What is Universal Design?

Yes, but this requires an understanding of universal accessibility. There is no “one-size-fits-all” solution. Universal design is about creating as much usability as possible for as many people as possible, with options for easy adaptation for specific needs.

No. Universal design can be applied to anything. The concept was initially developed for products and environments but can be extended to many different contexts.

Our focus at The UD Project is housing because homes are one of the most important products people will use throughout their lives.

It can be. It depends what you compare it to. If you look at the status quo of housing, especially many spec homes that, let’s be honest, aren’t designed well, then yes, it will cost more than what’s “normal.”

Site work for step-free entrances, adequate floor space in some areas of the home (no tiny bathrooms!), elevators for multi-story access, design fees, etc. can add up.

This is the wrong way to look at it. It’s important to consider an entire home as a single product to be universally designed.

Every design element is important. If some “universal design features” are excluded, a home can’t be considered universally accessible because some people won’t be able to use or access part of it.

First, the ADA doesn’t apply to most housing.

Second, the ADA allows for “separate but equal” access (this is why you see “handicapped” parking and bathroom stalls in public places). Universal design is functional for everyone.

There’s a saying that “universal design goes beyond the ADA.” This mindset exists because designers typically apply the bare minimum effort to meet ADA requirements (if at all). If more designers put in the effort to apply ADA standards well, there would be a lot of similarity to universal design. It’s a design issue.

Some is, if it’s a 4+ unit multifamily home (like apartments) or paid for by government funds. However, no accessibility requirements exist for most privately owned homes.

Why? Well, it’s complicated. The economics of home accessibility often leads to added costs. Regulating accessibility when affordability is already an issue is challenging. Developers and builders resist significant change, and policymakers haven’t forced it to happen. There’s also a lack of widely accepted accessibility standards, making enforcement and oversight difficult. Plus, many believe it encroaches on market freedom (although other regulations for fire safety, structural integrity, and much more have been widely accepted).

Of course… well, they can try.

Problem: it’s common to see people make significant compromises due to constrained budgets and difficulty changing existing homes. Most homes can’t be easily modified to meet accessibility needs. In other words, it’s often really difficult and cost-prohibitive to make a home accessible when the initial design wasn’t accessible.

Many claim to, and there’s increasing interest. But there’s not enough demand for universal design to be a standard practice. Our research has found that builders typically only “do accessibility” when clients request it.

The problem is that universal design is typically only considered for custom homes. This is problematic because custom homes are (1) more costly and (2) customized for the client. Spec and infill homes should be designed to be universally accessible to address the needs of our communities.

Plus, it’s challenging to do universal design well without input from people who understand human function well, from a healthcare perspective, like occupational therapists.

No one on this planet truly understands every possible individual’s needs to create housing solutions that work for everyone. However, licensed occupational therapists (OTs) have broad, high-level perspectives about variations in human function related to many health conditions and physical & mental impairments you won’t find from anyone else.

No.

While there are space requirements for universal design that aren’t common, 1 in 5 households have accessibility needs. The space requirements are important and can significantly impact millions of people’s health and well-being for the better.

Poor design results in an inefficient use of space.

No.

First, ask yourself who “the disabled” includes. You may have some idea of who may be “disabled,” but there’s no diagnosis of disability. Lots of people live with impairments that affect their bodies and/or minds. They might not all use wheelchairs or mobility devices, but that doesn’t mean they don’t benefit from accessibility in their home or their friends’ and families’ homes.

No.

Poor design makes homes ugly. Even inaccessible homes can be ugly.

You’re free to spend your money on what matters to you. There are plenty of inaccessible homes available, but chances are good that you know someone who does benefit from accessibility. We hope that you’d want to welcome them into your home for dinner or other social gatherings.

Also, the probability of you needing accessibility someday is high. If you think an inaccessible home is your “forever home,” you’ll regret that idea someday.

No one wants the government to tell them what to do. We get it. But the reality is that our housing stock has an extreme shortage of accessible homes. Governments need to get involved for the good of our communities.

Governments already have requirements for fire safety, structural integrity, water management, electrical safety, and much more. These requirements are commonly accepted. Accessibility has been overlooked for a long time. This needs to change.

We’re not talking about universal design being useful for some tiny subset of the population. Realistically speaking, all of our bodies wear out later in life. Universal design is useful for everyone, regardless of it’s “needed” right now.

The 7 Principles of Universal Design were developed by a team at the Center for Universal Design at North Carolina State University. This group was led by Ronald Mace, an architect who was instrumental in advocating for design that could be used by everyone, regardless of their abilities. These principles were first published in 1997.

1. Equitable Use: The design is useful and marketable to people with diverse abilities. It should:
   • Provide the same means of use for all users: identical whenever possible; equivalent when not.
   • Avoid segregating or stigmatizing any users.
   • Make provisions for privacy, security, and safety equally available to all users.
2. Flexibility in Use: The design accommodates a wide range of individual preferences and abilities. It should:
   • Provide choice in methods of use.
   • Accommodate right- or left-handed access and use.
   • Facilitate the user’s accuracy and precision.
   • Provide adaptability to the user’s pace.
3. Simple and Intuitive Use: Use of the design is easy to understand, regardless of the user’s experience, knowledge, language skills, or current concentration level. It should:
   • Eliminate unnecessary complexity.
   • Be consistent with user expectations and intuition.
   • Accommodate a wide range of literacy and language skills.
4. Perceptible Information: The design communicates necessary information effectively to the user, regardless of ambient conditions or the user’s sensory abilities. It should:
   • Use different modes (pictorial, verbal, tactile) for redundant presentation of essential information.
   • Provide adequate contrast between essential information and its surroundings.
   • Maximize “legibility” of essential information.
5. Tolerance for Error: The design minimizes hazards and the adverse consequences of accidental or unintended actions. It should:
   • Arrange elements to minimize hazards and errors: most used elements, most accessible; hazardous elements eliminated, isolated, or shielded.
   • Provide warnings of hazards and errors.
   • Provide fail-safe features.
6. Low Physical Effort: The design can be used efficiently and comfortably with a minimum of fatigue. It should:
   • Allow user to maintain a neutral body position.
   • Use reasonable operating forces.
   • Minimize repetitive actions.
   • Minimize sustained physical effort.
7. Size and Space for Approach and Use: Appropriate size and space is provided for approach, reach, manipulation, and use regardless of user’s body size, posture, or mobility. It should:
   • Provide a clear line of sight to important elements for any seated or standing user.
   • Make reach to all components comfortable for any seated or standing user.
   • Accommodate variations in hand and grip size.

These principles aim to make products, buildings, and environments inherently accessible to both people with and without disabilities, thereby promoting an inclusive design approach.