As practising architects in Victoria, Australia, we have observed significant, systemic industry failure, impeding the development of accessible and inclusive cities. Contemporary built environment design practice and design values push ‘accessible design’ to the margins, often considered as an after-thought and only in terms of technical and regulatory compliance. Built environment practice needs to be challenged into deeper ways of thinking – ones that stimulate professional discourse and heighten industry awareness of both its control over built environment accessibility outcomes and, critically, its accountability in serving the public good.
Cities invariably comprise neighbourhoods. To begin to understand built environment inaccessibility at the neighbourhood scale, the built environment mindset must change to properly engage with complex, socio-ecological, public-realm (public space) built environments. Design practice must improve its neighbourhood site analysis approach, going beyond private, contractual site boundaries and immediate physical surrounds, to understanding end-user experiences, neighbourhood journeys, and the broader scale of (in)accessibility. Industry attitudes, practice approaches and the way disability is positioned by industry must change to embrace processes that necessitate diverse actors working together across multiple disciplines and sectors with people with disability being core actors in decision-making.
We believe that opportunities exist in building industry interest and capacity. Research-informed built environment practice embracing systems-thinking, human rights-based approaches, and transdisciplinarity can be effective for aggravating industry change and the way industry positions disability. This paper adopts an analytical, collaborative autoethnographic approach, examining case studies of neighbourhood-scale accessibility assessment, outputs from activities questioning why built environment practitioners believe inaccessibility exists, and self-reflection on 10 to 35+ years of working in architectural practice. Importantly, this paper argues that in working towards achieving universally accessible public spaces for all, built environment practitioners, and architects in particular, must accept accountability for the impact of their actions on people with disabilities’ lived experiences.
Read the full article in accessible html-format here.
The Authors retain copyright for articles published in The Journal of Public Space, with first publication rights granted to the journal.
Articles in this journal are published under the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial Licence (CC-BY-NC) - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
You are free to:
• Share - copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
• Adapt - remix, transform, and build upon the material
Under the following terms:
• Attribution - You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
• NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
Alford, J. & Head, B. W. (2017) ‘Wicked and less wicked problems: a typology and a contingency framework’, Policy and Society, 36(3), pp. 397–413, doi: 10.1080/14494035.2017.1361634.
Aulich, C & O’ Flynn, J. (2007) ‘From Public to Private: The Australian Experience of Privatisation’, Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 29(2), pp. 153–171, doi: 10.1080/23276665.2007.10779332.
Borson, B. (2017) ‘ArchiTalks | Life of an Architect’, viewed 30 January 2022. Available at: https://www.lifeofanarchitect.com/category/architalks/.
Bristol, G. (2018) The Trouble with Architecture, in H. Sadri (ed.), Neo-liberalism and the Architecture of the Post Professional Era, pp. 11–29, Springer International Publishing, Cham, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-76267-8_2.
Chang, H., Ngunjiri, F. W., Hernandez, K-A. C. (2013) ‘Collaborative Autoethnography’, Routledge.
Dewey, J. (1929) Experience and Nature. Norton.
Dreier, L., Nabarro, D., Nelson, J. (2019) ‘Systems Leadership for Sustainable Development’, CR Initiative at the Harvard Kennedy School. Available at: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/mrcbg/files/Systems%20Leadership.pdf
Green, D. (2016) How Change Happens, Oxford University Press, p. 287.
Habraken, N.J. (1987) “The Control of Complexity”, Places, 4(2).
Hamraie, A. (2013) “Designing Collective Access: A Feminist Disability Theory of Universal Design”, Disability Studies Quarterly, 33(4), doi: 10.18061/dsq.v33i4.3871.
Hürlimann, A. C., Warren-Myers, G., Nielsen, J., Moosavi, S., Bush, J., March, A. (2021) “Towards the transformation of cities: A built environment process map to identify the role of key sectors and actors in producing the built environment across life stages”, Cities, 121, p. 103454, doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2021.103454.
Imrie, R. (1998) Oppression, Disability and Access in the Built Environmen’, in Shakespeare, T. (ed), The Disability Reader: Social Science Perspectives. Continuum, London, pp. 129-146.
Jackson, M. (2018) ‘Models of Disability and Human Rights: Informing the Improvement of Built Environment Accessibility for People with Disability at Neighborhood Scale?’, Laws, 7(1), p. 10, doi: 10.3390/laws7010010.
Jackson, M. A. (2019) ‘Accessing the Neighbourhood: Built Environment Performance for People with Disability’, Architecture_MPS, 16(1), doi: https://doi.org/10.14324/111.444.amps.2019v16i1.004.
Jones, D., Low Choy, D., Revell, G., Heyes, S., Tucker, R., Bird, S. (2016) Re-casting terra nullius blindness: empowering Indigenous protocols and knowledge in Australian university built environment education. Commonwealth Department of Education and Training, Australia.
Klerkx, L., Proctor, A. (2013) ‘Beyond fragmentation and disconnect: Networks for knowledge exchange in the English land management advisory system’, Land Use Policy, 30(1), pp. 13–24, doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.02.003.
Klinsky, S., Mavrogianni, A. (2020) “Climate justice and the built environment”, Buildings and Cities, 1(1), pp. 412–428, doi: 10.5334/bc.65.
Martel, A., Day, K., Jackson, M. A., Kaushik, S. (2020) “Beyond the pandemic: the role of the built environment in supporting people with disabilities work life”, Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, 15(1), pp. 98–112, doi: 10.1108/ARCH-10-2020-0225.
Ness, D. A., Xing, K. (2017) “Toward a Resource-Efficient Built Environment: A Literature Review and Conceptual Model: Towards a Resource Efficient Built Environment”, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(3), pp. 572–592, doi: 10.1111/jiec.12586.
Portugali, J., Meyer, H., Stolk, E., Tan, E. (eds.) (2012) Complexity Theories of Cities Have Come of Age, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-24544-2.
Rachele, J. N., Wiesel, I., van Holstein, E., Feretopoulos, V., de Vries, T., Green, C., Bicknell, E. (2020) “Feasibility and the care-full just city: Overlaps and contrasts in the views of people with disability and local government officers on social inclusion”, Cities, 100, p. 102650, doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2020.102650.
Shrubsole, C. (2018) “Systems thinking in the built environment: Seeing the bigger picture, understanding the detail”, Indoor and Built Environment, 27(4), pp. 439–441, doi: 10.1177/1420326X18766131.
Totry-Fakhoury, M., Alfasi, N. (2017) “From abstract principles to specific urban order: Applying complexity theory for analyzing Arab-Palestinian towns in Israel”, Cities, 62, pp. 28–40, doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2016.12.001.
Tucker, R., Kelly, D., Johnson, L., de Jong, U., Watchorn, V. (2021) “Housing at the fulcrum: a systems approach to uncovering built environment obstacles to city scale accessibility and inclusion”, Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, doi: 10.1007/s10901-021-09881-6.
Vogel, I. (2012) Review of the use of “Theory of Change” in international development, UK Department for International Development (DFID). Available at: https://www.theoryofchange.org/pdf/DFID_ToC_Review_VogelV7.pdf