In her conference paper, Lilian Muller makes an interesting comment about past and current planning theories. Yes, they do shift depending on where the power lies and who defines the public interest. In rational planning theory, the planner is expert. In neoliberal planning theory, the market is dominant. Currently, it is questioned whether public interests can exist at all.
If we are to take the concept of public interest seriously we should involve citizens in the planning processes.
Muller discusses the role of the private sector and how governments initially acted to prevent private interests. They were in control of the public interest. She then turns to her previous studies on implementing, or not, universal design into planning processes. Understanding how stakeholders view users is an interesting insight.
Skewed image of the user
Muller found that in public policies and guidelines there were clear expressions of the imagined user. That is, the policy developers were inserting their own perceptions into the documents. The perception of users’ abilities determined the priorities in the planning and designing of buildings and places.
Prominent characteristics of expected users were youth, education, health and success. Notably absent were older people and people with disability. There is a visible gap between laws and political visions on one hand, and practice on the other. This was evident at the early stages of planning.
Gap between policy and outcomes revealed
Master plan illustrations and text did not conform to regulations, and high demands were placed on user’s functional abilities. People were expected to walk, bike, use stairs, and have quick reaction skills to handle shared spaces. They were also expected to walk far distances between modes of transport and entrances to services.
Muller’s workshops and interviews showed clear opportunities to reach common positions when planning and building for all. The key is using concrete, practical examples and networking between stakeholders with competing interests. That’s when the public interest is served and citizen rights are preserved.
“Based on the experiences from the workshops, Universal Design appears as a useful and important asset in such a strategy. A built environment accessible and usable by all is not a modest demand – it is a minimum requirement.”
The title of the paper is, Who Are We Building for? Tracing Universal Design in Urban Development. This conference paper is also available open access from IOS Press Books.
From the abstract
Despite laws, policies, and political visions to create cities and societies for all, barriers still exclude people from using buildings and public places. The commitments made in global agreements require significant changes to meet the needs of the population.
Adopting universal design in urban planning processes is one important step towards a society for all. Three recent studies in Sweden focused on how, where and what factors supported or impeded UD along the planning and construction processes. The whole process from conception to implementation was analyzed from a universal design perspective.
The findings highlight three critical areas: Competing and contradictory interests, Critical choices and aspects, and Images of the user.
These challenges need to be addressed by all actors involved to reach common understanding on how an inclusive built environment can be designed and realised.