Universal Design: The 8th Principle, Part II

In last week’s post, Universal Design: The 8th Principle, Part I, I departed from the more frequent discussions about how we physically “fit” in our environments and looked at the emotional landscape we have as a result of being perceived and judged as fitting in or not. Here is Part II:

Judgments form the foundation of our daily decision making, and are informed and adjusted by the present situation. Driving a car is a useful example: you learn the skills needed to drive, yet every road is different and requires immediate judgments for the situation at hand. Judgments are also received without question by us from our parents and the cultures we live in. One example is height.

Our judgments of height subtly tell us that tall is better, tall is more powerful, and tall is more authoritative. Shorter political candidates struggle with this perception and constantly seek adaptations to equalize the influence of height over voter perception. Herein lies the essence of an eighth principle, can we build in a way that reduces or eliminates those judgments? Can our environments and products allow us to appear more equal to others, reducing or eliminating biased perceptions, than the way we presently design them?

In December, 2008 President elect Barak Obama announced members chosen to be on his green team. I watched the press conference and saw something unusual as a result of a rare camera angle. When it was Nancy Sutley’s turn at the podium, the camera shot switched from the rear of the room to the side of the stage. Ms. Sutley is quite short. I watched as President Elect Obama moved forward and using his foot, nudged a stepping stool into position for her. The gesture was personal; they shared a glance that was endearing and which acknowledged the caring forethought. Seen from the camera at the back of the room, one saw nothing other than one person turning over the podium to another.

With these extra inches to stand on, she presented her speech in no way marginalized by her shorter physical stature. Without these extra inches, she would barely peer over the podium, or, would have stood to its side, an action that would have unfairly singled her out from the other speakers and induced judgments base solely on physical stature.

By recognizing that it is in our nature to be judgmental and that environment influences the judgments we make at every moment, I assert that in addition to the seven principles that equalize the mechanics of a physical environment, we can add a principle that calls attention to the emotional ones.

Here would be principle eight:

8. Principle Eight: Perception of Equality –
The design minimizes the possibility of an
individual being perceived as unequal.



Konrad Kaletsch, CAPS
March 29, 2009
Universal Design Resource
Universal Design Network at Facebook and LinkedIn
Take the 10-question survey!

Universal Design: The 8th Principle, Part I

An eighth principle would be a welcome and needed entry to the brilliant seven as created in 1997 by the North Carolina State University’s Center for Universal Design. Rather than only define the environment of a user, this eighth principle would address perception; those shared by the observer and the observed. How do we see others and how do they see us? Can we build in a way that levels the perceptual playing field in which all players are seen as equal?

I was recently asked if the New York City subways should be cleaner. As a life long resident of New York, I balked at this absurd notion. I adore our grittiness. This is my rough, nasty and harsh city and nobody is supposed to clean it up. A grimy subway was normal and it was a stable measure of our urban humanity. If you showed up dirtier than the subway, you were really a mess. If you took a few minutes to clean up, you were already better than most. And if you dressed sharp, you were king – something to be looked at and admired. That’s me; I like to look good. The subway made me look good with little effort. Clean it up and my habits and standards would appear to be lower. Pretty silly, eh? But don’t we all play such silly games? You have a look; it’s your look. You like and maintain that look. You measure how you look against how others look; you make judgments of yourself and of others. You wear sweaters or jackets; buttoned shirts or t-shirts. They are reflections of your identity and they are the image you wish to project; cloths make the man.

But suppose one morning you woke up, slumbered over to your closet and discovered not a stitch of familiar cloths. In your closet were cloths that were the wrong color, the wrong material, the wrong look and fit. Now what? You can’t go out naked so you dress with what’s there. You head out into a world completely unsure of yourself. Everything is wrong. You don’t fit in. Friends all wonder what happened to you. People react differently, better or worse. How you see yourself and how others see you has been altered simply by cloths different from those you would normally wear.

This example of dress is a metaphor for the design of our homes, cities and products and how we “fit” in them. If we feel comfortable, the experience is positive, if not, the experience is negative – it all goes wrong and we feel as if we are not seen, heard or understood. The judgments we naturally make are awry; we feel judged by ourselves and by others.

The eighth principle would acknowledge the importance of equal perception. A universally designed environment would be like familiar cloths and would support positive perceptions by others and of ourselves. We would appear and feel equal as we face daily challenges. There would be no moments when an environment or product puts us in a place where we are perceived as different.

Come back next week for part II of the 8th Principle.



Konrad Kaletsch, CAPS
March 20, 2009
Universal Design Resource
Universal Design Network at Facebook and LinkedIn
Take the 10-question survey!

Universal Design: $10 or $1000, Choose.

Last week I wrote about visitability. Today I’m surfing the ‘net and discover in the Justice for All blog that the Inclusive Home Design Act (IHDA) has been reintroduced in the House by U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky. On a metaphysical note: start thinking and speaking the world you wish to have, and it will show up.

This legislative history of visitability begins with Eleanor Smith who formed the advocacy organization, Concrete Change; she has been unwavering in her commitment to initiate this paradigm shift in design through making new homes visitable to all. The result would be an inclusive society. Seemingly an obvious evolution in residential home design, there has been little voluntary progress in the past decade. For this reason, Eleanor Smith believes that we must legislate the minimum standards that would make a home visitable. She’s right.

The primary resistance appears to the burden of cost. The reality is that the added cost in new home construction is minimal, 1-2%. Put another way, to purchase and install a wider door adds $10.00 to the cost of the doorway. Should you need to widen a door as a remodeling project, the cost will be around $1,000.00. The financial logic is simple. Choose.

But that’s not what the kicking and screaming is about. The resistance is a consciousness widely practiced in this country that believes it, everything, is someone else’s responsibility. A simple story illustrates my point.

I am driving on a road that has a rocky cliff on one side and a river on the other. Traffic is moving slow as drivers maneuver around a 50 pound bolder that has fallen on the road. Soon it is my turn to negotiate with oncoming traffic. Instead I stop and ask my son to hop out and move the bolder to the side; this takes about 20 seconds. As drivers pass me, they give me a thumbs-up. What was happening, I assert, was that every driver felt that it was someone else’s responsibility to move with this bolder, yet they knew what the right action was – they just didn’t make the connection until they saw it happening. It seemed more normal to live with the troublesome reality than to take 20 seconds to resolve it.

What I am hoping is that as a nation we are ending this mindset. The other drivers who gave the thumbs-up knew what was the right thing to do; seeing my actions reminded them of this fundamentally American way. We do care, we are responsible and we do know what needs to be done. We have been lulled into a deep sleep and are awakening.

People who experience limitations in mobility are being treated just like this boulder in the road by a nation who knows what’s right but just hasn’t been very proactive lately. I truly believe this is changing and that the unfortunate times we are living in are our wake-up call. President Obama has appointed Kareem Dale to fill the a newly created position as special assistant to the president for disability policy. Eleanor Smith continues to push for visitability legislation. And by U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky is reintroducing the Inclusive Home Design Act.




Konrad Kaletsch, CAPS
March 13, 2009
Universal Design Resource
Universal Design Network at Facebook and LinkedIn
Take the 10-question survey!

Universal Design: Visitability

Visitability is on my mind this week. My parents last visited me in my 1906 brownstone five years ago for a Christmas dinner; it is no longer possible for them to visit. My home is not visitable; only a crazy amount of cash would make it so. For a resident with limited mobility, my home would be a prison.

So what were builders in an affluent neighborhood thinking back in 1906? The answer is simple; life expectancy was under 50! A whole range health conditions typical in a much older population didn’t exist. That past reality clearly doesn’t match our present one where we can expect to live an additional 30 years. It’s time to build differently, not because we have to but because we want to.

Visitability is the first step in shifting our building paradigm. It suggests a few changes in home design such that our homes can be visited by a person with limitations in mobility, be they temporary, progressive or permanent. Simply stated, visitability means: get in and be able to use a bathroom. The experience for a guest is normalcy and belongingness. The other experiences of embarrassment, frustration, isolation, anxiety, dependency and depression, cease.

VISITABILITY REQUIREMENTS
Wheelchair access is the guideline because when you satisfy it, you’ve also satisfied the needs of those with walkers, crutches, strollers or those who have difficulty with steps.

1. Accessible path and zero-step entrance to an accessible floor that has a bathroom.
2. Wide entrance door; 36 inch width is suggested, but no less than 32.
3. Interior passages and doors should be no less than a full 32 inches when open; this includes the door to the bathroom.
   

WHAT VISITABILITY ISN’T
Visitability is often confused with handicap access; fears of high costs and ugly aesthetics trigger a response of resistance. Visitability is for single-family residences; American Disability Act regulates retail, restaurants, work places, etc. It’s for everyone, not a few special people. Finally, it’s just the features listed, no more. Although it would be great if the bathroom was fully accessible, the guideline just addresses door width.

As of 2005, an estimated 95% of single-family new housing was still being constructed with steps at all entries and/or narrow bathroom doors. The number of ordinances passed supporting visitability is still counted with fingers and toes. It’s time to shift our consciousness from procrastination to planning. 80% of you reading this will spend a part of your life in a wheelchair. Look around. For yourself, friends and family, visitability is a bold and outrageous expression of love.

For more on visitability, visit: Concrete Change
For a study by AARP: Increasing Home Access: Designing for Visitability


Konrad Kaletsch, CAPS
March 5, 2009
Universal Design Resource
Universal Design Network at Facebook and LinkedIn
Take the 10-question survey!