'Architecture and ability' OR 'Design and Diversity'?

Michael Timms

Having noticed that this article is by a lecturer in Disability Studies, you might reasonably assume that you are in for a hectoring on issues around physical access. You know the sort of thing - ramps for wheelchair users and handrails for ambulant people with a mobility impairment. And you'd be right. Well, nearly - but not quite.

My first contact with the Architectural Association of Ireland was with its organ "building material" and the fashionable lower case lettering. I like that - no, really. A difficulty I have is with the font size of the print used in the articles it carries. It is not readily accessible to someone with a visual impairment, or to a person with a learning difficulty who might wish to read it. The National Council for the Blind in Ireland point out that type size varies with individuals, but that a font size of 14 is useful for publications and letters; while the National Adult Literacy Agency suggests using a minimum of 12 point to ensure good legibility. But there are positive points: the journal does not justify the text, leaving the right margin ragged. Justified text can lead to gaps in sentences, which compromise legibility for people with reading difficulties. Both the use of white paper and its high quality (which means it 'takes' ink well) enhance legibility for the reader. So you've got it right. Well, nearly - but not quite.

At this stage I may be at risk of losing some of you. And my guess is these will be the people who want to throw the journal (closely followed by their hands) into the air and cry something like: "How many of these different special groups are there that we have to take account of - even when I get away from buildings and relax with my favourite journal, they're still coming after me". Please, stay with me a moment longer. "These different special groups" never asked to be treated as different special groups. Actually, they didn't ask to be treated as different or special either - but that's another article and, perhaps, another journal.

The problem - whether you are thinking about architecture which enhances ability, or design that promotes diversity - lies not with "these people that we keep on having to accommodate", but rather with us. That is with the decision makers - the people who have grown up in the mainstream of society, and who have no idea what it is like to be marginalized (much less what the issues are when you're in that place). And decision makers are not remote mandarins in government departments; the reality is "decision makers 'r us". Be assured that it is possible for me to teach on issues around institutionalisation for people with disabilities without experience of either institutionalisation or disability, just as easily as it is for an architect with no culinary experience to design a kitchen for a domestic dwelling. When we get it wrong, the cause probably lies in our failure to consult with and learn from the people who have had to use either institutions or kitchens. But that's because a decision was taken beforehand - in this case, not to do something.

So now a few more hands go up in the air, preceded by "building material" and followed by the cry: "But I can't go around consulting every Tom, Dick and Harry about these issues". Well, the good news - if you've stayed with me thus far - is that you don't have to. The highly-acclaimed and much-consulted: "Buildings for Everyone" has been revised and updated. The new edition, published in 2002, is titled: "Building for Everyone". Note the title change, which transforms the first word from noun to verb, and carries with it the idea of positive action.

It may feel irritating to have to consider accommodating such a small percentage of the population. But the trouble is that we don't actually know just how small - or big - this percentage is. There are no usefully precise statistics available. Then again perhaps we shouldn't be focussing just on "the disabled". There are other minority groups to be considered. For instance, that dished pavement you put in for a wheelchair user is a god-send to the mother with a buggy or the older citizen with a couple of heavy shopping bags. The automatic doors, which you put in to assist people with impairments, make life easier for those carrying heavy loads. The signage you designed having people with learning difficulties in mind will be of assistance to those whose first language is not English. Bearing in mind that we are getting older all the time, both as individuals and as a nation, making our world accessible to people with disabilities is making it accessible to a far greater proportion of the population than those covered by the term 'disabled'. In fact, it's making it accessible to everyone.

This leads us to the notion of Universal Design - a concept that was well defined in a recent government Bill as:

The design and composition of an environment so that it may be accessed, understood, and used by everyone to the greatest practicable extent in the most independent and natural manner possible and in the widest possible range of situations, without the need for adaptation, modification, assistive devices or specialised solutions to provide for persons of a particular age or size or persons having any other particular physical or mental feature, ability (italics are mine) or disability"

It's an idea whose time has come. Actually, its time arrived a while ago, but the key players were standing on the wrong platform. Someone in the corridors of power thought having an Irish Centre for Excellence in Universal Design was a jolly good idea. But rather than launch a Bill in the Oireachtas to set it up, they tucked it away in the Disability Bill 2001. This is the Bill that collapsed in a heap just before the last D�il did the same thing. The Bill collapsed for very good reasons - all of which had to do with people not thinking things through, but none of which had to do with the section on the Centre for Excellence in Universal Design. So, we missed that train and, like our fellow travellers, must wait for the next one.

Dr. Michael Timms PhD. is the Academic Director at the Centre for Disability Studies, University College Dublin