Having worked with several organisations with quite diverse workforces over the past months, the topic of ED&I (or as I have seen it, EDI&B, where B = Belonging) has been at the forefront of my mind.
During stakeholder interviews, addressing ED&I at the space planning and design phase should be a given, but it’s an area that often means different things to different people. There are times when the discussion seems to get framed around needs now rather than potential future needs. Comments like “we don’t currently have team members who would need a parenting room’ overlook the importance of forward thinking, inclusive design.
Last week, Material Source brought together two architects, Gillian Burgis Smith (who spoke in Glasgow three years ago and provided the inspiration for our blog about designing for neurodiversity in the workplace) and Jessica Noël-Smith, to discuss the topic “Demystifying EDI: How do we design for all?”. This followed on from earlier events in Manchester, the details of which can be found on the Material Source website.
It wasn’t just their expertise on the subject that stood out, but (especially from Gillian) lived experiences, and also their unwavering commitment to making the subject of inclusive design more mainstream rather than an afterthought to technical standards.
On that front, it’s worth noting that some accessibility standards haven’t been updated in decades. Like the wheelchair turning circle. When was it specified and last updated? 1963 and 1963. These days, with large, motorised wheelchairs, is the 1500mm noted in the technical standards still appropriate? We need to be constantly updating our thinking and our language (and removing phrases like DDA compliant from drawings – DDA was superseded in 2010 by the Equality Act!).
Making inclusivity central to the design solution and embedding it early on can ensure that value is added rather than engineered out. Think of the design impacts – what do we want to achieve and what do we want to avoid? And beware of potential unconscious bias.
Early discussions including ‘outliers’ in the engagement and learning from their lived experiences (that phrase again) will lead to a better design, and challenging suppliers and specifiers will hopefully lead to nicer, more stylish solutions. We also need to consider that not all disabilities are visible, and not all are permanent. Think of a colleague with a broken arm – how would they cope in your workplace?
Has the pandemic helped with regard to inclusive design? Gillan mentioned that discussions around making spaces better in order to encourage people back in to the office are taking place and this undoubtedly has led to improvements.
People don’t typically set out to do the minimum. But as we know, value engineering can often undo a lot of good work in the name of balancing budgets, with aspirations for sustainability and inclusivity being seen as complementary. “it’s not sustainable if it’s not inclusive” and going beyond the bare minimum will benefit everyone,
