A House for the Senses - Housing Design for People with Sensory Impairments
Camilla Ryhl, Ph.D., Architect maa, Ed Roberts Post Doctoral Fellow, Royal Academy of Fine Arts, Copenhagen & UC Berkeley, USA
Abstract
This article present the Ph.D. dissertation A House for the Senses, which was defended by the author and accepted by the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, School of Architecture, Copenhagen in November 2003.
By answering the research question, "Does a sensory impairment imply specific design requirements to the architecture of housing?" the project shows how universal design in housing may embrace the growing number of people with sensory impairments.
Based on empirical research methods including qualitative interviews and 1:1 qualitative spatial tests in existing housing, and a close collaboration with a group of users with visual or hearing impairments the project discuss and studies how architects may accommodate sensory impairments in the basic architectural design of housing, and furthermore expand the design beyond the concept of accessibility to a practice of Universal Design.
Sensory Accessibility
As I initially began my research on housing design for people with sensory disabilities I interviewed a large number of people concerned in order to understand the nature of their spatial perception and the physical and sensory barriers they experience in their everyday life.
During an interview with a participant, who has a hearing impairment, pinpointed the essence of this research project when, she as she was expressing her own experience, said:
"I have experienced rooms I had to leave because of my hearing disability, where the acoustics have been so terrible that it just gave me a headache - the daylight can be as beautiful as any, but if the sound is bad, then it is just beautiful and I will still have to leave, then the beauty and the room is useless to me."
- participant with hearing impairment
As architects and designers working to create an accessible universal environment we need to expand the concept of access to also include access to perception and experience of the architectural quality of the built environment itself. Otherwise the physical access itself becomes meaningless to a large group of people and the universal aspects are lost.
We live in a time dominated by the sense of sight, also in architecture. We are consciously and un-consciously aware of visual impressions and expressions in our planning, design and description of architecture and architectural quality, but in reality our remaining senses are equally and constantly as active and receptive as the sense of vision.
We are always and constantly present in this world. We move through, over, under and towards our surroundings. We see, hear, feel, smell, sit and taste our way through our immediate world every day and all the time, in our sleep and while awake, we are constantly open to perceptions informing us of form, size, texture and character of that which our body is directly or indirectly in touch with. Our senses never rest, sight opens up the world to the stars and the skin senses the almost invisible splinters in the surface of the wood. Consciously or unconsciously we constantly perceive information of the world we are in. Our body is an active player in the process, as when we move up and down stairways, lean against stonewalls warm and soothing from the sun, sit on a curb or walk through open doors. Or our body is a passive receiver in the perception process, as when the breeze from the window blows through the room and softly touches our skin, or we hear the clatter of the open door upstairs.
Whether we are active or inactive in the process, our senses never cease to perceive and they are inextricably linked with our perception of space, form and architecture.
Our senses immediately tells us of the uneven steps of the stairway, the complex and unsolved daylight that blinds us as we walk into the room, or of the acoustics that drown out the beautiful spatial proportions to such a degree that we do not have the energy or strength to stay and enjoy the room and architecture.
When we know the importance of the role of the senses and the interrelation between them in our experience of architecture and space, how may we then assure an architecture still stimulating and challenging to people living with a sensory disability, e.g. people who are blind or deaf? Is it possible to expand the concept of accessibility and also include the actual experience of architecture that follows after everyone has been assured physical access? How may we assure access to the sensory experiences that are the core of architectural meaning? How can sensory perceptions and abilities be included in the concept of Universal Design and in particular in the design and architecture of the most important physical setting of our every day life, our homes?
I actually believe it would influence my orientation if the room has the wrong spatial proportions, it would bother my orientation … and if my orientation suffers then the experience itself suffers, then the value and pleasure of simply experiencing the space itself will decrease."
- blind participant
Empirical Studies
The core of the empirical studies was a series of 1:1 spatial tests in existing homes, supplemented by pre-tests and qualitative interviews as well as theoretical studies.
A close collaboration with a group of participants representing the concerned disabilities has been central throughout the process. 23 people participated in the interviews and 11 people participated in the 1:1 spatial tests. The participants were found through their respective organisations in Denmark; the National Association for the Blind, the National Association of Hearing Impaired and the National Association of the Deaf. Working with representatives from the various included user groups has from the very outset been decisive to the process, methodology and usability of results and conclusions. Drawing from the extensive tacit knowledge and experience existing within the user group as well as emphasising the mutual benefits and learning processes that rise from the dialogue between user and practitioner is an important and central factor in this research project.
"You exist in this kind of enclosed space in a way when you are hard of hearing, and I think this is why you need all the light and the sense of the world being larger than the space itself …. You need everything that is out there in here, bring the light in, the feeling of air, of being able to breathe...the sky, the horizon."
- participant with hearing impairment
Basic architectural components such as daylight, acoustics and spatial proportions are of decisive importance for universal activities such as communication and spatial experience for everyone, including people with a visual or a hearing impairment, and by working consciously with the design of daylight and acoustics architectural space may offer a situation where less assistive technology is needed and the individual user may be able to inhabit and use the space based on his own conditions and wishes rather than being dictated by the limits of the architectural design. Truly universal designed housing does not only accommodate functionality, but offers sensory experiences, regardless of physical or sensory abilities of the resident. Thereby the quality of architecture is also increased.
In the 1:1 spatial tests in existing housing five architectural elements were defined based on the results of the qualitative interviews. They are central in the work of defining, describing and analyzing the spatial and architectural experiences of the participants. The elements have been defined and developed throughout the process and as a whole they cover the aspects of architecture that has proved to be of importance to the experience of space and architecture in people living with a sensory impairment. They are at the same time universal in their entire descriptive ability in relation to space and architecture. The five architectural elements are defined as Proportions, Openings, Connections, Acoustics and Complexity.
"When you are standing in the middle of the room then you might feel the floor, feel whether it is hard or soft...You know the feeling of a wooden floor is different and you feel it, just like you feel the sounds, I use my sense of sound a lot."
- deaf participant
The 1:1 spatial tests took place in five different existing homes representing contemporary Danish housing, and each group of disability tested separately. They would spontaneously discuss and reflect as well as answer follow up questions on their experience of the quality of the space itself as well as the five architectural elements. Everything was recorded on tape, reverberation time (acoustics) and luminans (daylight) was measured electronically and all data was documented graphically in drawings, diagrams, photos and notes.
In general the different groups reacted differently to the five rooms and the architectural elements in question, and there is no doubt that their experience of architectural space is determined by their remaining senses and the abilities of the designed space to accommodate and stimulate these senses. Depending on the nature of the remaining primary sense the discussions would focus on either of the five elements, but as a common nominator acoustics and reverberation time was discussed persistently and commented on in surprising details.
"Understanding the space around me has a lot to do with feeling the sounds being close to my body."
- blind participant
Conclusion
The included groups of disabilities as expected had needs and requirements which in some cases are mutual and in others are opposing. An example is people who are blind prefer spatial proportions of smaller scale where a point of reference can easily be reached at any given time within a few steps, while deaf people tend to feel enclosed and claustrophobic in smaller spaces and in stead require large, spacious and very open spaces.
But as the most important and universal result is the essential role of the acoustical quality, which for all four groups shows to be decisive to not only the experience of architectural space but also to the access to the same experience. Whether hearing is primary or secondary sense, the physical and psychological consequences of the increased acoustical sensitivity is noticeably greater than the similar visual sensitivity in the participants relying on their vision as primary or secondary sense. Acoustical information and quality may be accessible to everyone, whether perceived through a remaining sense of hearing or through vibrations and reflections it is the responsibility of the architect to assure this through responsible universal design.
In other words, the acoustical quality of our homes is as an architectural element decisive to the perceived quality of our homes, also to people with sensory disabilities.
The traditional house is generally made up of a number of rooms defined by function, such as bedroom, living room, bathroom etc., and generally all of a traditional size. Contemporary housing design although is continuously experimenting and testing the relation between housing design and the family structure of our time in the western world - rooms are expanded, spatial definitions dissolved and new functionalities are being defined. A decisive consequence of this tendency is an increase in acoustical reverberation time resulting in a general decrease in the quality of the acoustics in most contemporary housing.
Another important result is the interrelations between several of the architectural elements, especially proportions, openings and connections. As an example requirement of large spacious rooms never stand alone, but are closely interrelated to wants of large window openings, placed correctly in relation to eyelevel, horizon, sky and view and assuring the correct lines of vision or acoustical connections to related spaces. Specific definitions vary between the groups included and will be presented in greater details at the conference presentation.
The process and conclusions clearly shows the problems of including four different categories of disabilities. By spreading focus over such a wide spectrum of abilities and requirements the possibilities of very detailed results for each group became reasonably decreased, but the ambitious inclusion of both vision and hearing in the project also had a positive effect. It would not have been possible to reach the general and universal conclusion I did in regards to the importance and present role of the acoustical environment and in particular our practice of reverberation time in housing, if the subjects included in the study had not represented a wide range of user abilities and prerequisites, including the people in the control group having no particular disability of the senses.
Some will state that one becomes so familiar with ones own home that orientation and task solving without assistance is easy and safe, but this is not the case. Daylight or spatial proportions as an example may work strongly against the user's remaining sense to such a degree, that it will continuously leave him unsure and unsafe, and require extensive energy resources every single day, also in his own home. Some types of lost ability of the senses may influence orientation in such a degree that factors such as recognition and familiarity cannot counterbalance the loss.
The results of the empirical studies and the conclusion of the dissertation points at a strong need for a redefinition of acoustical requirements in housing design, as well as several design guidelines describing proportions, daylight, openings, complexity and spatial context. The redefinitions and guidelines presented in the dissertation is needed if the quality of future housing design is to reflect the reality and requirements of the population and user groups - and be truly universal.