What is the difference between accessibility and Universal Design?
Listen to the audio version by clicking the play button above.
What is the difference between Universal Design and accessibility?
I’ve written about this before, but it’s an important topic worth talking about again.
The research paper Drivers and Barriers for Universal Design examines why Universal Design is not more widely embraced by architects and key stakeholders. From a built environment perspective, it says accessibility “refers to the removal of barriers for the specific purpose of allowing physical access (for people with disabilities) to spaces”. However, Universal Design “aims to address the widest diversity of individuals possible, with a bottom-up approach that starts with the mainstream,” which “strives to create elegant environments and eliminate stigma”.
In other words, Universal Design is the loftier goal.
Maybe that description is still a little unclear? To help clarify, I’ll share an example from a recent conversation with an architectural student who asked me to name some Universal Design aspects that benefit all users of a built environment.
Typically, the restrooms in modern New Zealand public buildings consist of three spaces; a unisex accessible toilet room, a restroom for females consisting of several toilet cubicles with hand basins outside the cubicles, and a similar room for males (perhaps with the addition of a few urinals separated by a small screen). In these cases, it is fantastic that there’s a unisex-accessible toilet room provided alongside the gendered restrooms.
Over the past few years, I’ve noticed that, in place of multi-user male and female restrooms, clever designers have been providing multiple single-user gender-neutral rooms, each with a toilet and hand basin. They are much more versatile than the traditional men’s and women’s restrooms. Here are just a few examples of people who might prefer such facilities:
Someone who does not identify with the gendered restroom that people might expect them to use, based on their appearance.
Someone who is not comfortable sharing a bathroom with someone who does not appear to match the room gender.
Someone who uses a menstrual cup and needs a handbasin near the toilet to wash the cup. Menstrual cups are an environmentally sensitive choice, so making it easier for people to use them is desirable and contributes to sustainability.
Someone who, like me, simply prefers more privacy than a room with multiple cubicles affords.
Offering single-user, gender-neutral, non-accessible toilet rooms addresses all of these needs, while simultaneously keeping the larger, accessible toilet room (which might otherwise be the preferred option for the examples above) more readily available for people who really do need the extra space.
These single-user toilet rooms are not an accessible feature because they do not remove a barrier for someone with a physical disability; an accessible toilet room is still needed. But they are a Universal Design feature because they address the widest diversity of individuals possible and eliminate stigma.
This is just one example of Universal Design. There are infinite possibilities. What else can you do to help create those elegant environments?
