Is it true that universally designed dwellings need extra space? Designing accessible studio units dispels that myth. It’s how you design the space that makes the difference. It’s all about being creative.
A project by Studio Bright, has four units designed to accommodate Gold Livable Housingstandards. Closing off the second living or study space creates a second bedroom for a visitor.
Each unit is designed to catch natural light and is set in thoughtful landscaping. The four car parking spaces are flexible areas for communal outdoor space. Fruit trees and other plantings help foster a sense of community. There are different ways to arrange the L-shaped units, which means this model is suitable for other sites.
More examples
The 2022 edition of the National Construction Code mandates equivalent of Livable Housing Silver Level. At first it was assumed small studio units couldn’t meet this standard and should be exempt. However, here are four floor plans to show how to do it. In some respects it’s easier to meet the standard because there is no waste space with corridors an there are only two doors. Have a look at the examples below.
Although the equivalent of Livable Housing Silver level features are in the 2022 National Construction Code, not every state hasadopted it into their respective codes.
A good example of how thinking outside the traditional models makes our homes better.
What home modifications are needed most and how much are they needed? Mary Ann Jackson analysed 50 home modification reports in Victoria to get an answer. She found that when it comes to ageing in place we are not there yet.
The homes visited all had a doorsill or step at the front door and tight spaces. A screen door complicated matters, and meter boxes also intruded on entry space. Many of the fittings, such as taps and handles were poorly designed to suit ageing in place.
Jackson advises that accessibility issues are endemic to Australia’s existing housing stock. This is a big problem when 39.5% of households include a person with disability.
Architect and Planner Jackson says, “Cooperation, collaboration, and a clear recognition of the emotional, physical, and economic cost-benefit of ageing in place will be needed to rebuild Australia’s housing stock to better accommodate all inhabitants throughout life.” The title of the newsletter article is Ageing in place – are we there yet?
The picture above is famous for its technical compliance, but not usability, and definitely not aesthetics.
Older people and perception of home
Within the findings of an AHURI report is a section on the qualitative research on older people and the perceptions of their homes in terms of ageing in place. The reportis titled, “The role of home maintenance and modification services in achieving health community care and housing outcomes in later life”, and is by Andrew Jones, Desleigh de Jonge and Rhonda Phillips for the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, 2008.
Home builders argue that people won’t pay extra for universal design features. The assumption of extra cost aside, they are also assuming that people wouldn’t pay more. But would they? A study from Europe asked just that question and the answers are surprising. Renting is the norm in many European countries and so it is difficult to compare with owning. However, finding out how much extra rent people are prepared to pay gives us some indication.
A survey of renters in Germany and Slovakia found that 40 per cent would pay an extra 10% more, and 40 per cent would pay up to 20% more for a more accessible dwelling. Only 12% said they would not pay more. And the age of the respondents wasn’t a factor in the findings. The survey covered many other aspects of home living, and the findings are detailed in the article. There’s lots to take away from this study – the willingness to pay more for an adaptable or accessible dwelling is just one factor.
Editor’s Note: Another way to measure the worth of universal design in housing is to ask, “How much would you pay to stay home and not go to aged care – what would that be worth?”
Abstract:The role of this study was to determine which changes people think they need to make in their home in response to getting older. At an advanced age, the likelihood of different limitations, such as vision impairment, hearing impairment, or physical inability, are increased. At present, when faced with such limitations, tenants are often forced to leave their long-term living spaces, as these spaces cannot serve their “new” individual needs. This transition from the privacy of their home to a new environment is often a painful change. They must leave a well-known environment, as their homes cannot be adapted to their new needs. The aim of this paper is to develop a comprehensive approach for the design of an exterior and interior space which can serve people through all stages of life, particularly in terms of mobility. This means that, even if an unexpected situation incurs changes in an individual’s movement abilities or physiological limitations not only by natural aging, but also according to accidents or disabilities their living space can be adapted to the given conditions. The results of a survey conducted in Germany and Slovakia are presented. In the survey, respondents expressed their opinion on what they considered important in creating an adaptive environment, considering various life changes. Based on the results of the survey, studies of possible modifications of flats and houses are developed. These results are analyzed in terms of three age groups: people aged below 35, those aged 35–50, and those aged over 50. People under 35 are considered to be quite young, with different views on life and on the environment. Their priorities typically differ from those of people around 50. People aged 50 more; have been under medical treatment for a consistent amount of time. This group of people is still active; however, they experience different design requirements for their potential home.
What do government representatives think is the best way to supply homes suitable for people with disability? A research study by an occupational therapist and an architect found out. Mandating accessible features in all new mainstream housing is the way to go. That means both owners and renters would benefit. Plus it would suit ageing in place and not be detrimental to the rest of the population. One participant suggested that the Livable Housing Design Guidelines should be turned into an Australian Standard. That would also help guide home renovations. The research also looked at technology and support issues.
In the Results section of the article, authors Libby Callaway and Kate Tregloan summarise the participants comments about making all homes accessible:
“Several opportunities to take advantage of, and to stimulate, both accessible and adaptable housing supply and demand were identified through the focus group. Participant 5 stated, “This is a conversation about housing for people with disability, not disability housing”. Aiming to design and build homes that may also be rented on the open market or on-sold highlighted the need for suitable housing models beyond single houses. This need for a range of housing options, suitable for on-selling, has been identified in both current research and NDIS policy documents (Wiesel et al. 2015a; National Disability Insurance Agency 2016c). Roundtable participants recommended a legislative approach to increase accessible housing supply. They felt this would ensure an increase in volume via inclusion of accessible design principles and relevant standards within regulations for all buildings (e.g. via the Building Code of Australia) and other regulatory devices. This was seen to offer benefits to people with disability as well as other community groups, such as ageing Australians who want to remain living at home. It was anticipated that a relatively low-cost impost would offer great community benefit, depending on the level of requirement established (e.g. silver-level Livable Design compliance; Livable Housing Australia, 2012). Participants suggested this approach may offer greater flexibility for any subsequent home modifications required for people with disability. Participant 7 summarised the need for further work in this area: “Making all housing accessible isn’t already a national level of discussion . . . Liveable Housing design can be taken over [and incorporated] into the Australian Standards”
There is much more to this study which includes inclusive communities, integrated technology and transportation.
Editor’s note: While such an approach will suit most people with disability, there are some people who will need a home designed or adapted around their particular needs and that of their carers. This is the role of the Specialist Disability Housing funded under the NDIS.
“This book embeds the principles of how we should approach the design of future housing for an ageing population, reminding us that this is not about `other people’, but about each of us.
This book focuses on anticipating the needs and aspirations of the next generation of older people, and touches on what this implies for our communities, our towns and our cities, as well as for our living spaces.It will look at how well-designed buildings can facilitate the provision of care, support independence and wellbeing while providing companionship and stimulation. It will also examine how to ensure that buildings remain flexible over a long life.
Dealing mainly with new-build, but with a section on adaptation and refurbishment, this book sets out the underlying design principles that should be applied and the early decisions that must be taken. Richly illustrated with case studies alongside contributions from a range of experts and examples of best practice, this comprehensive resource will inform and empower architects, designers, planners and clients to be braver and wiser in designing with older people in mind.”
The current standard design ideas for homes goes back more than a century. It’s time for a rethink on home design to suit the way we live our lives now is the claim in an article by Kirsty Voltz in The Conversation.
Home designs are not keeping up with societal changes that include affordability, size of homes, accessibility across the lifespan, and designing so that as lives change, the interior of the home can adapt to suit.
The risks are in not recognising the need to change and adapt to current circumstances, lifestyles, societal changes and personal aspirations. The article contains links to other references and concludes, “Existing housing stock is designed around the numbers of bedrooms and bathrooms that appeal to the market and so fails to be responsive to what people need from housing in the 21st century.”
The picture is of the 3 bedroom home that Kirsty Voltz designed to fit in the space of an obsolete driveway.
Edited transcript from live captioning of Kay Saville-Smith’skeynote presentation at the Australian Universal Design Conference 2014. Titled: Making universal design a reality – confronting affordability.
Synopsis: The Christchurch earthquakes which flattened much of the city provided an opportunity to start from scratch and implement some of the good design ideas, including universal design, that have been around for some time. However, this has not happened and there are many reasons for this, not least of which is the stance of the insurance industry.
The issue of affordability is a complex one. It is a market driven issue where the actual cost of the building is not the main issue. Universal design and affordability can co-exist. However, there are many attitudinal barriers and well-worn arguments touted in the industry that say it cannot be done.