BUILDING PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS AND UNIVERSAL DESIGN
Introduction
The discipline of architecture involves many things. Architecture is both art and science, the issues faced are both aesthetic and practical, and problem-solving is rooted in both convention and innovation. Likewise, architectural design involves both “inclusive” thinking and “discriminatory” thinking – the integration of ideas and things, as well as the editing out of ideas and things. Yet the term “discrimination” takes on at least two distinct meanings – (1) a general sense: discrimination as a process of recognizing differences or distinctions between ideas or things, and (2) a negative sense: e.g. racial discrimination, gender discrimination, etc. Naming, categorizing, and organizing are forms of discrimination and are common processes in architectural design. Architects use clearly named architectural concepts, elements, and components like enfilade, parapet, and balustrade to design buildings; they work within established programmatic categories, such as “residential,” “educational,” and “industrial”; and they organize spaces and plans, for example, along corridors, around courtyards, or into gridded clusters. Designers broadly refer to these forms of discrimination as “typological thinking,” a central mode of decision-making in architectural education and practice. On the other hand, practitioners and the public tend not to think of negative forms of discrimination as an integral part of architecture. Both clients and the profession frequently conceptualize architectural works – and architects – as benevolent, humanitarian, and public-minded. In fact, a primary role of architects, among other design professions in the United States and elsewhere, is ensuring the “health, safety, and welfare” (HSW) of people. However, examples such as the famed Pruitt-Igoe housing complex – a project built in the mid-1950s in St. Louis, Missouri, USA, described as “particularly unappealing” and as a “world of troubles,” and subsequently torn down in the 1970s – demonstrate that not all architectural works fulfill the HSW mission (Rainwater 1970).
Throughout history, architects, and society in general, have displayed a variety of predilections, value systems, and ideologies regarding what constitutes “good architecture.” Many of these inclinations have been aesthetic, e.g. neo-classicism, modernism, brutalism. Other interests have focused on environmental issues, as evidenced in the sustainability movement; technological issues, exemplified in the emergence of digital design and fabrication; or on ethical issues, as seen in concepts like critical regionalism. These examples, nevertheless, are forms of discrimination; each one is a willful focus within what is a broad, complex, and changing discipline. This is not to say that any of these areas of specialization or interest is malevolent. On the contrary, areas of concentration often emerge out of practical necessity or in response to a perceived shortcoming in the discipline. The large point is that, whatever an architect chooses to emphasize in her or his practice – whether it be philosophical, aesthetic, or pragmatic in nature – buildings are never neutral and have physical, psychological, and social consequences for the humans that use them. Positively or negatively, design affects everyone.
FIGURE 23.1 Illustration of discriminatory design practice: sign at the main entrance to “Living Tomorrow: House and Office of the Future,” Amsterdam, Netherlands (architects: UNStudio, 2000–2003)
Source: photo by Korydon Smith.
While the now widespread sustainability movement has increased awareness about environmental issues in design, the universal design (UD) movement has advanced awareness about human diversity in design. Societies around the world have grown more diverse in terms of ethnicity, age range, health status, and other factors, necessitating broader and deeper knowledge of how these factors affect (and are affected by) architectural design. How can city parks be designed to be safe and enjoyable for both children and their grandparents? How can signs in airports be designed for English speakers, non-English speakers, and for persons with impaired vision? How can entrances be designed to accommodate wheelchairs, strollers, and foot-traffic?
During the latter half of the twentieth century, disability advocates and researchers, and some architects, realized that conventional design approaches resulted (mostly unintentionally) in segregated, stigmatizing solutions, especially for persons with physical, sensory, or cognitive disabilities. The goal that emerged from UD (aka “inclusive design” and “design-for-all”), on the other hand, was to create integrated design solutions for a broader spectrum of the population. For example, rather than designing one building entrance for ambulatory users and a second entrance for visitors using wheelchairs and strollers (Figure 23.1), UD seeks to create one solution usable by everyone (Figure 23.2). This chapter discusses the philosophical and scientific underpinnings of UD, as well as the legal and aesthetic implications on the design and assessment of buildings.
FIGURE 23.2 Illustration of universal design practice: integrated stair, elevator, and signage in the main lobby of the Statens Museum for Kunst, Copenhagen, Denmark (architects: C. F. Møller, 1998)
Source: photo by Korydon Smith.
The philosophy and science of universal design
The phrase “universal design” is commonly attributed to American architect Ron Mace (1985), yet the concept can be traced at least as far back as Bednar (1977). Since then, UD has become much more particular, namely with the articulation of ideas like the “Eight Goals of Universal Design” (Steinfeld and Maisel 2012). It is more important in the context of this book, however, to take a broader perspective. This begins through understanding that UD possesses both philosophical and empirical underpinnings. The empirical flank of UD stems from a set of interdisciplinary sciences that emerged in the mid-twentieth century, including: ergonomics and anthropometry, environmental psychology and behavior, and post-occupancy evaluation. Ergonomics, often used interchangeably with “human factors,” is the study of humans’ interface with the built environment and how building and product design makes tasks easier or more challenging; particular emphasis is placed on productivity, efficiency, health, and safety in work settings (Salvendy 2012). Anthropometry, the measurement of human bodies and movements, is particularly important to ergonomics. The design of spaces (organization and layout), workstations (chairs, desks, etc.), and machines, tools, and instruments, affects comfort, stamina, accuracy, speed, and other aspects of human functioning. In addition, graphic design, lighting design, acoustic design, and design for other senses affect human performance and, thus, are central to the science of ergonomics.