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 PDFwas published in June 2018. The report includes references and resources.
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 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.
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 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?
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 Mof 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.
Book reviews can reveal good information in their own right. One such case is the review of Aimi Hamraie’s book, Building Access: Universal Design and the Politics of Disability. The book traces the history of universal design from the 1950s in the United States to current ideas. Hamraie discusses the issues of the politics of disability from both design and disability perspectives.
Chapter 4 of the bookdiscusses how the curb cut campaign in the USA became disability politics in action. Curb cuts cannot be considered universal design because they don’t benefit everyone. They do not further the rights or inclusion of people with disability. However they became a sign that people with disability had rights that were being ignored.
This is an academic text of value to both design and disability studies.
Other articles about Hamraie posted previously are:
Here’s a call to traffic planners. A group in the UK is calling for slower speed limits on roads to help reduce pedestrian accidents. They list all the conditions where slower speeds could make a difference and allow people to cross the road safely. Drivers can’t see if someone has anxiety, dementia, post traumatic stress or sleep disorder. Traffic can make them feel vulnerable and fearful. 20 miles per hour equates to 30 km per hour.
People who are deaf or hard of hearing, and people with low vision are also at risk of accidents. Pregnant women, older people, and people with prosthetic legs or chronic illness might not be spotted either. Even if they are, it is unlikely to change driver behaviour or alertness. The 20’s Plenty for Usmedia release links their call to the disability rights agenda which requires equitable treatment for everyone. Traffic planners should therefore assume everyone is vulnerable.
“At first sight it’s impossible to tell if someone has a mental health problem – anxiety, dementia, post traumatic stress or sleep disorder. Yet sufferers are vulnerable and fearful. Also the partially sighted, hearing impaired, those with a prosthetic leg, cancer, the elderly or pregnant women have protected characteristics not obvious at a distance from a driver’s seat behind a windscreen.”
Bess Williamson takes a look at two books and reviews them in tandem, which makes for an interesting read in its own right. Both are about the history of disability, accessibility and universal design, but approach the topic from different perspectives. Aimi Hamraie takes a legal and rights view of history, while Elizabeth Guffey tracks the work of individual designers and the development of symbols and images, particularly the access symbol we know today. They show how accessible design was developed in more than one place at the same time, which shows at least two family trees of access and universal design. One from the bottom up (“crip technoscience”) and one from the top down (standards and codes). An excellent and thoughtful review by someone who understands this field of research. The books are:
Michael Small’s Churchill Fellowship report tracks and compares discrimination laws and industry practice in relation to public buildings. He questions whether the control of the Access to Premises Standard is falling more into the hands of industry as Human Rights Commission resources are becoming increasingly constrained.
Three of his recommendations are: that more training is needed for industry to help them understand the standards; more flexibility is needed for building upgrades; and better systems are needed for compliance enforcement and auditing. The title of his report is, Ensuring the best possible access for people with disability to existing buildings that are being upgraded or extended. The countries visited and compared are Canada, United States of America, Ireland and United Kingdom.
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.
How do you know if your action plan for accessibility and universal design is actually being implemented? The Norwegian Government’s plan to be universally designed by 2025 now has a tool to monitor progress. A standardised method to collect and measure data nationally has been trialled.
The first results show that Norway still “faces many challenges to meet the government’s goals for Universal Design”. Data were collected on buildings and major facilities such as transport hubs, walkways, cycleways and car parks. The techniques are discussed in the article, “Mapping Norway – a Method to Register and Survey the Status of Accessibility“. The authors conclude that while their system is not perfect due to the need to fully standardise and simplify complex data, they believe it will be valuable to municipal and recreational planners and developers. The article and others can be found in the Proceedings of the International Cartographic Association.
The Norwegian mapping authority has developed a standard method for mapping accessibility walking in urban and recreational areas. . All data are stored in a geospatial database, so they can be analysed using GIS software. By the end of 2020, more than 230 out of 356 municipalities are mapped using that method.
The aim of this project is to establish a national standard for mapping of accessibility and to provide a geodatabase that shows the status of accessibility throughout Norway. The data provide a useful tool for national statistics, local planning authorities and private users. The results show that accessibility is still low and Norway still faces many challenges to meet the government’s goals for Universal Design.