Inclusive Design

Designing and Developing Accessible Environments

Rob Imrie, Peter Hall

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2003
• ISBN:
  9781135802639
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Architecture
• Subtopic: Architecture General

First book to document property professionals' attitudes and practices towards the building needs of disabled people Discusses elements of best practice in responding to disabled people's design needs Cross-national data provided Based on ESRC-funded project Supplemented by illustrated case studies

PART I
Debates

1 Inclusive design and development in the built environment

Introduction

The provision of access to buildings for disabled people is becoming a more important dimension of property development in developed countries. In recent years, government directives on access have proliferated, with the recognition that the built environment, and associated development, design and building processes, are inattentive to the needs of disabled people. For instance, many commercial and public buildings are inaccessible to wheelchair users, while few buildings provide appropriate design features and navigational aids to enable people with a range of sensory impairments to move around with confidence and ease. Accessible transport is a rarity, while most housing lacks basic adaptations or design features to facilitate independent living for disabled people. Inaccessible and poorly designed built environments are an infringement of disabled people’s civil liberties or, as Barnes (1991:179) observes, ‘the physical environment…has been constructed without reference to the needs of disabled people’.

The sources of disabled people’s exclusion from many facets of the built environment are multiple and complex yet are linked, in part, to the policies, practices and values of professionals involved in property development, design and construction processes. In particular, some argue that developers, architects and designers tend to operate in ways which are inattentive to end users (Darke, 1984a, b; Matrix, 1984; Willis, 1990). For instance, Darke (1984a:391), in researching the role of architects in public housing schemes in London, concluded that ‘architects’ images of their users are generalised, imprecise, and stereotyped’. For Darke, architects of public housing only envisage a limited range of household types which primarily conform to the nuclear family and the elderly. Others also note the singular and reductionist conceptions of users which underpin development practices, ones which tend to be insensitive to racial and gender differences, while ignoring the multiple physiologies of the body (Colomina, 1994; Hayden, 1985; Imrie, 1999a; Matrix, 1984; Thomas, 2000; Weisman, 1992).

Such observations are part of a wider recognition of the inappropriateness of much building, and other, design in relation to the needs of users. For instance, as the European Commission (1996:7) have argued, ‘to ensure equal chances of participation in social and economic activities, everyone of any age, with or without any disability, must be able to enter and use any part of the built environment as independently as possible’. Other studies highlight the interrelationships between physical design and the (in)ability of people to perform daily tasks and live independent lives. Thus, the Royal National Institute for the Blind’s (RNIB, 1995:6) ‘Needs Survey-shows that many people with vision impairments are isolated and trapped in their homes, ‘with many dependent on sighted assistance for such tasks as shopping’. Likewise, as a range of publications have high-lighted, many wheelchair users are part of a ‘captured community’, often dependent on assistance to move from one place to another (Drake, 1999; Gleeson, 1999a; Imrie, 1996; Oliver, 1990).

In exploring the interrelationships between property development, design and disability, we divide the chapter into a number of themes. We begin by outlining the broader patterns and processes which, we argue, orientate the values and actions of the development industry towards project strategies and outcomes not necessarily sensitised to the multiple building needs of potential users. In part, this is because property professionals’ conceptions of building users are either non-existent or revolve around an ‘identikit’ which reduces users to technical categories often bereft of human or social ascriptions. However, developers are conditioned and constrained by a broader range of socio-political and economic processes which, as we shall argue, influence the forms of building provision (see also Ball, 1998; Guy, 1998; Healey and Barrett, 1990). These processes include pressures to standardise building design, or to reduce design to a common set of parameters not necessarily sensitised to bodily variations or capacities.

This proposition is amplified in the chapter, where we consider the role of design theories, ideas and practices in influencing the form and content of the built environment. We develop the argument that designers and architects tend to perpetuate aesthetic ideas and practices which are based on one-dimensional conceptions of the human form, and are preoccupied with ornamental and decorative aspects of a building rather than its use. We explore Ward’s (1996:31) allegation that’s when we revisit the history of the [architectural] profession, we find that serious attempts to place the social at the center of design theory have been silenced and an attempt has been made to produce and maintain a seamless image of professional theory and practice associated with a depoliticised fine art’. Indeed, for Lewis Mumford (1928), and others, modern design is characterised by its estrangement from the affective desires, emotions and needs of people; while, for Frank Lloyd Wright (1992), the rise of what he termed the ‘plan factories’, or corporate architectural businesses, is core to architects’ loss of contact with individual needs and feelings.

These views are part of a broader critique of the development process, and the chapter also describes and evaluates alternative ways of conceiving of the design and development of the built environment, or perspectives which challenge the mainstream social relations of building design, construction and provision. In particular, the term ‘social architecture’ has been coined to describe a disparate range of ideas which, at their core, are committed to development and design processes which, in Mumford’s (1928:298) terms, ‘create a culture capable of extending and nurturing life in all its forms’. We explore the core ideas associated with social architecture and, in particular, the popularisation of the universal design movement. In the penultimate part of the chapter, we evaluate the possibilities for a development and design philosophy around the notion of inclusive design. We conclude by outlining the book’s main themes and structure.

Social exclusion and the development process: preliminary observations

Most of us expect to be able to move around the built environment with ease of access and entry into buildings. For Blomley (1994:413), ‘rights and entitlement attached to mobility have long had a hallowed place within the liberal pantheon and, as such, mobility is part of the democratic revolution’. For instance, in the USA and Canada mobility rights are formally enshrined in legislation and, for Hobbes (1996), mobility is fundamental to the liberty of the human body. As Hobbes (1996:57) has argued, ‘liberty or freedom, signifieth, properly, the absence of opposition; by opposition, I mean external impediments of motion’. However, immobility, and restrictions on movement and access, are defining features of the lives of many people, particularly for those with physical and mental impairments. As Figure 1.1 illustrates, the built environment is characterised by obstacles and physical impediments which render ineffective the efforts of many disabled people seeking independence of movement and mobility.

Some researchers see disabled people’s estrangement from the built environment as the result of wider, pejorative, societal attitudes towards disability, particularly amongst policy professionals, while others note the weaknesses of disabled people’s organisations, such as the charities, as crucial in failing to politicise the demands of their constituents (Barnes, 1991; Drake, 1999; Imrie and Kumar, 1998). Other researchers have highlighted the absence of strong regulatory controls, over the actions and operations of developers, as the key to understanding the design and development of disabling environments (Gleeson, 1999a; Imrie, 1997). Indeed, most research has focused on the attitudes, values and operations of planning regulators, yet, in doing so, has generally ignored the socio-institutional dynamics of property development in contributing to, and ameliorating, the physical barriers that disabled people have to confront. To date, there has been little or no research of the interrelationships between property development processes and the production of disabling and disablist built environments.

1.1 Inaccessible and barriered built environments.

The photographs in this montage illustrate different aspects of design which inhibit disabled people’s movement and mobility. 1.1a exhibits contradictory design elements, whereby smooth paving is intersected by cobbled stones which tend to prevent ease of movement of wheelchairs. 1.1b is a shopping centre directory board, characterised by information which is presented in lettering too small for most vision-impaired people to see. 1.1c shows a step into the rear of a shopping centre which prevents wheelchair users from gaining access.

However, the socio-institutional structures and relations of the development process are, we would argue, implicated in the production and perpetuation of disabling barriers in the built environment. Inattentiveness to, and exclusion of, the needs of disabled, and other, people is evident at all stages of the design and development of the built environment. For instance, few disabled people are architects or hold positions of power within the development industry, while formal educational training for property professionals, on the building needs of disabled people, is more or less non-existent. Statutes reinforce the rights of developers to determine, broadly, the form, content and location of building projects, while minimising third-party representations. Land markets also tend to respond to profit signals and opportunities, and are less attentive to the supply of property, and related infrastructure, sensitised to non-profit uses or activities. For most developers, the provision of access facilities and features in buildings falls into this latter category.

This is evident from statements by developers, investors and other agents involved in the development process, who tend to dismiss disabled people’s access and mobility requirements because of the perceived cost and profit implications (Guy, 1998; Imrie, 1996). For instance, the House Builders’ Federation (HBF, 1995:1–2), in objecting to the possibilities of legislation requiring housebuilders to construct dwellings to specified accessibility standards, have argued that the effect ‘will be to add to the cost of dwellings in key sectors of the market…this will make them non-viable’ (also, see the arguments in Chapter 2). Likewise, Imrie’s (1996, 1997, 2000a) research indicates that developers in the UK need to be persuaded by planning regulators to build accessible buildings, with many property companies unwilling to do so because of cost concerns and the belief that accessible buildings are not needed (see also Gleeson, 1997, 1999a; Kitchen and Law, 2001).

Such notions tend to confirm mainstream economic conceptions of property development and dynamics in suggesting that the provision of buildings and ancillary infrastructure is driven by the demand for property. It is also assumed that the requisite demand for, for example, accessible buildings will be unproblematically provided (or not) through the collective interactions between the various agents involved in the development process. However, as Guy (1998:265) suggests, the supply of a building, and ancillary design features, is not reducible to a simple demand equation given the complexities of the socio-institutional, technical, legal and investment contexts within which property development takes place (see also Ball, 1998; Healey, 1992; Healey and Barrett, 1990). For Guy (1998), the development process is underpinned by a complexity of social actors and interactions, framed by judgements and decisions not reducible to specific forms ‘of agent rationality’ (Healey and Barrett, 1990:92; quoted in Guy, 1998:265).

In recognising such complexity, and moving beyond reductive models of the development process, we concur with D’Arcy and Keogh’s (1997:690) observation, that it is necessary to consider property in ‘physical and legal terms, and the nature of the property market process through which the functional requirements of property for use, investment, and development are addressed’ (see also Healey and Barrett, 1990). As D’Arcy and Keogh (1997) note, changes in the urban fabric are constrained by factors such as the existing built environment, and mediated through land and property markets which are often highly specific to particular bundles of land. For instance, in relation to the provision of accessible properties, developers are more likely to provide access in new buildings than old due to technical and cost differences in provision (Imrie, 2000a). Variations in building regulations, between different countries, also conditions contrasting levels of provision, while the attitudes and practices of key actors, such as architects, project managers and locally active disabled people and their organisations, can be important in influencing developers and their clients to incorporate access (see Imrie, 1999b).

The matrix of factors which, potentially, influence development projects requires researchers, as van der Krabben and Lambooy suggest, to acknowledge the social relations of building provision which, in turn, ‘recognises the variety of agencies, agency relations, activities, and events involved in development projects’ (1993:1385). Such ideas have been, in our opinion, best expressed and developed by Ball (1981, 1985, 1998) through the formulation of ‘structures of building provision’ (see also Ball et al., 1988; Ball and Harloe, 1992). For Ball (1998:1513), the structures of building provision (hereafter referred to as SBP) refers to ‘the network of relationships associated with the provision of particular types of buildings at specific points in time’. Each network is organisation- and market-specific and, as Ball (1998:1514) suggests, ‘associated with historically specific institutional and other social relations’. Thus, the contingent nature of property dynamics is core to the SBP approach or, as Ball (1998:1514) notes, attention should be focused on the intricate webs of the development nexus, defined as ‘the whole gamut of development, construction, ownership, and use’.

SBP are also dynamic in that the provision of accessible buildings for disabled people is subject to continual change resulting from, as Ball (1998:1514) argues, ‘factors like market pressures, changes in technologies…and because of the strategies of the organisations involved’. Changes in social attitudes and legal and regulatory frameworks are important too, as are the actions of particular interest groups, such as disabled people’s organisations. For Ball, then, the potential range of institutions, and institutional relations, involved in a SBP is wide, variable and usually case-specific, and this is especially important where international comparisons are concerned. While acknowledging Ball’s (1998:1514) observation that SBP is not a ‘complete theory in itself’, and lacks explanatory utility, it offers a non-deterministic, non-reductive, and antiessentialist view of socio-institutional processes. In doing so, SBP is part of an important, broader, genre of methodological approaches which seeks to situate theory in context and, as Ball (1998:1514) notes, ‘so guides the research focus rather than directly provides answers’.

Determinants of developers’ responses to disabled people’s building needs

In utilising and developing aspects of the SBP approach, in relation to developers’ responses to the building needs of disabled people, it is possible to identify, at a general level, three aspects of the development process which are implicated in disabled people’s estrangement from building and development projects and which are important in framing developers’ attitudes and responses to the building needs of disabled people (see also Chapters 4 and 6). These are the economics of real estate; the legal frameworks underpinning developers’ actions; and the technical discourses and knowledge systems of real estate. While these categories are not mutually exclusive nor exhaustive, they provide a broad base by which to contribute not only to an understanding of property professionals’ attitudes and responses to the building needs of disabled people, but also to the limited stock of substantive research seeking to understand some of the specificities of property development processes (see also Healey and Nabarro, 1990).

First and foremost, the development process has been characterised by some as ‘a struggle by property developers and investors to extract as much surplus exchange value as possible from building construction with little regard to the eventual use value of the building’ (Guy, 1998:267; see also Luithlen, 1994). The underlying economics of real estate are underpinned by cost pressures towards the maximum utilisation of space, while minimising the use of features which are perceived to add little value to property. In particular, fixtures and fittings, to facilitate disabled people’s access to buildings, are often perceived by developers as a threat to the marketability of property. This was one of the HBF’s main observations about the proposed extension of Part M of the Building Regulations to residential dwellings in England. As the HBF (1995:4) said, ‘the provision of ramped access will in itself be ugly, increasing the amount of concrete or tarmac in front of houses’. Adaptations to facilitate access, like ramps and handrails, were also presented by the HBF (1995:5) as giving ‘an institutional feel to developments, which is contrary to the image house builders need to create to sell to homeowners’.

Disabled people’s inability to develop or exercise their capacities, or to influence such debates, is also linked, in part, to the power of corporate property development and its drive towards standardisation. The rise of large-scale corporate investments in buildings, since the early 1980s, sought to provide high levels of design specification. As Guy (1998) suggests, much of this, particularly in offices, was an over-specification of items such as air-conditioning. However, such specifications were never extended to access features and little or no thought was, or is, given to issues about users’ mobility, manoeuvrability, or access into and around buildings. Off-the-shelf, standardised fittings and fixtures, were (and still are) common place, revolving around industry standards which are inattentive to bodily diversity or differences. This is not an invariant process, however, with competitive and commercial pressures, in different segments of the property market, producing contrasting developer responses. Some retail developers, for instance, are increasingly sensitised to volatile markets by seeking to cater for the building needs of all possible consumers, including the provision of access facilities and features for disabled people.¹

The legal underpinnings of property development is also a basis for the estrangement or exclusion of disabled people from land and property processes (see Chapter 3). Access codes and statutes have been established in most countries yet, as a number of observers have noted, they are generally vague and provide regulatory control for substantial new constructions while doing little to regulate access provision in the refurbishment of existing buildings (Gleeson, 1999a; Imrie, 1996). As a result, much of the built environment remains unaffected by access directives, while some research indicates that developers seek to ‘dumb down’ standards by rarely providing more than is required by the regulations (Imrie, 1996, 1997, 2000a; Imrie and...