Why Do Architects Keep Failing Disabled People
An investigation into the social background of design influencing access legislation and a reflection on the Architecture BSc at the University Of Bath
Architects provide a key service to society, shaping the physical environment into spaces that facilitate human life. However, architects are imperfect and their solutions only resolve the exact questions asked of them.
The shortfalls of architects and their creations plagued my childhood. As a child of a wheelchair user, I was constantly aware of the barriers that were designed into the built environment. The impact was doubled by hearing the issues my mother faced growing up. The way society and architects view disabled people has changed over the years, slowly becoming more inclusive, however, they don’t go far enough in relation to the built environment.
The desire to change the built environment led to me choosing to study Architecture at university, though sadly I have been left disappointed by the departments coverage of inclusive design, as well as the attitudes of my peers.
This essay will go on to analyse the social and political background of the Disability Rights Movement and the role of architects in the social inclusion of disabled people. The essay is a critical reflection of my experience of the Architecture BSc at the University of Bath, as well as featuring insight from my mother’s (Alia Hassan) experiences as a disability rights activist.
Historical Context
The Industrial Revolution saw an expansion of the segregation of disabled people from society. Disabled people were housed in the increasing number of institutions across the country; namely hospitals, asylums and workhouses[1]. This institutionalisation of disabled people quickly became the status quo in how society dealt with disabled people.
After becoming disabled, my mother — like many others — was placed into a segregated school. These institutions massively limited the lives of disabled people, isolating them from the rest of society and restricting dreams and aspirations, telling them to “be realistic” [2].
“We were segregated from non-disabled children and would often only see our families very infrequently. We would come from all over the country into one place and holidays were just an absolute nightmare because you had no friends in the area that you lived. There was no way of being socially active with people of your own age group, and it was very isolating” [3]
Outside of these institutions the physical environment also limited the lives of disabled people. Society saw disabled people as socially dead where they couldn’t live independently, attend mainstream schools, be gainfully employed, access public facilities or vote[4]. Dropped kerbs were rarely available on pedestrian routes meaning that disabled people found it difficult to navigate public spaces and public transport was totally inaccessible. Within certain buildings, including cinemas and theatres, wheelchair users were considered fire risks, preventing them from accessing those services[5].
The Disability Rights Movement
The Disability Rights Movement was established to re-evaluate the role of disabled people and identify the causes for their exclusion. The movement was catalysed by some key international events, including the UN Declaration of the Rights of Disabled People in 1975 which pushed for “organisations of disabled people … be consulted in all matters regarding the rights of disabled persons” and the International Year of Disabled Persons in 1981, a UN incentive to promote the inclusion of disabled people in society[6].
The 1980s saw an increase of self-organised groups of disabled people including Disabled People International, the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People and Centres for Independent Living (CILs). These organisations faced many barriers including lack of funding from government, lack of faith from politicians, pushback from institutions that benefited from the status quo and architects who refused to make their designs accessible[7]. My mother was a founding member of Southampton CIL in 1984, however their organisation was heavily limited due institutionalisation, charities and able-bodied people wanting control. There was also a noticeable skills gap due to number of disabled people unable to access education or work experience[8].
The Breaking Down of Disability
The Disability Rights Movement broke disability down into three key aspects; impairment, disability and handicap. Impairments are the functional limitations of a person’s body, disability is the restrictions of activity caused by the environment the person is in and handicap is socialisation of disability as a disadvantage[9]. Out of these aspects, impairments cannot be changed, however, the environment and socialisation aspects can.
The movement worked to influence government policy to improve the physical environment and protect disabled people from the societal discrimination they faced. The movement also worked to change society’s perception of disabled people. The main goal was to see disabled people live independently, and integrated into society.
Integrated living was broken down into seven key needs, out of which, three are directly affected by the work of architects. They are, access to everyday facilities, barrier free accommodation and barrier free transport[10].
Models of Disability
To rationalise the elements of disability, disabled people formulated academic models that reflected the status quo and the goals of the movement. These created a clearer understanding of the issues disabled people face and the barriers to integrated living.
The Medical Model
This model reduces disabled people to objects that need to be fixed, pushing them into a passive role in society stripping them to their medical conditions. The medical model is often used to justify the institutionalisation of disabled people. This model is problematic as it tries to change the ‘impairment’ aspect of disability, an aspect that cannot be changed[11].
“The medical model, which has great control over our lives, we could never go to school, college, university or move to a new house, you were always medically assessed.”[12]
The Charity Model
Like the medical model, this model reduces disabled people to passive objects. However, unlike the medical model, this model sees disabled people as things that need help, where people feel sorry for them and throw money at them. This model also supports institutionalisation as charities rely on the business and employment that is created by the industry[13].
The Social Model
The social model is based on recognising the disabling factors, such as the physical environment, negative attitudes and institutional discrimination[14]. Where other models see disabled people as the problem, this model sees society as the disabling factor and can be summarised as; if you place an impaired person in an accessible society and environment then that person is no longer disabled.
Legislation
As a product of the Disability Rights Movement, legislation that was somewhat based on the social model started being passed. The key documents that affect the role of the architect are the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) and Part M Building Regulations.
The DDA set up the framework to prevent discrimination in relation to “employment, the provision of goods, facilities and services or the disposal or management of premises”[15] and was also the basis for Part M. The DDA was different compared to other discrimination legislation as it took a proactive approach with indirect discrimination forcing service providers to make ‘reasonable adjustment’ to their premises and services as to not discriminate. However, the phrase ‘reasonable adjustment’ is often used as an excuse to prevent permanent or lasting changes.
The Failures of Part M
Part M Building Regulations Approved Documents (2010, 2015 ed.) is split up into two volumes, first being for “dwellings” and the second for “buildings other than dwellings”. They are based on the requirements laid out in the 2015 amendment of the Building Regulations 2010. This document requires as a minimum, provision to access and use a building or extension including sanitary conveniences for a non-dwelling, with only access and use for a dwelling[16].
The main issues relate to the approach to dwellings, the legislation describe three categories of dwellings; visitable M4(1), accessible / adaptable M4(2) and wheelchair user M4(3), with only the first being compulsory. The visitable dwelling requires a disabled person to be able to access and use the facilities on the access level of the dwelling[17]. Dwellings that are made M4(1) compliant identify that a disabled person is part of society but still chooses to exclude them, these houses will not and cannot be made accessible to the extent that a disabled person could live in it.
This is a massive contrast to optional requirement M4(2) which accommodates for an “occupant with differing needs” as well as provision for future adaption[18]. This identifies disabled people as part of society and that they deserve the right to live where they wish. The future provision identifies that everyone will become impaired at some point whether through illness or age.
The main failing of these regulations is implementation, especially of quality designs. Often designers, who have little contact with disabled people, create solutions that don’t actually meet the needs of disabled people. From my own experience, I have seen a domestic stair lift on a fire escape; a ridiculous solution that was considered reasonable adjustment by the local planning authority. I have also repeatedly seen accessible toilets that are unusable due to there being a step at their entrance. The incompetence of planning authorities and designers massively affects how disabled people experience our buildings and will further exclude them.
Experiences of Exclusive Architecture
Ignorance to how disabled people experience spaces can be very damaging. Exclusive architecture sets up a hierarchy within its users and reinforces historical, regressive roles for disabled people. These experiences can be best exemplified with the institutional architecture my mother experienced at school.
The primary entrance to the purpose-built building consisted of a flight of stairs, this alone subconsciously sets up a language that disabled people are not important enough to use the main entrance. This was then exacerbated by the staff room being up a flight of stairs, with no lift, reinforcing that disabled people are the consumers and will never work in that institution. This exclusive architecture reduces the expectations and aspirations felt by disabled people stopping them from taking an active role in society[19].
Though the severity of issues is reducing in newer architecture, the issues still exist. Some of the problems include having alternative accessible entrances or the requirement for active accessibility solutions, such as platform lifts, rather than passive solutions such as ramps. Active solutions are more likely to break down or fail resulting in a disabled person not being able to access the building. Requiring disabled people to use these ‘alternatives’ creates a sense of otherness which reduces the inclusivity of the environment.
The Perception of Architects
Though legislation, planning officers and local councils can be blamed for failing disabled people, ultimately many see architects primarily responsible. The source of the criticism is architects’ perceptions of disability and inclusive design. Access is often seen as an afterthought in the design process, instead of it being an integral part of the design. Designing for disabled people is also seen as a specialist, additional requirement[20]. From my experience, there is a sense of otherness that architects possess towards disabled people, not understanding that everyone becomes impaired at some point, and designs should account for those eventualities.
The Impact of Inclusive Design
Inclusive design can have a strong, positive effect on the experiences of disabled people; however, this design should not focus on allowing disabled people to access the able-bodied world but rather focus on the experiences of a disabled person[21]. This integration should focus on devising one system for everyone rather than attaching special provision to the mainstream[22].
The effect of positive inclusive design was illustrated to me by stories of my mother visiting a European conference in Holland in the 1980s around adaptable housing[23]. These houses were designed as a response to an aging population including provision for wheelchair storage in the shed, adjustable kitchen counter heights, reinforcement in preparation for hoist tracks and level access. These homes had a massive effect on how my mother saw the built environment, as there was potential for the future. It was the first time in her life as a disabled person that she could go to any house and be able to knock the door[24].
Student Perception
During the past three and a half years of architectural education, I have been pushing access and inclusive design with my peers. Student reaction however has been the most disheartening, with comments of “do I have to?” and “you can’t expect every building to be accessible” being commonplace. I believe that these attitudes are due to a failure of our course to expose students to the actual needs of society and providing a comprehensive background to building regulations. Students need to identify that we should be designing for all aspects of society including disabled people.
Architecture BSc at The University of Bath
To prevent the negative connotations of architects, held by some disabled people, as well as combat the regressive approaches of certain student, architectural education needs to be proactive in working to reduce stigma and provide understanding of why regulations are the way they are. An outline of this knowledge and approach required is set out by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) within the accreditation criteria. A number of these criteria apply more specifically to the context of this essay; however, I do not feel the University of Bath does enough to satisfy the requirements.
GC1.3 The graduate will have the ability to develop a conceptual and critical approach to architectural design that integrates and satisfies the aesthetic aspects of a building and the technical requirements of its construction and the needs of the user [25].
In every design project the primary ‘user’ is the client, however, ultimately the ‘user’ could be anyone in society, including disabled people. Therefore, this course should incorporate the needs of various member of society, however this is not the case illustrated by the perceptions of students to inclusive design.
GC2.1 the graduate will have knowledge of the cultural, social, and intellectual histories that influence the design of buildings[26].
This requirement is somewhat fulfilled with the History & Theory modules that run throughout the course. However, there is no core component that cover the cultural, social or intellectual backgrounds to building regulations such as the background to Part M illustrated in this essay, even though they are documents that massively influence how we design buildings in the UK.
GC4.3 the graduate will have a knowledge of current planning policy and development control legislation, including social, environmental and economic aspects, and the relevance of these to design development[27].
From my personal experience students have little to no knowledge of planning policy, mainly building regulations, and do not understand the social implications of them. In the context of this essay, the policy being Part M and its social context.
GC5.1 The graduate will have an understanding of the needs and aspirations of building users[28].
From my experience students understand a very narrow range of needs for users, unless it is related to a specific niche project that differs student to student. The course does not provide the scope for every student to have an understanding of the needs and aspirations of a realistic society, including the needs and aspirations of disabled people.
GC6.3 The graduate will have an understanding of the potential impact of building projects on existing and potential communities[29].
From my experience, students only have a very shallow understanding of how buildings affect communities and do not understand how exclusive architecture can have negative impacts on communities. There also seems to be a lack of will, or lack of valuing, architecture that provides inclusive environments.
Conclusion
Disabled people have fought for the right to play an equal and full role in society, integrated within communities. This approach to disability has affected how we design the built environment, through key legislation such as the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Equality Act 2010, The Building Regulations 2010 and Part M Building Regulations Approved Documents 2015. Though these documents have pushed architects in the right direction there is still a long way to go to reduce the stigma associated with disability, including altering the approach to inclusive design to ensure that architects do not fail elements of society.
The main route to further progress these approaches is through architectural education and fulfilling the RIBA criteria as best as possible. However, from my experience throughout my three and a half years of architectural education, the University of Bath Architecture BSc falls short. The course does not provide understanding to the needs of a representative and inclusive society and does not provide historic and social background to the regulations that guide our design process.
To improve architectural education, as to not fail disabled people, the department should run workshops with disabled people so students can actualise the effects the spaces we design have on people’s lives. The course should also provide a background to building regulations, giving a comprehensive understanding of why they exist and how they should affect our approach to designing.
References
1. C. G Barnes, Cabbage Syndrome (Basingstoke: Falmer, 1990), pp. 20–25.
2. Alia Hassan, interviewed by Zeid Truscott, 25 December 2017.
3. Hassan, 2017.
4. John Swain and others, Disabling Barriers — Enabling Environments (London: Sage, 1993), p. 35.
5. Hassan, 2017.
6. Mike Oliver and Jane Campbell, Disability Politics (London: Routledge, 1996), p. 19.
7. Oliver and Campbell, 1996, p. 20.
8. Hassan, 2017.
9. Barnes, 1990, pp. 3–5.
10. Swain and others, 1993, pp. 225–6.
11. Michael Oliver, The Politics Of Disablement (Basingstoke: The Macmillan Press Ltd., 1990), pp. 5–6.
12 Hassan, 2017.
13. Hassan, 2017.
14. Hassan, 2017.
15. Disability Discrimination Act (London: TSO, 1995).
16. The Building Regulations (London: TSO, 2010).
17. The Building Regulations, 2010
18. The Building Regulations, 2010
19. Hassan, 2017.
20. Hassan, 2017
21. John Swain and others, 1993, p. 41.
22. John Swain and others, 1993, p. 148.
23. Hassan, 2017.
24. Hassan, 2017.
25. Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), RIBA Procedures For Validation And Validation Criteria For UK And International Courses And Examinations In Architecture (London: RIBA, 2014), pp. 59–60.
26. RIBA, 2014, pp. 59–60
27. RIBA, 2014, pp. 59–60
28. RIBA, 2014, pp. 59–60
29. RIBA, 2014, pp. 59–60
