A Framework for Sustainable Architecture built on the ...

Designing for Sustainability: A Framework for Sustainable Architecture built on the Perspective of Universal Design

1

Abstract

A general definition of sustainability is often restricted to ecological and economic prosperity alone. However, sustainability also relates to social innovation and institutional impact. Furthermore, design is seldom appreciated as a lever towards more sustainable results. Current reflections and discourses recognize the importance of inclusive aspects in the environment for a diversity of people and its contribution towards a more sustainable world. This paper elaborates on the potential conceptual possibilities of Universal Design (UD) as a sustainable design approach in relation to architecture. A generated framework represents the way UD is placed in relation to its value for architectural sustainability.

2

Introduction

Universal Design (USA) (also referred to as ‘Design-for-All’ (EU) and ‘Inclusive Design’ (UK)), is a people-centered design approach that addresses the questions of inclusion in the (physical) environment. It is often placed under the social umbrella of sustainability but recent research and practice shows that opportunities go far beyond. This design approach may have an influence on larger networks and systems. It is a design approach that aims to create environments in which people themselves do not have to adapt, as the environment is designed to be supportive to as many people, living beings, products and services as possible. Universal Design1 came into being, in essence out of the post-war American and European civil rights and emancipation movement. Demands were made by the related independent living movement with regard to social and physical accessibility. The main lines of thought can now be seen in two related shifts. First there is the shift in the perception of “disability”, away from an outmoded medical model in which the physical or mental limitations of the individual were determinative, to a cultural model in which people with disabilities are considered as experts with tacit knowledge about dis-abling / enabling environments.2 A second shift is described as a shift in professional attitudes. Designers move away from ‘design for special needs’, with stigmatizing special facilities and adaptations for handicapped persons, towards design for everyone and ‘the ethos and aesthetics of enabling design.’3 Currently, the importance of UD-values for a sustainable architecture are receiving more and more attention and UD is recognized as an important approach in relation to durability. UD is placed in relation to the need for a sustainable environment in a broad sense.4 This paper states that sustainability has no fixed definition but its points of attention are constantly upgrading through time. The first part of this paper starts with the exposition of a framework of “Design for Sustainability” as explored in sustainable consumption research. An interesting aspect about this framework is that the researchers recognize the power of design and have built it with attention for the user’s point of view. Moreover, Spangenberg et al. (2010) set the term “Design for Sustainability”.5 They link different pillars as crucial foci within a system that supports “quality of life”. The interaction between the different pillars is represented in the form of a tetrahedron. Although this framework originates from research in consumption, the general ideas are very similar to the crucial factors of Universal Design. In both approaches, primary attention is given to the sustainable experience of its users. In the second part of the paper we explore the meaning of this framework in the context of Universal Design. The pillars are linked and questioned with the classical 1

triumvirate Economy -Ecology–Equity. Additionally we add “Elegance” as a crucial aspect for sustainable life quality and essential for a non-stigmatizing life experience.

3

Designing for Sustainability

Design is often not regarded as a relevant factor for the sustainability discourse. Usually the ecological and economical aspects are considered as key factors for sustainability and as matters of intergenerational equity. Although, for a sustainable future, the impact of ecological and economical aspects are huge, the demand of ‘sustainability’ is, in fact, a particular reflection of universality of claims, applied to future generations, vis-à-vis us. In human-built environments, ethical and practical universalism is basically an elementary demand for private and public spaces that are accessible, comfortable and enabling for all, regardless of particular motor, sensory or mental abilities. For example, human limitations are inherent to and dynamically connected with the course of life and ageing for everyone. Sustainability goes beyond the production of eco-products and services, as it may connect bigger systems including the social and emotional. For example, a product can be very efficiently and ecologically produced but it will not succeed if it lacks human interest, interaction and affection. Instead of restricting studies on sustainability to the life cycle analysis of products and services, people’s life quality must also be taken into account in the design process. Life quality offers satisfaction. According to Spangenberg et al. (2010) this is what Design for Sustainability stands for: the creation of user’s life quality.6 This quality is determined by the factor of human well-being or liveability and relates to the harmony between people and their personal, economic and physical environment. Whereas life quality is determined by human well-being and can be considered as a local satisfaction need, together with durability it is responsible for the global scale of satisfaction in the world. As Leidelmeijer and van Kamp (2003) state: Durability distinguishes itself from livability in that it relates to environmental interests that transcend the local scale – that can even be worldwide – and to the environmental interests of future generations. 7 Life quality and durability are intrinsically linked. One cannot exist without the other. Life quality stimulates durability and vice versa. Here is where design may come in and can influence both wellbeing indicators. Design can improve life quality and stimulate durability. It is one of the goals of design, if not the most important one, to influence the experiences of human well-being in a positive way. Design can connect the different aspects that may increase life quality and durability of products, services and living beings. However, from the perspective of sustainability, there is still a significant gap between the creative realm of designers, -both within the academic and professional field-, and the experience-based world of a great diversity of users. This is where Universal Design can contribute. It is located at a higher level, linked to bigger systems that influence the whole experience of durability and life quality. More and more researchers and designers recognize the importance of insights in the bigger systems to reach sustainability. Universal Design supports these systems by including social and aesthetical factors based on user participation. Consequently the attention for this design approach is growing. Similarly Spangenberg et al.(2010) analyzed different consumer-systems in order to come to sustainable consumption. They concluded that ecology, economy, sociability and institutions are the four current factors that influence Design for Sustainability. They place these factors in relation to each other, visualized as a tetrahedron (Figure 1). The economic factor maintains the competitive aspects, whereas the ecological factors minimize resource consumption. The social network can improve the social quality of life (ex. overcoming poverty) and institutions still keep control over the style of consumption. Although this interpretation is based on consumption research, this model can also serve for Universal Design in an architectural context as it is based on satisfaction, quality of life and durability based on user-experiences.

2

In the following section we create a framework for Universal Design from the perspective of sustainability based on the classical triumvirate for sustainability and the insights and factors cited by Spangenberg et al.

4 4.1

From the Classical Triumvirate towards four “E’s” supporting life quality The History of the 3 main Pillars for Sustainability

In the 1960’s, the period that catalysed public concern over the degradation of nature, the environmental movement recognized only two diametrically opposed interests: on the one hand ecological integrity, and on the other, economic development. In the developing international discourse that followed, the social dimension was added in the publication of ‘Our Common Future. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development’ (United Nations, 1987)8. Gradually the triangulated concept Environmental, Economic and Social has been accepted as the logic that informs the concept of sustainable development. Subsequently Robert Yaro, Executive Director of the Regional Plan Association (RPA),9 brings up the Triple-E model as a core element in the field of urban planning. Environment, Economy and Equity are the objectives of his 1996 sustainable ‘Third Regional Plan for the New York – New Jersey – Connecticut Metropolitan Area’, 10 and the components of the RPA's goal of improving quality of life. Economy, Environment and Equity form the triple foundation of durability. The content of these three pillars is comparable to respectively the economical, ecological and social factors as described by Spangenberg et al. (2010). Based on the sustainability tetrahedron, we similarly link the framework for sustainability in the light of UD (Figure 2). The economic pillar refers to the affordable aspects of sustainable design; the environment stresses the importance of the context, place or genius loci of the design. Equity refers to social justice. Linked to environment, equity applies to the human-made environment. It can also be interpreted as integrally, inclusive, accessible and useable for everyone.

4.2

The fourth “E”: Elegance

In our attempt to generate sustainability concepts from an architectural and UD-perspective, we suggest connecting sustainability with a fourth ‘E’ to the series: an E for Elegance. The term elegance is preferred above aesthetics as we stress the importance of the additional qualities of Elegance as a way towards more designerly modes of inclusion. In other words an elegant, sensitive, sentient and multi-sensory built environment is more meaningful and sustainable for this and following generations. Its durability lies in a non-stigmatizing approach. Whereas aesthetics refer to the visual experiences of the design in the first place, elegance takes a broader view of the sustainable and nonstigmatising approach. For example, in the context of Universal Design- including people with low vision or no vision at all. Aesthetics rely heavily on visual perception and this no longer adequately represents the qualities we are looking for in the built environment. Elegance refers to an ‘in vivo’ and multi-sensory quality experience in the interaction of people with physical spaces and objects. For example a simple chair earns the appraisal of being ‘elegant’ only through a process of many human-friendly interactions. Interactions with women in the last phase of pregnancy, an elderly person, someone who is heavyset, a child, etc. demand different design solutions. All these people can move the chair, sit down, rest, work, play, shuffle and stand up. What applies for that chair in particular is also valid for the global human-made environment. Universal Design becomes more interesting to the extent that it is reaches beyond purely morphological / technological solutions with a view to physical accessibility, and to the extent that it gains a place in the broader cultural space. A successful illustration of this is the open cylindrical elevator at the heart of the monumental spiral stairs in the central access area of the Parisian Museum The Louvre (Figure 3). It easily transports not only visitors who are semi-ambulant or are wheelchair-users, but also people with baby carriages, people with limited stamina, small children and elderly people, and it does this in a pleasant manner, 3

without stigma. Although this access area is awaiting further detailed POE (Post Occupancy Evaluation)11 or UDE (Universal Design Evaluation), a first reconnaissance shows us that it unveils intrinsic qualities of the above stated elegance, represented by a multi-sensory quality experience of public space. Users of the open elevator, and persons on the stairs and on the escalators are not separated spatially, and enjoy movement throughout the architectural space in an equivalent way.

4.3

Sustainable Design processes: an interaction between the four “E’s”

As described above, it is important that an architectural design process connects the economic, environmental, equal and aesthetical sustainability in the human-built environment. In other words, it is clear that, besides the impact of ecological and economic factors, the experience of elegance and equity will form an important pillar during the design process to obtain a sustainable end result. The four main pillars: Economy, Environment, Equity and Elegance are intrinsically linked. The stronger the linkage between these four “E’s”, the more life quality can be guaranteed by its designed environment and the more sustainably and durably it may be experienced. In the light of Universal Design, the linkages between the different pillars are people-centered and can maintain different foci, stressing human well-being, but it may also challenge certain new situations. Consequently the link between environment and equity is the focus on human oriented places. An accessible and useable built environment for a great diversity of users serves more people and supports more activities and therefore is more stable over a period of time. Such a human-made environment has a greater efficiency and guarantees a more equal, frugal, optimal use of the environment and resources. A strong economic and environmental link will support a feasible environment in the context of durability. Initial usability for a greater diversity of human possibilities and limitations will postpone the need for expensive renovations and adaptations, and will provide sustainability over a longer period. Factors such as the demographic ageing of the population in industrialized Western countries will eventually lead to the need for a number of predictable accessibility and usability requirements with regard to home construction and public buildings and provisions. Moreover, design that supports elegance in the economic as well as in the social realm, is a synonym for social justice. If elegance can be combined with good environmental experiences in design, it certainly is designed from a holistic point of view. An elegant design with an eye for equity is designed from a democratic point of view and the link between economy and equity is based on user-centered participation. In our interpretation the four main pillars can constantly upgrade in time, depending on new changes in the world and in life systems. This makes the definition of sustainability a variable, non-fixed interpretation and the framework a non-tetrahedron-fixed representation.

5

Conclusion

As “Design for Sustainability” in fact implies good design for everything and everyone with an eye for durability, it may, in the context of architectural design, be regarded as a synonym for UD, DfA or ID. In the end, design must be sustainable without preconditions. Whereas in the seventies durability and sustainability were only linked with eco-friendly environments and UD was categorised as social design alone, this paper shows that it is important to evaluate sustainability within a broader network. The importance and interaction between both ecological and social aspects were clarified. The future of sustainable design also lies in the implementation of global as well as local aspects during the design process.12 As well as the explanation of the general ambitions in the sustainable framework, the triple bottom line was extended with a fourth pillar, more precisely “Elegance”. Beauty and elegance of design contribute to human dignity. After all, “The elegance and beauty of objects and spaces are the ideal expressive qualities for lessening or eliminating the stigma of limitation and handicap in a discrete manner. Universal usability has a wholesome influence on all users, old and young. It generates human dignity and a special form of sustainability and social beauty.”13 The interaction between the four pillars; more precisely Economy, Environment, Equity and Elegance during the design process are explained in the light of current interpretations and knowledge on sustainability.

4

6

Captions

Figure-1: The prism of sustainability as set out by Spangenberg et al. Source: copy made by Jasmien Herssens based on Figure 6 in Joachim H. Spangenberg, Alastair Fuad-Luke and Karen Blincoe, “Design for Sustainability (DfS): the interface of sustainable production and consumption,” Journal of Cleaner production 18 (2010): 1492. Figure-2: The tetrahedron of architectural sustainability in the light of UD. Source: diagram made by Jasmien Herssens Figure-3: Musée du Louvre, Paris, central stairs and elevator. Architect 1989, I.M. Pei Cobb Freed & Partners. Pictures taken by Ria Ceyssens 2005.

7

Bibliography & Endnotes

1

Selwyn Goldsmith, Designing for the Disabled: The New Paradigm (Oxford: Architectural Press/ Butterworth-Heinemann, 1997). Elaine Ostroff, “Universal Design: The New Paradigm.” In Universal Design Handbook, edited by Woflgang Preiser and Elaine Ostroff, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001), 1.3-1.5. 2 Patrick Devlieger, Frank Rusch and David Pfeiffer, Rethinking Disability (Antwerpen: Garant, 2003). Jasmien Herssens, “Designing Architecture for More: A Framework of Haptic Design Parameters with the Experience of People born Blind” (PhD diss., Hasselt University and KULeuven, 2011). 3 Hubert Froyen, “Universal Design Education” (paper presented at UD Education Contact Forum. May 17, 2002. Brussels: KVAB, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Science and Arts, 18.) In Universal Design Education, edited by Marc Dujarding and Ines Dua, Brussels, 2003. 4 Jasmien Herssens, “Designing Architecture for More: A Framework of Haptic Design Parameters with the Experience of People born Blind” (PhD diss., Hasselt University and KULeuven, 2011). 5 Joachim H. Spangenberg, Alastair Fuad-Luke and Karen Blincoe, “Design for Sustainability (DfS): the interface of sustainable production and consumption,” Journal of Cleaner production 18 (2010): 1485-1493. 6 Joachim H. Spangenberg, Alastair Fuad-Luke and Karen Blincoe, “Design for Sustainability (DfS): the interface of sustainable production and consumption,” Journal of Cleaner production 18 (2010):1485-1493. 7 Kees Leidelmeijer and Irene van Kamp, Kwaliteit van de leefomgeving en leefbaarheid. Naar een begrippenkader en conceptuele inkadering. RIVM rapport 630950002. (Bilthoven: Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu, RIVM, 2003), 23. [Quality of the human environment and quality of life. Towards a terminology and a conceptual framework.] 8 “Brundtland Report“ Springer Reference, website last modified 2013, http://www.springerreference.com/docs/html/chapterdbid/349620.html “The Brundtland Report, also known as Our Common Future, is named for the Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, who in her position as Chair of the World Commission on Environment and Development played an important role in its writing.” 9 “Who we Are”, Regional Plan Association (RPA), website last modified 2013, http://www.rpa.org/about. “RPA is America’s oldest independent urban research and advocacy organization. RPA works to improve the prosperity, infrastructure, sustainability and quality of life of the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut metropolitan region.” 10 Robert D. Yaro and Tony Hiss, A Region at Risk: the Third Regional Plan for the New York – New Jersey – Connecticut Metropolitan Area. (New York : Regional Plan Association, and Washington, DC : Island Press, 1996), 11. 11 Marc Dujardin, “Learning from Practice: Post-Occupancy Evaluation (P0E) as a teaching tool at Sint-Lucas Architecture, Belgium” (paper presented at the Include 011 conference, London, April 1820, 2011). 12 Jasmien Herssens, “Design(ing) for more: towards a global design approach and local methods” (paper presented at the Include Asia 013 conference, Hong Kong, July 2-3, 2013).

5

13

Hubert Froyen, Universal Design. A methodological approach. A pathway to human-friendly and elegant architecture. (Boston: Institute for Human Centered Design, 2013), 225.

6