A group of researchers compared the walking experience of tourists and locals in two New Zealand cities. The research was in the context of accessibility and active travel. They chose to compare Christchurch and Wellington because of their differing topography and architecture. There are no surprising results from the study, but they confirm the need for good footpaths and wayfinding for everyone.
Overall, both tourists and locals were generally “satisfied” with their walking experience in both cities. However, the age of participants was skewed to younger age groups.
Image of Christchurch Post Office.
Participants were asked to rate the presence of a good and wide walkway condition, absence of closed roads (culs de sac), signage, flat terrain, and accessibility for wheelchairs and prams. Overall, both locals and tourists appreciated well designed level walkways with good signage for wayfinding. However, walkers would like to be alerted to construction works so they can take alternative routes in the same way as motorists.
In Wellington, tourists indicated that they expected more accessible routes so that people with differing abilities could walk or wheel. This was the most significant finding in the survey because it was the only score to fall below the statistical neutral line.
Image of Wellington.
Christchurch has less steep terrain which means it could satisfy the accessibility criteria better than Wellington. Tourists liked the grid pattern of the city which removed the culs de sac that existed before the earthquake. However, poor or narrow footpaths were a concern for both tourists and locals in the central area. Lack of signage at intersections was not regarded well by tourists either.
In Wellington footpaths and signage were also a major concern for locals and tourists alike. While the footpaths were wide, they were poorly maintained.
More signage for tourists
It’s not only signs that people need – landmarks work as well. Wellington has a good natural landmark in the form of the harbour. The Avon River in Christchurch also helps with navigation. However, tourists would like more signage, especially at intersections.
This research addresses the question of how visitors perceive and evaluate the city they are visiting when they walk. Comparisons are made with the experience of local residents. The paper examines the relatively overlooked domain of tourist walkability and investigates the extent to which accessibility and topography may influence walking experiences.
Data were gathered from a Walk Diary in which respondents evaluated the environment along a single walk. Responses were received through convenience sampling from 132 people in Christchurch and Wellington. The Walk Diary provided an effective way of capturing differences between locals and tourists when they walk. Insights from this study will be particularly useful to those tasked with enhancing people’s urban walking experience.
If we want to get everyone walking and wheeling for their health, and the health of the environment, a few things have to change. If people don’t feel safe walking and wheeling, they will avoid the journey or take the car. Many people who are blind or have low vision fear a collision with vehicles and cyclists. That makes them feel unsafe on our streets, and means they are less likely to venture from well-known routes in their community.
Pedestrians who are blind or have low vision have difficulty knowing when it is safe to cross at non-signalised crossing points. This is compounded by traffic volume and speed. Not every person with low vision uses a cane or dog indicating to drivers they have reduced vision.
If you want to know more about the issues encountered by people who are blind or have low vision, take a look at the study by Victoria Walks. They conducted a survey of people with vision impairment and carried out some street audits. The aim was to gain a better understanding of the road and footpath safety issues encountered by this group.
“Difficulty in judging whether it is safe to cross the road” was the biggest overall concern, followed by tripping hazards on the footpath. Crossing the road at non-signalised intersections was not an option for many. Given that most mid-block crossings and intersections are not signalised, this severely limits this group’s mobility. But they are not the only ones. People with poor depth perception and some cognitive conditions find it difficult to judge when to cross.
Interaction with other road users
Drivers are required to give way to pedestrians. However, at traffic lights for example, motorists failing to give way was the biggest concern for people who are blind or have low vision. Failing to give way to pedestrians on the footpath across driveways was another real problem. Shared paths with cyclists, pedestrians with dogs, and just other pedestrians were also an issue.
People who are blind or have low vision are not the only ones with poor road and footpath experiences. Consequently, if we can get it right for this group, every pedestrian should benefit.
Site audit issues for safe walking and wheeling
Issues common to most areas audited were: – Tripping hazards and obstructions on the footpath such as low hanging tree branches, shop sandwich boards, and outdoor dining. – Poor kerb ramp design that potentially sends pedestrians with a vision impairment into the middle of an intersection rather than directly across the road. – Differences between the width of a crossing and the width of the kerb ramp used to access it causing a potential trip hazard. – Missing or poorly functioning Tactile Ground Surface Indicators (TGSI) or audio tactiles.
An artist’s impression showing the QVB stop in the George Street pedestrianised zone
What role do shared spaces play in “successful places”? And what are shared spaces anyway? A report compiled by the Transport Research Centre at UTS for the NSW Government attempts to answer these questions. The focus of the report was to understand how shared spaces can enhance the development of “successful places”, a key strategic priority of Transport.
Varied terminology on the topic of shared spaces is not helpful and needs a standard definition. Another issue is whose opinion counts most. Is it user perceptions or transport performance measurements? And implementation is difficult even though there are many guidelines and there are few case studies.
What is a shared space?
The report offers the following definition.
“A public street or intersection that is intended and designed to be used by all modes of transport equally in a consistently low-speed environment. Shared space designs aim to reduce vehicle dominance and prioritise active mobility modes. Designs can utilise treatments that remove separation between users in order to create a sense of place and facilitate multi-functions.”
Findings
Broadly, high level critical findings include:
The shared space design concept is one tool for forming successful places across the community.
A spectrum of intervention and design options are available to transport professionals to achieve a shared space within the road network.
Defining relationships between design parameters and performance metrics are key to determining the factors leading to implementing successful shared space.
Current guidelines, standards and practical processes limit the application of novel shared space solutions.
The title of the Shared Spaces Reviewis, Evaluation and Implementation of Shared Spaces in NSW: Framework for road infrastructure design and operations to establish placemaking. Examination of existing Shared Space knowledge. The Transport Research Centre, University of Technology Sydney conducted the research for Transport for NSW.
The report is comprehensive and detailed with some international case studies to illustrate issues and findings. The report provides recommendations and current best practice for Transport for NSW.
Intergenerational shared spaces
Having interaction between generations, particularly older and younger people is beneficial for everyone. Julie Melville and Alan Hatton-Yeo discuss the issues in a book chapter, Intergenerational Shared Spaces in the UK context.
The authors discuss how the generations are separated by life activities and dwelling places. The design of the built environment is a major concern because is not conducive to sharing spaces across the generations.
While this book is not specifically about universal design, it is about inclusive practice and social inclusion.
Google Books has the full book, Intergenerational Space, edited by Robert M Vanderbeck and Nancy Worth.
A working paper based on five participants with disability highlights the small but important details that form barriers to getting around in the public domain. The results of their neighbourhood movements are traced in a map showing the barriers.
The usual barriers are encountered and are specific to Berlin and most likely representative of suburban neighbourhoods in Australia as well. Another paper to add to the collection.
We all have to go sometime and some of us sooner and more quickly than others. The availability of clean public toilets can make or break a shopping trip or social outing. People with bladder problems will restrict their movements to where they know the toilets are. This is not just a social issue, it is an economic one.
The Helen Hamlyn Centre for Design had a good look at this issue. Their report outlines how they went about finding an alternative model for high street toilets. The project was titled, Engaged: a toilet on every high street.
This design research project was about a simple concept of reusing vacant high street units as toilets (plus commercial or community space). It explored the idea before thinking about how to implement it.
The research explored how this idea would fit into current systems and infrastructure. People within retail, community safety, government and urban design were consulted. Then they spoke with council officers to see how they could make it happen.
Pub staff responsible for toilets talked about the problems with toilets. Public toilet provision is complex. A lot can go wrong. The aim therefore was to understand what the public want, what councils can achieve and where the pitfalls are.
The key areas or outcomes for Engaged were the issues of:
Closed and Temporary Toilets
Future Inclusive Toilets
Lootopia and the High Street
Toilets in the 24-hour City
Talk Toilets
The report explains these points in detail using case studies. Accessible toilets are included in the discussions as well as criminal behaviour.
Everyone needs a toilet
Everyone needs to use the toilet, and people shouldn’t be ‘designed out’. People who spend all day outside, such as rough-sleepers, rely more on public toilets than most. Yet privately-owned, publicly-accessible toilets may not be accessible to them, either from exclusion or from feeling that they would be permitted. Other groups who may feel excluded include teenagers and people of colour. Discrimination that associates groups with anti-social or criminal behaviour reduces the number of toilets that people can access.
The researchers found their findings match similar surveys by the Bathroom Manufacturers Association, and AgeUK London. ‘High streets’ was the main location where respondents thought public toilets were not good enough (70%), ahead of parks (47%). This data is useful for showing the value that public toilets bring to the high street. If people leave early due to a lack of toilets, that hurts businesses and the wider community. It also limits people’s participation and quality of life.
The title of the report is, Engaged: a toilet on every high street. The Helen Hamlyn Centre for Design did the research published by the Royal College of Art. It is a good example of talking to stakeholders before even thinking about solutions.
Accessible toilets: how are they really used?
Accessible public toilets are constructed to a set standard in many countries including Australia. But has anyone actually asked users if they are truly functional for wheelchair users and others? Access Insight magazine gives an overview of new research into this question.
The UTS project focused on public accessible bathroom design. Falling off the toilet pan while reaching for toilet paper and avoiding public bathrooms altogether are two preliminary findings from the research project. Photo: Phillippa Carnemolla.
The current Australian Standard for accessible bathrooms is based on data from the 1970s with a few tweaks along the way. The design favours paraplegia who have good use of their upper body and arms. That means people with higher level needs are excluded from the design.
Apart from falling when trying to reach the toilet paper, users also need shelving near the toilets and sinks. We floors are unhygienic and a slip hazard when attempting a sit to stand transfer. Soap, paper towels, hand dryers, and toilet rolls are often placed in inaccessible positions. Or they can obstruct the grab rail.
The other key finding is how wheelchair users plan their movements outside the home to avoid needing a public toilet. Some would rather forgo social activities than be faced with bathrooms they cannot access.
Design policy and regulations within our cities can significantly impact the accessibility and social participation of people with disability. Public, wheelchair-accessible bathrooms are highly regulated spaces, but little is known about how wheelchair users use them.
This exploratory inquiry encompasses twelve interviews, delving into how participants utilise accessible bathrooms based on their functional needs.
Findings revealed themes of safety, hygiene, planning/avoidance and privacy and dignity. Many wheelchair users invest significant effort in planning for bathroom use or avoid public bathrooms altogether.
Regulatory standards don’t capture the ongoing maintenance and regular cleaning of bathrooms. However, this is critically important to the ongoing accessibility and safety of public bathrooms for wheelchair users. This points to a relationship between the design and the maintenance and the social participation of people with disability.
These findings can potentially drive innovative and inclusive approaches to bathroom design regulations that include maintenance. As such they can inform regulations, standards and design practices for more socially sustainable cities.
Everybody Poops
A Canadian briefing paper, Everybody Poops: Public toilets are a community issue, covers similar ground. Although these facilities are an important part of the community, local authorities are not keen to provide them. Solutions are around advocacy and partnerships. The paper has a link to The Safer Bathroom Toolkit, which has a focus on people who use substances.
Universal Design Guidelines: Changing Places
This set of guidelines comes from Ireland and aims to take the design beyond minimum standards. It covers every aspect you can think of from planning and building control to management and maintenance. The guidelines explain why some things need to be designed or placed in a certain way.
The design and installation section is comprehensive. The management and maintenance section includes pre-visit information, staff training, and health and safety. The guidelines are downloadable in different formats. Another excellent resource from the Centre for Excellence in Universal Design.
There are many tools for measuring environmental sustainability features in the built environment. But measuring access for all, is based on legislation and cost rather than user-based. Indeed, building standards for disability access have filled this knowledge gap but in the process, held back learning at the same time. That’s because you learn how to complete checklists but you don’t gain understanding of the issues this way. This is one reason that architect Mary Ann Jackson says built environment practitioners do not understand disability.
Neighbourhood scale accessibility measurement tools show how improvements can be determined in a planned way rather than ad hoc reactions.
Built environment knowledge and the lived experience of people with disability need connection. We need a tool that measures the overall accessibility of the built environment by incorporating the lived experiences of people with disability.
Increasingly, assessment of the built environment is becoming interdiciplinary. However, despite all the many built environment performance tools, input from people with disability are often left out of the equation. The move to co-design methods for new work is helpful, but does little to deal with existing built environments.
The existing built environment still fails to meet the needs of people with disability. This is despite rapid urbanisation, population ageing, failing infrastructure, and evidence that the built environment affects health and well-being,
In a parallel universe, improving built environment ‘sustainability’ performance, via measurement, receives much attention. Analysing the built environment at micro-scale (buildings), meso-scale (neighbourhood) and macro-scale (city-wide) is undertaken from various multidisciplinary perspectives.
Built environment performance is measured in many ways, but accessibility performance for people with disability, at neighbourhood scale, is rarely considered.
People with disability continue to experience lack of meaningful involvement in research, participation in decision-making, partnership equality, and direct influence over policy, with the built environment arena increasingly becoming a private-sector activity.
The actors involved, however, have little understanding of either the accessibility needs of people with disability, or the inaccessibility, particularly at neighbourhood scale, of the existing built environment.
This paper explores the design, planning and politics of an inaccessible built environment. Assessing the accessibility of the built environment for people with disability, at neighbourhood scale, is an essential component in the process of built environment accessibility improvement.
Walkable and wheelable neighbourhoods
Being free to move around and get out and about helps build and strengthen connections to place and people. Mobility and participation are closely linked and together they improve our sense of wellbeing and belonging. It’s about having choice and control and being able to easily go walking and wheeling in the neighbourhood.
Absent or poorly maintained footpaths, lack of safe crossings, unsafe road speeds, competing with cars, poorly lit streets, and nowhere to rest, prevent people from getting out and about.
An article in The Fifth Estate argues it’s time to stop designing our streets for cars and start to design for the diversity of people. The article is by Lisa Stafford and her work on planning and justice. She lists some must-dos for walkable wheelable neighbourhoods:
footpaths are essential infrastructure in the same way as stormwater in neighbourhood development
confront ableismand plan and design for our diversity
embed inclusive design thinking in the system and day-to-day practice
integrate planning well: we know universal design and sustainable smart growth approaches work seamlessly together
utilise inclusive urban design codes to promote mobility equity, wellbeing, connectivity, and accessibility
active and public transport infrastructure advocacy must include the perspective of all users
The notion of age-friendly cities is not new, and neither is age-friendly housing design. However, researchers tend to look at one or the other but not both. A study by a group at University of South Australia has sought to join the dots showing the dependency of one upon the other. Creating age-friendly environments begins at home, across the threshold to the street and on to the broader environment. Like any chain, it is as strong as it’s weakest link. While some local authorities are doing their best to be age-friendly in their area, they are not able to influence the design of mass market homes. That is the role of state governments and their control of the National Construction Code.
The report of the study titled, Towards Age-Friendly Built Environment, supports previous research and recommendations. Given that not much is changing, this is another worthy paper. The key point is linking life at home with life in the community and showing how it supports the health and wellbeing of older Australians. This in turn takes the pressure from government funded home modifications and support services – not to mention tax payers.
Universal design concepts in their pure form are about creativity rather than set standards. However, building practitioners want more guidance than “make it inclusive and accessible for all”. Two researchers in Canada have attempted to solve this dilemma by connecting universal design and BIM (Building Information Modelling).
BIM is a process that uses tools and technologies to form digital representations of physical and functional aspects of places. Building professionals use this information across a wide spectrum of infrastructure. Weaving universal design principles into BIM processes is essential if we are to create an inclusive built environment.
“Accessibility is a compensatory strategy conceived to prevent discrimination while universal design seeks to change the consciousness of those who create the built environment to address a broader conception of the human body.” – Prof Ed Steinfeld in,The space of accessibility and universal design.
Image of an access ramp – not universal design.
In their paper, the researchers describe the process of developing a model that integrates the BIM database with universal design. In a nutshell, the researchers established a database of universal design elements for designing homes. Then they turned it into a plugin for the BIM system.
“It is recommended that the construction industry starts following the universal design guidelines in new buildings… to increase the lifespan… and reduce the need for future adaptation.”
Beginning at the conceptual stage
The paper explains in technical terms the creation of the model and database leading to the BIM plugin for universal design. The authors claim designers can instantly access universal design standards and incorporate them at the conceptual stage.
There is a similar shorter version of the same study on ResearchGate, titled, Building Information Modeling with Universal Design Requirements for High Accessible Homes. This paper has a case example of a four storey home with four apartments on each floor. Universal design “families” – windows, doors, floors, etc., are applied to create a 3D view and and floor plan. The images in the paper show the results. The paper explains in technical terms how the model was developed and then applied in the case example.
From the abstract
A projection of the Canadian population shows that in 2024 one in five Canadians will be over 65 years old. This shift forces designers to consider the entire lifetime of occupants during the design of new buildings. Universal design aims to house people irrespective of their age, ability, and chronic health conditions.
Building Information Modeling (BIM) significantly helps advance the development of the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction industry in a more collaborative and automated way. Integrating BIM and universal design allows designers to incorporate universal design at the conceptual design stage using the functionalities of BIM tools.
This study presents the development of an automated computer model to facilitate the adoption of universal design processes. A newly created plug-in will assist designers to incorporate universal design at the conception stage.
Public Engagement, Virtual Reality and BIM
This study compares VR platforms for community engagement with a view to creating plugins for the BIM system. The results of this experimental study found significant potential for utilising the methods and tools as part of a collaborative approach to design. This was particularly the case for designing a refurbishing public spaces.
The participants enjoyed using the tools that helped them understand design features and quality. It helped them engage and visualise intricate and challenging aspects of the project. If designers are serious about co-designing with users, having the right tools is the key to success. They move participants past ad hoc discussions to focused thinking.
The title of the study is Enhancing Public Engagement in Architectural Design: A comparative Analysis of Advanced Virtual Reality Approaches in Building Information Modeling and Gamification Techniques. The article is open access.
BIM and accessible bathrooms
There is a related article on BIM and the evaluation of accessible bathrooms. Here is a short extract from the Abstract:
This study aims to demonstrate the practicability and utility of emerging BIM and related digital technologies, applied in the field. Post occupancy evaluation is key to ensuring building access is provided and maintained. Twenty-one accessible bathrooms in three university buildings were assessed in this study.
The study found that across all bathrooms the toilet roll location is unsatisfactory. Other high-risk issues included: Approach: access; Entrance: door fittings and security; and Layout: hazards. The study shows how low-cost BIM and related technologies can form a baseline for ongoing post occupancy evaluation.
Assigning people with disability to group homes last century has meant a gap in learning for mainstream building designs. Building standards for disability access have both filled this gap and held back learning at the same time. Then there is the problem of few people in the architectural teaching community with lived experience of disability. So how can we get an architecture of inclusion embedded in educational institutions?
The architectural teaching profession updated their National Standard of Competencies to include Indigenous knowledge. However, designing with disability is yet to be fully included in their competency standards.
Who can design and evaluate professional development opportunities for architects without lived experience, but who must now demonstrate competency? Who teaches the next generation of architects through the university system? In short, who can speak for disability?
Kirsten Day and Andrew Martel discuss the issues of developing competencies in their 2022 conference paper (p 129). They briefly cover the history of disability, regulation and architecture before moving on to current ideas of co-design. The new Livable Housing Design Standard in the National Construction Code is mentioned as a step in the right direction. This Standard provides basic access features in all new and extensively modified homes from October 2023.
The evolving nature of creating an inclusive society is yet to be reflected in mainstream architectural learning. Finding ways to attract a diversity of architectural students representative of the population remains elusive too. This is a situation where Universal Design in Learning has a role.
National Standards of Competencies
The authors list the competencies, but find they are not supported by legislation or university teaching structures. Nor are they supported by instructors with knowledge of disability or Indigenous knowledge. With very few people to draw on as experts with lived experience, who can set examples?
There is a fundamental issue with the education of architectural students and so the question becomes, is the training inclusive? Is the studio method suitable for a diverse body of students? Universal design principles should be applied to the physical layout of space and the type of technology used. And presentation techniques favour sight over all other senses.
From the 1840s, Australia encouraged the committing of people with disabilities to institutions and asylums. By the 1970s the preference was to house people in group homes. Consequently, knowledge of designing for people with disabilities within the architectural profession was low and teaching the design skills required within universities negligible.
The UN Convention on the Rights for People with Disability, and the introduction of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, have highlighted the need for education and knowledge among architects and architectural students.
The tendency has been 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 demonstrating these competencies by graduates.
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. Issues around who is allowed to speak for—and engaging with people with an intellectual disability or neurodiversity pose serious challenges to rectifying decades of neglect.
Do vehicles cross pedestrian paths of travel, or do pedestrians cross vehicle paths of travel? We probably assume that unless it is a designated pedestrian crossing, vehicles have the right of way. “Giving way” is complicated. Drivers must exercise duty of care, so whose fault is it if there is a collision with a pedestrian? Janet Wahlquist of WalkSydney, says road rules should put walking first. That includes wheeling as well.
Drivers must always give way to pedestrians if there is danger of colliding with them, however pedestrians should not rely on this and should take great care when crossing any road.
However, the above statement is not supported by a road rule, according to Wahlquist. Does this mean a slow moving person can’t cross the street because they might cause a collision? The law gives the benefit of doubt to the driver who can choose whether to give way or not. A person walking into a car makes no sense, but a car hitting a person is life threatening. Wahlquist references the UK Manual for Streets which reverses our ideas of who has right of way.
Public policy aims to promote walking (and wheeling) but preference remains with motor traffic. However, drivers and pedestrians alike are not aware of the current road rules of who gives way to whom and under what circumstances. This is particularly important for slow moving pedestrians who fear a collision if they are not quick enough to cross the road.
Intersections as continuous footpaths
“We believe all intersections without signals – whether marked, courtesy, or unmarked – be legally treated as marked pedestrian crossings. (It might help to mark them to remind drivers of this.) We should think of these intersections as spaces where vehicles cross an implicit continuous footpath, rather than as places where people cross a vehicular lane.”
How much design thought goes into roads and highway? Is it just left to engineers, or are other designers involved? Seems times are changing and a bit more thought is going into roads in the UK. The Design Council has an article that lists the ten principles of good road design that include words such as inclusive and sustainable. The ten principles are
makes roads safe and useful
is inclusive
makes roads understandable
fits in context
is restrained
is environmentally sustainable
is thorough
is innovative
is collaborative
is long-lasting
Fourth progress report
This work was updated in 2021 with the fourth progress report. Over the past year and a half, the Design Panel made the following key recommendations. Highways England should:
accelerate communication and training to promote and embed its design vision and principles into its processes and culture
act on the Design Panel’s recommendations for adapting to climate change, reducing carbon, supporting biodiversity and the design of corridors
publish a design strategy to clearly articulate its ambitions for the second road period and beyond
Three architects discuss their experiences and challenges in a paper about moving to all-gender restrooms. The context is a university campus and the need to be inclusive of all students.
The title of the article is All-gender restrooms: embracing change in the built environment. The article includes case studies of rest room renovations. Building codes and certifiers present barriers to these inclusive designs, and they explain how they overcame them.
The authors provide several floor plans of restroom options. They advise that privacy, safety, and comfort must be kept in mind for all designs and explain a little more about this. In taking a universal design approach they advocate for bringing many voices to the table.
We recommend involving stakeholders and users through a variety of engagement strategies. That includes staff who will be responsible for the maintenance and cleaning of these spaces in the future.
The language used in relation to all-gender restrooms is as important as the architectural changes themselves. Words and identity graphics typically show gendered restrooms, so the authors recommend using neutral signage. Inclusive designs are not just about inclusion, they are also about creating a sense of belonging and of welcome.
Overview of discussion
As architects and designers, we face design challenges that are rooted in the built condition. In our collaboration with student activities professionals, the effective use of space to service, engage, and welcome the campus community is at the forefront of design and planning discussions. We must consider the social implications of our physical designs that evolve as social and cultural norms change.
The all-gender restroom has been a topic of conversation in the projects we have been designing over the last decade. This piece will help bridge the gap between student affairs practitioners and architectural designers with information and understanding of how code influences the design of all-gender restrooms. Campus communities will therefore be better prepared to advocate for building all-gender restrooms.
The term “smart city” refers to the way local authorities use digital information to make planning decisions and create solutions. But is this linked to the real lives of older people and the notion of age-friendly cities? According to UBANAGE, a European project, not enough data is collected on people aged over 65 years.
Time to develop smart city technologies that account for older people so that policymakers can inform their decision-making with evidence from older people.
Researchers found current data sets inadequate for analysis of older populations. One of the reasons is the need for the privacy of personal data. Here we see the dangers of trying to develop algorithms and simulation to solve problems. This is where co-creation enters the picture. Older adults, public servants and other stakeholders worked together to test solutions for addressing the needs of older people.
What is a smart city and is it different from other cities? Smart cities use digital technology and data to improve decision-making and quality of life. The aim is to gain a better understanding of current conditions and forecast future changes. The data are also used to improve city functions and create solutions. But how does it work?
More is explained in an article titled, Smart City Design Principles. For a city, town or community to become smart it needs connected technology. Smartphones, sensors and Internet of Things devices connect to the Internet and each other and share the data they collect with city staff. Managers use various applications to take this data and turn it into information they can use. This can have a huge impact on urban development and planning.
There are four key elements:
Quality encompasses liveability, environment, and quality of life (which should include accessibility and inclusion).
Residential Construction focuses on addressing the needs of current generations without negatively impacting future generations.
Capacity is about natural and human resources – population distribution, water, etc.
History and Environment is about achieving cohesive regional development, traditional practices and archaeological zones.
Anyone interested in understanding and applying the elements of the smart cities framework will find the article useful.
Abstract
A smart city should embrace the concept of sustainable growth, as it is an urgent need, and we cannot hesitate in coping with precious natural resources and plunge into crisis.
To make the city run as a smart city, several things should be included in the situation. In the long term, smart city visions that are inclusive, pluralistic, and citizen-centric, focused on developing services and resolving local challenges, would be the most effective and cost-efficient.
They are most likely to avoid potential issues by strengthening both physical facilities and amenities, as well as the city’s sense of culture.
Population ageing and smart cities
An article in The Conversation challenges the idea that older people are a problem and a burden. Apart from being an ageist proposition, it does little to change matters. When we talk of “empowering older adults” to engage in active ageing, who took the power away in the first place? Was it the advent of secluded congregate living that seduced older adults into feeling “secure”? Or was it something else? Regardless, research continues on ways to make people “feel capable and safe”.
The article in The Conversation begins with older people “need help and encouragement to remain active as they age in their own communities.” It is not clear why this is specific to older people. The article continues to explain how a city can provide digital infrastructure for the local information older people need. Three solutions are proposed for keeping older adults, indeed everyone, active and healthy:
Replace ageism with agency for improved quality of life.
Connect to smart city data to get the right information.
Include co-design in planning for greater participation and inclusion.
Singapore’s rapid urban development didn’t happen without a plan – indeed, it took several integrated plans. The aim of Singapore’s Long-Term Planis for liveable and sustainable homes and built environments for residents. It’s basically a land use and infrastructure plan with a 50 year view. The broad ideas in the plan are translated into Master Plans with detail about land use and density.
Given geographical constraints, Singapore has adopted innovative solutions to achieve a high standard of living for residents.
Singapore’s Liveability Framework
A conference paper by Koh and Leeexplains how the Singapore Liveability Framework has brought liveability, sustainability and prosperity. Developing state-owned land comes with government conditions. Consequently, developments are aligned with the Liveability Framework and master plans. Universal design is considered in all built environment plans.
Housing for All
In 1960 there was an acute housing shortage. In five years they built 50,000 flats to solve the shortage. Then they turned towards providing better housing to meet the aspirations of the population for a better quality of life. Singapore encourages home ownership and supports occupants to purchase their government owned flats.
Planning for Mixed-Use
Public housing is not excluded from prime locations and is mixed with retail, commercial and residential zones. Mixed use developments are also found as part of integrated transport hubs. The integration of mixed-use districts starts at the planning stage and encourages innovative development concepts.
Planning for Polycentricity
Decentralisation is key to being able to live, work and play without the need to travel long distances. Each regional centre has industrial estates, business parks, and educational institutions. At a more detailed level there are schools and shops and a transport node.
Connectivity and Walkability
Roads and expressways take up 12% of the land. Consequently, similarly to other countries, plans are prioritising public transport, walking and cycling, and extending the rail network. Better first and last mile connectivity is a must. Covered linkways connect transportation with residential areas to make walking more comfortable in the tropical weather. Repurposing roads for pedestrian space is also part of the plan.
Convenient access to green and blue
Singapore is more than a concrete jungle. The idea of a garden city began in 1967 as part of transforming Singapore into a clean and green haven for tourists and investors. Of course, residents benefit too.
A city for all ages
Life expectancy has risen by 20 years in the last 60 years and the population is therefore ageing. One in four Singaporeans will be older than 65 years by 2030. While there are various options for older residents, the government has introduced new public housing concepts. Co-location of housing with healthcare facilities, retail and dining areas, and community gardens is one solution. Community Care Apartments are another idea where residents can live independently with support services.
Living in a disrupted world
The conference paper is long and detailed with many case studies and photographs. Having government control over development and developers means strategies are implemented according to the plans. Climate change and COVID are now part of life and Singapore has to move beyond liveability and sustainability to build resilience.
