If we could travel back through time and ask some of history’s most revered architects whether they believe their work is “inclusive,” undoubtedly many would assert without any hint of irony that it is. Of course, with the benefit of hindsight and our current experience we know their buildings often do (or did) exclude or alienate end users. These buildings unwittingly failed to speak to the needs and comfort of many people from all walks of life. They may have presented or continue to present barriers of all sorts, discouraging or barring use for reasons of age, physical or developmental abilities, gender, income, cultural beliefs, or other factors.
To the credit of our society and more specifically the architectural profession, designing with inclusivity and diversity in mind—appealing to and accommodating as broad a cross-section of users as possible—is now at the forefront of considerations for every new project. This evolution toward inclusive design is in part attributable to the advent of legislated protections, such as the Civil Rights Act (1964) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990). It is also a product of the collective social change that has transformed cultural and social institutions over time, and consequently our perception of cultural norms. Architects are more considerate today of the myriad factors that influence whether everyone will feel comfortable and welcome in the buildings they design. They have learned to listen respectfully to and learn from others who have different life experiences than their own.
Still, architects cannot assume they know what is right. They must be willing to place themselves in the position of others who may be very different from themselves and avoid the trap of insular or parochial perspectives. An inclusive mindset should always be a prerequisite to programming and design. Another is being able to envision successful spaces through the eyes of those who will benefit from them most. This is proving as necessary today as it ever has in the past. Our current, nationwide conversation regarding persistent, systemic racism speaks to how much remains to be done in this country and elsewhere. The goal continues to be to erase barriers to participation and the persistent inequities that debase everyone.
Beyond conformance with enforceable mandates, what are some of the concrete strategies the design professions can employ to support diversity and the creation of inclusive spaces?
First and foremost, architects must acknowledge their biases and the privilege they enjoy. They might not be aware of the hurdles others regularly confront if they don’t experience those hurdles on a daily basis themselves. Research is necessary to gain an understanding of issues the members of the community who will be affected by the project consider important.
Second is a focus on equality of experience. Accessibility guidelines ensure built places meet minimum standards for the mitigation of physical barriers. Designed correctly, ramps will not be too steep, hallways will be wide enough, faucets will be operable without requiring tight grasping and twisting, and so on. Generally, architects are thoroughly familiar with the guidelines, so much so that incorporating their requirements occurs without second thought. The trick is to integrate the measures seamlessly so they avoid the appearance of being targeted specifically to a particular subset of the population. If done ham handedly, they might inadvertently stigmatize the very people they’re intended to help.
The imperative to safeguard equality of experience extends
well beyond conformance with minimum standards. In a perfect world, everyone
would always feel comfortable and welcome in places they have a right to encounter
and use. Thoughtful, good design can help ensure people do not miss the
possibility of desirable experiences because they anticipate personal risk. For
example, to be able to relate to and comfortably choose to have a new
experience, they should be able to preview and imagine its impact and meaning and
assess its opportunities. Design-wise, this might translate to making spaces
where one can watch things happening without immediately needing to participate
themselves. For example, the configuration of a plan might provide opportunities
to pass by a place to observe what is happening before committing to joining
in. People find places and situations that are overly complex or reveal
themselves all at once (as opposed to being slowly revealed) overwhelming and
confusing. Such conditions are not inclusive.
The need to address inclusivity, diversity, and choice in the built environment comes from the inevitable collision between the relative permanence of what is built and changing circumstances and value systems. Activities and purposes change. People are wonderfully diverse and different. Sometimes the differences are minor; sometimes the differences are enough to erode the very foundation of what has been built. Because of this, the built environment must be able to flex. The best places do this without losing the ability to evoke and inspire. By providing open, opportunity-rich structure—structure that offers many possibilities and many suggestive cues—they sustain both their usefulness and their meaning over time.
Spatial qualities and opportunities offering
more than what is required to meet the exclusive needs of a particular group and
first uses make places that are inclusive and remain useful and meaningful over
time. From a design perspective, offering more can be achieved by:
- Providing generous support to activities and purpose so they are more than just basically useful.
- Recognizing and supporting the full family of activities implicit in and brought to life by the building program and the needs/desires of first users (all places attract more uses than were initially anticipated but some activity families are especially active this way).
- Developing spatial structure that is precisely general; that is structure that is accommodating and evocative without being one-sided or limiting, open-ended in its possibilities without being barren or undeveloped.
- Establishing spatial variety and ranges of spatial opportunity; for example: large/small, public/private, inside/outside, fixed-use/multi-use, edge/internal, stop-in/pass through, changeable/fixed, etc.
- Developing the full potential of in-between, residual, or left-over spaces (they may join or separate adjacent spaces, provide necessary transition, define or clarify adjacent spaces, address or form a larger outside space, accommodate spontaneous use, provide opportunity for interaction, provide opportunity to pause without invading or intruding, provide opportunity for retreat, provide opportunity for detached participation).
- Establishing opportunities for imprinting.
- Establishing opportunities for interaction with other people, with ideas, and with events.
- Establishing opportunities for retreat.
If the built environment offers diversity, choice, and degrees of changeability it can better accommodate people of all backgrounds and abilities, and change more broadly. It provides a looser fit, but still a fit. As society evolves, our places should likewise be able to evolve, to flex and adapt in spite of their seeming permanence, and accommodate what is new (whether that be people, new circumstances, new purposes, new values, or all of these). If designed with these abilities in mind, they are more likely to be inclusive.
The spaces architects design reflect their values and those of
their clients. A fair criterion to apply to every project is to ask whether it actively
promotes inclusion while limiting exclusion. Certainly, designing
with inclusivity in mind presumes a good measure of selflessness and empathy. The
most conducive inner traits architects can possess include a good conscience, an
ability to acknowledge their biases and privilege, and a broad sphere of universal
moral concern. The demands of inclusive design appeal to the better angels of our
nature.
No comments:
Post a Comment