Preiser W., Smith K.H. Universal Design Handbook

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

1.10 PREMISES AND PERSPECTIVES

1.6 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bednar, M., Barrier-Free Environments, Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 1977.

Bowe, F., Universal Design in Education: Teaching Non-traditional Students, Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press,

1999.

Bringa, O., “Norway’s Planning Approach to Implement Universal Design,” in Universal Design Handbook,

1st ed., W. Preiser and E. Ostroff (eds.), New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001.

Clarkson, J., R. Coleman, S. Keates, and C. Lebbon, “Introduction,” in Inclusive Design: Design for the Whole

Population, London: Springer, 2003.

Council of Europe, Resolution ResAP(2007)3, “Achieving Full Participation through Universal Design,” https://

wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1226267&Site=COE&BackColorInternet=DBDCF2&BackColorIntranet=FDC8

64&BackColorLogged=FDC864. Accessed November 30, 2009.

Fletcher, V., Proceedings: The 2d International Conference for Universal Design, Kyoto, Japan, 2006.

Goldsmith, S., “The Bottom-Up Methodology of Universal Design,” in Universal Design Handbook, 1st ed.,

W. Preiser and E. Ostroff (eds.), New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001.

Harrison, M., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Harrison. Accessed December 4, 2009.

Hatch, J. A., Doing Qualitative Research in Education Settings, Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press,

2002.

International Society for Rehabilitation of the Disabled (ISRD), Proceedings of the Physically Disabled and

Their Environment, Stockholm, Sweden, October 12–18, 1961.

Iwarsson, S., “Enabler References,” http://www.enabler.nu/artiklar.html. May 8, 2005. Accessed November 9, 2009.

Kawahara, K., correspondence with author, November 2009.

Kemp, J., “Foreword,” in Building a World Fit for People: Designers with Disabilities at Work, E. Ostroff, M.

Limont, and D. Hunter (eds.), Boston: Adaptive Environments, 2002.

Kose, S., “The Impact of Aging on Japanese Accessibility Design Standards,” in Universal Design Handbook,

W. Preiser and E. Ostroff (eds.), New York: McGraw Hill, 2001.

Kuhn, T. S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.

Lifchez, R., Rethinking Architecture: Design Students and Physically Disabled People, Berkeley, Calif.:

University of California Press, 1986.

Mace, R., “Universal Design, Barrier Free Environments for Everyone,” Designers West, November 1985.

McGuire, J. M., and S. S. Scott, “Universal Design for Instruction: Extending the Universal Design Paradigm to

College Instruction,” Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19:124–134, 2006.

Ministry of the Environment, “Universal Design as a Municipal Strategy,” English version, July 2009, http://

www.universell-utforming.miljo.no/file_upload/bautaengkorr4.pdf. Accessed December 2, 2009.

Mullick, A., and E. Steinfeld, “Universal Design: What It Is and What It Isn’t,” Innovation, The Quarterly Journal

of the Industrial Designers Society of America, 16:1, 1997.

National Disability Authority, “UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Council of Europe

Disability Action Plan,” undated. http://www.nda.ie/cntmgmtnew.nsf/0/9515327CFCF84669802574C70032B07F/

$File/NDAUN-EUSeminar.pdf. Accessed December 2, 2009.

Preiser, W. F. E., “Paradigm for the 21st Century: The Challenge of Implementing Universal Design,” in Inclusive

Buildings, Products, and Services: Challenges in Universal Design, T. Vavik (ed.), Trondheim, Norway: Tapir

Academic Press, 2009.

Preiser, W., and E. Ostroff (eds.), Universal Design Handbook, 1st ed., New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001.

Rifkin, J., Entropy, New York: Viking Press, 1980.

Rose, D., and A. Meyer, Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning. Alexandria,

Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), 2002.

Tauke, B., “Diversity and Design,” Universal Design Education Online, http://www.udeducation.org, 2004.

United Nations, “Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,” undated. http://www.un.org/disabilities/

default.asp?navid=12&pid=150. Accessed November 9, 2009.

Walsh, C. J., “Sustainable and Human Social Development,” in Universal Design Handbook, 1st ed., W. Preiser

and E. Ostroff (eds.), New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001.

Weisman, L., “Creating the Universally Designed City,” in Universal Design Handbook, 1st ed., W. Preiser and

E. Ostroff (eds.), New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001.

UNIVERSAL DESIGN: AN EVOLVING PARADIGM 1.11

Welch, P., and S. Jones, “The Power of Imagination,” Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the

Environmental Design Research Association, Orlando, Fla., 1999.

Wijk, M., European Concept for Accessibility, Rijswijk, Netherlands: CCPT, 1996.

World Health Organization (WHO), “Towards a Common Language for Functioning, Disability and Health,”

Geneva: ICF, 2002.

Wright, F. L., The Future of Architecture, New York: Horizon Press, 1953.

1.7 RESOURCES

http://www.accesstodesign.org

http://www.ahead.org/resources/universal-design

http://www.arts.gov/resources/Accessibility/office.html

http://www.cabe.org.uk/

http://www.careersindesign.org

http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/

http://www.hhc.rca.ac.uk/

http://www.iaud.net/en/index.php

http://www.inclusivedesigntoolkit.com/

http://www.sustainable-homes.org.

http://www.udcasestudies.org/

http://www.udeducation.org

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 2

TOWARD SOCIAL, ECONOMIC,

AND ENVIRONMENTAL

SUSTAINABILITY

Susan S. Szenasy

2.1 INTRODUCTION

In 2008, when Barack Obama won the U.S. Presidential election, he called the citizenry to action. “I will

ask you,” he said on November 4, “to join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it’s been

done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years—block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand

by calloused hand.” In the days and months that followed, a new national ethos began to take shape,

with words such as community, service, and sustainability helping to define the twenty-first-century

trajectory. Although these words were part of a growing dialogue among citizens, designers, and policy

makers for decades, all of the sudden these words invaded the culture at large.

Beginning with the first phase of the modern environmental movement in 1972, when oil short-

ages forced Americans to pay closer attention to their resources, green advocates have talked about

the triple bottom line—economy, ecology, and equality—with increased frequency, although much

of this discussion lost steam as the economy boomed in the 1980s. Then with the passage of the

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) under the first Bush administration, civil rights was pulled

into the national dialogue and the equity portion of the triple bottom line gained some traction. But

all too often compliance with the ADA rarely led to thoughtful, systems-oriented design solutions,

thus crippling equality. Access to the physical environment, to a livelihood, and to information con-

tinued to be elusive for large portions of the population the world over.

While the greens charged ahead and began to redefine land and water use in terms of expanding

worldwide needs, universal design principles, by and large, remained on the sidelines of the cultural

discourse. There are some global exceptions to this very American attitude; e.g., stress on youth, vigor,

and wealth tends to minimize the less than perfect ideal. Cultures that respect age and wisdom tend to

be a bit more forgiving. In fact, “a recent poll found that a stunning 72 percent of all Japanese citizens

were familiar with the term ‘universal design.’ What percentage of Americans, we wonder, would claim

familiarity with the term? ‘Oh, God,’ [someone] groused. ‘Less than 1 percent.’ And all of them, we’re

guessing, are faithful readers of AARP” (LaBarre et al. 2009).

As the word sustainability gained currency, it pointed away from piecemeal solutions embodied

in the term green design and toward solutions that recognized the need to consider the long-range

survival of the species. This way of thinking requires thoughtful stewardship of the resources that

sustain life on earth, which, in turn, is shaping the twenty-first-century ethos: planning for mixed-use

communities where diverse ages, races, and abilities are welcomed; where access to mass transit,

clean water and air, and goods and services are considered part of everyone’s civil rights; where ideas

2.1

2.2 PREMISES AND PERSPECTIVES

about sharing rather than hoarding are discussed; where celebrating the individual does not preclude

caring for the welfare of all.

In this brave new world of connectivity, where systems thinking, rather than small fixes, is embraced

by designers as well as policy makers, it looks like a meaningful integration of all aspects of sustainabil-

ity—social, economic, and environmental—might be achieved. A new generation of design activists—

tech-savvy, environmentally aware, socially sensitive, politically connected—is looking for meaningful

work. These designers, like others before them who entered the professions because they wanted to

make the world a better place, are not just talking about making a change; they are implementing major

changes in the marketplace. What gets designed, who the design client is, and what a diverse population

needs, not just what it wants, are being discussed with growing vigor.

2.2 SIGNS OF DESIGN ACTIVISM

In 2008, two major conferences, one organized by the U.S. Green Buildings Council (USGBC), the

other by the American Institute of Architects (AIA), served as a call to action for building and design

professionals to protect the environment and safeguard humanity everywhere.

Greenbuild, the USGBC’s annual convention, had more than 30,000 people in attendance from 80

different countries. “Revolutionary Green,” the theme of the gathering, examined the many different

actions each professional can take to combat climate change. Explored in detail were the ways and

means of designing high-performance buildings, which can lead to the creation of green jobs, which,

in turn, play a role in converting a stock of energy-guzzling buildings into fuel-saving, healthy places

to live, work, and play.

More importantly, this was the year Greenbuild came out as a powerful advocacy group for

people, not things. Throughout the conference, the words social equity rang out, recalling the

revolutionary movements that created the democracies of Europe and America starting in the eigh-

teenth century. The Boston Tea Party and the fall of the Berlin Wall were cited. “We the people,”

the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, was mentioned. But the most dramatic sign that social, eco-

nomic, and environmental sustainability was now inextricably intertwined in shaping the ethos of the

twenty-first century was the presence of a soft-spoken man known for his work as a human rights

advocate. In his keynote address, South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu defined the economic

and social reality of the globally connected age: “There is enough in our world for everyone’s need,

but not enough for everyone’s greed,” he said reminding the gathered that if we build structures “that

are friendly to the people, to the wind, to the sun,” we are saying that “this global village is sustain-

able” (Greenbuild, 2008).

The more than 20,000 architects and allied professionals who attended the AIA convention,

themed “We the People,” were barraged with statistics that dramatized the new realities of the

twenty-first century: “Sixty percent of American kids walked to school in 1973; today that number

is down to 13 percent. In 1980, 61 percent of households were composed of a married couple with

children; today that group is a minority. A typical suburban house uses three times more BTUs

than an urban apartment does. The two largest segments of the U.S. population—baby boomers, at

77 million, and millennials, at about 76 million—are choosing to live in cities, and many of these

households are made up of one or two people” (Szenasy, July 2008).

This dramatically reshaped society calls out for designers, developers, and policy makers to

rethink everything, from housing to schools, from parks to stores, and from transportation to com-

munication. The convention emphasized the need for more thoughtful land use, away from sprawl

and toward the design of transit-based, dense urban neighborhoods, where food, culture, education,

recreation, and health care are within easy access to a highly diverse population of many ages, eth-

nicities, abilities, and incomes. It turns out that “We the people” is a much more complex lot than

what you find in a gated community or around a suburban cul-de-sac.

Perhaps the most visible movers and shakers in the universal design movement are the baby

boomers, the folks who brought America sex, drugs, and rock and roll. They defined the way we

protest political wrongs and helped create the current, unsustainable, hyper-consumer culture. Now

TOWARD SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY 2.3

and in the future, their needs stand to reshape the built environment for all. For instance, those

who design boomers’ homes recommend fixes such as wider doorways, sensor units, slip-resistant

flooring, and dimmers. Homes located in easily accessible neighborhoods with elevators, oversized

windows, ramps and/or level entrances, and well-lit sidewalks built within easy access to public

gathering places are non-age-specific. And everyone’s pocketbook, including retired boomers’, ben-

efits from such energy miser moves as state-of-the-art insulation and Energy Star–rated appliances.

The worldwide recession—the financial/banking/real estate/manufacturing crisis—is also rede-

fining public policy and design response. Articles appear in daily papers about how the faltering

economy is good for design that “thrives on change,” writes Alice Rawsthorn (2008). Design, she

adds, “has an important role to play. Designers are adept at analyzing problems from fresh perspec-

tives, and applying lateral thinking to develop ingenious solutions. They also excel at simplifying

complex issues . . . collaborating with other disciplines. . . .The recent changes within design itself

make those skills more useful. The 20th century model of design was devoted to the creation of

things—both objects and images—but designers are now also applying their expertise to systems.”

This systems thinking is also helping push universal design solutions to the highest levels to date.

In way-finding, for instance, a systems thinker would never simply specify elevators or hotel room

doors with Braille signs, although this solution is within the letter of the ADA law. A systems-thinking

designer, or, more likely, a collaborative group of design specialists working with the consultants

in the social sciences, would enlist all the senses to help people get to that Braille sign. In interior

design schools, some serious attention is being paid to designing for all the senses. At an annual

symposium, Aftertaste3, produced by the interior design department of New York’s Parsons, The

New School for Design, an interdisciplinary group of speakers probed how architectural interiors

would be enriched by providing experiences in sights, sounds, scents, and touch (Aftertaste3, 2009).

Such richly nuanced environments would certainly appeal to all kinds of users and would help those

with special needs find their way.

2.3 DESIGN ACTIVISTS BROADEN THEIR PRACTICE

AND OUTREACH

“Their professional code of ethics obliges architects and interior designers to work for the benefit of

human health, safety, and welfare. Starting in 2009, architects will be required by their national trade

organization to earn eight HSW—health, safety, and welfare—credit hours (out of an annual total of

18, which now also includes four units in sustainable design, a new category) to keep their profes-

sional standing” (Szenasy, October 2008). While improving user experience is often discussed by

designers who work for wealthy homeowners, corporations, and institutions, these designers touch

the lives of only an elite and comparatively small group of users. While there is no doubt that ergo-

nomically correct, aesthetically pleasing, and high-function environments work to benefit human

health, safety, and well being, design activists ask frequently, How deeply are designers actually

reaching into the lives of the population as a whole?

The high-end design practices—be they large, multioffice, multidisciplinary consultants or small,

boutique firms—no longer define the full concerns of the design community. Their trickle-down

theory of design is challenged by a new generation of practitioners who seek to engage a wider seg-

ment of the public, with products, buildings, interiors, parks, transportation, and communications

that expand the definition of the traditional design client. These socially and environmentally con-

cerned designers and their students flock to such museum shows as Design for the Other 90%, held

recently at the Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum, and Into the Open: Positioning Practice, the

focus of the U.S. pavilion on design activism at the 2008 Venice Biennale.

In fact, socially concerned, environmentally savvy design is now a full-fledged movement; it has

been codified and documented in such books as Design Like You Give a Damn (Stohr and Sinclair,

2006), Expanding Architecture: Design as Activism (Bell and Wakeford, 2008), and Design Revolution

(Pilloton, 2009); it is discussed at annual student conferences such as the ninth Structures for Inclusion

conference (2009), which explores, as its 2009 promotion stated, “the process of community-based

2.4 PREMISES AND PERSPECTIVES

practice through architecture and design, and, ultimately, how to insert oneself into the cycle of

thought and action.”

Community outreach activists working in neighborhoods, which have not been on the design radar

in the past, are now doing nationally recognized work. For instance, Sustainable South Bronx, led by

the inimitable Majora Carter, an environmentalist, is at the forefront of advocating something called

asset-based design, a new approach to working with communities. Rather than going into a neighbor-

hood with admittedly good intentions of serving the “needy,” asset-based designers engage the people

who live there to find out what kinds of skills and resources exist in the community, then work to get

these locals actively involved in creating their own environment, for their own special needs. Here, we

often see the designer as social facilitator, as creative coordinator, and as systems thinker.

This kind of expanded design activity can take many forms. For instance, in Chicago, architect

and activist Roberta Feldman joined with residents of North Lawndale, a neighborhood down on its

luck and left out of the American dream, to save some 2000 historic Greystones, a unique part of the

city’s grand architectural heritage. Together, they created a grassroots campaign to catalog buildings

and develop a plan for the neighborhood’s future growth. By publishing a beautiful and useful book

that documented the town houses, originally built for prosperous urbanites a century ago, Feldman

and Wheaton (2007) brought the joys and triumphs and cultural connectivity of historic preservation

to a whole new audience, mostly low-income African Americans.

Such programs speak to the need for new approaches to design education, be it conducted in

neighborhoods or in universities. In architecture schools, design-build programs have been more

or less tolerated since the 1960s, when socially conscious boomers, such as Steve Badanes, started

turning elite architecture students into community activists. In addition to learning the practicalities

of making a building, understanding the materials and processes, and being intimately connected to

their site, design-build students get to know their clients’ attitudes and needs, economic and social

resources, concerns and aspirations. In the process, students build emotional and ethical bridges

across economic and social divides.

Public servants, too, are known to take on the activist mantle. Janette Sadik-Khan, the transporta-

tion commissioner of New York City, with advice from Jan Gehl, Denmark’s urban design guru, is

working to give the city’s streets back to the people, a reaction to the unhealthy crowding created

by chronic traffic jams. To quote Jan Gehl’s (1987) study, as reported in the Architect’s Newspaper

blog (Galef, 2008): “telltale signs of poor-quality street life: pedestrian crowding, low frequencies of

stationary activities, and low proportions of children and elderly on the sidewalks.” To Sadik-Kahn

this degraded street life was a signal to reverse New York’s damaged public spaces, while creating

conditions that attract the best and the brightest now flocking to global cities. In addition to work-

ing on improving New York’s wide streets and bike lanes, last summer the commissioner’s guerilla

troops claimed sections of Broadway and, overnight, surprised some neighborhoods with areas to sit,

read, eat, or socialize in the middle of traffic, protected by large planters and rocks.

2.4 LEARNING THE MANY LESSONS OF INTEGRATION

Nearly 20 years after a segment of the design community began making places and products uni-

versally accessible, while another segment built its knowledge of green design, in 2008, the two

knowledge areas converged in Access Living, a Chicago nonprofit that employs people with dis-

abilities. In a city known for its strong commitment to green development, LCM Architects found

that green design can also be universal design. Green strategies such as site selection (near public

transit), energy-saving sensors that balance natural and artificial light, and zoned ventilation systems

also worked well, respectively, for the transportation, visual navigation, and body comfort of people

across a range of abilities. As encouraging as this is, the integration is incomplete and needs much

more research, analysis, and understanding. “We learned that what works for one disability doesn’t

work for another,” said Richard Lehner, a partner in the firm (Meyers, 2007).

“That’s nowhere more apparent than in the flooring. LCM discovered through research that

carpeting, contrary to popular belief, serves people with MCS [multiple chemical sensitivities] by

TOWARD SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY 2.5

trapping contaminants that would otherwise remain airborne. It also offers traction for people using

canes” (Meyers, 2007). But those in wheelchairs find it hard to navigate on the carpet, and those

with epilepsy can get seizures from some patterns. The architects ended up using a recycled-content

carpet with a tight surface and a muted pattern while creating contrast in the hallways to help guide

employees with visual impairments.

‘“It’s inevitable that two most powerful design trends of our day—sustainability and universal

access—will merge and change how things are done,’ says architect and planner Doug Farr, who

chairs [the USGBC’s] LEED for Neighborhood Development, the first LEED program to devote a

credit to universal accessibility” (Meyers, 2007).

This small and imperfect example of the interconnectedness of human needs—and the design skills

that serve them—is part of a grassroots, worldwide movement that Paul Hawken calls the largest in

human history. Hawken (2008) describes it as “coherent, organic, self-organized congregations involv-

ing tens of millions of people dedicated to change.” He sees it as being supported by three strong roots:

environmental activism, social justice initiatives, and indigenous cultures’ resistance to globalization.

Everywhere, people of all cultures, ages, and abilities are looking to connect with the web of life; they

“‘share’ a basic set of fundamental understandings about the earth, how it functions, and the necessity

of fairness and equity for all people dependent on the planet’s life giving systems” (Hawken, 2008).

2.5 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aftertaste3: New Agendas for the Study of the Interior Symposium, New York: Parsons The New School for

Design, Apr. 3–4, 2009.

Bell, B., and K. Wakeford (eds.), Expanding Architecture: Design as Activism, New York: Metropolis Books,

2008.

Feldman, R. M., and J. Wheaton (eds.), The Chicago Greystone in Historic North Lawndale, Chicago: University

of Chicago Press, 2007.

Galef, J., “Gehl to New York: Lose the Cars,” Architects Newspaper blog, posted Nov. 14, 2008.

Gehl, J., Life between Buildings: Using Public Space, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1987.

Greenbuild, Opening Plenary, Wednesday, Nov. 19, 2008, Boston.

Hawken, P., Blessed Unrest: How the Largest Social Movement in History Is Restoring Grace, Justice, and

Beauty to the World, New York: Penguin Books, 2008, p. 13.

LaBarre, S., B. Lanks, C. Levenson, and M. Pedersen, “Aging Gracefully,” Metropolis, April 2009, p. 110.

Meyers, T., “Free Space,” Metropolis, October 2007, p. 48.

Ninth Annual Structures for Inclusion Conference (SFI) for Architecture Students and Graduates: Focus on

Architecture as a Community Solution, March 20–22, 2009, Dallas.

Pilloton, E., Design Revolution: 100 Products and Solutions that Empower People, New York: Metropolis Books,

2009.

Rawsthorn, A., “Recessionary Design: A Boom Time for Creative Energy,” International Herald Tribune online,

Nov. 14, 2008.

Stohr, K., and C. Sinclair (eds.), Design Like You Give a Damn: Architectural Responses to Human Crises,

New York: Metropolis Books, 2006.

Szenasy, S. S., “Design Activism—or Just Good Practice?” Metropolis, October 2008, p. 28.

Szenasy, S. S., “Wanted: People’s Architects,” Metropolis, July 2008, p. 24.

2.6 RESOURCES

Metropolis magazine, 61 West 23d Street, 4th Floor, New York, www.metropolismag.com.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 3

UNIVERSAL DESIGN AND

THE MAJORITY WORLD

Singanapalli Balaram

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Today, in many parts of the world, there are indications that universal design is going to stay. The

presence of universal design, however, is not uniform. In the economically divided world of haves

and have-nots, the situation of have-nots often goes unnoticed. This chapter discusses the world of

the have-nots as a means to assess the current situation of universal design. The focus is on India, an

exemplar of this economic divide.

3.2 TERMINOLOGY

Ways of saying are ways of seeing. Terms influence, positively or negatively, people’s attitudes

toward a subject. Hence, it is necessary to clarify the importance of terms used in this chapter, as

terms are crucial in forming or removing an intellectual or emotional bias. There are four words that

are used most frequently, which need to be released from an associative bias.

The first term among these is third world, which refers to the relatively poorer countries in the

world. But, in fact, the generalized usage of third and first discriminates the two, projecting the

former as deficient in more ways than one. A better way of referring is to consider the number of

people belonging to a country as important and use the term majority world in place of third world.

The second term is development. Used in the context of developing countries, it is very general

and loaded with negative connotations such as something inferior in every way. In this chapter, the

developed and developing countries will be called, appropriately, industrialized and industrializing

countries. The third term is advanced countries, which discriminates, implying unfairly that the other

countries are backward and showing them in a poor light. Hence, the term advanced countries will

not be used in this chapter. Finally, one must recognize that cultural diversity and cultural traditions

continue to influence people’s present lives. Countries rich in cultural traditions and diversity are

referred to as tradition-bound countries in this chapter.

3.3 DEFINING UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN THE

MAJORITY-WORLD CONTEXT

Universal design argues for the importance of wholesomeness and the importance of making,

through design, the so-called weak component in the society as strong as every other part. Universal

3.1