compliance.
Developers often commission design briefs so the end user is often unknown.
In the absence of knowing their end user, they tend to design for themselves.
They feel there is a stigma associated with accessible designs and this reinforces the disability-centric concept of able bodied versus disability designs.
It challenged their traditional view between ‘able-bodied’ and ‘disabled-users’.
A lack of inclusive design training within their undergraduate and post graduate training.
The video below shows the gloves and glasses in action.
Designing for empathy
Human centred design and inclusive design processes focus taking an empathetic approach to the users. But what if you turn that around and think about designing for empathy itself? To shift from being the empathiser to become an empathy generator? That was the question a team of designers in Finland wanted to know the answer to. Using socio-cultural design tools rather than physical empathy design tools, they created a co-creative process with the Finnish parliament.
Globalisation and the mixing of people, cultures, religions and languages fuels pressing healthcare, educational, political and other socio-cultural issues. Many issues are driven by society’s struggle to find ways to facilitate more meaningful ways to help overcome the empathy gap which keeps various groups of people apart.
This paper presents a process to design for empathy – as an outcome of design. This extends prior work which typically looks at empathy for design – as a part of the design process, as is common in inclusive design and human centered design process.
We challenge the role of the designer to be more externalised, to shift from an empathiser to become an empathy generator. We develop and demonstrate the process to design for empathy through a co-creation case study aiming to bring empathy into politics.
The Parliament of Finland is the setting for the project. It involves co-creation with six Members of the Parliament from five political parties. We discuss the outcomes of the process including design considerations for future research.
Pictures, photos, infographics, icons – they all convey messages. It is often said that images say more than words. A bar graph gives a visual representation of statistics making it easier to understand. A photo of a landscape in a tourist brochure piques interest in a place. Readily recognised icons send instant messages, such as this is a train station or this is a toilet. But it needs to be accessible graphic design.
Graphic design is an essential element of all communication.
The way text is presented also sends messages. For example, a tiny faint font sends the message to people with low vision that they are not included. A busy page with tightly compressed text is readable but uncomfortable.
When graphic designers consider accessibility and inclusivity in their work, the result is a better experience for all…
Woolley’s research explores how graphic designers learn about, interpret and implement accessibility standards into practice. She used participatory research methods, often referred to as co-design. The outcome is a framework and a set of recommendations for supporting the graphic design industry in Canada.
The thesis discusses many aspects of accessible and inclusive design, and it’s role in equitable access to public information. Woolley has three main pillars of discussion.
Understanding the importance of access – the moral angle
Understanding industry standards and guidelines – the responsibility angle
Understanding accessibility legislation – the legal angle
The framework and recommendations were designed through a collaborative process with participants and represent a collective need for industry support.
Handbook for accessible graphic design
Download this free practical handbook for accessible graphic design from Canada. The text covers typography, digital media, web accessibility, Office documents, accessible PDFs, print design, environmental graphic design, colour selection and more. It’s relatively easy to read and has a logical structure. At the end is a list of publications, links to websites and tools to help.
Numerous guidelines exist on adherence to standards, but what is designed will be used by people with diverse bodies, abilities. There is no typical user, only what is in the designer’s mind. But it isn’t just about access, it is about being inclusive. That’s where better architecture with universal design comes in.
“When thinking about accessibility in architecture, codes set the baseline, while design defines the ceiling.” Enrique Tovar
Tovar writes in Archdailyabout the application of universal design principles to create spaces that work for everyone. She discusses how to apply them to all projects – integrated and intrinsic features.
Tovar takes each of the seven classic principles of universal design and discusses them in detail. The article has lots of photos, some of which might pose some questions for dedicated followers of universal design. Nevertheless it is good to have such articles in mainstream professional magazines.
“While each of the principles of universal design is compelling and necessary in its own right, the real challenge for architects is to integrate them seamlessly and simultaneously into the overall design. The maxim that “the best accessibility is the one that goes unnoticed” resonates strongly in this context. Furthermore, since good architecture embodies inclusivity, it is crucial to acknowledge that accessibility is essential to this inclusiveness. If we aspire to create a society and built environment that are universally welcoming and inclusive, why not recognize that designing for everyone is a fundamental aspect of architecture?”
Grant Maynard says that using the word ‘inclusive’ is leaving out people with disability. Racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia and transphobia are taking the spotlight. Events that celebrate the International Day of People with Disability cater specifically for people with disability. So is this a good thing on just one day of the year?
In the week of International Day of People with Disability, “I can rock up to any advertised event confidently, knowing it will be accessible and affordable.”
Start times, access information, wheelchair accessibility and bathroom availability will be clearly set out. Maynard says, “then, like magic, the conversations and accessibility stop.” He calls it pinkwashing for people with disabilities.
It’s a tokenistic gesture that doesn’t translate to long-term positive outcomes. One day does not make a difference in and of itself.
When the term ‘neurodiversity’ entered our language it gave us a new world view and perspective on humanity and diversity. It challenges the notion that there is such as thing as a ‘standard’ brain. Design disciplines have seen opportunity in sustainable design. Now there is opportunity in neurodiverse design.
Workplaces should design for brains not just for bodies. But what does that look like? Big companies like Deloitte and EY are re-shaping their workplaces. Image of EY Perth office.
Neurodiverse design in architecture
An article in The Fifth Estate by Catherine Carter takes up the topic of neurodiversity and architecture. Current estimates are that around 15-20 percent of the global population is neurodivergent. This means their brains process information differently from the ‘typical’ population. Consequently, they may perceive and interact differently with their surroundings.
Carter says the best designs won’t be where differences coexist, but where they are celebrated. They will include spaces that avoid harsh lighting, distracting noise and visual clutter. Flexible layout with distinct zones and quiet areas, and collaborative spaces to suit tasks and moods are also helpful. Natural elements such as plants and organic materials help reduce cognitive load.
One of the big consulting firms, EY has established 23 Neurodiverse Centers of Excellence where tech people work on complex projects. EY is also redesigning their offices with soundproof spaces, enhanced lighting and signage.
Deloitte claims to have found five key drivers that neurodivergent thinkers bring to problem solving. Cognitive diversity can drive new ideas and counter groupthink. Neurodivergent people often have intense focus to push through setbacks and overcome problems.
Building for brains not bodies
Designing for neurodivergent employees means that everyone benefits. Who doesn’t like a comfortable office with plants and soundproofing? As an AI-powered future looms, workplaces are shapeshifting again. Places need to nurture minds of employees, not just their bodies. People have more flexibility today in how and where they work. Let’s design for that and for the diversity of the population.
A significant number of people find certain aspects of the built environment uncomfortable, distressing or a barrier due to neurological differences. To address this, the British Standards Institute has a guide for designing built environments to include people who are neurodivergent. The whole population is neurodiverse, individuals might be neurotypical or neurodivergent.
The guide covers external spaces for public and commercial use as well as residential accommodation for independent living. It is one of the few documents that explains neurodiversity in a way that designers can understand.
Neurodiverse and neurotypical
The term ‘neurodiversity’ and ‘neurodiverse’ are clarified in the introduction. Neurodiversity is about us all – it is not one condition. It is about the way each of thinks, speaks, moves and communicates. It is better explained as “sensory and/or information processing difference” and this is the term frequently used in the guide.
Different terms are used to describe different neurological profiles:
1. Neurotypical: someone fitting a majority neurological profile and is not neurodivergent. 2. Neurodivergent: someone who sits outside majority neurological profile commonly associated with autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, dyspraxia, dyscalculia, dysgraphia and Tourette’s syndrome. 3. Neurodegenerative: A condition whereby sensory processing differences develop over time such as Parkinson’s.
The guide is just that. It is not a specification or code of practice and it is assumed that it will be used by qualified people. The guide does not cover special education environments, dementia or complex care settings or detailed guidance on sensory room design.
Lifemark promotes universal design in housing in New Zealand. Lifemark’s new website has a fresh look but stays true to it’s core value of inclusion. Similarly to other countries, New Zealand faces strong resistance by the housing industry. However, Lifemark is making inroads slowly, but surely.
The core element of Lifemark®is their standards based on universal design principles. As they say, “Universal design is essential for many, necessary for others, and comfortable for all”. Image from iStock in Lifemark Standards
The ABC of universal design
Lifemark’s new website continues the theme of the ABC of universal design which is, Access, Bathroom and Circulation.
Access: at least one level entry, step-free pathway and entrance.
Bathroom: well positioned toilet on the entry level with reinforced walls for later grab rails.
Circulation: spaces are easy to move between with wider doorways and hallways.
Lifemark® Design Standards
The standards are based on five key principles: Usability, Adaptability, Accessibility, Safety, and Lifetime value. There are three levels to the standard based on a star rating similar to that of Livable Housing Design Guidelines.
The three star level is based on visitable requirements and improved comfort similar to Livable Housing Silver level. The four star level offers a higher level of comfort and is suitable for ageing in place – Livable Housing Gold level. It also supports people with reduced mobility. The five star rating is specifically for wheelchair users and others with higher support needs – Livable Housing Platinum level.
Individuals can access Lifemark’s Design for Life brochureon the website by providing an email address.
Lifemark’s Case Studies
Case studies on the website cover three scenarios. The first is an example of using incentives to include universal design at the planning stage. The second is incorporating universal design into a master housing plan. The third is a case study on a retirement village development. The video below gives an occupant perspective. (Note the automatic captioning does not account for a New Zealand accent.)
Lifemark was New Zealand’s equivalent to Livable Housing Australia until they went in different directions. Livable Housing Australia discontinued its work in 2015, but the website with guidelines remained active until 2023. This was when the Livable Housing Design Standard was mandated in the National Construction Code. Lifemark merged with CCS Disability Action and continues promote universal design in housing.
One thing they shared in common was the absolute resistance for change from the housing industry lobby.
Livable Housing Australia
The Australian Building Codes Board adopted most of the Livable Housing Design Silver level in the National Construction Code in 2022. It is known as the Livable Housing Design Standard. Queensland was the first jurisdiction to adopt the Standard followed by ACT and Victoria. Other jurisdictions have either watered down the elements, or in the case of NSW and Western Australia they have refused to adopt the Standard.
The story of getting the Australian Building Codes Board to incorporate universal design into housing into the National Construction code is told by Ward and Bringolf. This paper is from the proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Universal Design.
Words matter. Our perceptions, beliefs and attitudes are shaped by the words we see and hear. The media relies on words for their work which has the power to influence, uphold or denigrate. Journalists must check their words for perpetuating stereotypes that harm, albeit unintentionally. The ageing sector must do the same. Yes, even older people perpetuate stereotypes in the language they use too.
The Australian Human Rights Commission has produced a report on how the media reports on ageing and older people.
“How we view the world and those around us is largely shaped by what we read, what we hear and what we watch. Media informs how we see and treat others, and even how we see and treat ourselves.” – Robert Fitzgerald AM, Age Discrimination Commissioner
Ageism is one of the most socially accepted forms of prejudice in Australia. The media industry and the age sector must improve the accuracy, quantity and quality of coverage of the issues.
In the video below, Robert Fitzgerald explains that the overwhelming portrayal of older people is in the negative. This is particularly so when talking about health and aged care. The framing is that of a burden on society without recognising how this language impacts older people themselves. It also impacts policy-makers and private enterprise when it comes to providing goods and services.
Positive portrayals can also stereotype
The media and marketing professionals like to segment the population into age groups. They assume people in these age groups all have something in common or behave in a particular way. They also assume that each group is different from each other and have little in common. This is stereotyping. Even positive stereotyping is harmful especially when pitting older and younger cohorts against each other.
Highlighting a few prominent older Australians as being highly productive or contributing to society is portrayal by exception. It is only their age that makes it a story. For example a woman of 90 years, usually described as a “grandmother” taking a parachute jump. The only other time parachute jumpers make the news is if their parachute failed.
Ageing is not a charity case any more
Ageing and aged care left the charity model last century, but some aspects linger on. For example, special weeks or international days for older people only serve to perpetuate stereotypes and patronise. Stereotyping behaviour is difficult to overcome – it’s ingrained into our culture.
Key findings from the report
There are known and real issues with Australian media portrayals of ageing and older people. The prevailing narrative is of decline, frailty and vulnerability. Their everyday lived experience is invisible to the media.
Australian media representations reflect a broader mainstream culture that undervalues older people. Their issues are often regarded as ‘less than’ those affecting other groups.
The culture of undervaluing older people underpins media industry drivers. Some of these briefly include:
Lack of access to subject matter experts – people who can speak on ageing
Invisibility of age withing the diversity and inclusion space
Time, resources and lack of experienced journalists
Business drivers and ‘click bait’ nature of reporting especially around intergenerational tensions.
The report reviews current knowledge and evidence on age and ageing and the way Australia media presents it. The title of the full report is, Shaping Perceptions: How Australian Media Reports on Ageing. There is also a summary reportwith the findings and opportunities for change. Even advocates for older people can fall into the trap of using language that patronises or emphasises ‘specialness’.
Viewing older people through the prism of health and disability ignores their continuing contribution to society. The 2015 Intergenerational Report talks of the ‘three Ps’ – population, participation and productivity. But where is the fourth P – policy?
Emily Millane discusses the issues of ageism, employment and social participation in a percapita report. She asks, where is the fourth P, policy, and argues we need policies to overcome age discrimination in all its forms. This includes the design of public spaces, parks and streets. Urban design plays an important role here. It needs to capture all ages and foster interaction between generations. This strategy might be easier than changing community attitudes in the short term.
Older people are considered lesser value than others – something highlighted by the Royal Commission into Aged Care. By perpetuating the idea of being less capable or being a burden on society affects attitudes that are hard to shift. It also affect attitudes older people have about themselves.
Most people can stall their hunger or thirst for a while, but some people find their bladder and bowels are more demanding. Access to clean usable public toilets are essential for everyone, but their designs are often lacking.
Joe Manton writes about the issues of gender inclusive toilets in the Spring 2024 issue of Access Insight.
A previous post discussed the assumptions underpinning the assignment of gender neutral toilets. Manton provides a more detailed perspective using the lived experience of people. Here is a sample of the topics covered.
Toilet anxiety and security
Public toilet anxiety can arise for different reasons. For some it is a phobia about being able to use the toilet or being too far from one. For others it’s a fear of having an accident in public, other people hearing you, cleanliness, or sharing a space with others.
Gender diversity
People who are gender diverse often lack access to a safe public toilet. They can be ridiculed, abused, threatened or assaulted if they use single gendered toilets. Consequently, something as basic as going to the toilet can cause increased levels of anxiety and depression.
When forced to use all gender toilets, women feel unsafe, and men feel constrained in their interactions with women in this public space. Social and cultural perspectives also impact the way people feel about using public toilets.
Toilet wait times
The USA Potty Parity movement says that in busy facilties, women can wait up to 34 times longer than men. They also have to spend more time than men. Time to remove clothing, and at times, deal with feminine hygiene, see to children or help an older relative.
What the standards say
The current status of the National Construction Code includes mandated requirements for sanitary facilities. Depending on the building classification it includes, male, female, ambulant male, ambulant female, unisex accessible, and accessible adult change facilities.
There is no mandated requirement for all gender toilets, baby change areas, and assistance animal relief areas.
Manton argues that there is convincing evidence to retain separate male and female toilets. Being trans or non-binary is not a disability and some feel uncomfortable about using an accessible toilet. It also signals to others that their identity is in some way a disabling condition. In a way, it is, because without suitable facilities they are disabled by design.
Unisex accessible toilets
The number of unisex accessible toilets in buildings according to the Construction Code is based on disability. It does not account for the number of other people who need to use this facility. Often a baby change table is installed, so parents with prams and small children also use them.
Manton provides detailed information in the article about standards and discusses all gender toilets in detail. She also covers toilet design considerations and proposed amendments to the Construction Code.
They argue “the proposed legislative changes for the provision of ‘all gender’, ‘gender-neutral’ or ‘unisex’ toilets operate under an incorrect assumption that gender neutrality will lead to greater inclusion”.
Imogen Howe writes that wellbeing goes beyond the physical and mental health of an individual. It is a holistic concept of health and wellness. It encompasses social connectedness, belonging and inclusion and the ability to contribute meaningfully to society. Wellbeing is also about feeling valued and respected, and environmental contextual factors such as connection to community and place. She explains wellbeing by design as:
“The relationship between the built environment and wellbeing is well known. But, when it comes to wellbeing, buildings and urban spaces frequently disappoint people with disabilities by being inaccessible, stigmatising, creating the feeling of being out-of-place, a misfit in places you have a fundamental right to be in.” Signs such as the one pictured, say that “we didn’t think about you in our design”.
Exclusion of people with disability because the problem arises from older buildings is no excuse. Howe says building upgrades are essential when considering the barriers beyond access standards. She says that designers must consider psychological and emotional aspects of wellbeing as well. It’s more than just getting into a building.
Howe also says that designers must be respectful of users’ energy and time. People with disability and/or long term health conditions have less energy available to them each day. It takes longer to do basic tasks, so they also have less time to spare. The built environment can whittle away, bit by bit, precious energy and time so there is nothing left for fun things.
The title of the article is Wellbeing for Whom? and published by the Australian Institute of Architects magazine, Architecture Bulletin.
What do you think accessibility means? Does it mean compliance with AS1428.1 or the ability to enter a building and spaces within it? Is it about usability? Even if it means all these things, the word accessibility is too limited to encompass all the considerations for people with disabilities…
A significant number of people find certain aspects of the built environment uncomfortable, distressing or a barrier due to neurological differences. To address this, the British Standards Institute has a guide for designing built environments to include people who are neurodivergent. The whole population is neurodiverse, individuals might be neurotypical or neurodivergent. 
Design for the Mind
See also the excellent discussion by Nicole Kalms and Laura McVey in 