Encouraging curiosity

Mary Ann, in her dual capacity as Architect-Access Consultant and PhD candidate, communicated to those present that we must all think more holistically–and with curiosity–about ‘cross cultural contexts’, about ‘theory and practice’, about ‘duty’ and ‘rights’, etc. It is not sufficient to merely look up Part D4, Access for people with a disability in the National Construction Code (NCC).
The bulk of the session’s content was presented under three headings: 1) Backgrounding, 2) Models of disability, and 3) Legislation and policy. Questions and discussion wrapped up the session.
Firstly, Backgrounding briefly covered: problem-space – solution-space (design thinking), built environment as ‘enabler’ (or not), ‘big scale’–‘small detail’, working together with (transdisciplinarity), and Rights (human rights-based approaches). Secondly, various Disability demographics were noted. Lastly, the UNCRPD was very briefly introduced in this segment.
In the next segment, six Models of disability were briefly described: 1) Charity/ Institutional Model, 2) Medical Model, 3) Social Model, 4) Relational Model, 5) Diversity Model, and 6) Human Rights Model. (More information on these can be found in Mary Ann’s ‘Models of disability’ paper, https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471x/7/1/10)
Topics touched on within the Legislation and policy segment included Australia’s Disabiliy Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) and the Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010, ‘accessibility’ requirements in planning schemes, and variable definitions of ‘accessibility’. Common terms often have variable definitions, reinforcing that ‘implementing accessibility’ involves ethical considerations, not just tickbox compliance. With the assistance of hierarchical flowcharts, Mary Ann also highlighted that beyond ‘legislation’, implementing accessibility also involves ‘policy’, particularly in the case of publicly funding community facilities. Lastly, multiple reasons for Why Accessibility Matters were given.
Hopefully, the session accorded the students some thinking tools to more effectively play in the solution-space of their current university design studio, and beyond. In tandem, though, Mary Ann encouraged the students to actively observe and document the problem-space of the existing conditions of the built environment–to be curious.