
Urban public space and active ageing

Supporters of universal design have long argued that it costs little, if any more, to make buildings inclusive and accessible. However, myths about cost remain and are perpetuated across the construction industry. A feasibility study by HCMA Architecture + Design for the Rick Hansen Foundation in Canada makes another attempt at the argument. In their report, they compare the Foundation’s certification features with Canada’s building code. Then they determine the cost increase by designing to the Foundation’s certification.
The key finding is similar to others. The average new construction cost increase is estimated to be an additional 1% of the construction in some cases. In others, there is no cost. But there is more to this research which reports on three certification levels and several design elements. The other key point is that the building code alone does not make buildings fully accessible.
There are lots of graphs and drawings and it looks very technical. There are case studies across public, commercial and residential properties. This is a major piece of work at 80 pages with another 200 pages for appendices. Bottom line: the Canadian and Ontario building codes do not meet the needs of people with disability, and accessibility can be achieved with minimal cost impact with thoughtful/universal design.
There is a very readable (simplified) news article in the Canadian Architect magazine, titled, Inclusive and Accessible Buildings Can be Constructed at No Additional Cost. Or you can download the full research report, Rick Hansen Foundation Accessibility Certification Cost Comparison Feasibility Study.
Book reviews can reveal good information in their own right. One such case is the review of Aimi Hamraie’s book, Building Access: Universal Design and the Politics of Disability. The book traces the history of universal design from the 1950s in the United States to current ideas. Hamraie discusses the issues of the politics of disability from both design and disability perspectives.
Chapter 4 of the book discusses how the curb cut campaign in the USA became disability politics in action. Curb cuts cannot be considered universal design because they don’t benefit everyone. They do not further the rights or inclusion of people with disability. However they became a sign that people with disability had rights that were being ignored.
This is an academic text of value to both design and disability studies.
Other articles about Hamraie posted previously are:
UD: Social justice or just marketing?
When people use the term “vision impaired” it doesn’t necessarily, or even, mean the person is blind. There are several vision conditions that reduce eyesight which cannot be corrected with glasses. Vision loss is common as we age so there is a lot to be said for shopping with universal design. A study showed that a focus on people with low vision was good for everyone.
Creating an enjoyable shopping experience for people with low vision improves the experience of people with good vision as well.
The basis of the researchers’ thinking is that the two groups are not mutually exclusive. Small tags on garments with prices and sizes in small print is something we can all relate to. And most of people want to spend their time efficiently so moving things around in shops isn’t helpful for anyone.
The findings show that people without a vision impairment benefit for accommodations for people with low vision. Thinking about the two groups together is a critical first step in creating a universal retail experience.
The title of the article is How Retail Store Accommodations for the Visually Impaired Affects the Shopping Experience of the Non-Visually Impaired.
Vision impairment is a rising concern, and there is a stronger push towards a more inclusive retail experience. However, these accommodations are often conceived as an altruistic movement that only help people with low vision.
This study attempts to bridge the current scholarly literature on the two groups to examine how helping the former can also enhance the shopping experience of the latter. It is not possible nor effective to think of the two in isolation; in the real world, there is a single store frequented by all.
Through a survey of 80 non-vision impaired respondents, the study found that they would also benefit from modifications in-store layout, price tag, product signage, and aisle signage designed to help the visually impaired.
In most countries new shopping complexes must comply with current disability access standards. However, that doesn’t guarantee a comfortable, safe or convenient shopping experience for everyone. An article published in Sustainability discusses the adaptation of the classic principles of universal design to suit shopping environments.
Usability, safety and comfort were seen as the key design elements. The article includes a literature review and a study of six shopping malls. Although the study was carried out in a developing country, Iraqi Kurdistan, the model and survey results are applicable anywhere. It provides useful information for those designing buildings in this context. It is good to see a detailed review of shopping complex design, and a model for design criteria.
The title of the article is an indicator that it contains some technical data, but most of the article is readable: “Using Structural Equation Modeling to Propose a Model for Shopping Complex Design Based on Universal Design Concept“. A very useful document for designers of all public buildings.
The picture is of the Family Mall, one of those included in the study.
Shopping is a common human activity. It gets us out of the house and mobilising. It helps connect us to our neighbourhood. But the shopping experience of people with low vision is another matter. They are limited to familiar places where they can confidently and independently purchase what they need. This means there are no spontaneous shopping choices. So is this good for retail business and the private market?
The “blind district” of Lithuania is a place created during Soviet rule. It provides fertile ground for research on this topic. It also allows comparison with other parts of the city and the differences in shopping experiences by people with vision impairment. An article published in the Journal of Public Space covers the history of the blind district, disability rights, participation in the market and urban accessibility. The second half of the article is where the research project appears. A novel approach to this topic.
The title of the article is, When Accessibility of Public Space Excludes: Shopping experience of people with vision impairments. by Ieva Eskyté, University of Leeds.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006) recognises access to consumer goods and services in the mainstream private market as essential for full participation in society. Nevertheless, people with impairments rarely enjoy the same rights and consumer experience as non-disabled individuals.
(in)Accessibility of public space is an important factor shaping how accessible the private market is for people with disability. It demonstrates how category-driven accessibility segregates people with disability. This creates social and consumer isolation, and becomes a marker that accentuates difference and separation between disabled consumers who live in accessible districts, and the rest of the population.
To illustrate the case, the paper uses empirical evidence from mystery shopping in retail outlets and qualitative interviews with people with vision impairments who live in the ‘Blind district’ in Lithuania. The district was developed by the Soviet Union (1949-1990) to boost the participation in the socialist labour market economy.