Older people know what they want in terms of housing and their neighbourhood. But has anyone asked them? Two researchers in Queensland have. This research came about because of serious concerns about congregate living during the COVID-19 pandemic. In their research findings, the researchers challenge the ideas of local planners. They say we need to look at ageing in neighbourhood rather than retirement villages.The researchers found that local councils can act as a catalyst for the market to change and innovate. They propose infill developments with a mix duplexes and mid rise apartments with easy access to services. The article in The Conversation has lot of images and diagrams to illustrate their arguments. The title of the article is, Ageing in neighbourhood: what seniors want instead of retirement villages and how to achieve it. It is time to move away from focusing on what older people can no longer do to what they can be encouraged to do. That is the healthy ageing approach. Older people know what’s best for them. Given the opportunity they can create solutions.The table below shows the key features that make a home and neighbourhood a good place to live as they age.The Fifth Estate has an article that extends the discussion on this topic into smart cities. The title of the article is, This is how we create the age-friendly smart city. Australia was one of the first countries to contribute to the WHO’s age-friendly cities project, but how much has been implemented? The late Hal Kendig explains the situation in a book chapter, Implementing age-friendly cities in Australia, which can be found in Age Friendly Cities and Communities: A Global Perspective. Or you can access a similar publication on ResearchGate.
COVID re-think on retirement living
Retirement living has to factor pandemics into design now. Separation rather than isolation is the key. Much of the value of specialist retirement living is the easy access to amenities and socialisation. But the pandemic put a stop to both. The constant reminder that older people are more vulnerable to the infection was the last straw. Especially as everyone fell into the vulnerable category. Consequently, everyone got isolated from each other. But how to design for this?Australian Ageing Agenda has an article discussing these issues. If residents have to stay home for prolonged periods, they will likely demand more space. Pocket neighbourhoods could work so that only a section needs to be cordoned off. Other ideas are:The title of the article is, COVID-19 is shaping design of future facilities.
Ramps are not just good for wheeled mobility devices, they are good for people who communicate by signing. DeafSpace Design means a few extra tweaks in a universal design approach to design thinking. Examples of DeafSpace Design are few and far between. One reason they are hard to find is because the term “DeafSpace” is not used in design briefs. Nevertheless, aspects of DeafSpace Design are sometimes included without fanfare. Julia Coolen explains how DeafSpace design is, or could be, integrated into general universal design principles. She explains which design aspects are particular to people who sign and/or lip read. Images help with the explanations. The example of the ramp is a case in point. Importantly, the width of the ramp should allow two people to walk side by side so they can continue signing. Steps and stairways interrupt their vision and therefore their conversation. Coolen discusses three principles: Mobility and Proximity, Space and Proximity, and Sensory Reach.The title of the article is, DeafSpace and Disability: A research into DeafSpace design and its peculiarities in relation to other architectural adaptations for disabilities. It is an open access thesis, which is relatively short with text that is to the point. The university page has a link to the PDF at the bottom of the page.If you prefer to get a quick grab of the concepts, watch the video featuring Gallaudet University.
Abstract
Throughout history the built environment has mostly been designed from an able-bodied perspective, which causes a set of challenges for people with disabilities. In the 20th century however, a growing attention for disability in architecture took place that resulted in a shift in architecture. This thesis focusses on DeafSpace design and how architecture has historically responded to the need to design for people with disabilities. This leads to the research question of this thesis: What makes design for DeafSpace so special compared to other architectural adaptations for other disabilities? By analysing three buildings that follow the DeafSpace design principles, this thesis shows what makes DeafSpace special compared to other architectural adaptations for other disabilities. DeafSpace concerns design principles that go beyond the mere application of a ramp for wheelchairs. DeafSpace creates spaces that benefit ‘every-body’, it refuses the ‘normalisation’ and ‘standardisation’ of the able-bodied perspective. It is about creating awareness and it seeks to design and improve spaces to be functional for the deaf and hard-of-hearing. In saying so, it is to be concluded that, in contrast with its name, DeafSpace and its five design principles—Space and Proximity, Mobility and Proximity, Sensory Reach, Light and Colour, and Acoustics—are beneficial to ‘every-body’.
Planning research has not yet evolved to include disability perspectives. Is it because the medical model of disability still prevails? Or is it mistakenly believed that disability is not a design issue? Some might say it’s because the needs of people with disability are fragmented across government departments. Practitioners in the planning field are required to engage with communities, but it seems the researchers are not keeping up.
Two Canadian researchers took a look at the situation. A search of five prominent planning journals showed that people with disability largely remain invisible. The researchers found just 36 articles – most of which come from the US and the UK. Only 20 had people with disability as the central topic.
The authors describe the content of the papers that go back as far as 1916. Attitudes towards people with disability clearly changed over the years but including them in research did not. Papers that did mention people with disability generally added them to a list of other groups considered vulnerable or marginalised.
The paper concludes:
“Planning researchers and practitioners, therefore, must continue to question what knowledge, assumptions, and biases we may have toward PWD and experiences of disability that manifest through our environment. More broadly, planning scholarship can be strengthened by continuous questioning of self—on the processes through which certain knowledge is produced or a pursuit of certain knowledge is prioritised within the discipline. The development of critical discourse focusing on PWD can be a vehicle for such self-reflection.
Although Japan has the oldest population in the world, creating accessible urban spaces is making very slow progress. Tokyo aimed to have all parts of the city that linked to the Olympic venues completely barrier-free. That includes buildings, transportation, services and open spaces. Tokyo’s Olympic legacy is discussed in a book chapter, which is open access. Deidre Sneep discusses the issues regarding the urban design legacy in the Japanese context and commercialisation. The title of the book chapter on page 91 is, Discover tomorrow: Tokyo’s ‘barrier-free’ Olympic legacy and the urban ageing population. It’s free to download, but if you have institutional access you can access the journal article version.One interesting aspect is that some argue that the government’s guide to promote a ‘barrier-free spirit’ makes it sound like an act of friendliness. Any kind of patronising attitude or slogan only serves to maintain marginalisation as the norm. Posters focus on young people and make barrier-free a special design. There are no older people in the pictures.The implementation of the universal design concept is increasingly commercialised says Sneep. This is likely due to the history of universal design in Japan. One of the first international universal design conferences was held in Japan in 2002, and was led by giant product manufacturers such as Mitsubishi. The International Association for Universal Design (IAUD) remains active.
Abstract from journal article
In 2020 Tokyo will host the Olympic and Paralympic Games for the second time in history. With a strong emphasis on the future – Tokyo’s slogan for the Olympic Games is ‘Discover Tomorrow’ – Tokyo is branded as city of youth and hope. Tokyo’s demographics, however, show a different image: in the coming decades, it is expected that well over a third of the citizens will be over 65. Despite the focus on a youthful image, Tokyo is well aware of the fact that its demographics are rapidly shifting. Governmental bodies have been actively trying to find solutions for anticipated problems related to the ageing population for decades. One of the solutions that is being discussed and implemented is highlighted by the 2020 Olympics: the implementation of universal design in public spaces in the city in order to make it more easily accessible – in other words, making Tokyo ‘barrier-free’ (bariafurī). This chapter presents the concept of ‘barrier-free’ in a Japanese setting, critically analyses the history and current implementation of the concept, pointing out that it seems to be increasingly commercialised, and evaluates the purpose of implementing the concept in the light of the 2020 Olympic Games.
Planning is also about design. And good design now includes users. Community involvement is a key part of planning processes. It must take account of our human diversity otherwise designs will unintentionally exclude. Community involvement in planning also introduces designers and planners to “other ways of being”.
Design and planning go hand in hand, but design has been a subject to avoid in planning, particularly in the U.S. This is according to a journal article that challenges planners to move beyond policies of spatial organisation.
The article covers climate change and climate justice, and social and racial justice. A workshop using collaborative processes is the basis of a case study highlighting the issues. Community involvement was pivotal to the success of the project and the research outcomes. The subject of the case study is an affordable housing provider. The aim was to move from standard cookie cutter designs to designs that suited the potential residents. The new design was applied to a prototype home.
The author concludes that there are profound implications for planning research. Designers need to engage with planning because they can better address the social and environmental concerns.
Design is increasingly entering planning beyond the subfield of urban design. At a larger scale, designers are moving into the social sciences to apply design skills at intersections with the social sciences. This article offers an overview of research and practice at the forefront of both interpreting design fields and understanding their growing importance within planning. This transcends examinations of urban design to incorporate the potential of design more broadly in planning, with particular emphasis on community development and engagement.
The article does this through a case study of an existing design-based nonprofit (bcWORKSHOP) which leverages techniques across design and planning to generate new forms of community planning practice in the State of Texas. Ultimately, this case study begins to ask whether planning can fully address a number of issues (like social/racial justice and climate change) without understanding these issues from both design and planning perspectives simultaneously. It also emphasizes the importance of training planners to both envision and build alternate possible worlds, a skillset fundamental to design that could reshape planning education and practice.
Image from the whitepaper depicting a future street
The idea of smart cities, driverless cars, and artificial intelligence is propelling us into the unknown. But there are some things we can predict. Everyday things will be seen in a new light. The kerbside for example. Other than kerb ramps most of us don’t think about the kerbside and mobility. But somebody else has.
The Future of Place webpage has a link to a report that looks at the Future Ready Kerbside. The publicationby Uber and WSP explores what the future might hold in the context of shared mobility and liveable cities.
The kerb is the intersection between the pedestrian area and the road. How space is allocated each side of the kerb dictates who can access these spaces. The kerbside is not passive infrastructure so we need to prepare for its future use. It needs careful management by city leaders.
There are ten recommendations in the Executive Summaryof the report and they include:
Co-design the vision for places in partnership with the community, businesses and governments.
Move from general parking to pick-up/drop-off for people and goods to improve kerbside productivity and access to local places.
Take a people-and-place first approach so that new mobility is an enabler and not a detractor to realising the co-designed vision.
Street design guidelines must get ahead of new mobility and proactively focus on the best possible outcomes for people and places.
Prioritise walking to access local places, along with transit and micro-mobility, supported by funding for local infrastructure.
The full report is titled, Place and Mobility: Future Ready Kerbside and has more technical detail. Both the full report and the executive summary have interesting infographics and images depicting how the future might look.
Pedestrians are becoming more diverse. Consequently, moving through public spaces needs more design consideration by urban designers. It also means accessibility and safety is more than having kerb ramps and level footpaths. Pedestrians on wheels is a new paradigm.
Mobility will become more complex as mobility choices increase especially with battery powered devices. We already have a diversity of pedestrians. They come with baby strollers, wheeled suitcases, wheelchairs, guide dogs, walking frames, and skateboards. Then we add powered devices: mobility scooters, wheelchairs, Segways, hover-boards, and e-scooters. And the line between mobility aids and other wheeled devices is blurring in terms of road and footpath use.
Manoeuvring around all these different pedestrians is difficult enough. Then we need to add in people who are using umbrellas, carrying large parcels, pushing delivery trolleys, and those looking in shop windows and their smart phones. And let’s not forget bicycles and e-bikes.
An interesting study on personal mobility devices is reported in “Diversity of “Pedestrians on Wheels”, New Challenges for Cities in 21st Century“. The article has a surprisingly long list of different categories of pedestrians and their differing obstacles and needs. For example, pedestrians with wheeled elements and pedestrians requiring more action time.
Cars take priority in planning
Traffic management authorities collect data on vehicle traffic flows, but not pedestrian movements. Data are, however, collected on pedestrian road accidents and deaths. Pedestrians who feel unsafe on the street will curtail their movement in their neighbourhood. The number of journeys not made because of road and street design are not known.
In the conclusions, the authors discuss the need for regulations for users and on the use of the devices, and using designs which can be easily detected by other pedestrians by using colour and sound.
New ideas about “Movement and Place” are at odds with the “Roads and Traffic” paradigm. Something will have to give if we want more walking. People limit where they go based on how safe they feel. Pedestrian crossings aren’t designed with all pedestrians in mind – they’re designed with traffic flows in mind.
Extract from Abstract
Reality shows us that pedestrian diversity is a reality that is becoming increasingly complex. In the 20th century the car set aside horse carriages and pedestrians. In the same way, 21st century pedestrians are taking centre stage with policies for walkability. But the design of streets for this new paradigm has yet to be solved.
Citizens on scooters, skates, skateboards, Segways, and unicycles, are added to the already traditional baby strollers, wheelchairs, and suitcases with wheels. “Pedestrians on wheels” poses new challenges of coexistence and design. These are considerations of universal accessibility that we cannot leave out while our society progresses.
This paper identifies some of these new needs and presents a progressive analysis in three phases: 1 classification of the different user of the street, 2 study of the Personal Mobility Devices (PMD) and 3, the new accessibility barriers that arise with the use of PMD. As a result, some action strategies are pointed out to respond to the difficulties of accessibility derived from this new reality and to integrate them into the universal design of the urban public space.
The article is from the proceedings of the UDHEIT 2018 conference held in Dublin, Ireland. It is open access publication.
Micromobility is now accessible for people with disability thanks to seven new designslaunched by Lime. They are not “disability” specific – just good design useable by more people. The article is on FastCompany website.
‘Leave no-one behind’ is the tag line for the Sustainable Development Goals. In disaster management this idea takes on a very practical meaning. People with disability are two to four times more likely to die or be injured in a disaster than the general population. So why is our disaster planning and risk reduction failing people with disability?Being able to attend community meetings to find out what to do in an emergency is one factor. Having more than one person in the household with disability is another. Community education and plans assume everyone can get out of the house with a few belongings, get in the car and drive to safety. But some of the problem is that people with disability don’t make a plan or don’t tell anyone their plan. There is no nationally consistent standard for including people with disability in disaster risk reduction. Anarticle in The Conversation explains some of the research into this. It includes the comments made by people with disability when asked about disaster planning. One such comment is very telling,
“But I spoke to three different people who had three different disabilities, and you realise that the communication has to be targeted. Because those three people required completely different things. And the information they got was not in a mode which they could use.”
The title of the article in The Conversation is, ‘Nobody checked on us’: what people with disability told us about their experiences of disasters and emergencies. The academic version was published in the International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. The title of the paper is, Applying a person-centred capability framework to inform targeted action on Disability Inclusive Disaster Risk Reduction, and is available from ScienceDirect.
Key points from the study are:
Disability Inclusive Disaster Risk Reduction requires collaboration with people with disability to remove barriers that increase risk in emergencies.
2. The Person-Centred Emergency Preparedness framework directs attention to the choices that people with disability have in emergency situations and factors that enable or limit them.3. Findings can be used to support implementation of Australia’s National Strategy for Disaster Resilience by defining person-centred responsibilities of people with disability and service providers in emergencies.Findings gave deep insight into the diversity and interrelatedness of factors that increase the vulnerability of people with disability. The report offers new perspectives on why Australian’s with disability are disproportionately affected by disaster.
Universally designed emergency management
With the increasing frequency of extreme weather events, the need to have inclusive emergency systems is paramount. Although there is some awareness of people with disability within emergency management, there are few tools that embrace universal design principles. Research has focused on the general public, but not on stakeholders such as first responders, control room personnel and decision makers. Many of us turn to our mobile phones and downloaded apps to keep us up to date. But how inclusive are they?A research paper from Norway takes the topic of emergency management beyond the physical environment, such as escape routes, to communications technology. Appropriate technology can improve disaster management for everyone. The paper is a literature review of universal design methods in emergency management. Among the findings was awareness of people with disability was increasing and systems were being adapted accordingly. However, gaps remain.
Some of these are:
Most of the work on ICT tools and platforms for Emergency Management does not take into account Universal Design nor accessibility.
There is a lack of communication support between emergency medical responders and people that are deaf.
In use of social networks in emergency situations, the age gap was identified as significantly more severe than the disability gap.
Accessible tools and platforms exist, but most of them are on the conceptual or at best on the prototype level.
Research on the use of assistive technology by older adults during disasters is a neglected issue.
Accessibility is often limited to access to Internet, rather than the diversity of stakeholders and their access to digital solutions.
They also found that participatory design methods gave best results but were rarely used. Maps for visualising disasters were unlikely to be accessible, but had high value for users. The article is comprehensive and covers every aspect of emergency and disaster management, particularly from the perspective of emergency personnel. The title of the article is, Universal Design of ICT for Emergency Management from Stakeholders’ Perspective. It is open source.
Concerns for climate change and waste production are driving the concept of a “circular economy“. This requires designers to think and create in different ways. But will these new ways also be inclusive, accessible and universally designed? Chances are the answer is “yes”. That’s because a circular economy requires designers to engage with stakeholders in the design process.Including universal design frameworks in the concept of a circular economy is one way to draw together the many disciplines. A circular economy shares at least one thing in common with universal design – the need to consult with stakeholders. This is one aspect discussed in an article from Sweden that discusses the issues in terms of challenges and practical implications.The concept of a circular economy is new and mostly discussed in theoretical terms. So it is good to see the concept of universal design being brought into the conversation before implementation strategies are formed. The title of the open access article is, How circular is current design practice? Investigating perspectives across industrial design and architecture in the transition towards a circular economy.
Abstract
The transition to a circular economy (CE) produces a range of new challenges for designers and requires specific knowledge, strategies, and methods. To date, most studies regarding design for a CE have been theoretical and conceptual, hence, limited research has been conducted on the practical implications of designing for a CE. Therefore, the aim of this study is to provide a better understanding of how design practitioners interpret and implement the CE concept in practice. To capture the complexity of real-world cases, semi-structured interviews were carried out with design practitioners (N = 12) within the disciplines of architecture and industrial design who have actively worked with circularity in a design agency setting. The results show that the practitioners have diverse perspectives on designing for a CE, relating to (1) the circular design process, (2) the effects of the CE on design agencies, (3) the changing role of the designer, and (4) the external factors affecting circular design in practice. Some differences were identified between the architects and industrial designers, with the industrial designers more strongly focused on circular business models and the architects on the reuse of materials on a building level. In addition, circular strategies and associated (similar) terminologies were understood and applied in fundamentally different ways. As the CE blurs boundaries of scale and disciplines, there is a need for universal design frameworks and language. The CE concept is expanding the scope of the design process and driving the integration of new knowledge fields and skills in the design process. The successful implementation of the CE in practice is based on extensive collaboration with stakeholders and experts throughout all stages of the design process. Design agencies have addressed the CE by establishing dedicated CE research and design teams, facilitating knowledge exchange, developing their own circular strategies and methods, and striving for long-term client relationships that foster the engagement of designers with the lifecycles of designed artefacts rather than perceiving design projects as temporary endeavors. Ultimately, a holistic and integral approach towards design in a CE is needed to ensure that the underlying CE goals of contributing to sustainable development and establishing a systemic shift are ongoingly considered.The Conversation has an article explaining the circular economy.
It’s all very well being able to physically access the built environment, but access doesn’t guarantee social participation. Just considering how the shapes, sizes and ages of different bodies physically interact with the built environment is not enough. If universal design is about increasing access as well as physical and mental wellbeing then there is more work to do. This is the summation of a literature review that found social participation aspects of universal design are under researched. Including non-professionals and users of the built environment is key to creating an accessible and inclusive built environment. The final sentence in the literature review sums up a good call to action. Universal design straddles multiple boundaries. So the amount of collective universal design knowledge should be available and accessible to everyone. The literature review’s key question was “How is social participation represented in recent discourse around universal design in the built environment”. Studies from around the world were examined from 52 databases. The article includes the methodology and results. It is easier to measure whether a person can use a building (accessibility) than it is to measure what they are using it for (participation). The Australian Standards cover accessibility and this is why the story often ends here. The title of the article is, An integrated literature review of the current discourse around universal design in the built environment – is occupation the missing link? The term “occupation” is from the occupational therapy field and means “doing things”. Full text available on ResearchGate or via institutional access to a free read. By Valerie Watchorn and Danielle Hitch at Deakin University.
From the abstract
Purpose: To synthesise current literature about universal design for built environments that promote social participation. These need to be personally meaningful activities, which people need, want or must do as part of their daily life.Methods: 33 peer reviewed journal articles published January 2011–December 2017. Results:The current discourse is driven more by description, discussion, and commentary than empirical approaches. Much of the current discourse focuses on the person and the environment, but social participation isn’t a focus.Conclusions: Including different perspectives would enable universal design to reach its full potential as a medium for social justice.
Achieving full participation through universal design
A European report sets the scene for promoting universal design and setting an action plan in motion. It promotes a universal design approach as a strategy to ensure equal and democratic rights in society for all individuals. It covers participation in: political and public life; cultural life; information and communication; education; employment; the built environment; transport; community living; legal protection; research and development; and awareness raising. Examples of good practice are also included. It links well with the eight domains of life outlined in the WHO Age Friendly Cities and Communities program.The title of the report isAchieving full participation through Universal Design.
Nordic Charter for Universal Design
Policy makers and anyone else interested in furthering universal design principles across all aspects of society will find this useful. Nordic countries worked together to create a common strategy for meeting the challenges of an ageing population as well as their obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability. The article is informative in the way it covers the built environment, products, services and ICT. This is published as an academic article in the Scandinavian Journal of Public Health.You will need institutional access for a free read, or request a copy from the author on ResearchGate.
Older people know what they want in terms of housing and their neighbourhood. But has anyone asked them? Two researchers in Queensland have. This research came about because of serious concerns about congregate living during the COVID-19 pandemic. In their research findings, the researchers challenge the ideas of local planners. They say we need to look at ageing in neighbourhood rather than retirement villages.
The researchers found that local councils can act as a catalyst for the market to change and innovate. They propose infill developments with a mix duplexes and mid rise apartments with easy access to services. The article in The Conversation has lot of images and diagrams to illustrate their arguments. The title of the article is, Ageing in neighbourhood: what seniors want instead of retirement villages and how to achieve it.
It is time to move away from focusing on what older people can no longer do to what they can be encouraged to do. That is the healthy ageing approach. Older people know what’s best for them. Given the opportunity they can create solutions.
The table below shows the key features that make a home and neighbourhood a good place to live as they age.
The Fifth Estate has an article that extends the discussion on this topic into smart cities. The title of the article is, This is how we create the age-friendly smart city.
Australia was one of the first countries to contribute to the WHO’s age-friendly cities project, but how much has been implemented? The late Hal Kendig explains the situation in a book chapter, Implementing age-friendly cities in Australia, which can be found in Age Friendly Cities and Communities: A Global Perspective. Or you can access a similar publication on ResearchGate.
Retirement living has to factor pandemics into design now. Separation rather than isolation is the key. Much of the value of specialist retirement living is the easy access to amenities and socialisation. But the pandemic put a stop to both. The constant reminder that older people are more vulnerable to the infection was the last straw. Especially as everyone fell into the vulnerable category. Consequently, everyone got isolated from each other. But how to design for this?
Australian Ageing Agenda has an article discussing these issues. If residents have to stay home for prolonged periods, they will likely demand more space. Pocket neighbourhoods could work so that only a section needs to be cordoned off. Other ideas are:
The title of the article is, COVID-19 is shaping design of future facilities.
Planning research has not yet evolved to include disability perspectives. Is it because the medical model of disability still prevails? Or is it mistakenly believed that disability is not a design issue? Some might say it’s because the needs of people with disability are fragmented across government departments. Practitioners in the planning field are required to engage with communities, but it seems the researchers are not keeping up. 
Although Japan has the oldest population in the world, creating accessible urban spaces is making very slow progress. 
Planning is also about design. And good design now includes users. Community involvement is a key part of planning processes. It must take account of our human diversity otherwise designs will unintentionally exclude. Community involvement in planning also introduces designers and planners to “other ways of being”. 
Pedestrians are becoming more diverse. Consequently, m
Micromobility is now accessible for people with disability thanks to 
‘Leave no-one behind’ is the tag line for the 
The title of the 
Concerns for climate change and waste production are driving the concept of a “
It’s all very well being able to physically access the built environment, but access doesn’t guarantee social participation. J
A 
Policy makers and anyone else interested in