Ed. note: This is the second of a two part series on Universal Design by Guest Post author Dick Duncan. “Universal Design-Part 1: Beyond ADA and Fair Housing,” can be found here.
Partially due to success of accessibility implementation and compliance in recent years, the term “accessibility” and the ideas about an “accessible” built environment are commonly known, if imperfectly understood. For example, to many people “fully accessible” means primarily usable by people who use wheelchairs, losing the inclusionary aspect of responding to the needs of people with other disabling conditions. One result of this pervasive consciousness about and misunderstandings of accessibility is confusion about the nature of universal design.
Common myths include:
- That universal design is really “just accessibility that is dressed up to look good.” If this were true, a new paint job might suffice.
- That universal design is just fully accessible design but with the addition of characteristics that makes it usable by other people too. Well-engineered functionality is crucial to a universal outcome but will always fall short if the design is not integrated or mainstreamed. Often misused in this regard is the term universal access.
- That universal design is an umbrella term that now covers all things accessible and assistive. This lacks recognition of the broad beneficiary groups, the integrated and mainstreamed aspects of universal design, and the differences between accessibility, assistive technology, and universal design.
- That universal design is the new age or current term for accessible design. It is “what we are calling it” now. This suggests the notion that universal design is merely the politically correct term that one must be careful to use in polite company. With this thinking, universal design is grouped together with code compliance and other efforts.
There is legitimate confusion between universal design and more similar concepts or concepts, such as visitability (an US-based approach, limited to housing, that promotes limited usability features), Design for All (a similar idea to universal design, principally in use in Europe), Life Span Design (used in the US, principally reflecting age sensitive design), Transgenerational Design (an idea formed in the US that good design now must accommodate people of all ages), Flex Housing (developed by Canadian Housing and Mortgage that includes features of accessibility as well as other innovative design ideas), and Lifetime Homes (developed in the UK, broadly applied standards with specific usability features). The variety of concepts and common misunderstandings regarding universal design highlights the need for continued educational activities and suggests the need for international communication and collaboration.
An important component of a universal approach to design challenges focuses on the process of design. In this manner, an appropriate outcome can be assured through the process itself. Termed ‘universal designing’ , a broad and inclusive design process includes many perspectives and is mindful of the ergonomic, human factors, and social equity considerations.
Global Universal Design Code
A national effort is now underway to develop voluntary universal design standards that will cover all domains of the built environment, initially retail, community and housing. The Mace Institute is an active participant with the Global Universal Design Commission (GUDC) and AARP in efforts to bring these new standards to life over the next several years.
Universal Design Summit 4
To obtain excellent education on UD issues, consider attending Universal Design Summit 4 this fall. The Summit, entitled “Creating Livable Homes & Communities” will be held October 10-12, 2010 in St. Louis, Missouri.
RL Mace Universal Design Institute
Most construction professionals in America are well aware of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the changes in design which have resulted in an effort to accommodate disabled persons in public places. Far fewer construction professionals, however, are aware of the concept of “universal design”. The international nonprofit RL Mace Universal Design Institute , which is based in Chapel Hill, NC, is aiming to change that and to educate the construction professional on why building to a UD standard will add value to all built environments. [Full disclosure: I am the current Vice President of the RL Mace UDI and member of the Board of Directors].
The Institute’s Mission Statement :
“The Institute’s work manifests the belief that all new environments and products, to the greatest extent possible, should and can be usable by everyone regardless of age, ability, or circumstance.”
I asked Richard (“Dick”) Duncan, Executive Director of the Mace UDI, to explain a little about the need for and concept of universal design. What follows is the Part 1 of the first ever Guest Post on this blog:
Universal Design Part 1: Beyond ADA and Fair Housing
by Richard C. Duncan, MRP, Executive Director
Adapted and revised from: Universal Design – Clarification and Development: A Report for the Ministry of the Environment, Government of Norway, Richard Duncan, NC State University, March 2007
“The intent of universal design is to simplify life for everyone by making products, communications, and the built environment more usable by as many people as possible at little or no extra cost. Universal design benefits people of all ages and abilities. “
Ron Mace, 1988
Emergence of Universal Design
It is generally agreed that the term universal design first entered into usage in the mid-1980’s by United States (US) architect, Ronald L. Mace, FAIA Since then the concept of universal design has spread worldwide and has influenced and joined related concepts such as Design for All, Life Span Design, and Inclusive Design. In its 20-year history in the US, universal design has slowly gained acceptance but has seen an uneven adoption. Universal design still remains a strategy that has been implemented by different sectors of the private and public domains, selectively and for fairly narrowly framed purposes. From the perspective of more usable and supportive environments, the US remains principally focussed on accessibility: developing regulations, codes, standards, policies and procedures to provide societal inclusion to people with disabilities.
The emergence of universal design depended substantially on many years of work on accessibility and the lessons learned from those activities. Accessibility efforts and the fundamental values of the disability rights movement in large part formed the foundation on which universal design concepts were built. But, universal design came into being partly because of the nature of accessibility that existed in the US by 1985; it was neither commonly found nor was it creatively applied. However, the appearance of universal design did not herald the end of accessibility. Two of the most significant American federal laws requiring accessibility were yet to be enacted by the time universal design began to emerge: the Fair Housing Amendments Act was signed in 1988 and the Americans with Disabilities Act passed in 1990. Universal design and accessibility have continued to develop in a connected yet parallel manner, during the time of the greatest activity in the realm of accessibility code compliance. To be sure, the philosophical basis for the accessibility movement and universal design are quite similar: inclusion, full participation, and social equity. Universal design extends beyond the confines of accessibility to include all persons and creates that inclusion by promoting integrated and mainstreamed products, environmental features, and services.
The national expansion of accessibility provisions into private buildings, multifamily housing, and beyond, has continued the dominant role of accessible design to this time. This has presented a challenge for advocates of universal design in their promotion of conceptual, policy and practical distinctions. While the great advantage of 50 years worth of work on accessible design has been the creation of a markedly accessible non-residential built environment, it has also carved a large space in the collective psychology of people in the US. For example, universal design as a distinct idea is often confused with, if not subsumed by, the more narrowly targeted concept of accessible design. Broadening the beneficiary group of more usable designing to include all of society is a significant practical and symbolic step that still requires much more effort.
The accessibility field in the US has been part of the civil rights movement for people with disabilities that began after World War II, and was related to the larger worldwide human rights movement principally identified with the United Nations. The US disability activities paralleled other similar civil rights movements by disenfranchised groups in the US at that time, for example women, African Americans, and Native Americans. During the 1960’s and since then, the disability community in the US has vigorously advocated for the creation of civil rights legislation and building regulations that provided accessibility features, e.g., curb cuts, stepless entrances, and lever door hardware. The initial major push into accessible building design came after the publication of the American National Standards Institute’s (ANSI) A117.1 standard in 1961, the first US accessibility design standard.
When Universal Design arose 25 years later, accessibility work in the intervening years had made great progress by appearing in some federal and state policies with respect to programs and services, architecture, transportation, public rights of way, public spaces, and to a lesser extent, housing. Although not uniformly applied or consistently rendered, by the mid-1980’s accessible design was becoming more of a reality for the design and construction industry across the US. Standards such as ANSI A117.1, and its many later revisions and other accessibility provisions that were based on it were a great steps forward in the field, yet had similar flaws. Those flaws revealed the limitations of a code-based approach. Later analysis showed that the codes and standards “… have been developed by an approach of modifying the norm through the use of a few specially designed features and products to accommodate the ‘few’ who vary from the norm.” This approach led to an ‘after-the-fact’ implementation of access features (even in new construction) which resulted in “… facilities which have their own ‘functional limitations’ and aesthetic problems.” Other code-based challenges were also noted. Too often, segregated accessible features were ‘special,’ more expensive, and usually ugly.
The twenty-five years of work on accessible design in the US, from 1960 – 1985, formed the body of work from which universal design emerged. Continued progress in the realm of accessibility since then has firmly established accessible design as a fundamental discipline and outcome that has benefited many. Done well and creatively, good accessible design can be truly universal. As was said nearly 10 years ago, “The demographic, legislative, economic, and social changes that brought us to this point are increasing the momentum that will propel us into the 21st century that will need to be more accommodating of individual differences. Universal design provides a blueprint for maximum inclusion of all people.”
Tomorrow’s Post: Universal Design Part 2- Current Challenges in Universal Design
[tweetmeme source=’melissabrumback’ only_single=false http://constructionlawnc.com/2010/07/15/universaldesign1/ ]
Design Error. Two words that strike fear into the heart of any architect, engineer, or lawyer representing them. Today’s post discussion is to discuss the different obligations of each of the parties on a construction project relating to design errors.
As discussed last week, designers have an obligation to design in accordance with a reasonable standard of care. That does not mean that the plans and specifications are perfect, however.
While the contractor is not responsible for design errors, he does have a duty to report any design errors or omissions which he discovers during his review of the plans. If he discovers any design errors, he must report them to the owner. See, for example, AIA A201 3-2.2.
As we have also discussed, an owner also impliedly warrants the adequacy of the plans and specifications . This is sometimes known as the “Spearin Doctrine,” after the seminal Supreme Court case, US. v. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132 (1918). In Spearin, a contractor sought to recover from the government for the government’s failure to provide accurate plans reflecting the overflow issues which preexisted at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, The Court held:
[I]f the contractor is bound to build according to plans and specifications prepared by the owner, the contractor will not be
responsible for the consequences of defects in the plans and specifications, (Citations omitted). This responsibility of the owner is
not overcome by the usual clauses requiring builders to visit the site, to check the plans, and to inform themselves of the requirements of the
work. The duty to check plans did not impose the obligation to pass upon their adequacy to accomplish the purpose in view.
Id. at 136-137. The Spearin Doctrine has been faithfully followed in the North Carolina courts. See, e.g., City of Charlotte v. Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, 103 N.C, App. 667, 407 S.E.2d 571 (1991); Burke Co Public School Bd of Education v Juno Construction Corp, 50 N.C App. 238, 273 S.E,2d 504 (1981).
One state court held, “[i]t is simply unfair to bar recovery to contractors who are mislead by inaccurate plans and submit bids lower than they might otherwise have submitted.” Battle Ridge Companies v. North Carolina Dept. of Transportation, 161 N.C. App. 156, 160, 587 S.E.2d 426 (2003), quoting Lowder v. Highway Comm., 26 N.C, App, 622, 638, 217 S.E.2d 682, 692, cert denied, 288 N.C. 393, 218 S.E.2d 467 (1975).
Obviously, the architect or engineer is the ultimate party responsible for design errors, but all parties play a role in identifying and minimizing the effect of such errors through prompt notification.
Photo “pipes” by moonlight on celluloid via Flickr via Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License.
[tweetmeme source="melissabrumback" only_single=false http://constructionlawnc.com/2010/07/01/design-error-spearin/]
Architects and engineers are required to meet the appropriate standard of care for their work on a construction project. Such a simple phrase is actually a very loaded statement. What, exactly, is the “standard of care” that the design professional is required to meet? This is one of the “terms of art” that lawyers love and everyone else tends to hate.
Basically, the “standard of care” is a shorthand description that states the designer owes a duty to perform reasonably well on the project. How is “reasonably well” defined? It is not perfection. It is, however, the showing of “reasonable care” and performing the “level of skill and diligence those in engaged in the same profession would ordinarily exercise under similar circumstances.” Again, what? If you are an architect practicing in, for example, Raleigh, you will be presumed to:
1. possess the required degree of learning, skills, and experience that is ordinarily possessed by similarly situated professionals in the community (that is, perform as well as other architects practicing in the Raleigh area);
2. use reasonable and ordinary care and diligence in the exercise of your skill to accomplish your professional tasks; and
your best good professional judgment in performing your professional tasks.
Notice that nowhere did I say that the architect’s plans had to be perfect. However, the plans do need to meet a “typical” standard. They must meet the applicable Codes. They must generally be sound. But they do not have to be perfect. (Question: Is there ever a perfect set of plans?).
Courts in North Carolina have spent a lot of time, and a lot of ink, discussing the deceptively simple concept of “standard of care,” but essentially this is how it is defined. If you want to read caselaw discussing the standard, a good case is RCDI Const. Inc. v. Spaceplan/Architecture, Planning, & Interiors, PA., 148 F. Supp. 2d 607 (W.D.N.C. 2001).
Note for Contractors & Subcontractors
If you are not a licensed professional, are you off the hook? No. But your duties fall under the “implied duty of workmanship“. Essentially, you have a duty to make sure your work is sufficiently free from defects such that it meets the requirements of the Contract documents.
Photo Drawing up the plans (Doors & Windows) by Sailing “Footprints: Real to Reel” (Ronn ashore) via Flickr and made available via an Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 license.
[tweetmeme source="melissabrumback" only_single=false http://constructionlawnc.com/2010/06/24/standard-of-care/]
2. Don’t worry about how someone will actually reach the threshold to get into the building– that’s what step ladders are for!
3. Don’t worry your head about such petty issues as structural integrity– it’s only a shed, right?
* Photo credits: “An extra room” by JaviC; “Entrance, Ufa/RU, 2009” by William Veerbeek; “Bad Construction P1000892” by RogueSun Media. All via Flickr and made available via an Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 License.
[tweetmeme source= ‘melissabrumback’ only single=false http://constructionlawnc.com/2010/05/19/bad-construction-design/ ]