Photo Description: Two individuals sitting at a table and writing on a post-it note.
Introduction
Too often, the needs of disabled people are an afterthought in the design of built environments including housing. This desire for built environments that are accessible to all people has led to the development of new design paradigms. One of the most well-known paradigms was developed by Ronald Mace in the 1970s and is commonly referred to today as Universal Design. The fundamental idea behind universal design is that by following a few key universal design principles, the more likely it is that the built environment will be one that can be accessed on equal terms by the greatest number of people possible.
In the time since it was first introduced, the general ethos of universal design has been elaborated upon and new design paradigms have emerged. One example is Inclusive Design. Inclusive design shares the universal principle that built environments should be designed in such a way that they can be accessed and used by as many people as possible, regardless of age, gender and disability. However, inclusive design approaches go further to emphasize the involvement of end users in the design process.
How end users can be meaningfully involved in the design process is an open question. One answer that has been put forward is Co-Design. Co-design refers to user-centered design processes that bring together diverse groups of people with a range of skills and experiences to positively transform environments, systems and human experiences. In the field of housing, a core component of co-design processes is the intentional effort to balance power asymmetries between architects, designers, builders, and end-users so that everyone can equally participate in decision-making and knowledge-creation in meaningful and impactful ways.
The purpose of this report is to describe the architectural design process, identify opportunities for collaboration using the co-design framework, and then identify and describe specific engagement techniques that are well aligned with activities undertaken during the design process.
The Architectural Design Process
Generally speaking, the architectural design process is a sequential process that proceeds from the general to the particular. It begins by gathering general information about what the end-user needs, proceeds to generate concepts for the building, translates these concepts into a more detailed design, develops comprehensive construction documents and then procures a construction company to realize the project. Each phase in the process utilizes various types of analyses and encompasses an array of different tasks and outputs.
Various institutes, professional bodies and design firms may each have their own version of this generalized design process. For example, the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC) identifies six phases in the design process: (1) pre-design, (2) schematic design, (3) design development, (4) construction documents, (5) construction procurement and contract administration, and (6) building occupancy and operations. It is generally agreed that the intensity of the design process in terms of resources used and the impact of decision making is greatest in the earliest phases of the process. The Royal Architectural Institute of Canada writes, “the greater the investment in information gathering, analysis and decision-making during pre-design and conceptual design phases, the fewer expensive changes later in the project.”
The pre-design phase and conceptual (or schematic) phase are not only critical in terms of cost-efficiency; in fact, they are vital to the practice of inclusive design and ideal for the implementation of co-design processes. While co-design could conceivably be implemented in all phases, we see the first two phases as critical junctures in any design project. These two phases are described in more detail below.
The Pre-Design Phase
As described by the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada, the pre-design phase encompasses fundamental preparatory work required for subsequent design phases of a project. This phase involves bringing together architects, clients, and other stakeholders to determine the purpose of the project and the objectives of their designs. The overarching goal of this phase is to gather foundational information for the design decision-making process. The needs and wants of end-users and information regarding the building site, budgeting, and zoning are key considerations (Fontan, 2020). Changes made during the pre-design phase will have the greatest impact on the project; thus it is the most important and influential phase (RAIC, 2020).
In bringing together architects, clients, and other stakeholders, the pre-design phase is an open and collaborative process that allows for a design that is feasible and meets the needs and desires of the client (RAIC, 2020). One critically important activity completed during the pre-design phase is the Functional Program.
The Functional Program
Also called design briefs, facilities programs, building programs, architectural programs, statements of requirements, space needs or, simply, programs, the purpose of a functional program is to outline the function of a space, what activities will take place in a space, and what is needed to support those activities (RAIC, 2020). To identify the task at hand and how it can be achieved, there is a fundamental set of questions that must be asked:
- What are the client’s needs and objectives?
- What is the scope of the project?
- How much and what type of space is needed?
- How will the facility adapt over time?
- What other information is required to develop a proper architectural response? What are other constraints?
A functional program is developed by both the architect and client to clearly define their wants and needs, resulting in better and more effective design solutions. The architect’s main task in preparing a functional program is to “examine the client’s world in detail to define the client’s needs and objectives” (RAIC, 2020). Architects play a unique role in resolving conflicts between stakeholders and clients by mediating conflicting opinions and facilitating optimal compromises.
Functional programming requires extensive data management, such as gathering, analyzing, organizing, reformatting and retrieving data, in order to produce information valuable to the project design. Data such as the type of space or room, its dimensions, area, and function are valuable pieces of information in the design process.
The primary function of most functional programs is space planning and optimization. This means determining the amount of space that is required according to the number of people that will occupy the space, the nature of the activity in the space, associated equipment, inventory and storage facilities, harmonization of space requirements and structural systems, as well as process modelling and layout experiments. By maximizing efficiencies, this can ultimately reduce the overall area of the building, in turn controlling the costs of construction and operations (RAIC, 2020).
Ultimately, a functional program will establish the scope of a project, and is crucial in bridging the gap between client needs and the architect’s design.
The Schematic Design Phase
As described by the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada, the schematic-design phase is the second phase during which the requirements determined in the pre-design phase are translated into a physical, architectural form. The purpose of this phase is to conceptualize “what will be built” according to the functional program. At this stage, the architect and client will collaborate to synthesize various requirements. This is often achieved in the form of an integrated design team (IDT): multi-disciplinary team of design professionals and the client to put forward a design that fits their project goals (RAIC, 2020). They begin by agreeing on an architectural expression of the following elements (RAIC, 2020):
- Character of the site (physical features, neighbourhood, landscape, regulatory restrictions);
- Space planning requirements described in the functional program;
- Image or philosophical objectives of the client;
- Design approach of the architect.
The schematic design embodies the physical resolution of the functional program and forms the spatial/architectural/structural “scaffolding”, in which preliminary and final designs are developed from (RAIC, 2020). A well thought out program guides the design process while minimizing risks of delay, cost overruns, and design deficiencies (RAIC, 2020), all while meeting client expectations.
As the design emerges, opportunities to fine-tune program details may emerge. During this stage, assumptions made during the pre-design phase are tested to reveal any inconsistencies or conflicts, or even new opportunities for more effective use of space (RAIC, 2020). This is to validate the project requirements and establish any technical parameters. What emerges from this stage are schematic design documents that will lead the remainder of the design process.
Schematic Design Documents
Schematic design documents illustrate the functional relationships of the project elements, its scale, and overall character (RAIC, 2020). They are important for sharing concept designs that capture client and design team objectives. There are typically two kinds of documents in schematic design as described below.
Schematic design presentations, which include:
- A site plan showing the proposed location;
- Functional block plans for relative spatial areas and relationships;
- Vertical sections for building height and structural support;
- Outline building elevations to display massing (shape, size, and form) and image;
- Illustrative sketches, perspectives or computer-generated presentations on a conceptual level.
Schematic design report, which is not always required but always recommended, containing:
- Design approach or philosophy;
- Description of how the design fits with the pre-design goals and/or client expectations;
- Description of identified sustainable targets and environmental features;
- Probable construction cost, including potential cost risks;
- Preliminary schedule;
- Site data.
These documents are essential resources for the remaining design phases. They help to ensure that all project goals and objectives are met to client expectations.
Strategies for Co-Design: End-User Engagement Techniques
In an earlier stage in the EIHD project we conducted interviews with people living with disabilities and people working in the housing industry. These interviews yielded several insights into the meaning of inclusion that are relevant to co-design.
People living with disabilities interviewed asserted that end-user engagement strategies should always treat people with dignity, involve active listening, validate input received, and show how input was used in the eventual design. Moreover, meaningful involvement in design processes needed to meet certain thresholds such as providing an orientation to the process and how they fit it, providing opportunities to be involved from beginning to end, providing flexibility and choice in how one was involved, and ensuring that all impacted groups from across the disability spectrum have the opportunity to participate. Finally, a strong emphasis on in-person dialogue was given and in this regard participants expressed preferences for one-on-one meetings, small group meetings, and site visits.
The interviews with housing industry professionals gave insight into how the industry understands and interprets concepts such as accessibility and meaningful involvement. They revealed a shared understanding of accessibility as a means to serve a wide range of abilities, but had varying interpretations of concepts such as barrier-free design. One participant viewed barrier-free design as a higher standard tailored towards specific mobility impairments, while the other viewed it as a broadly applicable approach. Nonetheless, both professionals emphasized the importance of involving end-users in the design process and did so through an on-going consultative or input exercise. Their approaches revealed a potential risk in the design process: designs created before any consultation with or involvement of end users risked perpetuating barriers and inaccessibility. These interviews showed that while minimum technical standards of accessibility might be met, the true functionality of a built environment is not possible without the involvement of those with lived experiences.
Key Question: How can we meaningfully involve people with disabilities in planning and decision-making during the pre-design phase and schematic design phase?
There are many different techniques for collecting and compiling input and involving diverse individuals and groups in decision-making (for example, see City of Pittsburgh Public Engagement Toolkit). Below are summaries of examples that align with pre-design and schematic design activities.
Technique #1: The Design Charrette
A charrette is a collaborative design and planning process that typically involves architects, designers, community members, and stakeholders, in brainstorming exercises during the early phases of a project (Özdamar, 2024; Tennessee Department of Health, 2017). Charrettes can vary in terms of size and duration. What is unique about a charrette is the exploration and analysis of a specific project design that centers participant input (Tennessee Department of Health, 2017).
This method integrates intuitive, rational and emotional knowledge from individuals from a variety of backgrounds (Roggema, 2014). It is an inventive approach with the goal of fostering a creative environment for discussion and collaboration from participants. According to Roggema (2014), the charrette process offers creative participation opportunities, open minded conversations, a “bottom-up” way of working to take local knowledge and perceptions into account in the design decision making process, as well collaboration across disciplines, organizations, and levels of government.
The aim of a charrette is to educate and build capacity among participants and project leaders, develop and instill values of community planning and collective engagement, create tangible information for design decisions, and create a space for people to be heard and offer lived experiences to give input on the changes to their environment (Tennessee Department of Health, 2017).
There are a variety of ways in which a charrette can be facilitated. They are typically held in a room that is optimal for group discussion, allowing participants to sit around tables or in small groups (Tennessee Department of Health, 2017), allowing participants to share ideas and perspectives with one another. Facilitators must keep the session on topic while still allowing for a free, natural discussion.
Different techniques and activities can be used according to the objective of the research at hand. They can be key in providing outlets for participants to feel comfortable enough to actively engage in discussion and provide their open and honest opinions. Some techniques and activities include problem tree analysis, card storming, collage scenarios/dot activity, structured conversations, and site visits/demonstration projects (explained in more detail below), alongside many more. However, these activities should remain mindful of time, space, and participant knowledge to avoid convoluted discussions.
Technique #2: Problem Tree Analysis
Through visualization and mapping, a problem tree analysis allows participants to identify main problems including their root causes, what influences them, and their effects (Pittsburgh Department of City Planning, n.d.). It consists of a large wall or sheet of paper, sticky notes, and categories for problems to help organization. This technique breaks down larger problems into more manageable and comprehensible issues. Problem tree analyses can promote a shared understanding of the problem at hand, and provides a mechanism for prioritizing how it will be addressed (Pittsburgh Department of City Planning, n.d.). This technique is ideal for the co-creation of solutions and strategies.
Technique #3: Card Storming
Card storming is a brainstorming technique that permits a large number of people to provide input about what is most important to them in regards to an issue, problem, or process (Pittsburgh Department of City Planning, n.d.). Participants can be split into smaller groups to note their ideas on sticky notes or cards, to then organize their ideas based on natural groupings and identify emerging themes (Pittsburgh Department of City Planning, n.d.). This technique is useful in maximizing participant engagement, while also ensuring inclusion by using all ideas provided.
Technique #4: Collage Scenarios / Dot Activity
In a collage scenario/dot activity participants are broken into groups, according to the number of participants present. Each group will then prioritize ideas using icons or dot stickers on maps, images, or collages to suggest design options, preferences and/or priorities (Pittsburgh Department of City Planning, n.d.).
The collage can be done in a similar manner as card storming, where ideas and/or concerns are grouped together into common themes. The dot activity is when individuals place dots or pins to vote for elements or ideas they do or do not like. This allows facilitators to learn and understand participant preferences and prioritizations.
Technique #5: Structured Conversations
Structured or focused conversations are useful in exploring certain situations or issues. They guide conversation by preparing questions that are arranged in four stages, starting at the surface level and working towards in-depth conversations. These four stages are objective questions to review facts, reflective questions that evoke emotional responses, interpretive questions to draw meaning from something, and decisional questions that consider future action (Pittsburgh Department of City Planning, n.d.).
Technique #6: Site Visits / Demonstration Projects
A site visit is used to receive participant opinions about the location visited (Lawrenz et al., 2003). They provide an opportunity for participants to see the potential of a project. Feedback received during these are valuable in determining the value of the project at hand and the public opinion towards it.
Demonstration projects are similar in that they too provide an opportunity to test ideas or demonstrate the potential of a project through temporary installations (Pittsburgh Department of City Planning, n.d.). These projects may raise awareness for the planning and design processes, and provide an opportunity for the public to provide feedback regarding the project (Pittsburgh Department of City Planning, n.d.).
Key Question: Do these techniques, as described, present barriers to participation? How can we ensure these techniques are accessible? What considerations need to be made to ensure meaningful participation? What other techniques might assist a team engaged in co-design?
Summary
This background report has outlined the importance of involving end-users at the earliest stages of the design process to ensure genuinely inclusive environments. We have identified important phases in the architectural design process, such as the pre-design and schematic design phases, as critical opportunities for meaningful collaboration with end-users where their needs, preferences, and lived experiences can help guide the project towards inclusivity. By utilizing co-design in these foundational phases, we can address the existing power imbalances between professionals and end-users and ensure that built environments go beyond the bare minimum.
We have introduced a range of co-design techniques, including charrettes, problem tree analysis, card storming, collage scenarios/dot activities, and site visits/demonstration projects. All of which offer flexible and interactive ways for participant engagement, and promote accessibility in both format and facilitation. Allowing us to centre our focus on the personal and lived experiences of the participants, and incorporate their needs into the design process.
As we move forward in applying these strategies, we will continue to ask ourselves: Are these techniques truly accessible? And how can we adapt our processes to ensure that all voices are equally heard and influential towards the outcomes?
References:
City of Pittsburgh, Department of City Planning. (n.d.). Public engagement toolkit (Publication No. 7844). Pittsburgh, PA: City of Pittsburgh. Retrieved June 23, 2025, from https://www.pittsburghpa.gov/dcp/documents/7844_public_engagement_toolkit.pdf
Fontan, J. (2020, June 3). Pre Design Architecture. Fontan Architecture. Retrieved June 18, 2025, from https://fontanarchitecture.com/pre-design-architecture/
Lawrenz, F., Keiser, N., & Lavoie, B. (2003). Evaluative site visits: A methodological review. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(3), 341–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/109821400302400304
Özdamar, E. G. (2024). Charrettes for developing a transdisciplinary approach to urban housing. Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering & Science, 15, 187–195. https://doi.org/10.22545/2024/00248
Roggema, R. (2014). The design charrette. In Roggema, R. (Ed.),The design charrette: Ways to envision sustainable futures, 15-34. Springer.
Royal Architectural Institute of Canada. (2020). Chapter 6.1: Predesign. Canadian Handbook of Practice for Architects (3rd ed.). https://chop.raic.ca/chapter-6.1
Tennessee Department of Health. (2017, Winter). Design Charrette Manual. Tennessee Department of Health. https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/health/program-areas/primary-prevention/TDH%20Design%20Charrette%20Manual.pdf
If you have questions about this project please contact Dr. Joshua Evans at joshua.evans@ualberta.ca
This research was supported by an investment grant from the Alberta Real Estate Foundation.
