The Equity and Inclusion in Housing and Design (EIHD) project is grounded in the lived experiences of community members and driven by a commitment to accessibility, affordability, and meaningful involvement. At its core, the project seeks to establish best practices for co-designing housing with people with disabilities, centering their voices in shaping the environments that affect their daily lives.
As part of this ongoing learning process, we received thoughtful and critical feedback from project member Dr. Mark Iantkow, in regards to our reports from our most recent research update. Mark’s lived experience and expertise brought forward important reflections on the role of Access Design in truly inclusive housing. This feedback challenged us to think more deeply about the principles we apply and the language we use.
According to Mark, Access Design consists of fourteen dimensions, all of which are fluid, dynamic, and holistic in nature, with natural interrelationships and mutual influences. They encompass the entire spectrum of people with disabilities, including physical, sensory, and cognitive disabilities; however, some dimensions are more consequential than others depending upon individual circumstances. Hence, Mark recommends separating these dimensions into two disability-built-environment user groupings.
The first grouping is represented by the acronym C.O.O.L.A.K.E. and involves those who retain either some form of sensory disabilities and/or some form of cognitive impairment.
The specific COOLAKE dimensions are listed below:
C – colour/contrast
O – obstructions in relation to this user group
O – olfactory sense
L – lighting; how an environment is naturally or artificially illuminated
A – auditory queuing and clueing
K – kinesthetic queuing and clueing, including but not limited to temperature, air flow, atmospheric pressures, and tactile or haptic sensing
E – Ergonomics, in the most general sense such as the logical layout of a structure for mapping and orientation purposes.
The second grouping retains some form or level of physical disabilities and is represented by the acronym G.O.S.S.C.C.D.. The GOSSCCD dimensions are listed as:
G – gradient (building site gradients, ramps gradients, internal flooring gradients, etc.)
O – obstructions in relation to the user group
S – surfacing; exterior ground pathway and/or interior flooring surface
S – strength and dexterity and/or gross motor skills required to safely and effectively access a built environment
C – circulation (pedestrian)
C – configuration of space, not necessarily the plan layout but also the placement of fixtures and the planning and design of the three-dimensions of the built environment
D – dimensioning, in the linear sense, in order to accommodate the true needs of a person using their adaptive mobility devices
These dimensions and groupings are important in understanding that a one-size-fits-all approach to accessibility is not possible. They help us recognize that each user group may require very distinct and sometimes conflicting accommodations, emphasizing the need for responsive Inclusive Housing.
Inclusive Housing goes beyond the traditional “accessible housing”, in which designers and building owners/managers are still immersed in the standards and are well entrenched in the barrier-free perspective, which fails to consider navigation and utilization within the dwelling. What is currently considered accessible is rooted in technical and regulatory compliance, such as building codes and standards. The ‘mechanics’ of accessibility are often prioritized over the social inclusive aspects of inclusive housing. How a building owner or manager understands what accessibility means is equally as important to those individuals with lived experiences of disability. Designers, builders, and managers may meet building codes, but will fall short in meeting the lived experience of inclusion.
For example, Mark explained that a designer or contractor may see a foot-high barrier to the entrance of a balcony as the standard of a HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) system for a radiant heating system of an apartment building. Removing this barrier would require either the redesign of the building’s entire heating system, or to find a way to adapt a ramp in order to accommodate this ubiquitous construction feature. And so, a building owner or designer may think of the suite as accessible since one can still view outdoors despite their ability, or lack thereof, to physically venture out onto the balcony. This example demonstrates how certain aspects of the built environment can act as barriers for those living with disabilities, denying them the personal autonomy that an otherwise able-bodied individual would have.
To evolve these standards, inclusive housing must go beyond regulations and codes, and move towards “functionally accessible” spaces that foster dignity, independence, and social connection by catering towards an individual’s unique needs. This requires collaboration between members of the community and professionals, such as building owners and designers, to provide perspectives and expertise from all disciplines. As much as designers and builders need to understand the diverse range of disabilities, building users – including those with varied disabilities – can learn about the design process themselves. This way, the design process can effectively operate on a “two-way street”, bridging the gap between those with vital lived experiences and the professionals immersed in the design and construction of housing.
Mark’s reflections on Access Design reminds us that inclusion is a process grounded in mutual learning, respect, and responsiveness. By embracing this way of thinking, we move closer towards housing that meets functional needs, fosters autonomy, dignity and social connection. While we may not be able to guarantee social inclusion through the built environment, we can enhance or set the stage for improved social interaction.
This research was supported by an investment grant from the Alberta Real Estate Foundation.
