The presentation discusses the barriers and facilitators of neighbourhood activity older people encounter in their day to day life. Footpaths, or lack thereof, featured as a key issue. It also covers the other main components of being able to get out and about – public transport, street furniture, wayfinding, public toilets, handrails on stairs, safety and security.
The presentation has lots of explanatory graphs and is based on research by Bruce Judd, Diana Olsberg, Joanne Quinn and Oya Demirbilek from UNSW.
New ideas are evolving on ways to activate public space. Formal and informal spaces are discussed in Activating Public Space: How to Promote Physical Activity in Urban Environmentsby Malgorzata Kostrzewska. Examples used are from Australia, UK, and Poland. In the latter part of the article the author discusses design ideas for activating space. Controversially, the she says design should be based on tolerance rather than exclusion of unwanted behaviours, “Instead of introducing numerous prohibitive signs (against skateboarding, parkour, ball games, etc.), it is better to seek a compromise concerning terms of use of the space specified by all the stakeholders in the course of workshop meetings and their participation in the design process. The compromise solutions already in existence (e.g. in Warsaw) confirm that if all the parties acknowledge their respective needs, they will understand and respect each other.” The conclusion section lists the most important spatial features to consider in any urban design.
According to research by Susan Thompson and Gregory Paine, lower income and disadvantaged households feel the negative impacts of high density living more than others. They conclude that “blindly pursuing a uniform denser city agenda will only reinforce and exacerbate health inequalities”.
The concept of universal design captures the healthy built environment agenda along all other aspects of urban planning and design. Steinfeld and Maisel(2012) define universal design as “a process that enables and empowers a diverse population by improving human performance, health and wellness, and social participation”.
Urban environments should be suitable for all, not just for some. See the article, which first featured in The Fifth Estate, for more detail. Susan Thompson and Gregory Paine are part of the City Futures Research Centreat University of New South Wales.
Jos Boys’ latest book Disability, Space, Architecture: A Reader, is a collection of both academic and personal accounts of how the built environment is experienced by different people. It explores the interconnections between disability, architecture and cities. The writing style is mostly non-academic and includes chapters from a man who is blind and a woman who approaches universal design from a feminist perspective.
This book follows Doing Disability Differently, which was published in 2014.The Architectural Review online publication has an interesting, if short, review of the book in which Jos Boys argues that rethinking ability and architecture offers a powerful tool to design differently. It asks the intriguing question: can working from dis/ability actually generate an alternative kind of architectural avant-garde?
Do architects design first and worry about legislation later or is it the reverse? Danish researcher Camilla Rhyl decided to find out in the context of increasing universal design in the built environment. She found that the legislative interpretation takes precedence over architectural interpretation and is perceived as limiting creativity and architectural quality. So, can universal design and cultural heritage work together?
Architects work with sensory, social and cognitive aspects of design, but there is no legislative reference to this part of their work. Rhyl’s book chapter is not open access, but the abstract is informative.
From the abstract
One of the main obstacles to increase universal design in the built environment is understanding it as architectural concept. Based on research findings the legislative interpretation of universal design often takes precedence over the architectural interpretation. As such it is perceived as limiting to creativity and architectural quality.
However architects at the same time work consistently with sensory, social and cognitive aspects of architectural quality. However, there is no legislative universal reference to this part of their work.
The article shows how their methods, values and architectural thinking is built on a foundation of multisensory inclusion and quality, only they do not perceive this understanding as being universal design in the general and legislative manner.
There seems to be an apparent gap between their values, methods and architectural thinking and the way universal design is presented and perceived currently in Norway and Denmark.
Using an example of a cultural heritage project the article demonstrates how it is possible to interpret universal design in cultural heritage practice. And without compromising architectural quality or universal design. Rather, it expands and develops architectural understanding of the possibilities of universal design.
Michael D W Richards presents an interesting article on the need to standardize zoo signage so that everyone can understand, particularly DO NOT FEED signs. He concludes,
“To achieve this goal they should utilise a design which is reliant on both imagery and text to convey a message, with imagery at the forefront of the design. A human hand, an item of food and an image of an animal should be displayed. … When imagery and text is displayed on feeding restriction signs, all visitors benefit. This form of provision should not be seen as excessively catering for the needs of marginal groups. Rather it should be viewed as an approach that represents a heterogeneous society, increasing access to information and enjoyment for all, through engaging signage.”
What kind of signs inform and appeal to zoo visitors most? This was an answer Richards at wanted to know. Using qualitative and quantitative research methods he found the answer. It seems the photographic signs were most popular, but that is not the whole story.
Chicago’s Brookfield Zoo applied the principles of universal design during upgrade and extension works. Changes to the entrance, maps and information, transportation within the park, toilets, benches, tables, and exhibit design and enhancement are explained in a case study. In addition, trained staff are on hand to provide additional help to visitors where needed. Mark Trieglaff explains universal design at the Zoo in his case study.
The improvements are matched to one or more of the seven principles of universal design. The conference paper concludes: “By incorporating the Principles of Universal Design all visitors are offered equal experiences as they interact with the animal, exhibits and each other. Without even realizing barriers have been removed, everyone, regardless of their abilities, has a more enjoyable and inclusive experience.”
The title of the paper is, Universal Design in a Zoological Setting, and is free to download as PDF. It also serves as an example for urban design and place planning.
Abstract. Universal Design in planning for exhibiting animal collections for the public has been a part of the culture of one particular zoo in the US. This paper looks at the steps in designing a zoological park that is universally accessible to all visitors.
The picture is of the South Gate entrance. The parking lot was made level with the kerb to provide a level entrance for all visitors during the upgrade.