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

1. The evolution of Design for All in public buildings and transportation in France Louis-Pierre Grosbois, Architect Ecole d’Architecture, La Villette, Paris, France Hansi Ombregt Poldervaart Stijn Taking all physical, sensorial and mental abilities and/or disabilities into account in order to exercise optimal use value. Design For All Evolution Change attitudes by creating a culture of comfort of use that takes the diversity of individuals into account. Only recently, universal Design has become a common term, although DFA is in fact an extension of Commoditas, the ancient Greek concept of use value.

2. The evolution of Design for All in public buildings and transportation in France Design For All ages and life situations in public buildings Public > populus: people, state, public realm Publicus usus: public use, use for all building that must accommodate everybody, at whatever age in life What is a public buiding?

3. The evolution of Design for All in public buildings and transportation in France Disabilities, Limitations and Handicaps People with intellectual, sensory or physical disabilities must not encounter any obstacles when trying to access information or facilities for education, transportation and so on. Access is a right ! Appears when the built environment cannot provide any compensation for a person’s disabilities. Disabilities A disabled person in an accessible building is an able-bodied person. Accesibility

4. The evolution of Design for All in public buildings and transportation in France Architecture, human requirements and accessibility Architecture is based on three qualities (Vitruvius) Firmitassolidity of construction Voluptaspleasure, aesthetics Commoditasadaptation to use Only recently, universal Design has become a common term, although DFA is in fact an extension of Commoditas, the ancient Greek concept of use value. Achieving the right compromise and balance between the three qualities. “Laying the building out so ingeniuosly that nothing could hinder its use” Adapting to people and their uses is an inescapable consequence of achieving this compromise. Quote Vitruvius

5. The evolution of Design for All in public buildings and transportation in France Historical background and Attitudes Greek and Roman culture Reducing the human body, as an ideal figure, to a mathematical object Applying the proportions of the human body to the layout of buildings, and even cities Renaissance Modulor, a range of dimensions on the human scale, universally applicable to architecture Le Corbusier Anthropometric model has been replaced by the model of the pyramid that describes a person’s evolution through the phases of the life cycle 1960s

6. The evolution of Design for All in public buildings and transportation in France Historical background and Attitudes Greek and Roman culture The architectural notion of a unique use related to an individual at the peak of his or her physical an sensorial capacities disappeared, to be replaced by the diversity of individuals, or of the same individual throughout the phases of the life cycle, or after an accident or an illness. Renaissance Le Corbusier The objective Vitruvius defined 2000 years ago, “to lay out the building so ingeniously that nothing could hinder its use.” was therefore achieved as a consequence of a new concept, dating from this end of the millennium: “Design for All”. 1960s

7. The evolution of Design for All in public buildings and transportation in France Beyond Formalism: Design for All Between the three qualitative criteria of architecture, a compromise has to be found in terms of design. Constructionand solidity Voluptas Without any dialogue or encounter between solidity, usefulness and beauty, only inhuman constructions can be produced. DESIGN Firmitas Commoditas aesthetics usability

8. The evolution of Design for All in public buildings and transportation in France Beyond Formalism: Design for All Without any dialogue or encounter between solidity, usefulness and beauty, only inhuman constructions can be produced. Good compromise • Reinforce the morphological an anthropological knowledge of humankind • always start from the most architecturally demanding limitations, or those which require the most extensive alterations. “Each solution is, one way or the other, the result of a compromise, which was found more easely when the human limitations were studied” quote A. Aalto

9. Design for All in France: Four Examples Architects need to compromise between technical, economic, social, and aesthetic data and human requirements In 1998, research project: Living in an Accessible City- from Uses to Design Outcome: Seven points have to be dealt with, as differently emphasized ways of seeking out compromises: -Language -Legal requirements -Advocacy -Planning -Technical traditions -Accessibility follow- through -Communications

10. Criteria for Analysis How can we remove mental blocks while carrying out a project -Language -Legal requirements -Advocacy -Planning -Technical traditions -Accessibility follow- through -Communications To which legislative framework does each project belong How can community Associations defend people with disabilities This is the faze where criteria for accessibility are integrated in the project Obstacles raised by technical choices have to be dealt with Checking if the strong intentions at the beginning of the project have been reached Accessibility leads to nothing if the general public does not know about it

11. The Lille Metro System (1973-1983) -Language: Negative terms have been replaced by positive terms like: Metro for All, Horizontal Elevator -Legal Requirements: There were no legal requirements yet in 1973. Therefore we can consider the project in Lille as a Pioneer The accessibility-for-all solution was appreciated but was only for people with motor deficiencies and not yet for people with sensorial deficiencies -Advocacy: From the beginning of the project there was attention for persons with disabilities -Planning: -Technical Traditions: -The quantity of persons transported on each train was less important than the frequency of those trains -Rolling Stock: Synchronized opening of the doors = horizontal elevator

12. The Lille Metro System (1973-1983) -Accessibility follow-through: The project manager visits and coordinates the progress, therefore continuity is ensured The CUDL insists that the metro is accessible to all. The new design-for-all metro led to a general improvement and appreciation of mass transport = ‘a metro for all’ -Communications:

13. The grenoble Tram System (1978-1988) -Language: The language used in documents about the TAG talked about Accessibility for travelers in wheelchairs, persons with reduced mobility, buggies, strollers,... -Legal Requirements: According to the law trams had to be accessible to all and Grenoble followed this legislation to the letter In 1971 there was a demonstration by people with disabilities in France, the same year a person with a serious disability was elected to the city council. These events had a big influence on the opinion towards disabled people -Advocacy: Accessibility as an urban criteria: In 1976 R. Herbin was given a consultancy assignment to promote accessibility operations in the town’s highway maintenance -Planning:

14. The grenoble Tram System (1978-1988) -Technical Traditions: Bogies and electrical motorization equipment in the low part of the tram where already at such a height that the floor was not compatible with the level of platforms at the tramspots. A solution herefore was putting the electrical drive elements on the roof. A retractable door step completed the leveling with the sidewalk -Accessibility follow-through: In 1976 the city of Grenoble commissioned an accessibility consultant. The TAG won the European Community Helios award for best transport achievements in 1989 -Communications:

15. The Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie de la Villette, Paris (1980-1987) -Language: Integration of persons with disabilities was integrated from the beginning of the project. There was a study which examined the various disabilities of persons who make up a museum’s visiting public. Also there was chosen to use the term handicap rather than the expression disabled persons -Legal Requirements: The author of the 1980 law for the accessibility of public buildings was on the team of the architect, thus the accessibility reached largely exceeded the requirements of the normative framework Because accessibility was looked at from the beginning of the project it did not affect the building’s beauty and practicability -Advocacy: The buildings accessibility became possible through the cooperation between the architect and it’s consultant -Planning:

16. The Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie de la Villette, Paris (1980-1987) People with disabilities where often seen as a marginal and limited group. There where also the professional habits of architects who were not inclined to rethink their immediate reactions to problems. (floating floor to hide cables) -Technical Traditions: -Accessibility follow-through: After the museum opened the consultant’s commission was extended to work with the museum itself because accessibility can often disappear if there is no strict follow up The information towards the visitors works very well. One has only to walk around the CSI spaces to see that the challenge for social integration has been taken up. There are a lot of disabled people visiting the project and they are happy to be in a large public space with other people -Communications:

17. The grande Galérie in the museum d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris (1989-1994) -Language: The public was to be able to move through the entire exhibition space without having to be segregated through any specific route because comfort and social interaction have to be sought -Legal Requirements: The Grande Galerie opened the same year the regulations were strengthened. It also proved that regulations were only a minimal aspect. The concept of free visitors flow went beyond the literal application of legal requirements Accessibility was commissioned from a design office, there was no advisory committee of associations -Advocacy: Accessibility studies were subsequently integrated into the specifications to take the variety of the public’s motor and sensory disabilities into account -Planning:

18. The grande Galérie in the museum d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris (1989-1994) -Technical Traditions: The beautiful nineteenth century display cabinets were kept, but adapted to contemporary museographic requirements. This case shows that it’s possible to combine traditions with technical evolution to preserve a buildings identity -Accessibility follow-through: A reception unit for people with disabilities is currently created and the staff is specially trained to guide disabled people around The magazine Musées et Collections publiques de France published an issue entitled ‘How to receive people with disabilities’ -Communications:

19. General lessons learned from “Design for All” in France The evolution of various elements during the past 20 years Architectural barrier accessible measures Handicaped person reduced mobility Specific for handicaped use for all -Language: -Legal Requirements: • 1975 support implementation of accessibilit laws • Laws fully implemented and comfort was afforded to all • 1985 Law needed amendment because it provided only a minimum set of regulations Incentive role in 1975 (Lille and Grenoble) Consulting role with commission in 1985 -Advocacy:

20. General lessons learned from “Design for All” in France Definition of new transportation equipment Accessibility for all users, after defining their various abilities -Planning: -Technical Traditions: Humankind has to be considered as the key figure, with technology playing the supporting role -Accessibility follow-through: The Grenoble experience in 1975 and the Cité des Sciences in 1985 created a permanent team called an accesibility cell -Communications: Everyone’s precense Added value to the image of achievement DFA-concept developed everywhere to ensure comfort

21. “Design for All” CONCLUSION French examples of DFA reveal issues of compromise based on cultural, technical, en economic data. Route to accessibility The new design for all concept will generate a friendlier and less aggressive evironment and will provide benefits to all social sectors Equitable Use Flexibility in Use Simple and Intiutive Use Perceptible information Tolerance for Error Low Physical Effort Size ande Space for Approach and Use 7 principles of UD

22. “Design for All” CONCLUSION Focusing on diversified uses, thes recommendations do not go into the social and technical comprommises that have to be made Imposing an UD model is therefore out of the question whitin the person/culture/techniques interfaces Suggestion: share a humanist vision (D.A. Norman, 1996) • Chicago World Fair • “scientist discover, Industry applies, and Man gets adapted” 21th Century “Man proposes, Scientists or Architects create, an Technology gets adapted”