printable page
PDF versionArchitectural Stereotype
Architectural Stereotype
Shivani Gupta
Access Consultant, Architect, a practitioner of Universal Design and a disabled person
Introduction
Having a perfect body is what everyone in society aims for, to be tall, strong and never aging. This fixation is to an extent that many of our designers, including designers for clothes, utilities, transport system or the built environment are constantly designing for this perfection that never exits. This perfect young figure has no qualms in lifting things, reaching heights, bending low with perfect sight, hearing and dexterity. Surely this person has great intelligence to be able to comprehend confusing information and instructions with ease.
The truth of the matter remains that this assumed and desired perfection in reality does not exist. Therefore anthropometry used in design many times, does not in any way represent the actual users using this design. Users for whom the environment is designed may not be comfortable using it. This includes women, children, the elderly, men who may not fit into the perfect figure image and people with disabilities. For instance in public toilets in all over the world today it is common for number of amenities that are given for men (urinals and wcs) is twice as the wcs that women get, whereas for parity women ought to have twice as many toilet amenities as men.
Also in reality majority of the people at sometime in life may suffer from illness or temporary immobility’s caused by an accident, requiring use of mobility aids such as crutches or wheelchair. Every person will most certainly undergo geriatric problems with loss of mobility coupled with weak sight and loss in hearing. A large number of people also suffer from permanent mobility and sensory impairments.
It is generally accepted that 10 per cent of the population has a significant physical disability. It follows that one in ten of the people we pass in the street, share a restaurant with or sit beside in the cinema should be noticeably impaired. Of course, the reality is quite different.
Architectural Stereotype
Often the stereotype approach to design is due to a failure of imagination. There generally is no ill-will, but it is possible that many buildings, are detailed mostly by young men and women in the prime of vigorous life who have no conception of what it is to be old or disabled, and that nothing in their formation has equipped them to design for such people. How else can one justify the vast, exhausting public buildings, the endless corridors of airports, the inaccessible toilets and the stairs with handrail on only one side ?
On the other hand, it really doesn’t take much imagination to realize that deficiencies in the design of products, or of the man-made environment that weigh heaviest on people with disabilities. These are people who have lost, or never had, the capacity to adapt to the deficiencies and failures in the environment which most people take for granted. Whether the problem is one of poorly located street furniture which impedes the blind person, or a door knob which literally cannot be operated by a person with arthritis, the reason is nearly always a failure in design.
Simple observation tells us that good building design can facilitate, inspire and raise the quality of life. On the other hand, bad, uncaring or dangerous design can frustrate, depress and make the life of the disabled person into one long obstacle course. The slogan coined by the European Institute for Design and Disability, ‘Good Design Enables, Bad Design Disables’ very appropriately summarises this fact.
Universal Design
The role of the architect in helping to bring about a truly integrated society is of crucial importance. But unfortunately architects seem to have limited understanding of the relationship between values, design objectives and the design intensions derived from them, with design theory tending to concentrate on the technical issues, reducing the question of access and form of the functional aspects of the subject lacking understanding of what users really want.
In this sense Davies and Lifchez (1987) have argued the over popularization of architecture as ‘high art’, or pure design, is underpinned by a capacity to perpetuate an impersonal often alienating practice given that the focus is about the aesthetic, or the building form, not the user and/or the pragmatics of the function of the building.
Recently developed is the concept of universal design that has gained strength over the past decade and has been the subject of a number of recent international conferences. Universal design is a reaction to exclusive and excluding design. Until very recently, most products and environments were designed for a non-existent “average man” who was young, enjoyed perfect health and had the physical attributes of an Olympic athlete, but of late architects are understanding how short lived is the use of such spaces.
Under principles of universal design, design is directed at the greatest possible number ? a market segment that includes sighted and blind people, right and left-handed, mobile and wheelchair user, the temporarily disabled and the permanently incapacitated, and so on.
It is important to note that accessibility works like a plumbing system and a single break in the chain can render the entire environment inaccessible. It follows that for the environment to work for people with disabilities and for the elderly all those involved in planning, designing, building and managing the environment need to appreciate the differential needs and understand that people interact differently with the environment.
To summarise the stereotypical approach to design is due to failure of imagination and, although there generally is no ill-will, the environment falls short of meeting its purpose and the obligation to society in general by limiting its services to the perfect bodied and, thus, thus disabling the people with different needs from the ‘normal’.
