CREJ - Building Dialogue - March 2016
Whether you are in the architecture and design (and) or real estate community, accessible design standards and a notable shift toward the adoption of universal design continue to play important roles in the planning, scope, design and user experience of all projects, big and small, ground-up or existing. As an architect, engagement with accessibility often ranges from broad considerations of public networks, access and inclusive user experience to the minute details dictated by Chapter 11 of the International Building Code. It is through the lens of Chapter 11 that parameters associated with accessible dimensions, heights, clearances, slopes, circulation paths and restroom counts (among many other important building features and considerations) are outlined for incorporation into building designs. Despite my experience with Chapter 11, I attended and participated in an enlightening event in Denver, “The Art of Access,” this past November that radically changed the way I think about the term “accessibility” as it relates to public space and the built environment. Organized by the inspiring and passionate Damon McLeese, executive director at VSA Colorado/Access Gallery, and supported by Imagine 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan, the event was prefaced by the following: “[The Art of Access] is a day-long dialogue about access, inclusion and community. Fifty-six million people, nearly 20 percent of the American population, have some form of disability. While much has changed since the 1990 signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act, deficits remain concerning inclusion and access in the arts. This day-long symposium is designed to bring educators, administrators, architects, designers, artists and concerned citizens together to discuss how best to ensure full participation and engagement in the arts and culture for persons with disabilities.” Sessions included moderated discussions, panels and interactive workshops related to Access and Architecture, Communication of Inclusion, Low Sensory Program, Art and Creative Aging, Audio Description, and Tactile Tours. Perhaps what was most surprising is that this forward-thinking event was the first of its kind in Denver. The 100-plus attendees represented a broad range of professional and personal backgrounds and experiences. From museum and gallery administrators to leaders in the community representing and/or holding expertise in various disabilities to concerned professionals hoping to make their organizations and/or products more universally inclusive, everyone in the room was tangibly excited by the opportunity to learn and participate in a candid dialogue regarding engagement in arts and culture-related organizations for persons with disabilities. Despite the many perspectives represented at the event, I was amazed and inspired by the shared enthusiasm, importance and consistency in the themes of the conference. My biggest take-away was the reinforcement of the inherent idea that access is not about codes, regulations, or special treatment. It is about creating understanding and a sense of empathy for various individuals’ needs, and responding with designs, programming and opportunities that are built on the foundation of universal inclusion. As a participant in a panel regarding access as it relates to public art and space, I spoke from the perspective of an architect, public art committee member, and cultural advocate invested in Denver’s continued development of culturally rich, universally accessible public space. My talk focused on how public spaces, as physical extensions of public artwork, have the potential to become celebrated markers within the fabric of a city, woven together with culture and a sense of shared, inclusive identity. My preparation for this talk was a great opportunity to delve deeper into research regarding contemporary “inclusive urban design” methods, as well as the growing practice of applying the process of design-thinking through empathetic design to generate design solutions that consider both the macro (the urban scale) as well as the equally as important micro (individual user experience.) This research also led me to a greater understanding of the different terms and concepts that fall under the large umbrella of “accessibility.” Whether you are an architect, developer, urban planner or real estate broker, it is important to understand the distinction between key terms currently used to describe similar yet distinctive design approaches that inform the big picture of a project or space as it relates to users with disabilities. In a helpful report issued by the University of Washington’s DO-IT (Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology) Center, it is explained that accessible design, usable design, and universal design illustrate similar yet nuanced approaches that can result in products that are easier for everyone to use, including people with disabilities. These “products” may be interpreted to relate to the built environment, but also may apply to the experience a user might have in utilizing information technology, industrial design products, and customer services. Brought to greater awareness with the passage of legislation of the American with Disabilities Act in 1990, which mandated that public facilities and services be accessible to people with disabilities. As used in the building industry, accessible design is a design process that directly considers and addresses the needs of people with disabilities, and often intimates that environments, products and services can be independently used by people with a variety of disabilities. Universal design is an arguably broader concept. As the DO-IT Center report states, “Universal design is defined Beth R. Mosenthal AIA, LEED AP BD+C, Architect, Anderson Mason Dale Architecture Creative Content MARCH 2016 \ BUILDING DIALOGUE \ 17 by The Center for Universal Design at North Carolina State University as ‘the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design.’ Sidewalks with curb cuts and doors that automatically open when a person moves near them are examples of universally designed products. They benefit people with disabilities, parents with baby strollers, delivery workers, and others. Human characteristics considered in universal designs may include age, gender, stature, race/ethnicity, culture, native language and learning preference.” Usable design, an approach that aims to create products that are easy to operate (and to remember how to operate, when revisited) does not always include people with disabilities in usability tests. As a result, “usable” products may not always be considered “accessible.” This process continues to evolve, however, with a renewed emphasis on testing a broader group of potential users. A strictly semantic aspect of a much broader and important discussion, mind-opening events like these continue to fuel my sense of excitement and optimism for Denver’s future. It’s hard to truly portray how rich, dynamic and thought-provoking the talks by various Denver-based organizations were. From the RedLine Gallery’s “Reach Studio” that has provided art classes and entrepreneurial opportunities for Denver’s homeless population to Djamila Ricciardi’s “Tactile Tours” of Denver, which provide public art tours that are based on senses other than sight, people are doing amazing things to broaden the definition of inclusive design and programming. Creating civic, inclusive space and programming in a rapidly urbanizing city is no small feat. This event demonstrated the need and enthusiasm for various constituent groups to be provided with opportunities for increased dialogue and education with and from the disabled, with hopes of generating more inclusive and thoughtful design solutions as well as cultural and professional opportunities