Policy - Built Environment Archives - Page 5 of 7 - Centre for Universal Design Australia

Future proofing existing social housing: A case study

What about a post-pandemic social housing stimulus project? Not a new idea, but such ideas usually relate to new housing. So what about modifying existing social housing? This is so that people can stay in their community for longer as they age. Lisa King argues the case in a research paper with a focus on older women.

King’s paper begins with a literature review of the issues related to older women and housing. The case study takes the floor plans of existing dwellings and makes changes to show how to make them more accessible. The case study includes studio units and two bedroom units. There is also a site plan, a demolition plan and costings too.

King summarises the research by giving a rationale for choosing 1960s dwellings, and says the project is scaleable, modular and cost effective. In addition, this type of work provides employment for small and medium businesses. And of course, it optimises existing stock while improving the lives of residents. King sums up with, “The result would be universally accessible housing and an asset which would assist meet the growing demand for residents to age-in-place with dignity.”

A thoughtful and nicely written paper and well referenced. Although the focus is on older women, the concepts apply across all social housing. The title of the paper is, Future-proofing Existing Social Housing: A case study helping meet older women’s housing needs.

For a short read King’s paper was featured in a Domain article, Trapped inside: Why social housing apartments need an urgent revamp.

Just and Fair Design

How can design be fair to everyone? Is it even possible to design for everyone? The authors of Just Design argue that justice and fairness in design is not about the output but about the process. Inclusion is more about the social context rather than the design of a particular thing.

The authors’ arguments are not new to practitioners and advocates of universal design. They understand the context of inclusion is also about the participation of users with a range of disabilities.

A woman in a powered wheelchair and a man in a mobility scooter enjoy the pathway.

Discussions and decisions between different users help solve the fairness issue. So their argument that making things inclusive can end up still excluding some people while true, is not well encapsulated in some of their examples. The example of a museum entrance below is thought to be universally accessible. However, users tell another story.

Note on the image of a stepped entry: Sometimes called “stramps” – a mix of steps and a ramp are the opposite of accessible and universal design. There are no safeguards for wheelchair users who run the risk of running over the edges as the ramp section is not clear. It does not comply with Australian legislation.

Museum entrance with steps and ramp integrated. The tiles are a light colour and the way the light falls the whole thing looks very confusing. Architecture and disability.

Integrated steps and a ramp so they cross over each other is an obvious nightmare for someone who is blind, or has perception difficulties, or needs a handrail on all steps. A consultation with users would have produced a different design solution that would be considered fair. They then add the example of a child’s wheelchair – an item that is by its very nature a specialised design. This device cannot fall under the universal or inclusive design flag, but it does allow participation and inclusion in environments designed to accommodate wheeled mobility devices.

Understanding user feedback mechanisms

It is not clear whether the authors understand the role of user feedback and the iterative nature of designing universally. The aim of authors’ discussion is to propose a theory based on justice and fairness of universal and inclusive design. Their references include the thinking of product designers, as well as built environment designers.

The article, Just Design is by Bianchin and Heylighten and is available from ScienceDirect. An interesting, if long read, for anyone interested in the philosophy underpinning universal design and inclusive practice. A similar discussion by the same authors is, Ethics in design: Pluralism and the case for justice in inclusive design. Also, Fair by Design. Both available for a free read on ResearchGate.

And then there is another aspect of justice – access to the court process and legal proceedings.

Equitable access to justice in courts

Justice systems and courthouses are scary at the best of times – even when you haven’t done anything wrong. The processes and places are foreign to most of us. Interacting with the justice system is very stressful – even more so for people with any kind of disability. It’s the same for people who come from a migrant community. Equitable access to justice is yet to evolve.

The relatively new Brisbane Courthouse has attempted a degree of accessibility. However, much of it is compliance-based and added as an afterthought. This image is of the judges bench in the Supreme Court.

This new courtroom has timber backed seats and a long timber desk that seats the justices. A abstract painting covers the wall behind the bench. Daylight comes in through large windows.

This image of the defendant’s dock shows a ramp entry. However, when the door is opened the fittings block the entryway.

Brisbane court room showing the glass surround for the accused dock.

The newly published guidelines for access to justice for persons with disabilities is available on the United Nations Human Rights web page. It gives the background and a summary of the consultation process. The title of the document is, International Principles and Guidelines on Access to Justice for Persons with Disabilities. The document was developed in collaboration with disability rights experts, advocacy organisations, states, academics and other practitioners. There are ten principles, each with a set of guidelines for action.

Ten Principles for people with disability

1. All persons with disabilities have legal capacity and no one shall be denied access to justice on the basis of disability.
2 Facilities and services must be universally accessible to ensure equal access to justice
3 Children with disabilities also have the right to appropriate procedural accommodations.
4 People with disability have the right to access legal notices and information in an accessible manner on an equal basis.
5 People with disability are entitled to all substantive and procedural safeguards and States must provide the necessary accommodations to guarantee due process.
6 People with disability have the right to free or affordable legal assistance.
7 People with disability have the right to participate in the administration of justice on an equal basis with others.
8 People with disability have the right to report complaints concerning human rights violations and crimes and be afforded effective remedies.
9 Effective and robust monitoring mechanisms play a critical role in supporting access to justice for people with disability.
10 People working in the justice system must be trained on addressing the rights of persons with disabilities, in particular in the context of access to justice.

Creating Safe Space for Everyone

How many urban planners think about accessibility and disability from the outset? Some, no doubt. Urban planners also have to think about personal safety – it’s a core concern. But what about safety for people with disability? Do community norms play a role in design decisions? An article in The Conversation discusses this issue and begins:

“Creating safe and secure urban spaces is a core concern for city managers, urban planners and policy workers. Safety is a slippery concept to pin down, not least because it is a subjective experience. It incorporates our perceptions of places and memories, but also norms in society about who is expected to use spaces in the city, and who is considered to be out of place.”

So it is much more than designing out crime. Different population groups experience safety in different ways – much more nuanced that matching with crime statistics. A study from the University College Cork has looking at this issue in more detail. An overview is in an article in The Conversation by Claire Edwards.

The study looked at three cities in Ireland and some obvious places where people with disability felt unsafe were transport hubs, bars and shopping centres. The Conversation article concludes:

“Urban safety is as much about changing social relations as it is about technical fixes. Disabled people’s experiences show us that it is only by challenging assumptions about who has a right to inhabit urban space that we can create more inclusive, just and safer societies.”

The title of the article is, The experiences of people with disabilities show we need a new understanding of urban safety.

Liveable, accessible, sustainable and biophilic: which to choose?

Aspects of sustainability – social, economic, cultural and environmental – are all opportunities for designers. But what to consider and how to design? An article on ageing populations looks at design for all, universal design, inclusive design, human centred design, and biophilic design. The authors considered liveable, accessible, sustainable and biophilic designs. They conclude that universal design and biophilic design concepts create the best outcomes.

The article covers many of the well known facts in this field of research, and addresses the different design approaches and terminology. “Sustainable ageing” is discussed in terms of well-being, economic inclusion and the living environment.

The best approach is universal design

The authors conclude that in considering sustainability, the circular economy and social cohesion, the best approach is universal design. That’s because the universal design concept encourages diversity and social integration. It also creates favourable conditions for healthy ageing concepts.

Universal design is also applicable in the ageing at home concept. The design solutions of buildings and environment can be adapted for older people, avoiding the necessity of further reconstructions as the people age.

The article is titled, “Aging, Living Environment, and Sustainability: What Should be Taken into Account?“. A well-considered discussion that draws together the many approaches to designing for a diverse population.

From the abstract

Population ageing presents numerous challenges and the design and management of living environments are no exception. We bring together topics related to the living environment population ageing and the concept of sustainability.

We review of the existing design concepts currently applied to planning the environment for older people. These include (i) design for all, (ii) universal design, and (iii) inclusive design.

This review highlights the aspects of sustainability and population aging to consider in the design and management of living environments. We highlight the possibility of complementing the existing design concepts with biophilic design to strengthen social, psychological, and ecological aspects.

Images reproduced from the article.

Home for Good

What is a home? It’s so much more than a shelter from the elements. The concept of home gives us a place in the world. It underpins our identity, our relationships and our understanding of who we are and where we fit in the scheme of things. It is intrinsic to the human condition. Yet it is overlooked in the development of policies to support housing provision.

Home for Good is a policy brief “intended to restore the idea of home as both a psychological and social asset to our discourse on housing, rather than just a financial asset. It is specifically concerned with the role of the home as we age, positing that successful ageing is dependent on a person’s access to a home that provides security, community, safety and autonomy”. The policy brief poses a policy framework for a national approach to providing older Australians with homes that meet their social, emotional, environmental, and psychological needs.

The policy brief says nothing about the design of homes, but it does tap into the real meaning of home for many older people – the social equity. Hence the reticence to move to age segregated living. The article can be downloaded from the Analysis & Policy Observatory. It’s by Emma Dawson and Myfan Jordan of Per Capita. Easy to read.

Also see 2013 qualitative Australian research about housing design and older people, Chasing ‘The Great Australian Dream’: Definition of and “Ideal Home’ among Baby Boomers. It’s interesting to not that in less than ten years our terminology has changed from “the elderly” and “the aged” to “older Australians”.

Extract from Abstract: “The study reveals that ‘ageing in place’, is a preferred option for the aged. This raises questions as to how well the housing system and neighbourhood environments are able to support ageing in place, and what aging factors should be taken into consideration when designing Baby boomer’s home to facilitate health and wellbeing. Therefore, this research designed a qualitative approach to investigate Australian Baby Boomers homes around Queensland, predominantly in the Brisbane area, using semi-structured interviews and observations.”

Smart Cities for All Toolkit

How smart can a smart city be? ‘Smart’ is everything from the footpath to the website. So not so smart if it doesn’t include everyone and join the dots between all the factors that make a city a city. With digital transformations happening worldwide, the aim of the Smart Cities for All Toolkit is to eliminate the digital divide and improve urban environments for everyone.

The main part of the toolkit, the Inclusive Innovation Playbook, is detailed and aimed at a policy and planning level. Stakeholder participation and inclusion is an essential theme. Case studies assist with understanding. There is a helpful checklist at the end of the Playbook.

There’s a lot to digest, but this means it isn’t a cursory overview with simplistic solutions. It goes much deeper than a digital accessibility checklist. This is about joining the dots across city assets and leveraging them for everyone’s benefit. Other sections of the toolkit cover:

- Toolkit Overview
- Guide to adopting an ICT accessibility procurement policy
- Implementing priority ICT accessibility standards
- Communicating the case for stronger commitment to digital inclusion in cities
- Database of solutions for digital inclusion in cities

“The toolkit supports a range of organizations and roles related to Smart Cities, including government managers, policy makers, IT professionals, disability advocates, procurement officials, technology suppliers, and developers who design Smart City apps and solutions.

Each of the tools addresses a priority challenge identified by global experts as a barrier to the digital inclusion of persons with disabilities and older persons in Smart Cities.” See also Smart Cities for All: A Vision.

James Thurston of 3Gict came to Sydney in 2019 and discussed the issues and solutions in his keynote presentation in the video below.

5 Pillars of a Smart City

James Thurston is G3ict’s Vice President for Global Strategy and Development. He previously worked for Microsoft, so he knows the territory well. His keynote presentation at UD2021 Conference showed that technology is improving but it’s not inclusive. Cities have to do a lot more if we are to meet the challenges of the digital world.

He lists the five pillars as:

1. 1. Strategic Intent: inclusion strategy and leadership
  2. Culture: citizen engagement and transparency
  3. Governance & Process: procurement and partnerships
  4. Technology: Global standards and solution development
  5. Data: Data divide and solutions

There is more information on inclusive and accessible ICT in the resource section of the 3Gict website. 3Gict is the Global Initiative for Inclusive ICTs.

The 100 year life

People expect to grow old, but they don’t plan to grow old. Public policy has to do more than just capture people when they can no longer care for themselves. Even if people plan for their older age, there are policy and built barriers preventing the continuation of a “decent life”. And housing is a key barrier.

The report, The 100-year life: the role of housing, planning and design, highlights the issues and provides recommendations. The report recommends an integrated approach to housing, planning and design to support people in later life. It stresses the importance of taking a universal design approach and co-production.

Developers, planners and local authorities also have an important role to play. And of course, focusing on older people means that people of all ages are included. While this is a UK project, there are many aspects that apply to other countries including Australia.

The research was conducted jointly by Design Council, Centre for Ageing Better and Social Care Institute for Excellence. The report in PDF was published in June 2018. The report includes references and resources.

See also the Colorado Lifelong Homes White Paper for a similar take on the issues of successful ageing in place.

“A decent life” as described by Amartya Sen.

Toilets, taboos, and policy

Public toilets are a key factor in getting out and about. But are they useable by everyone? Ever thought about how they contribute to our economic and social growth? A myriad of issues are brought together for a thoughtful discussion in Katherine Webber’s Churchill Fellowship report. The report on toilets, taboos, and policy is based on her international study tour. It has several recommendations for design, maintenance and social planning. The title of the report is, “Exploring Accessibility and Inclusion in Public Toilets“. There is a one page checklist on public toilet design principles. See below.

The report has a great quote from Lezlie Lowe that indicates the importance of public toilets in everyday life, “Have we ever granted toilets – and especially public toilets – their due? Have we given them credit for how they’ve helped grow our world? As gross or goofy or quotidian as they may seem, public toilets represent higher notions and beliefs. Fundamentally: who is in and who is out. Whom we see as part of the city. Whom we see as human.” From, No Place to Go: How Public Toilets Fail Our Private Needs.

Public toilets are essential for encouraging people to walk and cycle and generally enjoy urban environments.

Access symbol: inclusive or exclusive?

Confusion still reigns about the international symbol of access (ISA). Is it exclusively for wheelchair users? Or does it denote access for everyone? The ISA was originally created to denote physical spaces for wheelchair accessibility. The access symbol’s meaning has evolved into something much more complex.

A study with participants who were a mix of people with and without disability revealed some interesting findings. However, some participants who did not identify as having a disability described themselves as having some form of impairment. This illustrates ideological differences about disability per se, and highlights how society uses labels and symbols to define a group or culture in wider society.

The article has lots of statistical results. The discussion and conclusions are worth a read because of the implications across society. It includes a look at all the symbols currently in use to signify different disabilities. Some participants wanted to see characteristics of themselves in symbols, but this creates uncertainty with other groups. As an aside, the use of the word “handicap” showed up in participant responses, indicating it is still in common usage.

The title of the article is Effectiveness of the International Symbol of Access and inclusivity of other disability groups.

The article concludes, “Perhaps a more effective solution would be standards which incorporate universal design, thereby ensuring equitable and intuitive use of products and spaces and eliminating the need to symbolically represent population-based accessibility. Initiatives such as Design for All (DfA) in Europe, which was adopted in the EIDD Stockholm Declaration of 2004, and the Barrier-Free Accessibility (BFA) program in Singapore, promote a social model of disability by encouraging barrier-free design of products, services, and environments for people of all abilities and under varying socioeconomic situations.”

Does the symbol need to be rethought?

“Does the international symbol for disability need to be rethought”? is the title of an article in the FastCompany blog. First question this raises is, “Is it a symbol for disability or a symbol for access?” Actually, it is a symbol for access, not disability.. The article proposes a variety of symbols for different disabilities. But do we need more symbols and if so, what purpose would they serve?

Raising the bar on housing standards

Advocates in several countries have been lobbying for mandatory accessible housing standards for many years. At last Habinteg in the UK has succeeded in getting the topic on the government’s agenda.

A forecast for accessible homes, is an important report covering all the key issues, ending with three key actions. The Habinteg report reveals a “huge postcode lottery in the planned supply of new accessible homes…”. Therefore it is crucial to “set a national policy that will create a level playing field and more certainty for developers”.

The report found that existing basic minimum standards as set out in Part M1 of the building code are insufficient. The planned development of accessible housing is set to fall short of previous official predictions. The report also has personal case studies to highlight the impact the lack of availability has on their lives. Mandatory standards within building regulations are needed because Part M1 is too basic. The shortage of housing with liveable access features, which are suitable for everyone, is now at a critical level.

Is there a market for accessible homes?

The Habinteg site has articles that discuss the market appeal of Lifetime Homes in the UK context. There are some interesting research reports by the London School of Economics, Ipsos MORI, and Habinteg Housing and Papworth Trust. UK homes are traditionally two storey with the bathroom and toilet upstairs. They are generally smaller than Australian homes too, which makes it more difficult in terms of circulation spaces.

It was thought that Part M of the building code would create greater accessibility in homes, but it hasn’t helped much at all. The best part is that it requires a downstairs toilet, which is handy for everyone. Aitken explains his own research project on this topic looking at homebuyers and estate agents. The blog site has attracted several good comments and are worth reading too. By the way, it seems stair lifts are not that popular with purchasers.

Category: Policy – Built Environment

Future proofing existing social housing: A case study

Like this: