implementation Jane Bringolf COTA NSW COTA New South Wales - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
implementation
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

implementation Jane Bringolf COTA NSW COTA New South Wales - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Nov 26, 2023 418 likes •831 views

Universal Design: Local Governments role in implementation Jane Bringolf COTA NSW COTA New South Wales Introduction Resistance to uptake of UD in housing (Australian perspective) Language use and interpretation Regulation and

slide-1
SLIDE 1

COTA New South Wales

Universal Design: Local Government’s role in implementation

Jane Bringolf COTA NSW

slide-2
SLIDE 2

COTA New South Wales

COTA New South Wales

Introduction

  • Resistance to uptake of UD in housing

(Australian perspective)

  • Language use and interpretation
  • Regulation and role of local government
slide-3
SLIDE 3

COTA New South Wales

COTA New South Wales

What is universal design?

  • A way of designing products with the whole

population in mind

  • It’s not a set of designs for a

particular group of people – not a product or type

  • It aims to improve functionality

for everyone

  • It should also be aesthetically

pleasing

slide-4
SLIDE 4

COTA New South Wales

COTA New South Wales

It is not ‘special’ housing

It’s not

Adaptable Housing Accessible Housing Visitable Housing Seniors Living ‘Disabled’ Housing Or any other special type of housing

It’s about including as many features as possible that improve function for everyone

slide-5
SLIDE 5

COTA New South Wales

Why is it important?

  • Exclusion and inability caused by poor

design has social and economic costs

  • Specialised and parallel designs are

stigmatising - reinforce negative stereotyping and continued exclusion

  • Ageing population an economic

and social policy challenge

  • New homes have 60% probability of an
  • ccupant with a permanent disability
slide-6
SLIDE 6

COTA New South Wales

Aim of the study

To find out why there is resistance to the uptake of universal design in new-build mass market housing in Australia. Wanted to find out why barriers exist.

slide-7
SLIDE 7

COTA New South Wales

COTA New South Wales

Participants in the study

Built environment industry:

  • In-depth interviews
  • Postal and online survey

New home buyers:

  • In-depth interviews
  • Postal survey
slide-8
SLIDE 8

COTA New South Wales

What the literature says

  • Disability natural part of human experience
  • Previously hidden away - viewed as state

welfare responsibility

  • Segregation considered normal
  • Civil and human rights not changed things
  • Anti discrimination legislation retains

notions of ‘normal’ and ‘non-normal’ – not educative or attitude changing.

slide-9
SLIDE 9

COTA New South Wales

Professions and trades

– Also subject to societal attitudes – Technical efficiencies of industry paramount – Change required throughout delivery chain – Not just a design issue – Industry infrastructure issue – Myths abound about difficulty and cost – Consumers not demanding universal design

slide-10
SLIDE 10

COTA New South Wales

COTA New South Wales

What I’ve found out

  • Language and terminology is holding us

back

  • We aren’t all talking about the same idea

when we say universal, accessible, adaptable, visitable, or even ‘disabled’ design

  • Language is still centred on segregation –

housing for ‘us’ and housing for ‘them’

slide-11
SLIDE 11

COTA New South Wales

My Proposition: We have too many words and not enough understanding

slide-12
SLIDE 12

COTA New South Wales

Visitable Seniors

slide-13
SLIDE 13

COTA New South Wales

COTA New South Wales

Where the words come from

  • Some terms come from human rights

legislation and are stuck there:

– Accessible and visitable

  • Some come from policy shifts:

– Adaptable, ageing in place

  • Some come from a person-centred view:

– Usable, person-environment fit, universal

Some come from marketing practice - branding

slide-14
SLIDE 14

COTA New South Wales

COTA New South Wales

Is branding better?

  • Lifetime Homes
  • Livable Housing Design
  • Lifemark
  • Smart Housing
  • Lifecycle Housing
  • Easyliving Homes
  • Housing 4 Life
  • Flexhousing
slide-15
SLIDE 15

COTA New South Wales

Do we need so many ‘types’ of housing exclusively for ‘other’ people? Not if we start acknowledging that ageing, illness, disability and accidents are a part of being human, and we…

slide-16
SLIDE 16

COTA New South Wales

Expect it, and plan for it in every home from this point forward.

slide-17
SLIDE 17

COTA New South Wales

COTA New South Wales

Once we get clarity…

  • We will stop focusing on WHO it’s for
  • Start focusing on WHAT it can do and
  • HOW it can be implemented
  • Then we can start researching ways to

make it work better

  • Cost arguments will disappear
  • Everyone can capitalise on

more functional environments and products!

slide-18
SLIDE 18

COTA New South Wales

COTA New South Wales

What I’ve found out

  • Construction cost 1-2% more to change

existing floor plans of mass market homes

  • Cost almost nothing if done from start
  • Builders still think

‘normal’ vs ‘special’ so therefore it must cost more

slide-19
SLIDE 19

COTA New South Wales

COTA New South Wales

A note about costs

  • What does it cost NOT to have UD?

– Not borne by design, property or construction industries – Are borne by society, particularly weakest members

  • Research by NSW State land corporation

– Little if any cost if designed from outset

  • Cost is always the easiest and well

accepted response

slide-20
SLIDE 20

COTA New South Wales

Why we don’t have UD?

Simplistically -

  • Code word for ‘disabled’ design
  • This means grab bars
  • Grab bars are ugly
  • No thank you.

Arguments against UD are based on existing concepts of ‘disabled design’. They are…

slide-21
SLIDE 21

COTA New South Wales

Argument 1

From the perspective of aesthetics:

Disabled design is often unattractive And unattractive things don’t sell Therefore no-one wants to make it and no-one wants to buy it. False premise – doesn’t need to be ugly

slide-22
SLIDE 22

COTA New South Wales

Argument 2

From the perspective of market demand:

Disability and ageing isn’t my business My business is mainstream market segments The mainstream market isn’t asking for it Therefore I won’t build it. Premise of ugliness at play here

slide-23
SLIDE 23

COTA New South Wales

Argument 3

From the perspective of difference:

People with disabilities and older people need places built specially for ‘them’ And they need to be separate from ‘us’ And special housing has its own market demographic Therefore I will build special places if there is money in it.

False assumption – most want to stay put

slide-24
SLIDE 24

COTA New South Wales

These arguments are influential BUT They are a cover for another reason: To protect the current housing system where cost efficiencies are locked into the housing delivery chain

Real Argument?

slide-25
SLIDE 25

COTA New South Wales

Engineers Tradespeople Building Designers Architects Planners Regulators Property Developers Builders

Original photo by wxhongqi@gmail.com guo.oliver@hotmail.com

The house building machine

Regulators

slide-26
SLIDE 26

COTA New South Wales

COTA New South Wales

Housing Delivery Chain

  • A factory-style production line
  • But lots of people ‘own’ different parts of

the machine

  • Lots of reliance on others – no payback or
  • wnership for innovation, but lots of risk
  • Works because of tight controls
  • Regs keep everyone in line
slide-27
SLIDE 27

COTA New South Wales

COTA New South Wales

Engineers Tradespeople Building Designers Architects Planners Regulators Property Developers Builders

A connected but fragmented industry

slide-28
SLIDE 28

COTA New South Wales

COTA New South Wales

Systems Theory*

Big machine-like organisations don’t change easily

– Tend to look inwards for solutions

– Closed to external feedback: coded ‘error variance’

– Tighten internal controls in response to threats – No point of authority or responsibility – Causes “one right way” to do things – Efficiency remains, but effectiveness is lost – Risk averse – any change is a risk to profits

*Katz & Kahn, (1978). The social psychology of organisations

slide-29
SLIDE 29

COTA New South Wales

COTA New South Wales

Which is why industry says...

slide-30
SLIDE 30

COTA New South Wales

COTA New South Wales

“It has to be regulated”

In spite of 85% of industry respondents saying universal design is desirable, almost the same number say nothing will change without legislation. They are locked into a system they cannot easily change themselves

slide-31
SLIDE 31

COTA New South Wales

COTA New South Wales

All change is difficult, but…

  • Industry locked into system
  • Appeal to external umpire – the regulators
  • Consequence – lots of policies, regulations
  • Need to cut through with simpler solution
  • Go back to beginning, think again

from an inclusive planning perspective

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Engineers Tradespeople Building Designers Architects Planners Regulators Property Developers Builders

Original photo by wxhongqi@gmail.com guo.oliver@hotmail.com

The house building machine

Regulators

slide-33
SLIDE 33

COTA New South Wales

COTA New South Wales

Role of Local Government

  • This is where planning authorities and

local government fit in.

  • Study had no focus on local government
  • But could it be a route to successful

implementation?

  • Would it work better if the focus was taken

from design details to notions of inclusion and inclusiveness?

slide-34
SLIDE 34

COTA New South Wales

COTA New South Wales

Role of Local Government

  • Change the paradigm from universal

design to designing universally

  • Design policies and plans universally
  • Let the design details follow on
  • Make it everyone’s business, not just

social services

slide-35
SLIDE 35

COTA New South Wales

COTA New South Wales

Norwegian Model

  • Deals with the thinking

process

  • Becomes everyone’s

responsibility

  • Simplifies the system
  • Norway universally

designed by 2025 Changes the UD emphasis from user to planner

slide-36
SLIDE 36

COTA New South Wales

COTA New South Wales

Norwegian Model

  • Strategies for land use planning
  • Supported by the Planning Act
  • Principles of equity and social inclusion
  • Solutions for everyone, not about

problems for some

  • Applied to buildings, outdoor areas and

road systems

  • Accessibility possible on hilly terrain
slide-37
SLIDE 37

COTA New South Wales

COTA New South Wales

Norwegian Model

  • Political commitment
  • Linked with sustainable development,

safety, economics

  • Education program
  • Community participation
  • Implemented within existing $ frameworks
  • Principles inherent across government
  • Planning policies not design details
slide-38
SLIDE 38

COTA New South Wales

COTA New South Wales

Conclusions

  • It’s a paradigm shift – needs attitudinal

change

  • Attitude and language are linked
  • Consumers not thinking or planning ahead
  • Industry can’t change easily without

legislation

  • Who is going to take responsibility?
  • Can’t keep designing as if ageing and

disability don’t exist

slide-39
SLIDE 39

COTA New South Wales

COTA New South Wales

Thank you!

Dr Jane Bringolf

Liveable Communities Project Manager jane.bringolf@cotansw.com.au http://cotansw.com.au/programs/liveable-communities/

slide-40
SLIDE 40

COTA New South Wales

COTA New South Wales

References

Bringa, O. (2007) Making Universal Design Work in Zoning and Regional Planning Bringolf, J. (2010) Calling a Spade a Shovel: Universal, accessible, adaptable, disabled – aren’t they all the same? Bringolf, J (2011) Barriers to universal design in Australian housing

http://udeworld.com/presentations/papers/Bringolf%20UD%20Housing%20 FICCDAT.pdf

Smith, SK., Rayer, S., Smith, EA. (2008) Ageing and Disability – Implications for the Housing Industry and Housing Policy in the United States. Norway Universally Designed by 2025 (2009) http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/BLD/Nedsatt%20funksjonsevne/Norw ay%20universally%