The evolution of Design for All in public buildings and transportation in France Louis-Pierre Grosbois, Architect Ecole d’Architecture, La Villette, Paris,

The evolution of Design for All in public buildings and transportation in France

Louis-Pierre Grosbois, Architect

Ecole d’Architecture, La Villette, Paris, France

Hansi Ombregt Poldervaart Stijn

Design For AllTaking all physical, sensorial and mental abilities and/or disabilities into account in order to exercise optimal use value.

Evolution Change attitudes by creating a culture of comfort of use that takes the diversity of individuals into account.

Only recently, universal Design has become a common term, although DFA is in fact an extension of Commoditas, the ancient Greek concept of use value.


Design For All ages and life situations in public buildings

Public > populus: people, state, public realm

Publicus usus: public use, use for all

building that must accommodate everybody, at whatever age in life

What is a public buiding?


Disabilities, Limitations and Handicaps

People with intellectual, sensory or physical disabilities must not encounter any obstacles when trying to access information or facilities for education, transportation and so on.

Access is a right !

Disabilities

Appears when the built environment cannot provide any compensation for a person’s disabilities.

A disabled person in an accessible building is an able-bodied person.

Accesibility


Architecture, human requirements and accessibility

Architecture is based on three qualities

(Vitruvius)

Only recently, universal Design has become a common term, although DFA is in fact an extension of Commoditas, the ancient Greek concept of use value.

Firmitas solidity of construction

Voluptas pleasure, aesthetics

Commoditas adaptation to use

“Laying the building out so ingeniuosly that nothing could hinder its use”

Quote Vitruvius

Achieving the right compromise and balance between the three qualities.

Adapting to people and their uses is an inescapable consequence of achieving this compromise.


Historical background and Attitudes

Reducing the human body, as an ideal figure, to a mathematical object

Greek and Roman culture

RenaissanceApplying the proportions of the human body to the layout of buildings, and even cities

Anthropometric model has been replaced by the model of the pyramid that describes a person’s evolution through the phases of the life cycle

1960s

Le Corbusier

Modulor, a range of dimensions on the human scale, universally applicable to architecture


Historical background and Attitudes

The architectural notion of a unique use related to an individual at the peak of his or her physical an sensorial capacities disappeared, to be replaced by the diversity of individuals, or of the same individual throughout the phases of the life cycle, or after an accident or an illness.

Greek and Roman culture

Renaissance

1960s

Le Corbusier

The objective Vitruvius defined 2000 years ago, “to lay out the building so ingeniously that nothing could hinder its use.” was therefore achieved as a consequence of a new concept, dating from this end of the millennium: “Design for All”.


Beyond Formalism: Design for All

Firmitas

Between the three qualitative criteria of architecture, a compromise has to be found in terms of design.

Voluptas

Commoditas

DESIGN

Construction and solidity

aesthetics usability

Without any dialogue or encounter between solidity, usefulness and beauty, only inhuman constructions can be produced.


Beyond Formalism: Design for All

Good compromise

Without any dialogue or encounter between solidity, usefulness and beauty, only inhuman constructions can be produced.

• Reinforce the morphological an anthropological knowledge of humankind

• always start from the most architecturally demanding limitations, or those which require the most extensive alterations.

“Each solution is, one way or the other, the result of a compromise, which was found more easely when the human limitations were studied” quote A. Aalto

Design for All in France: Four Examples

Architects need to compromise between technical, economic, social, and aesthetic data and human requirements

In 1998, research project: Living in an Accessible City- from Uses to Design

Outcome: Seven points have to be dealt with, as differently emphasized ways of seeking out compromises:

-Language

-Legal requirements

-Advocacy

-Planning

-Technical traditions

-Accessibility follow- through

-Communications

Criteria for Analysis

-Language

-Legal requirements

-Advocacy

-Planning

-Technical traditions

-Accessibility follow- through

-Communications

How can we remove mental blocks while carrying out a project

To which legislative framework does each project belong

How can community Associations defend people with disabilities

This is the faze where criteria for accessibility are integrated in the project

Obstacles raised by technical choices have to be dealt with

Checking if the strong intentions at the beginning of the project have been reached

Accessibility leads to nothing if the general public does not know about it

-Legal Requirements:

The Lille Metro System (1973-1983)

-Language: Negative terms have been replaced by positive terms like: Metro for All, Horizontal Elevator

There were no legal requirements yet in 1973. Therefore we can consider the project in Lille as a Pioneer

-Advocacy: The accessibility-for-all solution was appreciated but was only for people with motor deficiencies and not yet for people with sensorial deficiencies

-Planning: From the beginning of the project there was attention for persons with disabilities

-Technical Traditions:

-The quantity of persons transported on each train was less important than the frequency of those trains

-Rolling Stock: Synchronized opening of the doors = horizontal elevator

The Lille Metro System (1973-1983)

-Accessibility follow-through:

The project manager visits and coordinates the progress, therefore continuity is ensured

-Communications: The CUDL insists that the metro is accessible to all. The new design-for-all metro led to a general improvement and appreciation of mass transport = ‘a metro for all’

The grenoble Tram System (1978-1988)


-Language: The language used in documents about the TAG talked about Accessibility for travelers in wheelchairs, persons with reduced mobility, buggies, strollers,...

According to the law trams had to be accessible to all and Grenoble followed this legislation to the letter

-Advocacy: In 1971 there was a demonstration by people with disabilities in France, the same year a person with a serious disability was elected to the city council. These events had a big influence on the opinion towards disabled people

-Planning: Accessibility as an urban criteria: In 1976 R. Herbin was given a consultancy assignment to promote accessibility operations in the town’s highway maintenance


Bogies and electrical motorization equipment in the low part of the tram where already at such a height that the floor was not compatible with the level of platforms at the tramspots. A solution herefore was putting the electrical drive elements on the roof. A retractable door step completed the leveling with the sidewalk


In 1976 the city of Grenoble commissioned an accessibility consultant.

-Communications: The TAG won the European Community Helios award for best transport achievements in 1989

The grenoble Tram System (1978-1988)

The Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie de la Villette, Paris (1980-1987)


-Language: Integration of persons with disabilities was integrated from the beginning of the project. There was a study which examined the various disabilities of persons who make up a museum’s visiting public. Also there was chosen to use the term handicap rather than the expression disabled persons

The author of the 1980 law for the accessibility of public buildings was on the team of the architect, thus the accessibility reached largely exceeded the requirements of the normative framework

-Advocacy: Because accessibility was looked at from the beginning of the project it did not affect the building’s beauty and practicability

-Planning: The buildings accessibility became possible through the cooperation between the architect and it’s consultant


People with disabilities where often seen as a marginal and limited group. There where also the professional habits of architects who were not inclined to rethink their immediate reactions to problems. (floating floor to hide cables)


After the museum opened the consultant’s commission was extended to work with the museum itself because accessibility can often disappear if there is no strict follow up

-Communications: The information towards the visitors works very well. One has only to walk around the CSI spaces to see that the challenge for social integration has been taken up. There are a lot of disabled people visiting the project and they are happy to be in a large public space with other people

The Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie de la Villette, Paris (1980-1987)

The grande Galérie in the museum d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris (1989-1994)


-Language: The public was to be able to move through the entire exhibition space without having to be segregated through any specific route because comfort and social interaction have to be sought

The Grande Galerie opened the same year the regulations were strengthened. It also proved that regulations were only a minimal aspect. The concept of free visitors flow went beyond the literal application of legal requirements

-Advocacy: Accessibility was commissioned from a design office, there was no advisory committee of associations

-Planning: Accessibility studies were subsequently integrated into the specifications to take the variety of the public’s motor and sensory disabilities into account


The beautiful nineteenth century display cabinets were kept, but adapted to contemporary museographic requirements. This case shows that it’s possible to combine traditions with technical evolution to preserve a buildings identity

The grande Galérie in the museum d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris (1989-1994)


A reception unit for people with disabilities is currently created and the staff is specially trained to guide disabled people around

-Communications: The magazine Musées et Collections publiques de France published an issue entitled ‘How to receive people with disabilities’


-Language:

The evolution of various elements during the past 20 years

1975 support implementation of accessibilit laws

1980 Laws fully implemented and comfort was afforded to all

1985 Law needed amendment because it provided only a minimum set of regulations

-Advocacy: Incentive role in 1975 (Lille and Grenoble)

Consulting role with commission in 1985

General lessons learned from “Design for All” in France

Architectural barrier accessible measures

Handicaped person reduced mobility

Specific for handicaped use for all


Humankind has to be considered as the key figure, with technology playing the supporting role

General lessons learned from “Design for All” in France


The Grenoble experience in 1975 and the Cité des Sciences in 1985 created a permanent team called an accesibility cell

-Communications: Everyone’s precense

Added value to the image of achievement

DFA-concept developed everywhere to ensure comfort

-Planning: Definition of new transportation equipment

Accessibility for all users, after defining their various abilities

Route to accessibility

“Design for All” CONCLUSION

The new design for all concept will generate a friendlier and less aggressive evironment and will provide benefits to all social sectors

Equitable Use

Flexibility in Use

Simple and Intiutive Use

Perceptible information

Tolerance for Error

Low Physical Effort

Size ande Space for Approach and Use

7 principles of UD

French examples of DFA reveal issues of compromise based on cultural, technical, en economic data.

“Design for All” CONCLUSION

21th Century

“Man proposes, Scientists or Architects create, an Technology gets adapted”

Focusing on diversified uses, thes recommendations do not go into the social and technical comprommises that have to be made

Imposing an UD model is therefore out of the question whitin the person/culture/techniques interfaces

Suggestion: share a humanist vision (D.A. Norman, 1996)

1933 Chicago World Fair

“scientist discover, Industry applies, and Man gets adapted”

Documents

The evolution of Design for All in public buildings and transportation in France Louis-Pierre Grosbois, Architect Ecole d’Architecture, La Villette, Paris,