Episode 2 - Universal Design and…. Bodies, Buildings, Spaces

How can we both capture, and design for, the richness of human bio- and neurodiversity rather than for standardized or conventional users?

In this second episode of Universal Design and… we get into the practical methods of how we can design more inclusively and how non-disabled people can develop their understanding of non-conventional bodies and minds as a positive factor rather than as an assumed problem for design processes.

Together with her guests, Jos Boys explores the concept of fitting and misfitting across scale and disciplines. Marcus Aminaka Wilmont – fashion designer and educator at the Royal Danish Academy – highlights the issues of standardizing the human body in the fashion industry and tells how he teaches students about inclusive clothing. Following this, educators Olga Popovic Larsen, Roberta Cassi and Adam Linden Neilsen talk about how to map patterns of fitting and misfitting in actual spaces. Together with students they have tested out alternative ways of mapping accessibility at the Royal Danish Academy campuses. Along with Masashi Kajita - head of the Cluster for Spatial Inclusion at the Danish Royal Academy -we explore the implications of working with disability from ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ approaches and discuss how to rethink the divisions in architecture between normal, conventional bodies and minds and disabled and non-normative bodies and minds.

We hope that reflecting on our experiences of rethinking disability in education and practice can help others bring innovative, creative and critical ways of including disability and access into what they do.

The podcast Universal Design And… is made by the Royal Danish Academy, celebrating the guest professorship of Jos Boys from 2022-2025 and hosted by the architect and activist herself. The professorship was funded by Bevica Foundation. The podcast was produced with the help of Rakkerpak Productions.

Participants

Dr. Jos Boys (Guest professor at the Royal Danish Academy 2022-25 and co-director of The Disordinary Architecture Project), Marcus Aminaka Wilmont (fashion designer and educator, Royal Danish Academy), Olga Popovic Larsen (architect and educator, Royal Danish Academy) Roberta Cassi (architect and researcher, Royal Danish Academy) Adam Linden Nielsen (research and teaching assistant, Royal Danish Academy) and Masashi Kajita (research cluster lead, architect and educator, Royal Danish Academy). 

English transcription:

Universal Design and….Bodies, Buildings, Spaces

Jos Boys: In episode one, we explored how we might think differently about disability across architecture and design. For this episode, episode two, Universal Design and… Bodies, Buildings, Spaces, I would like to get into the practical methods of how we can design more inclusively for diverse bodies and minds, and in shaping buildings and spaces. I will be talking with some tutors and researchers from the Royal Danish Academy here in Copenhagen about how to think about the complexity of meeting diverse needs whether in fashion or architecture. How can we both capture, and design for, the richness of human bio and neurodiversity rather than for standardized or conventional users? And how can non-disabled people develop their awareness and understanding of difference and non-conventional bodies and minds as a positive factor rather than as an assumed problem for design processes? So first up today is Marcus, Head of Programme for Fashion at the Academy. Marcus could you just briefly introduce yourself and your reasons for being interested in disability?

Marcus Aminaka Wilmont: Yes, hi Jos. My name is Markus Aminaka Wilmont and I'm the Head of the Fashion Clothing and Textile Master’s degree at the Royal Danish Academy, and I'm interested in this subject area because it has a tremendous influence on how I understand my craft and my discipline and how we teach it to the future of fashion or clothing designers. 

Jos: And I was particularly interested in the project Dichotomies of Fashion. Could you tell us a little bit more about that? 

Marcus: Yes, it’s a research project that I did with Bevica [Foundation] and the project really taught me two things, or two main lessons that stand out. One was the importance of clothes, maybe predictably, but also how clothes not being available to certain groups in society undermine our ability to engage with each other and often these people that are already vulnerable or marginalized. Because we all consume fashion to some extent because we all wear clothes and clothes kind of become like an unspoken language that we all use to communicate with our surroundings on a daily basis. When you think about it, we spend more time in clothes than out of them and that makes clothes incredibly influential. I don't really think that most people actively consider this very much, but clothes touch our bodies, they influence our moods, and they help us express who we are. 

Their functions are often complex and multifaceted. They cover our physical, psychological, and social needs, and they help us express our identity as individuals and communicate which communities we belong to and where we see ourselves within a shared social hierarchy. They have the ability to support us emotionally and help us feel confident or strong or attractive. So, whether we're conscious about it or not, we're all unequivocally affected by the codified sub-contexts that they express. And that's really important, especially because fashion in that context has incredible power to positively address or drive social inclusion and diversity, but it's not really being used in that way.

Jos: And I think one of the things that I find really interesting in what you're doing is you're interested in kind of alternative narratives to the kind of prevailing Western tradition in fashion. Can you talk a little bit more about that?

Marcus: Yeah, absolutely. The fashion system as it exists today is based very much on a Western or a Global North system for designing and making and producing clothes. And that's built on sizing modelling systems. These systems, they standardize the human form and they do this in an effort to simplify and expedite the production and manufacturing phase, to maximize profit - most often in an increasingly more and more busy use phase. Over time, that has meant that we've all come to accept this way of looking at the body. And we've all become familiar with the experience of having to fit into a sizing chart to understand how the industry defines us. But this way of thinking, I think, is inherently problematic, because you don't need very much experience with the human form, whether its male or female or [non] binary or however you identify, to understand that it's anything but standardized or simple. It's quite the opposite. We're really, in fact, wonderfully complex and individually unique forms and shapes and minds, which is why we often, I think most of us often experience that we don't fit clothing very well. We might fit elements of it very well but there will always be issues with length, or the feeling of the fabric, or the width of the garment and it kind of leads to issues of use and also representation across all the use stages and from a sustainability point of view that's a massively big problem. So I think one of the things that I was really, really interested in when I started researching or looking around for alternative systems was that other cultures around the world have actually devised garments traditionally that breaks this standardizing mould, or at least they're designed in a way to service individual needs and individual sizes much better than what our system does. 

And one of those examples would be, for instance, the kimono, which is a Japanese traditional garment. It's built to serve users in their lives and throughout their lives. So, there's a longevity built into it. It allows for many, many different body sizes and body types. And it also has the ability very simply to grow or shrink with the user throughout their lives. So, it's a very beautiful example of an alternative point of view to how to include inclusion in that sense.

Jos: And I think one of the things that you've been doing in your research project is thinking about how that can affect how you teach, what your design methods are, what kind of tools you might have. And in your mind that is based on universal design. It has a kind of grounding in universal design.

Marcus: Absolutely. Because I think one of the biggest issues around sustainability, but also just in terms of how clothing serves us, is, like I said, based on a flawed assumption that you can break everybody down into boxes and then we'll understand ourselves that way, rather than actually looking at people individually or at least including them in your design process so that you respond to their actual needs and their actual future development. Maybe even design solutions into your work that addresses those factors.

Jos: And can you give an example of how you might do that with your students, how you get them to work in a different way?

Marcus: Yeah, I think we did a lot of different experimentation. So, one of the reasons that I did Dichotomy of Fashion was to try and also harness students' incredible, innovative views on the world and their ability to address problems in such a new way. And there's an openness and a willingness to engage, especially with things that fall outside of our system thinking. They are natural rebels, a lot of them. They like to sort of challenge the system. So, I also wanted to learn from the students.

So we tried a lot of different ways for them to engage with it. A lot of it was, I must admit, centred around the idea of form giving. But basically, we devised several learning activities where they had to try and address body in different ways, where it wasn't necessarily looking through a Western lens, but responding to different kinds of bodies, for instance, or trying to build garments that could mould or shape comfortably around the user's actual physical state. 

Jos: It's so interesting because in episode one, we talked quite a lot about concepts of fitting and misfitting, which comes up again with you, but also around adaptability. If you think about variety, human variety, and meeting those diverse needs at different periods in our life and in different ways, that having something that is more flexible, there seem to be real overlaps in a way with how you might think about a garment and how you might think about building, although they feel like very different kinds of artefacts. Yes. Thank you so much, Marcus. I've really enjoyed talking to you. 

Marcus: Thank you very much for having me. 

Jos: I'm now joined by some people I have absolutely loved working with from the Academy. That's Olga, Roberta and Adam. So please, could you start by introducing yourselves and talk a little bit about why your work includes an interest in disability, access and inclusion. Olga.

Olga Popovic Larsen:  Yeah, thank you, Jos. So, I'm Olga Popovic Larsen. I'm at the School of Architecture at the Institute for Architecture and Technology. And actually, my kind of primary work is quite far away from this. I typically work with structures and materials. I'm a professor at the Institute. My interest goes far back where Roberta and Masa [Kajita, Head of the Centre for Spatial Inclusion] and I were establishing the PhD that Roberta has completed. But especially Jos, with your coming as a guest professor to the Academy and the possibility to invite you to contribute to the new education, Aritekturens Teknologi, architectural technology in English, has been really, really fantastic. And so giving to all of us, we've all learned a lot and has changed how we think. But maybe I come back to that a bit later. 

Jos: Thank you. Roberta.

Roberta Cassi: Yeah, I'm really glad to be here. And I'm Roberta Cassi. I'm an architect and I graduated from the Polytechnic of Milan and since then I always work, and I've been involved in projects that focused on renovating or adapting public or private spaces for improving accessibility and daily life. Then, because later in 2015, I moved here in Copenhagen. First, it was because of an internship in hospital planning where there was this interest in designing for differences in bodies and abilities. And later, when I started my PhD at the Royal Danish Academy with the supervision of Olga and Masa, I really focused on the theme of accessibility, mostly usability, and I tried to shift the focus - not looking at the barriers and the obstacles that people with impairments could experience in the space, but I wanted to investigate how characteristics of space could actually support people with impairments, so that also to give architects information about how to creatively design with these characteristics. And so, I continued with my interest also now, where I'm working as a postdoctoral researcher at the Academy and I’m part of the Cluster for Spatial Inclusion, which Adam is part of, where all the teaching courses and collaborative projects are focused on inclusion and how to investigate how space could actually support and participate to better inclusion.

Jos: Thank you.

Adam Linde Nielsen:  And my name is Adam Linde Nielsen and I'm a research and teaching assistant at the Royal Danish Academy, also at the Institute of Architecture and Technology. And I haven't been there for fairly long. I've been there for maybe two and a half years. I graduated back in 2020, but most of my work is focused on how social sustainability can meet the green transition. So how the environmental crisis and the social crises can help each other out in different ways.

Jos: Thank you. And I think this episode is particularly about how we can think about - and test really - more practical methods for thinking about different kinds of bodies in built space and ways that people within architectural education and practice can actually realise a different approach to the way that things happen currently. So, I wanted to talk about the project that we've all currently been collaborating on, which has been asking some Academy students to do accessibility mapping here on the campus itself. And for me, the idea behind that really is that we focus on non-disabled students mainly, of course there will be disabled students here as well, but that they can begin to understand the different spatial needs of not only their own bodies but other people's bodies and that they can connect that through to the kind of more everyday compliance requirements, the building regulations, that they will have to work with in their everyday jobs.

So, Olga, this was a project you initiated so it'd be really lovely if you could talk about it a bit more. 

Olga: Yes, so with Jos and Adam and Roberta and Massa, we collaborated on the alternative and conventional mapping of part of the campus. And this was done with the architectural technology students, who actually are not architects. They come as graduates. We have an education in Denmark that is not positioned at the Academy. They're constructing architects [that is at] Bachelor level, three and a half years. And then they come to us [to do a two year Masters].  It's a new education [provision] we have three years of graduates who have come out. So, they have a technical skill, they know quite well the building regulations, so we thought together that this would be a good experience for them and a good exercise. So, in parallel we had students who were looking at the building regulations and looking at defined parts of the campus. And then the same buildings and the same parts of the buildings were also mapped in this alternative method that Jos introduced to the students, and it was fantastic on many levels. And the most interesting for me was to find out that in many parts the buildings comply with the building regulations. We are very fortunate to be in old buildings, some 200 years old, so we are very happy to be there. But also when the same spaces, or parts of spaces, were assessed through the alternative mapping, it showed that perhaps it's not all functioning in the right way. So little things like, for example, doors that comply, entrance doors to buildings that comply to the building regulations, are difficult to open because of the size and the weight. And also, buildings settle over time and over 200 years they have moved a little bit, just enough

to make it difficult for a wheelchair access, for example. But the biggest learning experience, I would say, were the exercises that Jos introduced to experience how perhaps a person with impairments would feel. So, we had students who had two legs tied, we had some who were carrying a lot of books and had to open a door.

And through that, then, they kind of thought or understood and related in a different way to the spaces. So, I think that another aspect that was very interesting to me was that I've always thought that the students would feel, because of their background, would feel much more comfortable in a technical setting. And here I was proven wrong. I thought that they still did the technical kind of mapping very easily. They've done that before. But they could relate to the alternative mapping in a very profound way. And there was a huge interest. Nothing was too much. And the feedback we've had from them has been really fantastic.

Jos: Yeah, and I can just say a little bit more about that alternative mapping; the method, because it's one that we use in The DisOrdinary Architecture Project a lot. And it's called ‘Characters’ and it was invented by my co-director who's a disabled artist, Zoe Partington. And the idea of characters is you're not mimicking any particular form of disability or impairment, but that you change your body in a variety of different ways that are quite enjoyable but also can exhaust you, or make you see the world differently. So, yes you've mentioned some of those ways - carrying lots of things, holding your arms in the air, walking very slowly. There's a variety of different techniques that we use. Yep, three-legged, being tied up with three legs and then asking the students to actually map and describe both what become much more obvious barriers to them, like getting very tired going up steps because they're carrying a lot of stuff or they can't open a door, but also what can actually be kind of pleasurable, that if you're walking more slowly, you start noticing stuff, you're very aware of surfaces, of light. And so it's a different way of thinking about bodies.

And yeah, I love the way they took to it really positively. And then we were able to begin to connect it in very creative but also critical ways to doing the work around the building regulations. And Adam, I wondered if you could talk, because we worked on this together and in a way you were coordinating with the students how they might use a kind of building regulation checklist.

Adam: Yeah, definitely. I mean, my role in the workshop was primarily to facilitate a lot of the activities and make sure that every student had a plan for each segment of the campus that they had to work with. But yeah, as I see it, the beneficial part of the workshop has also been that these students are, as Olga said, quite unique at the school. They view the social sustainability from another perspective because they are so technically well off. They've already been out working. They know a lot of the building legislations. So, they could come with another perspective on how to map the school from a technical point and then overlaying that with your method. I see it as beneficial for both parts, people that already work with inclusive design because it brings another perspective into play as well.

Jos: Yeah, I agree with you completely. And then I think there's another dimension which we hope will develop, which is this is actually data that can affect how the campus is improved in terms of access. And one of the things I loved about what the students did is they, because they had that knowledge of the building regulations, they could actually see whether the things for various reasons, often around maintenance and things that weren't even, they weren't matching the standards. So, the kind of richness of different levels of understanding about what could be done to make the campus more accessible felt really positive.

Olga: If I could add to that, there was one group who worked with adding signs of where you are on campus and it was done in a, how to say, in a very DIY way where it was printed on paper and had a strong colour. But the idea has been taken up. I'm very happy to see that there are more signs. So, when you come now to a classroom, it tells you where you are - to an auditorium or to an entrance. So, the wayfinding, I think it was a little thing to do, but the wayfinding has become easier. So I'm happy if we have contributed. I don't know.

Jos: Olga, could you tell us a little bit more about impact, about the impact of this work?

Olga: I think that there has been a great impact and that is kind of across the Academy because I can see that there are many activities. So whereas maybe some years ago I would have seen this like as a little island, as a workshop that happens here and there, I can see it actually spreading and it's becoming part of the mainstream education, and as a kind of a methodology of how to work with inclusiveness is becoming really integrated or has become integrated over the past years.

Jos: That's cool. And I think, I mean, for me, this is also about trying to find different models of practice where we can actually investigate, you know, do mapping of buildings and spaces where we don't have this kind of artificial divide between either you have to have like a disabled person who somehow is, you know, the authentic voice of all with that impairment; or you just kind of hope that you're going to get it right or you follow the building regulations. That this is a way where mainly non-disabled students can actually really build their awareness. I mean, I think it's been fantastic working particularly with the constructing architects architectural students, but Roberta, you and I have recently been to Bornholm to another campus where there are very different students. And I wondered if you could talk a little bit about that, about how we did it there. 

Roberta: Yeah, in fact, while Adam was talking before, I helped Adam during the workshop we had at Holmen [the campus of the School of Architecture, Design and Conservation] but also when we did the same mapping to the other campuses and we went - Jos and I - together at Bornholm, we saw also that this method, depending on the students we worked with and the context we were mapping, needs to be adapted, because of course like architectural students are used to work with plans and drawings and at Bornholm where they do glass and ceramics in a very artistic way and in also like I would say in a very beautiful place. Instead, we ask the students to collect videos, to make themselves videos while they were experiencing in this strange way, the space. And the beginning, we were also kind of afraid that the students were having too much fun and not like going to the point of the exercise. But then we saw in the discussion we had later, that actually those exercises also like while having fun brought the students to reflect for example on the pace that people should compromise when they work tight together and yeah like spaces and situations and conditions of the campus that they never noticed, while walking very slow. Also, like very beautiful things, especially in Bornholm. So to me, the most relevant part is like the discussion that comes after the mapping while the students really bring up very interesting reflections. And it's also the moment where the conversation can also brought to the administration level, to the school, so to give information about how improvements can be done, where things should change but also what things should be valued because they are already positive.

Jos: Yeah and I think for me, because I was worried that maybe it wasn't so relevant for the students at Bornholm, but I think that it worked. It did work really well because, you know, they are, they work with glass and they work with ceramics and it reminded them doing these exercises in their case, reminded them very much of the physicality of the work that they do. And there was this incredible awareness, which they obviously already, it was things that they kind of knew about, but it really raised issues around floor surfaces and trip hazards and the difficulties of getting in and out of doors when you've got like a, you know, you're carrying sort of pots and glass and hot, yes, fragile things. And also, quite a lot of talk about their relationships to each other, how performing these tasks always had to be done together in some way and how that also had a spatial dimension. So, for them, I think it became something very much about their detailed embodied experiences in a really, yeah, as you say, in a really lovely way.

Olga: It was a very good point that you brought, Roberta, about how the discussions are most valuable, and in that sense I think it was very nice that we had after all the workshops, that included also the other locations like Bornholm and the Conservation School, we had a shared day and many kind of very interesting points came there that were, what was interesting was that how, because we are so different in how we work, different aspects were noticed, like the things you mentioned now, and also Jos you, how the spatiality was experienced. One student today, when you came to say goodbye to the students, said how after the workshop with you he looks at buildings in a different way. I thought that was very powerful.

Jos: Yeah, no, it was really nice to hear that because I think that is, in a way, there are very practical things hopefully that come out of this, and literally finding ways in which we can shift how everyday practices work around disability and inclusion but also it's about changing mindsets, so like just, you know, and that's really hard to measure, but I think it is, it's an important impact really. Well, we need to wind up, but I was hoping that each of you might just say a little something about where you want to take this and the things that lead on from this for you. Olga?

Olga: Yes, I kind of will stay where I am. I'm happy and comfortable working where I am, but I think it's also had an impact on me, because I really believe that if we are going to make a change in society, I think the different methods of working have to come together; and only by addressing social and technical aspects together we can really make a difference. So, I would hope on a practical level that somehow we can follow you or you can follow us in the future and perhaps learn from your work. And, then I hope there will be projects where it is possible to bring very different methods together. 

Jos: Together, yes. Roberta.

Roberta: Yeah, to me it is very valuable to know and to be part of this kind of projects where inclusion is addressed in a different way. To me, inclusion is the starting point from conversation, from discussions to know about what is diversity, but also doing it in a creative way, because maybe the traditional way didn't work or are not working anymore. So, to me, like the next things I would like to do is still to explore these different ways of engaging and of designing as well.

Jos: Thank you. Adam.

Adam: To me, I think just from the workshop itself, I would like to also just focus on getting a more diverse student population into the Academy. It would be fantastic to have people with disabilities at the school being a student, becoming an architect. Right now, I don't see that as a possibility, but I think that's the first step to doing something. And I think this workshop has shown that.

Jos: Thank you. And I do, in the final episode, I'll be talking to a blind architectural student, talking exactly about that, about how we really need to diversify the people who come into the design professions. That's kind of got to be a core point, I think, in what needs to happen. Thank you so much. Thank you to Olga, Roberta and Adam. Nice to have you here.

Adam: Thank you. 

Roberta: Thank you.

Olga: Thank you.

Jos: Next, we'll be talking to Masa [Kajita] lead for the Cluster for Spatial Inclusion, here at the Danish Royal Academy. Masa, I know you've been working for some time on the issues around tensions for architects and designers in how we think about the diverse variety of human users. We've been talking about this a lot because on the one hand, we know that we need to build up much better knowledge and awareness of the richness and complexities of different ways of being in the world, you know, diverse lived experiences, the vast array of particular access needs. But on the other hand, we need some sort of logic for managing this diversity, which we currently do in this very mechanical way through legal requirements, building codes and technical guidance. So, I hope you can talk a little bit more about how you've been exploring this problem. 

Masashi Kajita: Yes, Jos, thank you. I mean, we are so slow in making a built environment more responsive to diverse conditions and preferences of people. This has many reasons as we speak, spoke, and then, but one of the essential problem is that the majority of us, mainly architects we're talking about, still make normative assumptions about disability. So, we still tend to view users as passive recipient of given spaces rather than space as both, you know, product and producer of differentiated and often antagonistic social practices. So, this tendency closely related to our, you know, rule-based approach in dealing with inclusion in our practice. Like rules and guidelines operate necessarily from top down, I would say. And it is the way of attempting to resolve the problem of how to meet that, you know, hugely diverse need and then preferences and even including desire of us, like as many people as possible. And to do so, rules and guidelines aim to enforce at least some basic standards and provide essential point of reference for architects. And this is done by setting a minimum level, such as, you know, the minimum clear width of the doors and the shared access route and so on.

Jos: Yeah, but it is, I mean, we know that this is the kind of attempt at a resolution that we have currently, but there are so many problems with that particular approach, with the rule governed approach. 

Masa: Yes, this top-down approach reduces bodies to average dimensions and ideal proportions often and most of all it simplifies the complexity of bodily interactions with say objects and buildings and their surrounding environments. This is problematic. But also this often leads design solution to be more generic and standardized. Again, like a separate ramp access for wheelchair user and then that's lead towards a separate and special entrance. So with that, our challenge is to explore a new model of practice that is, I would say, the bottom up rather than top down. So the user-centred approach and this approach operate as bottom-up and is characterised by the different or the variety of embodied and highly subjective understanding of architectural experiences. In-depth engagements with bodily experiences provide valuable insight to architects, although this might lead us towards, you know, design solutions that are completely specific to one individual.

Jos: It's funny because I've been talking to Marcus earlier about fashion and about exactly the same problem of standardised bodies, that fashion is completely organised around different body sizes and the mechanics of production and manufacture. So, he was talking about different ways in which one might think about bodies and clothing, fashion, and how one could teach different ways of thinking about the body. So I guess the same question to you really is what kind of suggestions do you have about how we might do this differently in architectural education and practice?

Masa: Yes. So, current architectural education and practice around the issue of access and inclusion tend to emphasise the former, this top-down approach. That puts the prescriptive in a way before creative. And this, as I said, can lead us towards more solution-focused design. Top-down or bottom-up, I'm not saying that one approach is better than another. We need to keep the balance between those two approaches. So, at the Academy, we put emphasis on gaining more complex and nuanced understandings of disability. This we do so to actually, as I said, keeping the balance between those two approaches and this approach to put the emphasis on more complex and nuanced understanding on disability is largely inspired by disability scholars such as Ami Hamraie, Sarah Hendren, Alison Kafer and most of all, you Jos. This is why we have invited you and then The DisOrdinary Architecture Project to our Academy and the alternative accessibility mapping project as such, and so as many other projects, is one of our attempt to improve the situation.

Jos: Yeah, and I think it's been really fantastic to be part of that kind of alternative mapping project that we talked to with Olga and Adam and Roberta earlier. But I also, I think one of the problems that we've been kind of talking around a lot, and I know you've been working around, is that architectural students and practitioners, as with fashion students, do not, like they don't have a body of knowledge. Like what is that body of knowledge that enables us to actually understand something about the range of ways in which people occupy the world and the way in which different impairments affect what it is that people need, what it is that supports them in a very productive and creative way. So, we've been trying different ways, as you have, to kind of gather that data. How you were doing, making a kind of database at one stage, I remember?

Masa: Yeah, the one of the projects, this is called Missing Voices of Disabled People. We basically went into the different personal blogs and statements made by disabled people on web-based forums and then we started analysing what they state, basically, in relation to their everyday life. And for some reason we thought it was quite interesting to tie it to the current building regulation in Denmark because building regulation is very much prescribing what architects can do and what they cannot do. But then by actually coupling together with a statement made by the users or those disabled - in many ways the creatives - we thought we can give an opportunity for architects to understand why they need to do what they need to do. So that helped them to not comply in the building regulation only, but to understand consequences of what we do as an architect and designer. And then that descriptive way of making a database available for many people, and we thought that was kind of useful practice.

Jos: I think it's really useful, because for me an ongoing problem really that is kind of at the core of why architecture and built environment disciplines seem to me to be quite stuck in this kind of top-down model is that there is a huge amount of data out there. Like disabled people have been explaining the barriers and explaining their needs especially now we have social media like forever, I mean that you know they've also we're talking about campaigns by disabled people for improved access that started in the 1960s, you know, talking about 50 years of disabled people explaining why the built environment doesn't suit their needs. And then we have, as you've already mentioned, those fantastic disability studies scholars and artists and activists again explaining and explaining how we might think about this, think about disability in a much richer and more creative way. So, I guess that leads me to the other side of that problem, which is that data exists but it's how we find channels by which it becomes part of the everyday activity of architectural education and practice. That it's not just like this special thing that you do either as like a special needs project or as a kind of add-on that you do in the professional practice component of your studies, where it's like making sure that you get the fire safety right and that you get the disability building codes right. So, I don't know if you've got any views on how we might, what we can do in this situation? 

Masa: No, I think there is the one way that as I said this project, the missing voices of disabled people, I think because the reason we chose the building regulations was that because these are the documents architects are familiar with in the process of designing a building and landscape and all these public spaces. And therefore we wanted to tie the voices of individual disabled people with the regulation. So that if they search doors, so a lot of statement around the doors made by a disabled artist comes, appears in the screen. So, the way, as you say, that how to organise those descriptive information in a way to useful for the architect, but also they're familiar with. So that's the one of the ways we can embrace that. And then another aspect is more, or another approach is, as we are doing at the Academy together with you, that somehow we've introduced a number of exercises that activate their bodily understanding in everyday life so that they can actually start projecting somebody else's body and preferences, and then imagining about the possibility and impossibility of certain design elements. So, I guess these two approaches come up in my head. 

Jos: Thank you. Really interesting. And I think it is, I mean, I always have this double feeling, one of which is there's still so much to do, but also that those things are actually really energising and thought-provoking and kind of add new layers of creativity into the way that we teach and the way that we practise.

Masa: Yes, I think as you said very often that how this, you know, being different and then being disabled in many ways, those experiences can become part of the design parameters. That's what you Jos said number of times and then that sticks in my head. It takes a long time, I think, and there's still a long way to do so, but then I think, if we continue this bottom-up approach in the way, including many activist approach, done nowadays by many scholars and activists, if we continue I think, slowly become part of this our design language in a way. But I can't promise that…

Jos: But I think that's the goal, isn't it? That it's just a normal part of the design language. Thank you so much, Masa. It's always a joy to be talking with you.

Masa: Thank you for inviting me, Jos. Thank you.

Jos: In this episode, we've been exploring some interesting alternative methods for incorporating disability and difference into design processes rather than either ignoring the richness of human variety altogether or seeing inclusion as only about a small subsection of the population, as a kind of afterthought to design. Marcus talked about going beyond standardized bodies and conventional sizing in fashion. Olga, Adam and Roberta described a project that combines conventional access auditing procedures with alternative, more creative and embodied mapping methods and then Masa and I discussed how to rethink the often artificial divisions in architecture between normal, conventional bodies and minds and disabled and non-normative bodies and minds. Many thanks to all my guests to Marcus, Olga, Adam, Roberta and Masa for some really great conversations. And to the Royal Danish Academy and the Bevica Foundation for supporting this project. These podcasts only cover a small part of the many fantastic things going on around disability access and inclusion at the Academy, in Copenhagen and elsewhere. But we hope that reflecting on our own particular experiences of rethinking disability in education and practice can help others also bring innovative, creative and critical ways of including disability and access into what they do. In the next and final episode, Universal Design and…. Disabled Creativity, we will explore how important it is to listen to disabled people's diverse perspectives and experiences, and to recognize that they really are true experts, true creative experts in the design of products and spaces. I'm Jos Boys, guest professor at the Royal Danish Academy and co-director of The DisOrdinary Architecture Project. Thank you so much for listening.

Danish transcription

OBS: Denne oversættelse er lavet ved hjælp af kunstig intelligens, og gennemlæst efterfølgende. 

Universal Design and… Bodies, Buildings, Spaces
Universelt design og… Forskellige kroppe, bygninger, rum for alle 

Jos Boys: I første episode undersøgte vi, hvordan vi kan tænke anderledes om funktionsnedsættelse inden for arkitektur og design. I denne episode, episode to, Universelt design and… Bodies, Buildings, Spaces, vil jeg gerne gå mere praktisk til værks og se nærmere på metoder til, hvordan vi kan designe mere inkluderende for forskellige kroppe og sind, og i udformningen af bygninger og rum. Jeg taler med undervisere og forskere fra Det Kongelige Akademi her i København om, hvordan man kan forholde sig til kompleksiteten i at imødekomme forskellige behov – hvad enten det er inden for mode eller arkitektur. Hvordan kan vi både indfange og designe for den mangfoldighed, der findes i menneskelig biologisk og neurologisk diversitet, frem for at tage udgangspunkt i standardiserede eller konventionelle brugere? Og hvordan kan personer uden funktionsnedsættelse udvikle deres bevidsthed og forståelse for forskellighed og ikke-konventionelle kroppe og sind som en positiv faktor – frem for som et antaget problem i designprocesser? Første gæst i dag er Marcus, Head of Programme for Fashion ved akademiet. Marcus, vil du kort introducere dig selv og fortælle, hvorfor du er interesseret i funktionsnedsættelse?

Marcus Aminaka Wilmont: Ja, hej Jos. Mit navn er Marcus Aminaka Wilmont, og jeg er Head of the Fashion Clothing and Textile Master’s degree ved Det Kongelige Akademi. Jeg er interesseret i dette emne, fordi det har en enorm indflydelse på, hvordan jeg forstår mit håndværk og min disciplin – og hvordan vi underviser fremtidens mode- og beklædningsdesignere.

Jos: Jeg var særligt interesseret i projektet Dichotomies of Fashion. Kan du fortælle lidt mere om det?

Marcus: Ja, det er et forskningsprojekt, jeg lavede sammen med Bevica Fonden, og projektet lærte mig virkelig to ting – eller to hovedpointer, som står klart for mig. Den ene var tøjets betydning, hvilket måske er forudsigeligt, men også hvordan det, at tøj ikke er tilgængeligt for visse grupper i samfundet, underminerer vores evne til at interagere med hinanden – og ofte rammer mennesker, der allerede er sårbare eller marginaliserede. For vi forbruger alle mode i et vist omfang, fordi vi alle bærer tøj, og tøj bliver en slags tavst sprog, vi bruger til at kommunikere med vores omgivelser hver dag. Når man tænker over det, tilbringer vi mere tid i tøj end uden, og det gør tøj utrolig indflydelsesrigt. Jeg tror ikke, de fleste mennesker aktivt tænker over det, men tøj rører vores kroppe, påvirker vores humør og hjælper os med at udtrykke, hvem vi er.

Deres funktioner er ofte komplekse og mangesidede. De dækker vores fysiske, psykiske og sociale behov, og de hjælper os med at udtrykke vores identitet som individer samt kommunikere, hvilke fællesskaber vi tilhører, og hvor vi ser os selv i et fælles socialt hierarki. De har evnen til at støtte os følelsesmæssigt og hjælpe os med at føle os selvsikre, stærke eller attraktive. Så uanset om vi er bevidste om det eller ej, er vi alle utvetydigt påvirket af de underliggende signaler, som tøjet udtrykker. Og det er virkelig vigtigt, især fordi mode i denne kontekst har en utrolig kraft til positivt at fremme social inklusion og diversitet, men den bliver ikke rigtig brugt på den måde.

Jos: Og jeg synes, noget af det mest interessante ved det, du arbejder med, er din interesse for alternative fortællinger i forhold til den dominerende vestlige tradition inden for mode. Kan du sige lidt mere om det?

Marcus: Ja, helt bestemt. Det eksisterende modesystem er i høj grad baseret på et vestligt, eller et globalt nordisk, system for design, fremstilling og produktion af tøj. Og det bygger på størrelsesmodelleringssystemer. Disse systemer standardiserer den menneskelige form, og det gør de for at forenkle og fremskynde produktions- og fremstillingsfasen, med henblik på at maksimere profit, ofte i en stadig mere travl brugsfase. Over tid har det betydet, at vi alle er kommet til at acceptere denne måde at se kroppen på. Vi er blevet vant til oplevelsen af at skulle passe ind i et størrelsesskema for at forstå, hvordan industrien definerer os. Men denne tankegang er, mener jeg, grundlæggende problematisk, fordi man ikke behøver særlig meget erfaring med den menneskelige form, uanset om man identificerer sig som mand, kvinde, ikke-binær, eller hvordan man identificerer sig, for at forstå, at kroppen er alt andet end standardiseret eller enkel. Den er faktisk det stik modsatte. Vi er, faktisk, vidunderligt komplekse og individuelt unikke i vores former, størrelser og sind, og derfor oplever de fleste af os ofte, at tøj ikke passer særlig godt. Vi kan måske passe enkelte dele rigtig godt, men der vil næsten altid være problemer med længden, stoffets følelse eller tøjets bredde, og det fører til problemer både i brug og i repræsentation gennem hele brugsfasen, og set fra et bæredygtighedsperspektiv er det et enormt stort problem. Så jeg tror, noget af det, som jeg blev virkelig, virkelig interesseret i, da jeg begyndte at undersøge alternative systemer, var, at andre kulturer rundt om i verden faktisk har udviklet beklædningsgenstande traditionelt, der bryder med denne standardiserende tilgang, eller i det mindste er designet til langt bedre at imødekomme individuelle behov og størrelser end vores system gør.

Og et eksempel på dette er for eksempel kimonoen, der er en traditionel japansk beklædningsgenstand. Den er designet til at støtte brugeren i deres liv og gennem hele deres livet. Så der er indbygget en form for langtidsholdbarhed. Den tillader mange forskellige kropsstørrelser og kropstyper. Og den har også evnen til meget enkelt at vokse eller krympe med brugeren gennem livets faser. Det er et meget smukt eksempel på en alternativ tilgang til, hvordan inklusion kan tænkes ind i design.

Jos: Og jeg synes, noget af det, du har arbejdet med i dit forskningsprojekt, handler om, hvordan det kan påvirke din undervisning – hvilke designmetoder du anvender, og hvilke værktøjer du kan bruge. Og i din optik er det baseret på universelt design. Det har en form for forankring i universelt design.

Marcus: Absolut. For jeg mener, at en af de største udfordringer omkring bæredygtighed – men også i forhold til hvordan tøj tjener os – er, som jeg nævnte, baseret på en fejlagtig antagelse om, at man kan reducere alle mennesker til bokse, og så vil vi forstå os selv på den måde. I stedet for man faktisk ser på mennesker individuelt, eller i det mindste inkludere dem i ens designprocessen, så man reagerer på deres faktiske behov og deres fremtidige udvikling. Måske endda designe løsninger ind i arbejdet, som adresserer disse faktorer.

Jos: Kan du give et eksempel på, hvordan du arbejder med det sammen med dine studerende, hvordan du får dem til at arbejde på en anderledes måde?

Marcus: Ja, jeg synes, vi lavede mange forskellige eksperimenter. En af grundene til, at jeg lavede Dichotomy of Fashion, var netop at forsøge at udnytte de studerendes utrolige, innovative syn på verden og deres evne til at adressere problemer på helt nye måder. Der er en åbenhed og en villighed til at engagere sig, især i forhold til ting, der falder uden for vores systemtænkning. Mange af dem er naturlige rebeller. De kan godt lide at udfordre systemet. Så jeg ville også gerne lære af de studerende.

Vi prøvede mange forskellige måder at engagere dem med det. Meget af det, må jeg indrømme, var centreret omkring idéen om formgivning. Men grundlæggende udviklede vi flere læringsaktiviteter, hvor de skulle forsøge at arbejde med kroppen på forskellige måder, hvor det ikke nødvendigvis var gennem et vestligt blik, men hvor de reagerede på forskellige typer af kroppe, for eksempel, eller forsøgte at konstruere beklædning, der kunne danne eller forme sig komfortabelt omkring brugerens faktiske fysiske tilstand.

Jos: Det er virkelig interessant, for i episode ét talte vi en del om begreberne fitting og misfitting, som også dukker op her hos dig, men også i forhold til tilpasningsevne. Hvis man tænker på variation, menneskelig variation, og på at imødekomme forskellige behov i forskellige livsfaser og på forskellige måder, så virker det som om, at noget mere fleksibelt har klare overlap med, hvordan man kan tænke et beklædningsstykke, og hvordan man kan tænke en bygning, selvom de føles som meget forskellige artefakter. Ja. Tusind tak, Marcus. Det har været en fornøjelse at tale med dig. 

Marcus: Mange tak, fordi jeg måtte være med.

Jos: Jeg er nu sammen med nogle personer, jeg absolut har elsket at arbejde sammen med fra akademiet. Det er Olga, Roberta og Adam. Vil I ikke starte med at præsentere jer selv og fortælle lidt om, hvorfor jeres arbejde inkluderer en interesse for funktionsnedsættelse, adgang og inklusion. Olga

Olga Popovic Larsen: Ja, tak Jos. Jeg hedder Olga Popovic Larsen, og jeg er tilknyttet Skolen for Arkitektur ved Instituttet for Arkitektur og Teknologi. Min primære forskning ligger faktisk ret langt fra dette område. Jeg arbejder typisk med strukturer og materialer. Jeg er professor ved instituttet. Min interesse går langt tilbage, hvor Roberta og Masa [Kajita, Head of the Centre for Spatial Inclusion] og jeg etablerede det ph.d.-projekt, som Roberta har gennemført. Men især, Jos, med din tilstedeværelse som gæsteprofessor på akademiet og muligheden for at invitere dig til at bidrage til den nye uddannelse Arkitekturens Teknologi, har været virkelig, virkelig fantastisk. Og meget givende for os alle. Vi har alle lært meget, og det har ændret den måde, vi tænker på. Men det vender jeg måske tilbage til lidt senere.

Jos: Tak. Roberta

Roberta Cassi: Ja, jeg er virkelig glad for at være her. Jeg hedder Roberta Cassi. Jeg er arkitekt og er uddannet fra Polytechnic of Milan, og siden da har jeg altid arbejdet med, og været involveret i, projekter, der fokuserer på at renovere eller tilpasse offentlige og private rum for at forbedre tilgængeligheden og hverdagslivet. Senere, i 2015, flyttede jeg til København. Først var det i forbindelse med et praktikophold inden for hospitalsplanlægning, hvor der var interesse for at designe med forskelle i kroppe og funktionsevner for øje. Da jeg senere begyndte på min ph.d. ved Det Kongelige Akademi med Olga og Masa som vejledere, fokuserede jeg virkelig på temaet tilgængelighed, især anvendelighed, og jeg forsøgte at flytte fokus - ikke kun at se på barrierer og forhindringer, som personer med funktionsnedsættelser kan opleve i rum, men at undersøge, hvordan rummets karakteristika faktisk kan støtte personer med funktionsnedsættelser. Målet var også at give arkitekter information om, hvordan man kreativt kan designe med disse karakteristika. Og jeg har fortsat min interesse nu, hvor jeg arbejder som postdoc-forsker på akademiet og er en del af Cluster for Spatial Inclusion, som Adam også er en del af. Her er alle undervisningsforløb og samarbejdsprojekter fokuseret på inklusion og på at undersøge, hvordan rum faktisk kan støtte og bidrage til bedre inklusion.

Jos: Tak.

Adam Linde Nielsen: Og jeg hedder Adam Linde Nielsen, og jeg er forsknings- og undervisningsassistent ved Det Kongelige Akademi, også ved instituttet for Arkitektur og Teknologi. Jeg har ikke været her så længe, måske omkring to og et halvt år. Jeg blev færdiguddannet i 2020, men det meste af mit arbejde fokuserer på, hvordan social bæredygtighed kan møde den grønne omstilling. Altså hvordan den miljømæssige krise og de sociale kriser kan understøtte hinanden på forskellige måder.

Jos: Tak. Og jeg synes, denne episode handler særligt om, hvordan vi kan tænke, og faktisk afprøve, mere praktiske metoder til at arbejde med forskellige typer af kroppe i det byggede rum, og hvordan personer inden for arkitektuddannelsen og praksis faktisk kan realisere en anderledes tilgang end den, der dominerer i dag. Derfor vil jeg gerne tale om det projekt, vi alle har samarbejdet om for nylig, hvor vi har bedt nogle af akademiets studerende om at lave accessibility mapping [tilgængeligheds kortlægning] her på campus. For mig handler det grundlæggende om, at vi fokuserer på studerende uden funktionsnedsættelser, selvom der naturligvis også er studerende med funktionsnedsættelser her, men at de kan begynde at forstå de forskellige rumlige behov, ikke kun for deres egne kroppe, men også for andres. Og at de kan forbinde den forståelse med de mere dagligdags krav om overholdelse af bygningsreglementer, som de vil skulle arbejde med i deres fremtidige jobs.

Olga, det var et projekt, du tog initiativ til, så det ville være rigtig dejligt, hvis du kunne fortælle lidt mere om det.

Olga: Ja, så sammen med Jos, Adam, Roberta og Masa samarbejdede vi om både konventionel og alternativ kortlægning af dele af campus. Det blev udført med de studerende fra Arkitekturens teknologi, som faktisk ikke er arkitekter. De kommer med en bacheloruddannelse. Vi har en uddannelse i Danmark, som ikke er placeret på akademiet. De er bygningskonstruktør, en bacheloruddannelse på tre og et halvt år. Derefter kommer de til os for at tage en toårig kandidatuddannelse. Det er en ny uddannelsesretning, og vi har nu haft tre årgange af kandidater. De har tekniske færdigheder og kender bygningsreglementet ret godt, så vi tænkte sammen, at dette ville være en god erfaring og en god øvelse for dem. Så parallelt havde vi studerende, der arbejdede med bygningsreglementet og undersøgte definerede dele af campus. Og de samme bygninger og de samme dele af bygningerne blev også kortlagt med den alternative metode, som Jos introducerede for de studerende, og det var fantastisk på mange niveauer. Det mest interessante for mig var at opdage, at bygningerne på mange områder faktisk overholder bygningsreglementet. Vi er meget heldige at være i gamle bygninger, nogle af dem over 200 år gamle, og vi er glade for at være der. Men når de samme rum, eller dele af rum, blev vurderet gennem den alternative kortlægning, viste det sig, at det måske ikke fungerer helt, som det burde. Små ting, som for eksempel døre, der overholder reglementet, indgangsdøre til bygninger, kan være svære at åbne på grund af størrelse og vægt. Og bygninger sætter sig over tid, og over 200 år har de bevæget sig en smule, nok til at gøre adgang med kørestol vanskelig, for eksempel. Men den største læring, vil jeg sige, var de øvelser, som Jos introducerede, hvor de studerende skulle opleve, hvordan en person med funktionsnedsættelse måske ville føle det. Vi havde studerende, der fik bundet benene sammen, og nogle bar mange bøger og skulle åbne en dør.

Og gennem det begyndte de at tænke og forstå, og relatere sig til rummene, på en anden måde. Noget andet, som jeg fandt meget interessant, var, at jeg altid har troet, at de studerende, på grund af deres baggrund, ville føle sig mest komfortable i en teknisk kontekst. Og her blev jeg faktisk modbevist. Jeg troede, at de stadig ville lave den tekniske kortlægning meget nemt, det har de gjort før. Men de kunne relatere sig til den alternative kortlægning på en meget dyb måde. Og der var stor interesse. Intet var for meget. Og den feedback, vi har fået fra dem, har været virkelig fantastisk.

Jos: Ja, og jeg kan lige sige lidt mere om den alternative kortlægningsmetode, fordi det er en metode, vi bruger meget i The DisOrdinary Architecture Project. Den hedder Characters, og den blev udviklet af min meddirektør, som er en kunstner med funktionsnedsættelse, Zoe Partington. Ideen med characters er, at man ikke imiterer en bestemt form for funktionsnedsættelse, men at man ændrer sin krop på forskellige måder, som både kan være sjove, men også udmattende, og som kan få én til at se verden anderledes. Du nævnte nogle af metoderne at bære mange ting, holde armene i vejret, gå meget langsomt. Der er en række forskellige teknikker, vi bruger. Ja, tre ben – altså at binde benene sammen – og så beder vi de studerende om faktisk at kortlægge og beskrive både de barrierer, der bliver meget tydelige for dem, som f.eks. at blive meget træt af at gå op ad trapper, fordi de bærer mange ting, eller ikke kan åbne en dør. Men også det, der faktisk kan være behageligt, som at man, når man går langsommere, begynder at lægge mærke til ting, bliver meget opmærksom på overflader, lys. Så det er en anden måde at tænke om kroppe på.

Og ja, jeg elsker den virkelig positive måde, de tog imod det på. Og så kunne vi begynde at forbinde det på kreative, men også kritiske måder med arbejdet omkring bygningsreglementet. Og Adam, jeg tænkte på, om du kunne sige lidt, fordi vi arbejdede sammen om det, og du var på en måde den, der koordinerede med de studerende, hvordan de kunne bruge en slags tjekliste fra bygningsreglementet.

Adam: Ja, helt sikkert. Min rolle i workshoppen var primært at facilitere mange af aktiviteterne og sikre, at hver studerende havde en plan for det segment af campus, de skulle arbejde med. Men ja, som jeg ser det, har workshoppen også været gavnlig, fordi disse studerende, som Olga sagde, er ret unikke på skolen. De ser social bæredygtighed fra et andet perspektiv, fordi de er så teknisk stærke. De har allerede været ude i praksis. De kender mange af bygningsreglementerne. Så de kunne bidrage med et andet perspektiv på, hvordan man teknisk kortlægger skolen, og derefter lægge ens metode-lag ovenpå. Jeg ser det som gavnligt for begge parter, både for dem, der allerede arbejder med inkluderende design, fordi det bringer et nyt perspektiv i spil.

Jos: Ja, jeg er helt enig med dig. Og så synes jeg, der er en anden dimension, som vi håber, vil udvikle sig. Nemlig at dette faktisk er data, der kan påvirke, hvordan campus forbedres i forhold til adgang. Noget af det, jeg elskede ved det, de studerende gjorde, var, at de – fordi de havde den viden om bygningsreglementet – faktisk kunne se, at tingene af forskellige årsager, ofte relateret til vedligeholdelse og ujævnheder, ikke levede op til standarderne. Så den form for flerdimensionel forståelse af, hvad der kunne gøres for at gøre campus mere tilgængelig, føltes virkelig positiv.

Olga: Hvis jeg må tilføje noget, så var der en gruppe, der arbejdede med at tilføje skilte, der viser, hvor man befinder sig på campus. Og det blev gjort på en, hvordan skal jeg sige det, meget DIY-måde, hvor det blev printet på papir og havde en stærk farve. Men idéen er blevet taget op. Jeg er meget glad for at se, at der nu er flere skilte. Så når man kommer til et undervisningslokale, et auditorium eller en indgang står der, hvor man er. Så wayfinding, jeg synes, det var en lille ting at gøre, men wayfinding er blevet lettere. Så jeg er glad, hvis vi har bidraget. Jeg ved det ikke.

Jos: Olga, kunne du fortælle lidt mere om virkningen, omkring virkningen af dette arbejde?

Olga: Jeg synes, der har været stor effekt – og det gælder faktisk på tværs af hele akademiet – for jeg kan se, at der er mange aktiviteter. Hvor jeg måske for nogle år siden ville have set dette som en lille ø, som en workshop der fandt sted hist og her, kan jeg nu se, at det faktisk spreder sig og er ved at blive en del af den almindelige undervisning. Og som en metode til at arbejde med inklusion er det ved at blive integreret, eller er allerede blevet integreret, over de seneste år.

Jos: Det er fantastisk. Og for mig handler det også om at finde forskellige praksismodeller, hvor vi faktisk kan undersøge, og kortlægge, bygninger og rum uden den kunstige opdeling, hvor man enten skal have en person med funktionsnedsættelse, som på en eller anden måde bliver den autentiske stemme for alle med den pågældende funktionsnedsættelse, eller hvor man bare håber, at man gør det rigtigt, eller følger bygningsreglementet. Dette er en metode, hvor primært studerende uden funktionsnedsættelse faktisk kan opbygge en reel bevidsthed. Jeg synes, det har været fantastisk at arbejde med bygningskonstruktør-studerende, men Roberta, du og jeg har for nylig været på Bornholm, på en anden campus, hvor der er meget anderledes studerende. Og jeg ville høre, om du kunne fortælle lidt om, hvordan vi gjorde det der.

Roberta: Ja, faktisk – mens Adam talte før – så hjalp jeg Adam under workshoppen, vi havde på Holmen [Det Kongelige Akademi, Campus for Arkitektur, Design og Konservering], men også da vi lavede den samme kortlægning på de andre campusser. Jos og jeg var sammen på Bornholm, og vi oplevede, at metoden – afhængigt af de studerende, vi arbejdede med, og den kontekst, vi kortlagde – skal tilpasses. For eksempel er arkitektstuderende vant til at arbejde med tegninger og planmateriale, mens de studerende på Bornholm arbejder med glas og keramik på en meget kunstnerisk måde, og i øvrigt i et meget smukt miljø. I stedet bad vi de studerende om at optage videoer, at filme sig selv, mens de oplevede rummet på denne lidt mærkelige måde. I starten var vi lidt bekymrede for, om de havde for meget sjov og ikke ville nå frem til øvelsens egentlige formål. Men så, under den efterfølgende diskussion, så vi, at øvelserne – selv når de var sjove – faktisk fik de studerende til at reflektere. For eksempel over tempoet, som mennesker må tilpasse sig, når de arbejder tæt sammen. Og over rum, situationer og forhold på campus, som de aldrig havde lagt mærke til før, især når de gik meget langsomt. Også smukke ting, især på Bornholm. For mig er den mest relevante del den diskussion, der opstår efter kortlægningen, hvor de studerende virkelig bringer interessante refleksioner frem. Og det er også dér, samtalen kan løftes op på et administrativt niveau, til skolen, for at give information om, hvordan forbedringer kan gennemføres, hvor der bør ske ændringer, men også hvilke ting der bør værdsættes, fordi de allerede fungerer positivt.

Jos: Ja, og for mig, jeg var bekymret for, om det måske ikke ville være så relevant for de studerende på Bornholm – men jeg synes, det fungerede. Det fungerede faktisk rigtig godt, fordi de arbejder med glas og keramik, og øvelserne mindede dem i deres tilfælde meget om den fysiske dimension af det arbejde, de laver. Der opstod en utrolig bevidsthed, noget de selvfølgelig allerede havde en fornemmelse af, men det satte virkelig fokus på gulvoverflader, snublefarer og vanskeligheder ved at komme ind og ud ad døre, når man bærer krukker, glas og varme, skrøbelige genstande. Der var også en del samtale om deres relationer til hinanden, for hvordan udførelsen af opgaverne altid måtte ske i fællesskab på en eller anden måde, og hvordan det også havde en rumlig dimension. Så for dem blev det, tror jeg, noget der handlede meget om deres detaljerede, kropslige erfaringer, på en virkelig fin måde, som du også siger.

Olga: Det var et rigtig godt punkt, du bragte op, Roberta, om hvordan diskussionerne er det mest værdifulde. Og i den forstand synes jeg, det var meget fint, at vi, efter alle workshops, også dem på de andre lokationer som Bornholm og Konservatorskolen, havde en fælles dag, hvor der kom mange interessante pointer frem. Det interessante var, hvordan forskellige aspekter blev bemærket, fordi vi arbejder så forskelligt. Som de ting, du nævnte nu, og også Jos, hvordan rummets karakter blev oplevet. En studerende sagde i dag, da du kom for at sige farvel, at efter workshoppen med dig ser han bygninger på en helt anden måde. Jeg synes, det var meget stærkt.

Jos: Ja, det var virkelig dejligt at høre, for jeg tror på en måde, det er noget meget praktisk, der forhåbentlig kommer ud af det her. Altså konkrete måder, hvorpå vi kan ændre den daglige praksis omkring funktionsnedsættelse og inklusion. Men det handler også om at ændre tankesæt, og det er virkelig svært at måle, men jeg tror, det er en vigtig effekt. Nå, vi skal til at runde af, men jeg håbede, at hver af jer måske kunne sige lidt om, hvor I gerne vil tage dette hen, og hvad det fører videre til for jer. Olga.

Olga: Ja, jeg bliver nok dér, hvor jeg er. Jeg er glad og tryg ved at arbejde, hvor jeg gør, men jeg synes også, det har haft en indvirkning på mig. For jeg tror virkelig på, at hvis vi skal skabe forandring i samfundet, så skal forskellige arbejdsmetoder bringes sammen. Og kun ved at adressere sociale og tekniske aspekter samtidig kan vi virkelig gøre en forskel. Så jeg håber, på et praktisk niveau, at vi på en eller anden måde kan følge dig, eller du kan følge os, i fremtiden og måske lære af dit arbejde. Og så håber jeg, at der vil komme projekter, hvor det er muligt at bringe meget forskellige metoder sammen.

Jos: Sammen, ja. Roberta.

Roberta: Ja, for mig er det meget værdifuldt at kende til og være en del af denne type projekter, hvor inklusion bliver adresseret på en anderledes måde. For mig er inklusion udgangspunktet for samtale, og diskussioner om, hvad diversitet er, men også at gøre det på en kreativ måde, fordi de traditionelle tilgange måske ikke har fungeret, eller ikke fungerer længere. Så for mig er det næste, jeg gerne vil arbejde med, stadig at udforske disse forskellige måder at engagere sig og designe på.

Jos: Tak. Adam.

Adam: For mig, bare ud fra workshoppen, vil jeg gerne fokusere på at få en mere mangfoldig studentergruppe ind på akademiet. Det ville være fantastisk at have personer med funktionsnedsættelser som studerende, som bliver arkitekter. Lige nu ser jeg det ikke som en reel mulighed, men jeg tror, det er første skridt mod at gøre noget. Og jeg synes, workshoppen har vist det.

Jos: Tak. Og i den sidste episode taler jeg med en blind arkitektstuderende, netop om det, om hvordan vi virkelig har brug for at diversificere de mennesker, der kommer ind i designfagene. Det må være et centralt punkt i det, der skal ske. Tusind tak. Tak til Olga, Roberta og Adam. Det var dejligt at have jer med.

Adam: Tak.

Roberta: Tak.

Olga: Tak.

Jos: Næste samtale er med Masa [Kajita], leder af Cluster for Spatial Inclusion her på Royal Danish Academy. Masa, jeg ved, du har arbejdet i længere tid med de spændinger, der opstår for arkitekter og designere i forhold til, hvordan vi tænker om den mangfoldige variation af menneskelige brugere. Vi har talt meget om det, fordi vi på den ene side ved, at vi skal opbygge langt bedre viden og bevidsthed om den rigdom og kompleksitet, der findes i forskellige måder at være i verden på – forskellige levede erfaringer, et bredt spektrum af specifikke adgangsbehov. Men på den anden side har vi brug for en form for logik til at håndtere denne diversitet, som vi i dag gør på en meget mekanisk måde – gennem lovkrav, bygningsreglementer og tekniske retningslinjer. Så jeg håber, du kan fortælle lidt mere om, hvordan du har arbejdet med denne problemstilling.

Masashi Kajita: Ja, Jos, tak. Jeg mener, vi er meget langsomme i forhold til at gøre, det byggede miljø mere responsivt over for menneskers forskellige livsbetingelser og præferencer. Der er mange grunde til det, som vi har talt om, men et af de grundlæggende problemer er, at flertallet af os – primært arkitekter, som vi taler om her – stadig gør normative antagelser om funktionsnedsættelse. Vi har stadig en tendens til at se brugere som passive modtagere af givne rum, frem for at se rum som både produkt og producent af differentierede, og ofte modsatrettede, sociale praksisser. Denne tendens hænger tæt sammen med vores regelbaserede tilgang til inklusion i praksis. Regler og retningslinjer fungerer nødvendigvis top-down, vil jeg sige. Det er en måde at forsøge at løse problemet med, hvordan man imødekommer de enormt forskellige behov, præferencer, og endda ønsker, hos så mange mennesker som muligt. For at gøre det, forsøger regler og retningslinjer at håndhæve nogle grundlæggende standarder og give arkitekter et essentielt referencepunkt. Det sker ved at fastsætte et minimumsniveau, som for eksempel den minimale fri bredde på døre, fælles adgangsruter og så videre.

Jos: Ja, og vi ved jo, at det er den form for løsning, vi har i dag, men der er så mange problemer med netop denne tilgang, den regelstyrede tilgang.

Masashi: Ja, denne top-down tilgang reducerer ofte kroppen til gennemsnitsdimensioner og ideelle proportioner, og vigtigst af alt forenkler den kompleksiteten i kroppens interaktioner med objekter, bygninger og deres omgivelser. Det er problematisk. Det fører også ofte til, at designløsninger bliver mere generiske og standardiserede. Igen, som en separat rampe til kørestolsbrugere, hvilket så fører til en separat og særlig indgang. Så vores udfordring er at udforske en ny praksismodel, som, vil jeg sige, er bottom-up frem for top-down. En brugercentreret tilgang, som fungerer nedefra og op og er kendetegnet ved en mangfoldighed af kropslige og stærkt subjektive forståelser af arkitektoniske oplevelser. Dybdegående engagement med kropslige erfaringer giver værdifuld indsigt til arkitekter, selvom det kan føre til designløsninger, der er helt specifikke for én enkelt person.

Jos: Det er interessant, for jeg talte tidligere med Marcus om mode og præcis det samme problem med standardiserede kroppe. At mode er fuldstændig organiseret omkring forskellige kropsstørrelser og produktionsmekanik. Han talte om forskellige måder, man kunne tænke kroppe og beklædning på, og hvordan man kunne undervise i alternative måder at tænke kroppen på. Så jeg vil stille dig det samme spørgsmål: Hvilke forslag har du til, hvordan vi kan gøre dette anderledes i arkitektuddannelsen og -praksis?

Masashi: Ja. Den nuværende arkitektuddannelse og praksis omkring adgang og inklusion har en tendens til at lægge vægt på den førstnævnte, altså den top-down tilgang. Den sætter det forskriftsmæssige før det kreative. Og som jeg sagde, kan det føre til mere løsningsorienteret design. Jeg siger ikke, at den ene tilgang er bedre end den anden, vi skal finde en balance mellem de to. På akademiet lægger vi vægt på at opnå en mere kompleks og nuanceret forståelse af funktionsnedsættelse. Det gør vi netop for at bevare balancen mellem de to tilgange. Denne tilgang, at lægge vægt på en mere kompleks og nuanceret forståelse af funktionsnedsættelse, er i høj grad inspireret af forskere inden for funktionsnedsættelse som Ami Hamraie, Sarah Hendren, Alison Kafer, og mest af alt dig, Jos. Det er derfor, vi har inviteret dig og The DisOrdinary Architecture Project til akademiet, og det alternative kortlægningsprojekt er ét af vores forsøg på at forbedre situationen, sammen med mange andre projekter.

Jos: Ja, og jeg synes, det har været virkelig fantastisk at være en del af det alternative kortlægningsprojekt, som vi tidligere talte om med Olga, Adam og Roberta. Men jeg tror også, at et af de problemer, vi har kredset meget omkring, og som jeg ved, du har arbejdet med. er, at arkitektstuderende og praktikere, ligesom modestuderende, ikke har en egentlig vidensbase. Altså: Hvad er det for en vidensbase, der gør det muligt for os at forstå noget om de mange måder, mennesker bebor verden på, og hvordan forskellige funktionsnedsættelser påvirker, hvad folk har brug for, og hvad der støtter dem på en produktiv og kreativ måde? Vi har, ligesom du, forsøgt forskellige måder at indsamle den slags data på. Du arbejdede på et tidspunkt med at opbygge en slags database, kan jeg huske?

Masashi: Ja, et af projekterne hed Missing Voices of Disabled People. Vi gik grundlæggende ind i forskellige personlige blogs og udtalelser fra personer med funktionsnedsættelser på webbaserede fora, og begyndte at analysere, hvad de skrev, særligt i relation til deres hverdagsliv. Og af en eller anden grund syntes vi, det var interessant at koble det til det gældende bygningsreglement i Danmark, fordi bygningsreglementet i høj grad foreskriver, hvad arkitekter må og ikke må gøre. Men ved at koble disse udtalelser fra brugere, eller personer med funktionsnedsættelser, som på mange måder er kreative, med reglementet, tænkte vi, at vi kunne give arkitekter en mulighed for at forstå hvorfor de skal gøre det, de skal gøre. Det hjalp dem med ikke kun at overholde bygningsreglementet, men også med at forstå konsekvenserne af det, vi gør som arkitekter og designere. Og den beskrivende måde at opbygge en database på, som kunne gøres tilgængelig for mange, syntes vi var en nyttig praksis.

Jos: Jeg synes, det er virkelig nyttigt for mig, er et vedvarende problem, som ligger i kernen af, hvorfor arkitektur og fag inden for det byggede miljø virker fastlåste i denne top-down-model, at der faktisk findes enorme mængder data. Personer med funktionsnedsættelser har i årtier forklaret, hvilke barrierer de møder, og hvad deres behov er, især nu, hvor vi har sociale medier. Vi taler om kampagner for bedre adgang, som begyndte i 1960’erne, altså over 50 år, hvor personer med funktionsnedsættelser har forklaret, hvorfor det byggede miljø ikke imødekommer deres behov. Og så har vi, som du allerede har nævnt, de fantastiske forskere, kunstnere og aktivister inden for disability studies, som igen og igen har forklaret, hvordan vi kan tænke anderledes om dette, hvordan vi kan forstå funktionsnedsættelse på en langt rigere og mere kreativ måde. Så det leder mig hen til den anden side af problemet: Data findes, men spørgsmålet er, hvordan vi finder kanaler, der gør det muligt at integrere denne viden i den daglige praksis i arkitektuddannelsen og -praksis. At det ikke bare bliver sådan en særlig ting, man gør, enten som et special needs-projekt eller som en slags tillæg i den professionelle praksisdel af studiet, hvor det handler om at sikre, at man har styr på brandsikkerhed og overholder bygningsreglementet for funktionsnedsættelse. Så jeg ved ikke, om du har nogle tanker om, hvad vi kan gøre i denne situation?

Masashi: Nej, jeg tror, der er én tilgang, som jeg nævnte, nemlig projektet Missing Voices of Disabled People. Grunden til, at vi valgte at koble det til bygningsreglementet, var, at det er dokumenter, som arkitekter kender og arbejder med i designprocessen af bygninger, landskaber og offentlige rum. Derfor ønskede vi at forbinde stemmerne fra personer med funktionsnedsættelser med reglementet. Så hvis man søger på døre, dukker der en række udsagn op fra en kunstner med funktionsnedsættelse, direkte på skærmen. Det handler, som du siger, om hvordan man organiserer den beskrivende information på en måde, der både er nyttig for arkitekter og genkendelig for dem. Det er én måde, vi kan integrere den viden på. En anden tilgang, som vi arbejder med her på akademiet sammen med dig, er, at vi har introduceret en række øvelser, der aktiverer de studerendes kropslige forståelse i hverdagen. På den måde kan de begynde at forestille sig andres kroppe og præferencer, og dermed også forestille sig muligheder og begrænsninger i konkrete designelementer. Så jeg tror, det er de to tilgange, der står klarest for mig.

Jos: Tak. Virkelig interessant. Og jeg synes, det er – jeg har altid denne dobbelte følelse: på den ene side er der stadig så meget, der skal gøres, men samtidig er det også virkelig energigivende og tankevækkende, og det tilføjer nye lag af kreativitet til den måde, vi underviser og praktiserer på.

Masashi: Ja, jeg synes, som du ofte har sagt, at dét at være anderledes, og dét at have en funktionsnedsættelse, på mange måder kan blive en del af designparametrene. Det har du sagt flere gange, Jos, og det hænger ved hos mig. Det tager tid, og der er stadig lang vej igen, men jeg tror, at hvis vi fortsætter med denne bottom-up tilgang, og inkluderer de mange aktivistiske tilgange, som forskere og aktivister arbejder med i dag, så vil det langsomt blive en del af vores design-sprog. Men jeg kan ikke love noget…

Jos: Men jeg tror, det er målet, ikke? At det bare bliver en helt normal del af design-sproget. Tusind tak, Masa. Det er altid en fornøjelse at tale med dig.

Masashi: Tak fordi du inviterede mig, Jos. Tak.

Jos: I denne episode har vi undersøgt nogle interessante alternative metoder til at integrere funktionsnedsættelse og forskellighed i designprocesser, frem for enten at ignorere den menneskelige mangfoldighed helt eller at se inklusion som noget, der kun vedrører en lille del af befolkningen, som en slags eftertanke i design. Marcus talte om at gå ud over standardiserede kroppe og konventionelle størrelser i mode. Olga, Adam og Roberta beskrev et projekt, der kombinerer konventionelle tilgængelighedsrevisioner med alternative, mere kreative og kropsligt forankrede kortlægningsmetoder. Og Masa og jeg diskuterede, hvordan man kan gentænke de ofte kunstige skel i arkitekturen mellem normale, kontroversielle kroppe og sind, overfor funktionsnedsatte og ikke-normative kroppe og sind. Mange tak til alle mine gæster, til Marcus, Olga, Adam, Roberta og Masa, for nogle virkelig gode samtaler. Og tak til Det Kongelige Akademi og Bevica Fonden for at støtte dette projekt. Disse podcasts dækker kun en lille del af de mange fantastiske initiativer, der foregår omkring funktionsnedsættelse, adgang og inklusion, både på akademiet, i København og andre steder. Men vi håber, at refleksioner over vores egne erfaringer med at gentænke funktionsnedsættelse i uddannelse og praksis kan inspirere andre til også at bringe innovative, kreative og kritiske tilgange til inklusion ind i deres arbejde. I den næste og sidste episode, Universal Design and… Disabled Creativity, vil vi undersøge, hvor vigtigt det er at lytte til personer med funktionsnedsættelsers forskellige perspektiver og erfaringer, og anerkende, at de virkelig er sande eksperter, sande kreative eksperter, når det gælder design af produkter og rum. Jeg er Jos Boys, gæsteprofessor ved Det Kongelige Akademi og meddirektør for The DisOrdinary Architecture Project. Tusind tak fordi du lyttede med.