Designing for Accessibility
According to the CDC, up to 27% of people in the United States live with a disability. Yet the concept of accessibility tends to be an afterthought for the able-bodied majority, something only really perceived when a disability is experienced firsthand or through a friend or loved one.
Katherine Schuff, AIA, CDT, NCARB // Architect ©LS3P 2023In recent years, the field of design has seen huge developments in areas such as technology, sustainability, and resiliency. The profession is exploring how to apply new innovations like AI and smart building technologies, while the effects of climate change and severe weather events emphasize the importance of designing buildings that will stand the test of time. It is increasingly accepted - and even expected - that architects make choices that will positively impact the environment, both short-term and over the entire lifecycle of a building. In addition to these advancements, equity has also become a focus, both in the projects we pursue and within the profession itself.
However, as we navigate these rapid changes to our profession, is progress in accessible design happening at the same rate? When the topic of equity comes up, disparities due to factors like race, gender, and financial status immediately come to mind, but the disabled community may not always be considered alongside these other minority groups.
According to the CDC, up to 27% of people in the United States live with a disability. Yet the concept of accessibility tends to be an afterthought for the able-bodied majority, something only really perceived when a disability is experienced firsthand or through a friend or loved one. And provisions that have been put in place are surprisingly recent. While Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act banned discrimination on the basis of disability by recipients of federal funds, similar to previous rulings on race, gender, and ethnicity, it took another four years for specific regulations to be issued implementing the law. Over the following decade, the disability rights community fought various attempts to deregulate Section 504. They worked to overturn Supreme Court decisions that limited civil rights protections, and to amend the Fair Housing Act to include disability anti-discrimination provisions, forming alliances along the way with various other groups within the civil rights community. It wasn’t until April 1988 that the first version of the ADA standards was introduced, and it was signed into law in 1990 - the first countrywide law in the world to prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability across public and private spheres. The ADA Standards for Accessible Design were updated in 2010 and are now a familiar set of guidelines for architects, alongside the American National Standards Institute’s (ANSI) “ICC A117.1-2017: Accessible And Usable Buildings And Facilities” - another well-established set of standards, intended for adoption by government agencies and into model codes. But aside from the occasional update to these published regulations, what further changes have we seen in the past 30 years?
Due in part to these well-known standards, accessible design is often thought of by architects and clients alike as a series of boxes to check, meeting the minimum requirements and moving on. However, going back to the concept of accessibility as a vital part of DEI efforts, the profession can do more to make sure that those with disabilities are not overlooked. How can we think of designing for accessibility as an opportunity, not a burden? Rather than assuming what people with disabilities want/ need, or following specific rules and minimum legal standards, we should be actively seeking the input and perspective of those in the disabled community. Tacked-on solutions should be avoided; rather, provisions for accessibility should be included in the original design. The concept of Equity vs. Equality applies well to accessible design: while providing a wheelchair entrance in the back of a building may allow users in, this solution is not the same as integrating accessibility into the main entrance used by all visitors. We should strive not only to technically accommodate those with disabilities, but to avoid making them feel like an “other.”
Similar to DEI efforts to improve the pipeline of minorities and women in architecture and other STEM fields, more disabled architects will help position disabled people as “creators of spaces and not just subjects within them.” This requires making architecture schools and construction sites more accessible, too. Such a task may sound expensive and burdensome: many schools are housed in historic campus buildings, and jobsites already strive to balance safety, economy, and efficiency. However, the impact of representation can’t be denied. Such growth tends to be exponential, and what may start as an outlier in the field will eventually be inherent. Inclusion inspires innovation, and no one is better equipped to find solutions for accessible design problems than those who experience them firsthand. While the goal may be an integrated, forward-thinking approach to accessible design, design teams may still encounter hurdles along the way. There is often resistance to going beyond the bare minimum of accessibility, the misperception being that anything more is an unnecessary cost, a waste of space, or an unattractive option for able-bodied patrons. And for teams who do wish to provide more than is legally required, there is a conscious feeling of going above and beyond in the name of accessibility. But if we compare this attitude with that of the public towards sustainable design practices, there is a clear path towards change. Not long ago, sustainability in architecture was primarily seen as “extra” features added to a project only when it was a specific client focus. Many of those same practices have become increasingly standard and expected over time, pushing the perception of what can and should be done in every project. “The standard of care can evolve more quickly than codes and laws,” as evidenced by the long labor of the accessibility rights movement in the 70s and 80s.
Just as optional features and certifications have preceded actual mandates in energy and environmental design standards, a similar strategy could be employed with accessible design.
For example, the design firm Sizemore Group led a study of accessibility provisions in performing arts facilities across Atlanta, GA in 2021. In addition to specific physical and programmatic interventions, this Fulton County Arts and Culture Performing Arts and Disability Survey recommended funding directly linked to accessibility, promoted with certifications and ratings. If only the minimum requirements are met on every project, they will likely remain the status quo - and designers are uniquely positioned to encourage this evolution.
In situations when this approach is not feasible, there are other arguments to be made for higher levels of accessibility. The right accessible design can mean added value, as well as avoiding the cost of retrofits (or litigation) down the line. And many aspects of accessible design are beneficial to all users, particularly those features with less “visible” disabilities such as hearing loss or neurodivergence in mind. While clients might immediately picture things like grab bars and tacked-on wheelchair lifts, there are ways of providing solutions that help those who need it while also elevating the experience of those who don’t.
With the huge spectrum of challenges faced by the disabled community, both obvious and hidden, we need to create designs “that meet… a broad range of needs appealingly.”
We can look to the Seven Principles of Universal Design, developed in 1997 by a group led by North Carolina architect Ronald Mace , for inspiration on this front. They call for Equitable Use, Flexibility in Use, Simple and Intuitive design, Perceptible Information, Tolerance for Error, Low Physical Effort, and Size and Space for Approach and Use. Even at first glance, each of these concepts is almost obvious in its value. And if we consider them holistically, a project that truly meets each of these principles would indeed be accessible to all.
While we should be intentional in working for equity through design, the eventual goal is for accessible design to be design - not an afterthought. It may be difficult to cite examples of successful design for accessibility, and while part of this could be attributed to a lack of such projects, there is another factor at play: a truly successful design won’t look like it was created to accommodate disabilities. It will instead be visually appealing and inviting to all users. There is a path traveled by minority groups of all kinds, starting at Exclusion, going through Segregation, then Integration, and finally moving towards Inclusion. The disability community has made great strides in the past few decades, but that final stage is definitely still within reach. As Dallasbased interior designer Chad Dorsey stated, “The more we talk about it, discuss it and show it, the more solutions we’ll find. Accessibility is a lifestyle, and it can be beautiful and natural.”
Designing for Accessibility may sound like a tedious process - measuring clearances, specifying compliant products and systems, and other mundane but necessary tasks. However, if we move past these surface level requirements and consider the broad spectrum of disability, there is much design potential to be discovered. The most obvious form of disability in the architect’s realm is that of mobility: wheelchair users, those with reduced dexterity or stamina, etc. But it is equally important to consider many other groups. There are special considerations for those with vision impairment and those with hearing impairment. Design for neurodivergence is a more recent topic of investigation, with many positive implications for neurotypical users as well. And veterans and senior citizens also have specific needs that should be considered, whether designing with a specific program in mind or for a space that is truly inclusive of the entire community.
Disability should be thought of not as one hurdle to pass on the way to a completed project, or even as a list of different problems to solve, but rather “as [a] human variation: diverse disabilities distributed on a wide spectrum.”
Designers are uniquely positioned to evolve the standard of care in design for accessibility, changing perceptions of what is expected of our built environment. By encouraging clients to see the benefits accessible design can have for all users, including the disabled community in the decision-making process, and seeking to make accessibility an integral part of our work, architects can play a vital role in moving towards a society where inclusion is not a goal, but a reality.
Meet the Author
As an Architect in LS3P’s Savannah office, Associate Katherine Schuff works on diverse portfolio of project types including commercial, hospitality, multifamily, and K-12 education. Her design passions include preservation, adaptive reuse, and new developments with Revit and related 3D visualization technologies that streamline the modeling/documentation process. She is CDT (Construction Documents Technologist) certified through CSI.
Katherine earned a Master of Architecture with minors in Historic Preservation and Italian from Tulane University, and joined LS3P in 2015. She is currently serving as Education Director for AIA Savannah, and is an active participant in the non-profit CANstruction.
Works Cited
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities. Updated May 15, 2023. “Disability Impacts All of Us”. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/infographic-disability-impacts-all.html
2. Mayerson, Arlene. 1992. “The History of the Americans with Disabilities Act: A Movement Perspective”. https://dredf.org/aboutus/publications/the-history-of-the-ada/Gissen, David. June 15, 2018. “Why are there so few disabled architects and architecture students
3. Gissen, David. June 15, 2018. “Why are there so few disabled architects and architecture students?” https://www.archpaper. com/2018/06/disability-education-of-architects/
4. The American Institute of Architects, AIA Guides for Equitable Practice_Supplement_Justice. 2021. “Justice in the Built Environment”, 1.20. https://www.aia.org/resource-center/guides-equitable-practice
5. Fulton County Arts and Culture; The Sizemore Group. August 2022. “Fulton County Arts & Culture Performing Arts Disability Study”. https://www.dropbox.com/s/j05m5s0rsack3o9/Performing%20Arts%20and%20Disability%20Study%20-%20Final.pdf?e=1&dl=0
6. The American Institute of Architects, AIA Guides for Equitable Practice_Supplement_Justice. 2021. “Justice in the Built Environment”, 1.13. https://www.aia.org/resource-center/guides-equitable-practice
7. Centre for Excellence in Universal Design. N.d. “About Universal Design: The 7 Principles”. Accessed February 2024. https:// universaldesign.ie/about-universal-design/the-7-principles
8. Pingel, Maile. March 30, 2020. “Accessible design is growing. But can it be beautiful?” https://www.washingtonpost.com/ magazine/2020/03/30/accessible-design-is-growing-can-it-be-beautiful/
9. The American Institute of Architects, AIA Guides for Equitable Practice_Supplement_Justice. 2021. “Justice in the Built Environment”, 1.13. https://www.aia.org/resource-center/guides-equitable-practice
