Streets are more than a footpath and a stretch of bitumen or cobbles. They are integral to our way of life and have different uses at different times for different people. That’s what makes them complex places. Tensions between type of use and different users are sometimes difficult to solve. So how do you allocate street-space equitably and efficiently?
Community consultations are a great help and result in localised solutions. Perhaps this is a good thing. But is there a better way of doing this? Paulo Anciaes thinks there is and sets it out in a conference paper.
However, appraisal showed that some redesign options go against technical/design standards or political priorities.
Anciaes proposes a new process for streetspace reallocation using various tools. The tools include option generation, performance indicators and comparison of options. His case study using these tools showed that allocating more space to some street users brought benefit to others. But redesign options are not always compatible with technical standards or political priorities.
Lisbon case study
The process of developing the tools and their application were applied in five European cities. A busy street in Lisbon city centre was the subject of this particular paper. There were high demands for walking, cycling, car and bus movement, plus parking, loading and place activities. And street furniture limited the movement of pedestrians.
The political priorities were for walking and not restricting bus movement. Added to these was the need for social interaction and more greenery. This is all in a street only 22m wide.
The allocation of space to different uses in busy city streets is a complex and contentious process. Decisions to reallocate streetspace are usually based on public consultation and modelling of a few street redesign options, but results are not compared systematically. In addition, the set of options considered is usually incomplete.
This paper proposes a new process for streetspace reallocation, including option generation (with online and physical tools), estimation of performance indicators (with microsimulation), and comparison of options (with a new appraisal tool). The process was applied to the redesign of a busy street in Lisbon. Several options were generated, all involving reducing the street-space allocated to general motorised traffic.
Microsimulation showed that allocating more space to some street uses also bring benefits to other uses. The option to allocate more space to both bus users and pedestrians does not deteriorate movement by other modes. However, appraisal showed that some redesign options go against technical/design standards or political priorities.
Unintended consequences from policy actions are not new. Sometimes things come undone in those little details that seemed unimportant at the time. Sometimes it’s because policy actions come from different parts of an overall system. Transport is a case in point. Transport is about the whole journey – from the front gate to the destination and home again. It’s more than cars, buses and trains – it’s footpaths, information systems and supporting infrastructure. And transport is a key element of age-friendly cities.
Transportation is a social determinant of health – particularly for older people. According to the World Health Organization their “lives are guided by the available transportation system”.
One potential policy outcome is that distinct actions, which address different facets of the same overall approach, undermine one another.
Australian researchers set about assessing policy actions for supporting older people’s transportation in Greater Sydney. The analysis revealed unwanted consequences because some actions were undermining each other. They also found systemic constraints and the failure to account for small, but important, details.
Older people’s mobility applies to land use, open and public space, supplementary transport, and community transport. This means that policy makers need to examine interactions between different parts of the system so they can foresee potential unwanted consequences. Then they can do something about it.
1. Coordinate plans for residential and public transport development.
2. Establish key performance indicators for creating and funding new footpaths.
3. Improve cross-sector information flow.
4. Increase the predictability of funding for health and social care transport services.
From the abstract
Age-Friendly Cities (AFC) is a framework for promoting healthy ageing through local actions. We use systems thinking to assess potential outcomes of actions to support older people’s mobility, undertaken within an AFC commitment in Greater Sydney.
Four approaches to support older people’s mobility were identified and situated to the Multiple Governance Framework: land use, open and public space, supplementary transport, and community transport.
Analysis revealed potential for unwanted consequences associated with each, which can be generalised into three generic potential outcomes for other jurisdictions to consider. One recommendation is for policy actors to examine feedback interactions between actions so that they can foresee a wider range of outcomes and take defensive action against those unwanted.
This research identifies what to look for, in terms of potential outcomes, and where to look, in terms of the level of decision-making. This research offers a new way to assess the functioning of AFC governance networks by their collective outcomes and challenges the standards for the evaluation of AFC.
Ageing and Mobility: Getting out and about
Jane Bringolf participated in a webinar or the Australian Institute of Traffic Planning and Management, which includes anyone involved in transport. She covered 5 basic features older people need to encourage them to continue getting out and about. The content of the presentation, Ageing and Mobility, is on the YouTube video below.
After running 23 workshops with older people and local government across NSW, five key elements emerged. They are footpaths, seating, lighting, wayfinding and toilets. In rural areas, parking was also an issue. These were covered in a previous post along with a straightforward checklist on do’s and don’ts.
The car becomes a mobility device as people get older, which puts them at odds with the policy push to get out of the car. Older people feel safer either as a driver or a passenger. The fear of tripping and falling reduces their confidence for walking on uneven footpaths.
Parking adjacent to shops and services in rural towns was also an issue. This was sometimes due to the main street also being the main highway where street parking is restricted.
Ageing and mobility is more than cycles, buses and trains. Many older people just want to access their local neighbourhood to shop and socialise.
Scandinavians have a reputation for good looking and functional design. But there is a gap in the story of an evolving design culture across society. Designers began involving users in their design processes in the 1970s. So co-design is not new and is not a fad, but it is absent from design history.
Maria Görandsdotter says there are two probable reasons why user-centred design has been left out. One is that history has favoured aesthetics, meanings and impact of design rather than the design process. The other is that little has been written about the way design methods have evolved. It’s all been about Scandinavian design and not designing.
… the design methods movement sought to understand and describe ‘the new design methods that have appeared in response to a worldwide dissatisfaction with traditional procedures’.
Görandsdotter traces different histories inher book chapterincluding collaboration with experts in other fields. In 1971 the idea that only professional designers should design was challenged at an international conference on design participation. This is where the lines began to blur between designer and user.
There could be two reasons…
Görandsdotter presents two design histories to open up thinking about what design has been and what it might be in the future. Ergonomic user-centred design methods expanded the role of designers in relation to users. This was linked to Swedish disability legislation and research funding. Participatory design came about as a result of designers’ and users’ co-development of computer-based work tools. It expanded ideas of what design was, how how it happens, and with what kinds of materials.
For anyone interested in design, and particularly collaborative design, this is an interesting read. It puts co-design into an historical context. In doing so, it shows it is not the latest fashion or fad in designing.
This chapter focuses on the emergence of user-centred and participatory Scandinavian design ideas and practices in 1970s Sweden. Many of the concepts and methods still highly present – supported as well as contested – in contemporary design stem from the turn towards collaborative designing through the late 1960s and early 1990s.
However, in Nordic design history, these radical changes in design practice have been more or less invisible. A shift in perspective is required to address this historical gap.
The two examples: The first highlights how ergonomic user-centred design methods expanded the role of designers and designing in relation to users. The second discusses the challenges of designers’ and users’ co-development expanded ideas of what design was, how and with whom designing took place, and with what kinds of materials.
Co-designing public buildings
An Australian article looks at co-design processes specifically for people with disability. The researchers explored stakeholder perceptions and experiences. The findings support participation of people with disability in architectural design processes.
This study aimed to explore stakeholder perceptions and experiences on co-design processes. Twenty six people with disability, advocates, and design professionals participated in workshops. Four major themes emerged: there are challenges to practicing co-design; co-design is inclusive, accessible, and genuine; co-design is planned and embedded in all design stages; and co-design delivers positive outcomes.
Findings strongly support participation of people with disabilities in architectural design, highlight challenges and limitations to current practice, and provide insight into factors that optimise outcomes and the experiences of those involved.
The building sector in Denmark is transitioning towards a universal design approach. But it has yet to find its way into architectural practice. Legislation and access codes remain the dominant features of design. Two researchers wanted to see what young professionals who understand universal design in architecture had to say. The aim was to see if the ideas are beginning to embed themselves in architectural practice.
“It’s not just about ramps, handrails, and lifts. It is also about organising buildings and outdoor space. It is about showing consideration for those people who are somehow challenged in their physical capability or have cognitive challenges that make it difficult to obtain a good everyday life at work, in school or in day care.” Quote from survey participant
The researchers surveyed “Frontrunners” – young professionals with an interest in universal design and those who are expected to be on the front line of professional development. They found the frontrunners understood universal design in five ways.
Ways to understand universal design
1. Universal design is a driver of social sustainability – they work together.
2. The need to bring design thinking and focus back to the human body and scale.
3. Implementing universal design means going beyond tacked on ramps, and compliance to legislation.
4. Integrating universal design in both the process and the solutions from the perspective of equality. Designers’ need an inclusive mindset so that some are not labelled as “special needs”.
5. Involving people from minority groups in urban planning processes thereby giving them a voice because it’s more than physical access.
The researchers found there was a genuine attempt to mainstream universal design into practice. Their paper discusses these five discourses emerging from their research. The title of the paper is “Frontrunners” Understanding Universal Design in Architecture.
Overall, the researchers found that participants understood that universal design accommodates human diversity, and should be integrated into the process from the outset.
The architectural profession has faced issues of race, gender and sexual diversity, but disability is still a taboo. Awareness raising about people with disability officially began with the International Year of Disabled Persons in 1981 – forty years ago. But “coming out” with disability still seems harder than claiming your race, gender or gender diversity.
According to an article in the Architects Journal magazine, few architects identify as having a disability. And those that do, face significant challenges in study and professional practice.
Not only is it difficult to enter the profession, but the profession misses out on a pool of life experience that could create better design for everyone. The article relates the professional experiences of four architects with different disabilities.
Their experiences tell the same story as many others. The difficulty in being accepted as part of the group and being taken seriously. It’s little wonder that architects (or any other professional) will “come out” and get the support they need. Amy has multiple chronic illnesses, Ben is deaf, Poppy has a vision impairment, and Roseanne has dwarfism. You can read their experiences in, Is disability architecture’s final taboo?
Academics like to approach the issue of exclusion by developing guides, tools, and playbooks. But are evaluation tools useful for promoting inclusive design in the built environment? Perhaps. From the Inclusive Design Team in the UK comes a post-occupancy evaluation tool. That is, a tool to find out if the design actually works.
Existing post occupancy tools usually focus on the performance of the building itself. For example, energy and sustainability measures. Very few measure the building holistically or from a universal design approach.
An article by Zallio and Clarkson lists the many evaluation tools available internationally. It explains the methods used in the research process. Participants for the workshops in the study were drawn from the ranks of built environment professionals. These participants were deemed to have experience in inclusive design.
The process for developing the tool included an element of education for participants and eventually the users of the audit tool. The audit takes a snapshot of the building, with its occupants, and offers insights about inclusion, diversity, equity and accessibility (IDEA).
The goal of the tool is to provide meaningful information to improve well-being, comfort, and inclusion. It does this by highlighting the points of exclusion and the pain points experienced by users.
The title of the article is, The inclusion, diversity, equity and accessibility audit. A post-occupancy evaluation method to help design the buildings of tomorrow. It’s by Matteo Zallio and P. John Clarkson from the Inclusive Design Team at the University of Cambridge. It’s open access and a relatively easy read for an academic text.
The key points in the article are:
Inclusive Design is not widely adopted in architectural design practice.
There is a scarcity of post-occupancy evaluation methods on inclusion and accessibility.
Mapping the building occupant’s perception of inclusion and accessibility is key to designing inclusively.
Mixed method evaluation can help professionals to understand points of exclusion in the building.
The IDEA audit helps to understand people’s perception of inclusion and accessibility.
From the abstract
There is a general lack of awareness about Inclusive Design among building industry professionals. This is partly due to the scarcity of available tools to evaluate occupancy feedback on inclusion, diversity, equity and accessibility. How can we implement an evaluation tool that works for the building industry?
This study aims to inform the development of a post-occupancy method to evaluate Inclusion, Diversity, Equity and Accessibility (IDEA) in the built environment.
With the IDEA audit, researchers, building owners, design teams, developers, facility managers, tenants, and organisation leaders can achieve a baseline of understanding of what people feel in regard to inclusion, diversity, equity and accessibility. They can clearly identify pockets of inconsistency and use data to decide how to address challenges and points of exclusion.
Note: Unlike many other countries that use the UN term ‘universal design’, organisations and researchers in the UK have maintained their ‘brand’ of ‘inclusive design’. However, these terms mean the same thing – the goal of creating an inclusive world.
Older supermarket shoppers need a positive attitude from employees, functional shopping trolleys, and appropriate placement of products on shelves. Retail stores are public space and they should look good and be functional. Therefore a universal design approach can prevent shopping malls from being ageist.
Key design elements are: seamless entry, easy to use shopping trolleys, finding and reaching products, reading product contents and price tags, and a smooth payment process.
Apart from helpful staff and functional equipment, there are other elements to consider.
Circulation systems and spaces: ramps, elevators, escalators, hallways and corridors
Entering and exiting: identifying and approaching entrances and exits and moving through them easily
Wayfinding: Graphical text, pictograms, maps, photos, diagrams, obvious paths of travel, nodes, edges, zones and districts
Obtaining products and services: service desks waiting areas and shops
Public amenities: toilets and seating
Ambient conditions: noise control, non-glare lighting, adequate temperature and humidity
A paper titled, Design Failure in Indoor Shopping Structures: Unconscious Ageism and Inclusive Interior Design in Istanbul explains more. The authors use the 7 principles of universal design as a guide and add another 4. The additional four principles are related to aesthetics, social participation, sustainability and equity. They also found that toilets and seating within supermarkets could do much to improve the shopping experience for older people.
As older adults’ need for toilets increases, the time spent in the supermarket declines. So they choose medium or small-sized supermarkets within walking distance of home.
Age inclusive shopping mall design
A 2024 article from the Netherlands continues the story of shopping mall design and older people. The term “the elderly” is used throughout, which is not the preferred term in Australia.
Good controlled lighting, reduced background noise, warmer temperatures, clear pathways with good lines of sight are essential. Shopping is for many older people, an enjoyable and meaningful activity.
Neighbourhood shopping malls are often preferred for daily needs. Larger urban malls tend to attract younger generations and leisure shoppers. A literature review revealed one quarter of older peoples’ shopping is done online. Electronics was the most popular category
The literature often portrays older people as fragile and facing significant challenges. This is a one-sided view. Interviews with older people reveal a diverse reality as the ageing process is an individual experience.
Shopping mall design must account for practicality, individual preferences, a range of functions, spatial arrangements. Design solutions should also aim to create shopping centres that foster social interaction and physical activity.
Designing with people with disability in mind results in greater convenience for everyone. That’s why we need businesses to think about inclusive retail experiences and strategies.
The Australian Network on Disability, and Design for Dignity produced an excellent resource for retail outlet designers. The key is for designers and retail outlets to understand the level of their missed business by ignoring population diversity. Graphs and statistics are used to highlight the lost opportunities.
Guides for retailers
The guide is aimed at retail business owners, service providers, shopping centre owners and managers, designers, builders and certifiers. There is also a Design for Dignity microsite with the information in a web-based format with more detail.
The business of age-friendly
Many businesses are not sure how to expand their customer base to include older people and people with disability. Utilising a checklist is one way to start thinking about it. Several organisations have produced checklists and other information to help businesses understand what they can do. Much of it costs little or nothing. Here are just three.
COTA TAS has a checklistthat has a rating scale from excellent to needs work. It covers external environments, shop entrances, safety, comfort, and staff training, and much more. It’s nine pages and easy to read.
AgeUK has a more comprehensive document that provides the reasoning behind some of the “Top Tips’. These include telephone interactions, websites, and resolving complaints. The report is based on consumer workshop consultations.
The concepts of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion have evolved from different fields of endeavour and therefore there is no single way to explain it. Consequently, debating the differences between inclusive and universal design does little to progress the cause. In the end they mean the same thing. We need to get practical. So, checking in with practitioners and their views of designing inclusively is a good start.
The first thing to note is that this paper comes from the UK where the term “inclusive” is preferred. Most countries use the term “universal” in keeping with the United Nations terminology. However, many writers in the UK like to differentiate between the two words.
The fact that they had difficulty recruiting participants is revealing in itself. Thirty organisations were approached and only 6 agreed to participate. However, this small group provided some useful insights.
The author makes the comment that designing inclusively is an approach to design, which it is, rather than an achievable goal. This is one reason Steinfeld and Maisel developed the 8 Goals of Universal Design. It’s also why universal design practitioners understand you start with principles and create the practical. It’s not a checklist.
Consequently, attempting to delineate differences in inclusive design and universal design is counter-productive. The following quote can be applied to inclusive design, design-for-all, human-centred design and universal design. We are in the era of co-design and continuous improvement. The concept of universal design has evolved since the 1990s
” Inclusion can be viewed as a continually evolving concept addressed incrementally from one project to the next as expertise develops and advancements continue.”
Page 515
From the conclusion
“Their insights provided an up-to-date account of inclusive architectural and design practices. Still, their perspectives were not always aligned. This is expected as each person holds different framings and object worlds during a project. For instance, it was expressed that a single mainstream design suitable to every person was not realistic.”
Participants said they prefer bespoke designs, arguing that it is better to design for the individual rather than attend to the mass market with one design. Participants also disliked the lack of quantifiable information.
From the abstract
The concept of inclusion in design is increasingly well known and often recognizes value in a greater diversity of people. Still, uptake is said to be limited in practice. The theoretical landscape provides several definitions and concerns, but they are often paradoxical. Rather than disentangle theory, this research turns to practitioners who design inclusively.
This research explores the ways people advocate for inclusion in design projects, prevailing aspects in the negotiations within multi-stakeholder projects, the motivations and mindsets that drive these aspects, and the opportunities they create for the improved uptake of inclusion.
These explorations highlight the value of including a more diverse group of individuals in the negotiations of a design project. Conflicting perspectives on effective uptake prevail in both practice and theory.
Melbourne is one of the most ‘liveable’ cities in the world and the Victorian Government wants to keep it that way. But Melbourne can’t be truly liveable if it isn’t inclusive and accessible for all. Infrastructure projects, buildings, open space, and transportation need to link together seamlessly.
Melbourne has done some good work. Retrofitting tactile footpath indicators and Auslan-interpreted performances are a start. But steep ramps at railway stations are still a problem and Federation Square has a multitude of stairs and rough tiles. An article in the Smart Cities Library says that developers are not on the same page as the Victorian Government.
A report from the University of Melbourne looks at some of the issues for people with disability. Academics worked with City of Melbourne staff and disability advocates to brainstorm ideas that would work. They assessed these ideas to see which were the most important and feasible.
Transportation was the key issue across all disability types, and issues with footpaths were high on the list. This links with another report about Victoria’s Public Transport Journey Planner.
Transportation is key
Victoria’sPublic Transport Journey Planner enables travellers to plan ahead for their journey. But does it work for wheelchair users?
Three case studies of train stations in suburban Melbourne show that in spite of a policy aim of going beyond the Transport Standards to take a whole of journey approach, there is some way to go when it comes to full accessibility.
A nicely written report with a detailed methodology that can be used as the basis of further studies across Australia. The title is: “Does information from Public Transport Victoria’s Journey Planner align with real life accessibility for people in wheelchairs?” Perhaps another case of bureaucrats not actually knowing what constitutes accessibility? Sometimes it is more than “access”.
Melbourne published their Transport Strategy 2030 which has updated information. There’s a lot about bikes but not much about inclusion and accessibility.
The problem with standards for accessible places and spaces is they don’t keep up with current thinking. Consequently there are no standards for the neuro inclusive city.
In Australia, standards focus on mobility, vision and hearing. Consequently they don’t cover invisible disabilities or health conditions. That’s why it’s dangerous to think that meeting legislated standards is sufficient to create access and inclusion for everyone.
In the absence of standards, which are based on minimums, we now have a plethora of guidelines. These either focus on a disability, such as Down syndrome, or a built space, such as a playspace. Guidelines are not mandated and so they often disappear into cyber-space or gather dust on a shelf. But that doesn’t stop more attempts at guidelines and design principles.
There is a growing awareness that a significant portion of the population is neurodiverse. This term captures people who appear to have different behaviours and/or have a specific diagnosis such as autism or ADHD. Sensory factors such as noise and crowds, pose barriers for some people who are neurodiverse. However, these factors are rarely considered in urban planning and design. Until now.
Natasha Mickovski tackles the issues in her Master of Architecture thesis. Her thesis is comprehensive with drawings and case studies illustrating her ideas and key points. Of interest is her adaptation of the 7 Principles of Universal Design.
It’s good to see these principles taken as a starting point and adapted to suit this context. To this end, Mickovski presents her Enabling Design Guidelines which are briefly outlined below.
Enabling Design Guidelines
1. Spatial Organization: Spatial organization is an integral part of neurodiverse design. People who are neurodiverse require a continuous and organized loop of circulation. The use of common and repetitive elements provide a sense of order which allows for them to easily navigate through a building. Repetition within the design also promotes a point of predictability.
2. Spatial Character: A variety of types of spaces such as alcoves, nooks, refuges or clusters are essential. The colours, patterns, and textures are also important for creating a sensorial environment.
3. Lighting, Acoustics, Thermal Quality: Dimmed lighting in low-stimulation zones is good for rational decision-making tasks. These spaces also need a high level of acoustic control. Adjust thermal qualities through a high-performance building envelope. Include spaces such as naturally ventilated atriums or outdoor terraces.
4. Ease of Transition: Wide corridors are good transitional zones which can be used for occupational therapy and movement breaks. It is also important to provide enough space within the corridors for programmable seating options.
5. Sensory Grouping: High stimulus zones such as the music room, makerspace, flex space, café, and marketplace should be grouped together. Group together low stimulus zones such as counselling centres, study rooms, reading zones, and studios.
6. Escape / Reset Zones: Retreat areas and alcoves are essential in the overall planning of a neuro-inclusive building. These are important places for people when they feel overwhelmed.
One of the most pressing issues within the built environment is the ever-evolving conversation of accessibility and its relationship to obsolete building standards from the past.
Standards such as the Ontario Building Code and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) provide insufficient solutions to users with invisible disabilities, particularly the underrecognized realm of neurodiversity.
This thesis explores the possibility for a new set of design guidelines, adopting principles to enable the users’ senses and, in turn, create a neuro-inclusive environment. It also presents the design of a neuroinclusive library centre with a secondary urban park to mitigate the challenges neurodivergents experience at both a human and city-wide scale.
By designing a community-oriented project within the already-established arts and cultural hub of downtown Sudbury, this thesis creates a network of inclusive, user-centered, and sensorial design that can begin to decode the issue of accessibility
Spectrum of Accessible Architectures
Another Masters thesis, this one by a Canadian architect, who takes a similar view. The thesis is presented in an attractive format with interesting illustrations. However, the layout is in PDF book format and some fonts are not accessible for all readers.
“Accessibility is a foundational principle in contemporary architecture that strives to ensure the design and construction of buildings, spaces and environments are inclusive and usable by all individuals. Invisible disabilities, in particular, neurological ones, are largely absent from disability discourse.” Image from the thesis.
In the field of architecture, “accessibility” all too often addresses only “physical accessibility.” Consequently, the sensory barriers facing neurodivergent individuals as they navigate the built environment beg to be considered and addressed.
This thesis embraces truly inclusive accessibility via an exploration of sensory perception and its relationship to architectural experience. From this exploration there emerges a neuro-inclusive design methodology that promises to close the gap between the built environment and sensory impairment.
The use of the term “spectrum” refers to the span extending from hyper- to hypo-sensitivity and encapsulates the diversity of sensory ability experienced by the neurodivergent population.
As an architectural approach, the spectrum construct is well-suited to welcoming flexibility and adaptations and holds promise in inclusive architectural design. To showcase the potential of a “spectrum design” methodology in a real-world context, this thesis concludes in an architectural proposal for a neuro-inclusive student centre on Carleton University’s Campus.
Cities are expanding year on year and the design of urban environments needs to cope with this. That means urban planners and designers have to think about both people and planet.
Environmental degradation and population inequalities require a shift in understanding the nature of healthy urbanism. We need policies and decisions that positively shape neighbourhoods and buildings. That’s what Helen Pineo argues in her paper on an urban design and a planning framework.
The WHO and UN are working with property development and urban planning professionals on the topic of healthy urbanism. Pineo notes that not all built environment professionals accept responsibility for safeguarding health and sustainability.
It appears that the architecture profession is divided on this topic. Some say it is not their responsibility and others say it is time for them to act.
Pineo’s article discusses the state of play internationally and reports on her findings. Structural barriers to health and a reliance on “lifestyle choices” is not effective going forward. We need broader solutions, and we need them urgently.
To the extent that it is possible, all design and policy decisions should be inclusive, equitable and sustainable.
The THRIVES Framework
THRIVES is the acronym of Towards Healthy uRbanism: InclusiVe Equitable Sustainable. Pineo presents the Framework as a new way of conceptualising the connection between health and built environments.
There are three core principles, inclusion, equity and sustainability.
The Framework links planet, environment and people.
The title of the article is,Towards healthy urbanism: inclusive, equitable and sustainable (THRIVES) – an urban design and planning framework from theory to praxis. It’s open access.
Abstract
This article promotes a new framework – Towards Healthy uRbanism: InclusiVe Equitable Sustainable (THRIVES) – that extends previous conceptualisations and reorients focus towards the existential threat of environmental breakdown and the social injustice created through inequitable and exclusive urban governance and design processes and outcomes.
The Framework was developed through synthesising knowledge from research and practice, and by testing this new conceptualisation in a participatory workshop. Ongoing research is exploring implementation of the Framework in practice.
If widely adopted, this Framework may contribute towards achieving the goals of sustainable development through a focus on increasing human health and wellbeing in urban development.
What’s next in urban design?
All aspects of urban design and development are undergoing technological change. The pandemic has increased the speed of some changes. For example, online shopping and parcel delivery, working from home and demand for green open space. The University of Oregon’s Urbanism Next Framework draws together key issues in answer to “What’s next for urban design?”
The three page framework lists the forces of change as new mobility, e-commerce, mobility as a service and urban delivery. These impact land use, urban design, building design, transportation, and real estate. The infographic below shows the kind of questions designers and policy-makers need to ask themselves. Click on the image for a better view of the infographic.
The framework poses key questions for the future. For example:
How will e-commerce impact the demand for industrial land?
How do we protect open space under pressure to expand cities?
What will happen to sprawling city footprints when people don’t need to live in cities?
How will the need for fewer parking lots impact urban form?
How can the interactions between pedestrians and vehicles be managed?
Will new mobility reduce the demand for vehicle ownership?
What will draw people to places in the future?
The Framework says all these things matter for equity, health, the environment and the economy. So it is up to designers and policy makers to remember to take a universal design approach and follow co-design processes.
From the introduction:
“One of the key challenges cities face is understanding the range of areas that are being affected or will be affected by emerging technologies, and how these areas are related. The Urbanism Next Framework organizes impacts based on five key areas— land use, urban design, building design, transportation, and real estate—and relates those to the implications they have on equity, health and safety, the environment, and the economy. It then considers what we should do to ensure that emerging technologies help communities achieve their goals.
Academics like to approach the issue of exclusion by developing guides, tools, and playbooks. But are evaluation tools useful for promoting inclusive design in the built environment? Perhaps. From the Inclusive Design Team in the UK comes a post-occupancy evaluation tool. That is, a tool to find out if the design actually works.
