We have knowledge of universal design — but it needs to be demanded

The debate on universal design, following on from the new national architecture policy, is both necessary and important. The ambition for care, beauty and inclusion in the built environment deserves to be taken seriously, not least professionally.

That is precisely why it is problematic when the debate is narrowed down to a question of whether existent knowledge and skills in the industry and in education. Because there does. The question is equally how this knowledge is brought into play and demanded.

Architectural education has an important role in educating for design in the early stages, when many requirements must play together. Here universal design is not a new or unanchored theme, either in architecture research or teaching.

At the Royal Academy, we have been working research-based for a number of years with what is now referred to as spacial inclusions and universal design; theoretically, methodically and through the teaching of architecture and design students at undergraduate and graduate levels.

Universal design is already being researched and taught as an architectural discipline that goes far beyond standards and minimum requirements. The work combines critical analyses of notions of the 'standardized body' with rule-based tools and human-centered, experience-based methods.

The teaching involves collaboration with users and disability organisations, where students work with concrete spatial issues through observation, dialogue and prototyping. Universal design is understood here as a matter of architectural quality, choice and spatial flexibility — not as a one-size-fits-all solution.

Universal design concerns everyone

A central point of the debate is the risk of universal design being reduced to an extension of the building code's accessibility requirements; a kind of 'accessibility plus'.

But universal design is not about one solution that works for everyone. It is about being able to respond to different people's needs, preferences and life situations through conscious spatial choices.

This requires both a design process and a demand, especially among builders, who take the question seriously: How do buildings and urban spaces meet people in their diversity?

An ageing population makes this more visible, but the problem is much broader. Most people experience periods at some point in their lives when physical or mental conditions limit their ability to move in the spaces they otherwise take for granted.

Collaboration rather than parallel narratives

No one can work with universal design alone. It is by its very nature an interdisciplinary discipline that requires collaboration across education, practice, government and builders. The challenge is therefore not a lack of knowledge, but to ensure that existing knowledge actually forms part of a binding cooperation across sectors.

If the ambitions of architecture policy are to be realised, it requires a strengthened link between research, education, practice and government work. But at the same time, it also requires that demand from builders and the public sector keep up.

With architectural policy in mind, it is quite obvious that the public sector takes the lead as the builder. Construction and construction make up about a third of public procurement, and this is where considerable potential lies for setting direction - including for private builders.

The question, therefore, is not whether we can afford to invest in skill building. The question is whether we have the political courage to use and further develop the knowledge that already exists and to create the collaborations and demand that can translate the visions of architecture policy into practice.

‍

This entry was written by Mathilde Gry Serup, Head of Department, Department of Architecture and Space at the Royal Academy, and was originally published in the medium City Room Monitor. Read the original on City Room Monitor

‍