Category: Research papers for built environment

It’s one thing to create inaccessible built environments through thoughtlessness. It is another to do it intentionally. Hostile design has emerged as an architectural response to homelessness, specifically rough sleepers. Rough sleepers need a flat surface on which to lie down, but flat surfaces are also a place of rest for other citizens.

Put simply, hostile designs are intentionally created to restrict behaviours in urban spaces in order to maintain public order.

Examples of this type of design are highlighted in a paper titled, Designing Out: A Framework for Studying Hostile Design. Mostly these are benches with raised or sloping sections. However, low height walls are also used as temporary resting places by pedestrians.

The author considers hostile design a reflection of the prevailing social values which ends up defining who has access to public space and who doesn’t. Finding ways to hide homelessness is not the answer to the problem. Everyone has an equal right to use public space.

The article discusses the issues from a rights perspective – the right to the city. The removal of rough sleepers from the public domain appeases the discomfort of people who have a home to go to. But it does not deal with the issue of homelessness. Indeed, architecture should be looking at ways to minimise homelessness, not hiding it with uninviting design.

The title of the article is, Designing Out: A Framework for Studying Hostile Design. 

Hostile design doesn’t solve social problems

If nothing else, hostile design shows the power of design – it makes it obvious. But does it? According to Semple, most people don’t notice it, but when they do, they get angry about it. And urban design should not be street police – the problems only move elsewhere. Designers cannot solve societal problems with street furniture. 

Design Week’s article Hostile design is still a problem in our pubic spaces, has an everyday look at the issues. 

The City as Home

The City as Home is a landscape-led response by Logan Bunn to the treatment of rough sleepers. His thesis challenges this form of social control as it instils injustice and inequality within the urban fabric. 

The overarching methodology of this thesis is research through inclusive design, supported by participatory research.

“This thesis highlights the need to humanise rough sleepers and integrate their needs into the design of public space, whilst also demonstrating the positive impact of inclusive and empathetic design practices on the broader community. It underscores the potential of landscape architectural practice to address social justice issues and create more inclusive public spaces through proactive collaboration and activism.”

The design of the public built environment has long been problematic for a diverse range of people with disability. And while attempts are made with new or upgraded precincts, barriers are still created. While this is often unintentional, once the concrete is down, it is difficult and/or costly to remedy. And so the barriers remain and inclusive urban environments remain a dream for the future.

A team of researchers from the UK, USA, and Pakistan carried out a qualitative research project with people with disability. The results are not new but confirm existing research and the experience of users. One area not often mentioned in previous research is the role of legislation and accountability.

The research paper discusses the state of play and the methods they used. The text contains quotes from participants which personalises the information. The research was carried out in two urban areas in the UK.

Footpaths, seating and toilets

Top of the list of physical barriers was footpaths and the opportunity to rest on a seat. Road crossings was the top hazard for most participants even when signalised. Unexpected maintenance work was also considered dangerous for wheelchair users and people who are blind.

Despite having a legislative framework and access standards, local authorities seem unable to provide accessible environments. Some issues such as footpaths linking with road crossings mean that two authorities are responsible.

Transport barriers included physical access to public transport, lack of information, including cost, and bus driver attitudes. Access to public toilets was also raised. The paper has more detail on the attitudinal barriers and service barriers.

From the conclusions

Barriers are interrelated in many cases, but most are related to poor physical designs, inadequate policy considerations and negative attitudes. The findings reinforce previous research but with a user’s perspective. People who are deaf or hard of hearing are mostly absent in the literature. This is because it is assumed they are safe from physical obstructions. However, they experience their own barriers to inclusion.

The title of the paper is Designing out Barriers for Disabled: Towards an Inclusive Urban Environments.  Note that the preferred language in the UK is disabled people rather than people with disability. 

From the abstract

People with disability often struggle with the complexities of the built environment, hindering their full participation in everyday urban life. Accessibility and social inclusiveness are major challenges for active participation for people with disability.

The lack of legal obligation for authorities to implement inclusive solutions, and lack of training in disability awareness has led to environments full of barriers for the disabled community.

The research explored the nature of barriers faced by persons with diverse disabilities by highlighting a user perspective. The barriers fell into four categories: poor physical design, inadequate policies, negative attitudes, and absence of technical solutions.

Recommendations to overcome the barriers are presented in the research.

Attempts to avoid catching COVID caused people to change their behaviour in many ways. Working from home and not being able to travel meant more people walked in their local neighbourhood. Open space was at a premium. This led to pop up cafes and parklets and a few more planter boxes to make places more appealing. Planners said “we can’t go back to the way things were”. In that case says Lisa Stafford, we have to discuss ableism in planning.

“Pop-up cafes and parklets used tape barriers and step-up platforms, while planter boxes or pallet seating were positioned to create what seemed like another obstacle course in getting about.”

Lisa Safford says that ableism is an insidious, unspoken prejudice that favours an idealistic view of an “able body”. It is not just having negative views of people with disability, it is a way of thinking about bodies that rejects difference. It’s thinking that “normal” is a real thing.

Ableism is entrenched in walkability metrics such as walking speed, our ideas of liveability, and approaches to older people. Stafford claims that ableism is rampant in planning and design decisions. The misinformed catch cry is that it’s only for a small portion of the population.

“Time and again I have heard universal design omitted in the provision of social infrastructure, due to budget shortfalls or inclusivity being too hard…”

Let’s talk about ableism

First, we do not lack literature, guides and other tools on the topics of disability, diversity, equity and inclusion. Planners need to talk about the issues with each other, welcome disabled planners and connect with disability communities and their expertise. Do some real co-design processes.

Ableism is just one lens and individual experience ableism and discrimination in different ways. Embracing diversity is critical for people with disability who are Indigenous, female, low income and LGBTIQA+

Planning can make social change – in shapes lives and livelihoods. If we want real change we must confront ableism and the idea of “normal” or “average”. The Australian Bureau of Statistics counts people with disability (18%) separately from people with a long term health condition that limits their daily activities (22%). It’s not a small portion of the population.

The title of Stafford’s book chapter is, Planners, We Need to Talk about Ableism. The chapter is open access in Disability Justice and Urban Planning.

Architectural “products” involve many stakeholders which makes a complex process even more difficult. So where do architectural competitions fit in and do the winning designs reflect the diversity of society? A group of Austrian researchers checked out 15 competitions with 76 entries to see if they included universal design concepts.

A major finding is that there is room for better consideration of universal design in the early phase of the building process.

Almost all people spend a large part of their lives in a built environment whether their home, their work or leisure activities. Therefore architecture concerns everyone, not just architects and interior designers. An inclusive approach should be a necessity – a non-negotiable principle. But is it?

In the German speaking area of Europe the construction industry is highly regulated. To get attractive and economically viable designs, the competition method has evolved. Competition is an integral part of the the project as well as the tendering process. Once the competition process is over, a new process begins to realise the design. The aim of this method is to provide transparency in decision-making as well as good design.

Researchers found that at the competition stage of the process, universal design was reduced to wheelchair users. Also, while the term “accessibility” is used in documents, it is not reflected in graphic representation. Indeed, many graphics showed barriers to access. Accessibility emphasis, where it existed, was on entrances and sanitary facilities.

Another issue was found in jury statements which focused on specific architecture aspects without addressing diversity or disability. Accessibility is reduced to minimum standards such as the number of designated parking places.

Are competitions a good thing?

The overarching question of this research was whether architectural competitions are a good way to consider the diversity of disability. On a superficial level, organisers and participants deal with some basic access features. However, there is little space in competition entries to flesh out the detail beyond that of wheelchair users.

In summary: “Fundamentally, the term accessibility is considered important, but is very often only used as a superficial buzzword.”

The title is, The Built Environment and Universal Design: Are Architectural Competitions a Qualified Instrument to a Better Consideration of the Diversity Dimension Impairment? The writing style of the paper indicates that English is not the authors’ first language.

Architecture competitions for universal design

How juries assess universal design in architectural school competitions is critical to the level of innovation that can be expected. Norwegian Leif D Houck gives an excellent analysis of the way competitions are run and improvements for the future.

Houck says the reason to organize an architectural competition is to achieve maximum quality in a project. The idea is not to have a competition to see if anyone manages to comply the regulations, building codes and the competition brief. The idea is to achieve qualities beyond the regulations.

As Houck says, an architectural competition will likely result in different designs and solutions. In addition, the whole process from design through to the building stage has stages where the project has opportunities for improvement.

The title of the article is, How Juries Assess UD in Norwegian Architectural School Competitions. The article was published in Universal Design 2016: Learning from the Past, Designing for the Future H. Petrie et al. (Eds.) © 2016  

The picture is of the Oslo Opera House

Urban planning competitions

It’s time for planning competitions to have residents involved in design decisions and planning solutions. A select panel of judges are not looking for the same things. Planning competitions are used as a way to determine alternatives and promote innovative solutions in the early phase of urban planning.

The book  New Approaches, Methods, and Tools in Urban E-Planning, has an interesting chapter that outlines the findings of how e-participation can be implemented in urban planning competitions. You will need institutional access for a free read. The chapter is “Enhancing E-Participation in Urban Planning Competitions”.

From the abstract

This chapter describes how web-based public participation tools are utilized in urban planning competitions. Public opinion is included alongside the expert view given by the jury. This chapter focuses on how public participation can be arranged in competition processes. It shows how the contestants use the information produced, and how it has been utilized in further planning of the area.

Based on two Finnish case studies, web-based tools can augment public participation in the competition process. However, the results indicate that the impact of participation on selecting the winner is weak.

The term “Smart Cities” conjures up ideas of good urban planning linking with Internet and communications technology. But how can it be smart if it is not also accessible and inclusive for everyone?

The smart city is about connecting technology with urban planning. But will it solve all the accessibility and inclusion problems?

Women, children and people with disability face difficulties accessing public space. This is because of safety concerns and physical barriers in the built environment. But public space must be welcoming and meaningful for all citizens. This is where community-led activities in designing public space becomes important.

Two researchers looked at digital technologies to see how they could help reframe public space design to be more inclusive. Technology should go beyond data collection to playing a central role in promoting social responsibility. Their research established a framework for creating inclusive public spaces based on site visits and users’ opinions.

The research study emphasises the importance of involving citizens in the governance of public spaces. They provide valuable data and insights about the quality and use of these spaces.

The title of the article is, The Use of the Smart Technology for Creating an Inclusive Urban Public Space.

From the abstract

Urban public spaces should be about community building, physical and mental well-being, social interaction, civic engagement, citizen participation, and economic vitality. However, low-income individuals, women, children, and people with disabilities often miss out. The paper discusses:

A framework of eight indicators: spatial distribution, typology, facilities and services, green and humid areas, governance and management, safety, user categories, and user satisfaction.

Involving citizens in leveraging smart technology for monitoring, providing real-time information and services improves facility efficiency, and creates an eco-friendly environment.

This paper promotes the development of an urban public space that caters to the diverse needs of the community, fostering a sense of belonging and well-being for all.

London’s Smart City Strategy

The aim of a smart city strategy is to improve the wellbeing of residents, social life and economic welfare through technology based interventions. Although technology offers several benefits for more inclusive and liveable environments, there are also drawbacks.   

Inclusiveness is embedded in the London Smart City Strategy, but there is still room for improvement.

A study of the strategy indicates that spatial inclusion is the major focus of the London smart city policy. A variety of assistive technologies promote inclusive housing, transport and health management systems. 

Improving citizen engagement through collaborations, increased transparency, and measures for preventing data misuse and misinterpretation will boost inclusiveness.

The London case study highlights the potential barriers in implementing inclusive strategies for smart cities in practice. The valuable lessons may provide good information for other cities. 

The title of the article is Inclusive Smart Cities: An Exploratory Study on the London Smart City Strategy.

Smart cities: a revolution?

City-wide technology offers hope for people with disability, but only if there is a shift towards universal design and inclusive solutions.

An article by Marcin Frackiewicz discusses the possibilities for smart and inclusive cities from a optimistic perspective of technology.

Street cameras to help keep people safe and automatic doors are commonplace technology. And newer ideas such as ridesharing are possible because of technology. Apps for real-time updates for public transport to minimise unpleasant surprises. So what else can we look forward to?

Frackiewicz claims that the use of data for fine-tune urban services enables a place for “undervalued voices”. He optimistically says smart city technology is equalising, by making sure that everyone thrives.

The title of the magazine article is, Breaking Barriers: The Smart City Revolution’s Quest for Universal Accessibility. It’s a flowery writing style with lots of poetic turns of phrase.

A book of long abstracts from the International Conference on Architectural Science and User Experience shows how varied this topic is. From Biophilic design and carbon reduction to environments that stimulate play and primary school design. One paper discusses the difficulties the architectural profession might encounter for new requirements to design inclusively. Time for some social science in architectural degrees?

The proceedings includes: active travel, housing, ageing, dementia, disability, digital technology, education and practice, air quality, landscaping, tourism, and more.

These short papers are from the 55th International Conference of the Architectural Science Association, 1-2 December 2022, Perth, Australia. Here is an overview of just one of the papers.

Architecture of inclusion

Architectural knowledge about designing for people with disability was held back by committing people to institutions and group homes. Consequently the teaching and design skills have not kept up with the times. The tendency is to conform to existing regulations, rather than being a driver of innovation.

New references in the National Standard of Competency for Architects around designing for disability require graduates to demonstrate these competencies. Using the experience of the inclusion of Indigenous competencies in the National Standard, this paper explores the difficulties the profession and teaching institutions may encounter around identifying people with lived experience working in architecture, or as design teachers.

The paper discusses the units of competency and relevance to building codes, standards and planning controls including barriers to access for all. In essence, educators and practitioners must draw on building and environmental sciences and social sciences in their preliminary work.

Skills in diversity equity and inclusion are not supported with legislation. The challenges for architecture courses is the lack of disability knowledge and Indigenous knowledge. University systems, structures and teaching competencies are challenged by these new requirements.

Architecture needs to move on from ‘risk’ in administrative processes such as contracts, to progressive themes including care for Country and equitable access.

The title of the conference proceedings is, Architectural Science and User Experience: How can Design Enhance the Quality of Life. It consists of short papers rather than full papers.

Access the whole book via the article, Regenerative Design Performance assessment: a critical review on page 504 on ResearchGate. It will show all the other abstracts. Otherwise you can purchase the book online.

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Sustainable Development Goals are intertwined. Lisa Stafford explains the connections in a paper outlining her co-designed research project. She takes a disability justice perspective on inclusive cities through the voices of people with disability.

Inclusion and equity are integral to achieving sustainable cities and communities. But the voices of people with disability are missing in the urban agenda.

A previous paper briefly explains the research design, preliminary work, and the co-design method.

Key findings

The five elements of inclusive communities need to be reflected in how communities and cities are designed and planned.

• Planning for human diversity
• All people-centred urban governance
• Equity, accessibility and ease are core bases
• Planning for connectedness
• Vibrant places and experiences

Graphic by Kylie Dunn

To achieve equitable outcomes means addressing the entrenched notion of ‘normal’ and the stereotypes of what constitutes ‘disability’. Fundamental to making communities inclusive is the ability to connect with nature and other people and place. Vibrant places provide experiences that are important to wellbeing and a sense of belonging.

Inclusive communities is a lived concept, not something drawn up in plans or policies. It is multidimensional and experienced in places. The legacy of ableist urban planning means that communities remain places of exclusion.

The title of the article is, The Makings of Disability-Inclusive Sustainable Communities: Perspectives from Australia. Note that Stafford and the research team prefer to use the identity first term “disabled people”. They acknowledge that some people prefer “person first” language of “people with disability”. The UN Convention uses the person first terminology.

From the abstract

The right to inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable suburbs is an aim of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 11. The focus is on addressing race, disability, class, gender and age inequality and injustice by the year 2030.

Despite this interest in creating inclusive sustainable cities and communities, we still know little about what this means for disabled people. In this article, we address this gap through participatory qualitative research study.

The study, Planning Inclusive Communities, involved 97 people (9-92 years of age). More than 50% identified as disabled people from two Australian regions – Tasmania and Queensland.

The research revealed five core interrelated elements in “The Makings of Inclusive Communities”. These five elements reinforce the importance of interconnected social, economic, and built environment structures and systems in facilitating inclusion, and that inclusion happens in place and movement through everyday experiences.

The findings offer new insights through the voices of disabled and non-disabled people, around issues of equity, access, and inclusion. The research guides future urban policy and planning for inclusive cities and communities.