Unlimited Form

UNLIMITED FORM

Experimentation in Non-Ambulatory Architecture

UNLIMITED FORM

Experimentation in Non-Ambulatory Architecture

In a world of only wheelchairs, what might Architecture look like?

Non-Ambulatory: A person who is unable to walk, but who may be mobile with the help of a wheelchair or other mobility devices.

MSH: Mobile Seated Human(s)

Acknowledgements:

My aspirations towards academic and creative merit were gratefully nourished by my supportive peers: Zonjusha Ajvazaj, السيد Diab, барышня Kuzmina, Monsieur Lehoux, Cookie Лaпo, Pani Maliszewska, Senor Martinez, and, خانم Rasouli, and; strongly sustained by my siblings: M. Inness, V. Rahi, and G. Ackerman, and; reluctantly endured by Miss Lola J Vassallo.

Certification

I hereby declare that the Thesis submitted is my own, unaided work, completed without any unpermitted external help. Only the sources and resources listed were used.

Berlin August 26, 2024

Susan F. Dodd

UNLIMITED FORM

by Susan F. Dodd

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Architecture – Typology

from the Institute for Architecture Technical University of Berlin

Supervisor:

Jörg Stöllmann, PhD

Doctor of Architecture, Princeton University Chair, Urban Design and Urbanization, Institut fӥr Architektur Jorg.Stollmann@TU-Berlin.de

Second Examiner:

Jörg H. Gleiter, PhD Doctor of Architecture, Bauhaus University Chair, Architectural Theory, Institut fӥr Architektur Joerg.Gleiter@TU-Berlin.de

TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN

Institut fӥr Architektur

August 26, 2024

13 SECTION 1 • The Impaired Body in Context

• REALITIES

Being Fully-Bodied is the Optimal Circumstance Impairment and Disability Disability and the Built Environment

• REMEDIATIONS Amending Architecture Resolving the Body’s Limitations Understanding the Impairment Experience Amplifying the Affected For Whom Do We Design?

21 SECTION 2 • Context: A Closer Look

• RECOGNIZING THE BODY IN ARCHITECTURE Humans Building (Certain) Humans’ Buildings Can We Isolate Our Human Qualities in Architecture Colorless Form Walking, and Architecture

• REGULATING THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT A ‘New’ Type of Movement Including the Rolling Public

• REEVALUATING OUR RESPONSES Does a Master Key Open All Doors Disinclined to Normalize Bespoken Barrier Free

• RECONSIDERING OUR APPROACH

The Value of a New Perspective

• THE HYPOTHETICAL DOMAIN Context

Biomechanics

Language Conditions 69 SECTION 4 • Finding New Form

• EXPERIMENTATION IN MSH ARCHITECTURE

The Historic Center

Archetypal Form

Anthropomorphism: Form and Materials

Anthropomorphism: Religious Reference

Movemen

Doors and Fenestration

Landscape Experience

Separation from the Ground Plane

Relief Capacity

Functional Expression, including Public Library

Residential Kitchen

Performing Arts Theatre

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

Unbegrenzte Form

Inklusives Design in der Welt der Architektur dient dazu, sicherzustellen, dass alle Menschen gleichberechtigten Zugang zur gebauten Umwelt haben. Ein Aspekt, den Inclusive Design anspricht, ist die Empfehlung von Änderungen an der traditionellen (d. h. behindertengerechten) Architektur, um Rollstuhlfahrern gerecht zu werden. Die offensichtlichsten Änderungen an den ursprünglichen Formen der traditionellen Architektur sind die Hinzufügung von Rampen und Aufzügen/Aufzügen zur Bewältigung von Höhenunterschieden.

Aber folgt daraus, dass eine Welt, in der nur Rollstuhlfahrer leben, eine Landschaft aus ansteigenden Ebenen und ebenen Flächen wäre? Ist es möglich, dass wir durch das rückwirkende Streben nach Inklusivität, in dem wir nach „Lösungen“ für die konventionellen Formen der Architektur suchen, die Entdeckung potenziell neuer und grenzenloser Formen vermieden haben, die die einzigartige Situation des Daseins im Rollstuhl berücksichtigen?

Diese Arbeit befasst sich mit der architektonischen Form, da sie sich ausschließlich auf Rollstuhlfahrer bezieht. Es wird einen experimentellen Designkontext vorschlagen, in dem alle Menschen nicht als zweibeinige, aufrechte Wesen geboren werden, sondern mit der Bedingung, vierrädrige, sitzende Individuen zu sein. Es werden die Möglichkeiten von Architektur und Form erforscht, die von nicht gehfähigen Menschen entstehen und ausschließlich für sie geschaffen werden. Es wird die Hypothese aufgestellt, dass ein nicht gehfähiges Universum, das nur mobile, sitzende Menschen enthält, zu architektonischen Formen führen würde, die nicht einfach eine barrierefreie Verwässerung unserer aktuellen gebauten Umwelt darstellen. Es geht davon aus, dass die Entwicklung der nichtgehfähigen Architektur zu reich tektonischen, komplexen Mehrzweckräumen führen würde, wie sie in unserer gegenwärtigen (hauptsächlich zweibeinigen) Welt vertreten sind.

Die Untersuchung neuer Formen und Räume basiert auf einem fundierten Verständnis der paradigmatischen, mechanischen und sensorischen Bedingungen, die für sitzende, mobile Menschen einzigartig sind. Dazu gehört auch die persönliche Nutzung eines Rollstuhls über einen längeren Zeitraum. Ein genauer Ort (Projektstandort) wird nicht angegeben, stattdessen werden freistehende Experimente erstellt, die nicht mit unserer aktuellen Umgebung korrelieren. Die Erforschung der Form wird durch Zeichnen, Diagramme sowie digitale und physische Modellierung unterstützt.

Die erwarteten Ergebnisse dieser Untersuchung werden eine Sammlung realisierbarer architektonischer Elemente sein: Objekte, Formen und Räume, die für die Bedingungen dieses hypothetischen Universums und seiner Akteure einzigartig sind. Es können architektonische Entwürfe entwickelt werden, die zunächst nicht mit ZweipedalAkteuren kompatibel sind. Dies könnte zu zukünftigen Designstudien führen, die typische menschliche Körper wieder in die Architektur mobiler, sitzender Menschen integrieren. Da in diesem Vorschlag bereits behauptet wird, dass die Untersuchung von Design aus einer ausschließlich nicht ambulanten Perspektive neue und bedeutungsvolle architektonische Formen schaffen kann, wird auch behauptet, dass sich die Wiedereinführung normalbehinderter Akteure in atypische Designs als stärker transformativ für die gebaute Umwelt erweisen könnte als umgekehrt. Dies könnte letztendlich beweiskräftige Unterstützung für einen neuen methodischen Rahmen im Bereich des inklusiven Designs schaffen: das Erreichen größerer Inklusivität in der Architektur durch die Einführung von Design mit einem ausschließenden Ansatz.

ABSTRACT

Unlimited Form

Experimentation in Non-Ambulatory Architecture

Inclusive Design in the world of architecture ensures that all humans have equitable access to the built environment. One aspect Inclusive Design addresses is recommending modifications to traditional (i.e., able-bodied) architecture in order to accommodate wheel-chair users. The most evident amendments to the original forms of traditional architecture are the use of ramps and elevators/lifts to navigate level changes.

But does it follow that a world of only wheel-chair users would be a landscape of ramping planes and level surfaces? Is it possible that by pursuing inclusiveness in a retroactive manner in which we seek ‘solutions’ to the conventional forms of architecture that we have been avoiding discovering potentially new and limitless forms that embrace the unique condition of existing in a wheelchair?

This Thesis will consider architectural form as it relates exclusively to wheelchair users. It will propose an experimental design context wherein all humans are born not as upright beings – but with the condition of being fourwheeled, seated individuals. It will explore the possibilities of architecture and form that is born of, and created exclusively for, non-ambulatory humans. It hypothesizes that a non-ambulatory universe containing only mobile, seated humans would result in architectural forms that are not simply a barrier-free dilution of our current built environment. It proposes that the evolution of non-ambulatory architecture would result in richly tectonic, complex multiuse spaces like those represented in our present (principally bi-pedal) world.

The investigation into new forms and spaces will be informed by a sound understanding of the paradigmatic, mechanical, and sensory conditions that are unique to seated, mobile humans. This will include personally occupying a wheelchair for extended periods of time. A precise location (project site) will not be identified, in lieu of creating free-standing experimentations that do not correlate with our current environments. The explorations of form will be aided through drawing, diagramming, digital and physical modeling.

The expected results of this investigation will be a collection of viable architectural elements: objects, forms, and spaces, that are unique to the conditions of this hypothetical universe and its actors. Architectural designs may be developed that are initially incompatible with ambulatory actors. This could lead to future design studies that reincorporate typical human bodies into the architecture of mobile, seated humans. As this proposal already contends that investigating design from an exclusively non-ambulatory vantage point can create new and meaningful architectural forms, it also purports that re-introducing typically-abled actors into atypical designs may prove more transformative to the built environment than the reverse. This could ultimately create evidentiary support for a new methodological framework in the Inclusive Design domain: achieving greater inclusivity in architecture by initiating design with an exclusionary approach.

METHODOLOGY

The formal investigations in this design exercise are only enabled by a comprehensive understanding of the underlying condition of life with a wheelchair. Research into its experiential, technical, theoretical, sociological, and paradigmatic spheres stimulated unexpected creative responses. These initial reactions were developed into intentionally conceptual models, unrestricted by technical or legal non-viability. The goal of this process was immersion into a holistic world of wheelchair use – and to stimulate ideas (or, rather, reveal inherent realities) about the relationship of architectural form to the non-normative human body. While none of the proposals are architecturally irresolvable, the thesis did not aim to propose finalized designs, but rather act as provocations towards further designs.

Research and Review

Academic resources included published research papers, journal articles, books, reference databases, periodicals, web articles, historical documents, architectural records, anthropometric and biometric data and diagrams, global census data, and government publications. Insight was gained from materials ranging from robotic-based analyses of wheelchair trajectories, to personal narratives expressing the nuanced impairment experience. At times the absence of available data was useful in highlighting existing paradigms, for instance, the inability to discover high-quality, comprehensive and updated anthropometric data in a single reference set.

Action and Observation

As part of a previous research effort, three-months were spent occupying a manual wheelchair during daily working hours. Additionally, a short-term role as a healthcare aide to a wheelchair-dependent cis-male provided acute insight into the dynamics of toileting, airplane travel, and gender-specific activities not experienced during the personal three-month occupancy period. General observations of wheelchair users in urban and rural settings were equally enlightening, especially in revealing the movements and character of interactions between wheelchair-using actors.

Selective Reinforcement

Due to the self-imposed focus on avoiding comparisons between impaired and non-impaired experiences, imagery was created that illustrated a primordial landscape of only wheelchair users. This often required eliminating architectural backdrops to allow the mind to isolate the discrete human experience, rather than recognizing incongruities between the condition of impairment and the (typical) built environment.

PROCESS

The project began with purpose identification, and defining scope expectations, resulting in a one-page Abstract. Understanding time limitations, as well as inherent challenges in envisioning a new ‘type’ of architectural response, many initial design objectives were ultimately eliminated with the intent of creating achievable targets for study and design deliverables.

The research and review effort began by identifying the latest form-forward writing on architecture and disability, and ultimately became an exploration of current and established writing, progressive and historic design work, and static/quantitative data. Opposing points of view often led to a reevaluation of the project’s purpose and scope. Writing accompanied this review stage. Section 1, 2, and 3 of this document were authored with the intent of 1) Summarizing the axioms underlying the project; 2) Expressing perspective on the existing impairment landscape and paradigm, and 3) Proposing the value and framework for a subsequent design investigation.

Most significantly, immersion into the world of the MSH prompted organic reflections about the unique opportunities for new form. Spontaneous observations, triggered by any matter of material, were captured on cocktail napkins, recorded in book margins, and scribbled in sketchbooks.

As an inventory of considerations began to grow, the individual reflections began to take on purpose and form. Initial ideas were developed and discussed with peers and professionals, whose input often broadened (and just as commonly, contracted), their elaboration. Conceptual design ideas manifested into hand-drawn sketches, simple physical models, and digital 3-dimensional designs. Unlike previous personal efforts to approach design development in a very detailed, comprehensive manner (e.g. addressing economic, structural, legislative, contextual, and other critical project components), these designs were realized as straightforward depictions of spatial possibilities.

Following the design experimentation, a written summary of findings and future considerations was prepared, to express conviction in the purpose and value of the project’s intentions and efforts.

SPECIAL CONCERNS

Nihil de nobis, sine nobis

Nothing About Us Without Us

The significance of this phrase to the disability community cannot be overstated. It communicates a need to be included in any and all decisions that are made ‘on their behalf’. Decades of efforts by well-intentioned decision-makers have proceeded without the input of those most impacted. Regarding architectural design, there has also been a recent call to encourage the disability community to play more active roles– by “creating more disabled architects”. This can be interpreted as an awareness that without native stakeholders, further advancement of the accessibility/universal design agenda is less likely. As will be discussed later, there are many reasons why architectural design concepts can be challenging to advance (i.e., to go beyond simply complying with adopted regulations), not least of which is the fundamental challenge of being able to imagine yourself in someone else’s shoes.

In 2003, renowned American architect Michael Graves became suddenly ill, and within weeks was paralyzed from the chest down. After years of rehabilitation, he was able to return to work, albeit in a wheelchair. A new emphasis on aesthetic and functional accessible designs marked his return, even successfully creating a new wheelchair model for seated-patient transfers. Expectedly, he simultaneously experienced an emotional and intellectual transformation – becoming newly engaged in the dynamics of designing for disability. But, should that be the standard expectation for designers? - or politicians, teachers, doctors, etc.? That, without personal experience, we lack the ability to embody and understand the unique circumstances of others? Specific to architecture, it seems without question that we should be able to design for experiences that are outside of our own: For agnostics to design churches, the acrophobic to design skyscrapers, the unathletic to design Olympic stadiums.

The question considered in this Thesis is one of form. It stems from a natural curiosity about how and why architecture choses its form, and how it behaves typologically. Section 1 through 3 of this document will address the reality of an underlying paradigm that places ‘being impaired’ in a category separate from ‘unimpaired’, and will affirm the world’s efforts towards erasing this distinction. Section 4’s response is not to accelerate a hybridization of architectural design in order to accept all bodies. It is to ask, and attempt to answer, what architecture might be if we were all seated, mobile humans? The project will straightforwardly experiment with the relationship between form, and form: the human form, and the form of buildings, objects, and spaces. It does not inadvertently overlook an incongruity between the physiology of the author and the nature of the subject matter; it attempts to assume a designer’s responsibility for an essential element of architecture: understanding the world you design for.

SECTION 1

The Impaired Body in Context

REALITIES

Being Fully-Bodied is the Optimal Circumstance

It can be empirically understood that to be in possession of all the physical abilities available to the human body is an optimal circumstance. To be born with all one’s organs and aspects – working in concert to operate the body to its full capacity provides the greatest opportunity for, well, opportunities. This allinclusive capacity allows one to navigate the social and built environment without physical limitations, albeit this is not a guarantee that one’s existence will not be challenging. But an ideally-performing human body ensures that the person has the physiological capacity for communication (hearing, speaking, gesturing), ambulating (walking, climbing, standing), environmental comprehension (seeing, distinguishing, navigating), somatic interaction (inter-personal and mechanical interactions), and a general absence of physical restrictions when encountering the everyday built environment.

Impairment and Disability

It then follows that to be in possession of less than optimum capacities has led to inequity between the fully-composed body and the semi-composed body. Within our prevailing paradigm – in which we (still) predominantly recognize the fully-bodied human as the ‘correct’ form - from which all other bodily forms deviate - these deviations are considered impairments.

From primitive to post-Victorian societies, impaired bodies were regarded as innate demonstrations of an individual’s personal fitness. Consideration of the impaired form had not yet extended to consideration for the way the world accepted and accommodated differently-abled bodies. While impairment and disability were once synonymous concepts, the topic has rightfully advanced into a complex understanding of the body’s abilities in relation to the world. The notion of disability, as opposed to physical impairment, is in large part a result of the built environment; Impairment articulates a non-optimal body structure, while disability expresses conflict between a body and its incongruous environment (1). Distinguishing the difference between impairment (an objective account of a body’s attributes) and disability (subsequent restrictions imposed by society) is a key principle of the Social Model of Disability(2) which acknowledges that society imposes disability upon impaired bodies through multiple barriers. These include the cumulative impact of attitudinal, institutional, and environmental disenfranchisement(3)

The built environments’ ability to impart disability is profound, affecting individuals whose impairments are visible and invisible, genetic or circumstantial, chronic or temporary. Although the value of understanding the nuanced relationship between all corporeal conditions and a disabling environment cannot be understated, this Thesis is intended to explore the specific relationship between the physical world and the physically impaired body; human conditions where a body’s unique form is affected by interactions with the built environment, and vice versa.

Disability and the Built Environment

The limitations of the built environment in accommodating atypical bodies are experienced predominantly in the form of inaccessibility and inconvenience. Navigating and its associated actions are perhaps the most obvious areas where a lack of full functionality effectively disables people from experiencing the world in the same manner as all others. Without the ability to view and comprehend one’s environment (due to visual impairments), to identify and interpret auditory cues (due to hearing impairment), and/or traverse variable surface conditions (due to mobility impairment), humans are faced with extraordinary challenges that generally do not distress those with full physical functionality. Thankfully, extensive attention is now being paid to identifying and mitigating these architectural and spatial inconveniences. These attentions are intended to ensure equitable access and independence for all bodies - by amending customary architectural conditions within the built environment.

REMEDIATIONS

Amending Architecture

Decades of effort by disability rights advocates resulted in building regulations that address the inequity of the traditional built environment, leading to the formal adoptions of accessible building codes that guide designers, developers, and other decision makers. These regulations continue to evolve, addressing an ever-larger range of human conditions, and grow in enforcement scope as regulations are adopted on national and international scales. Naturally, these guidelines indicate the accommodations that must be made to revise established formal elements of architecture; for example – guidelines instructing how to revise curbs, stairs, doors, hallways, access and egress, level changes, floors, bathrooms, parking, even façade elements. In other words, these responses always occur as amendments to the existing built environment.

Resolving the Body’s Limitations

Efforts are also being made to reduce or eliminate conditions of impairment at the source – the body – such as directly resolving an inability to walk. Advancements in medicalized mobility and adaptive technologies can restore significant functionality for amputations, spinal trauma, neurological disfunction, genetic conditions, progressive disease and other sources of ambulatory restrictions, allowing people to work and live in un-adapted environments (Images 1-3). While conceptually exciting, these types of treatments are indicative of the Medical Model of Disability, which considers the impaired body “as a machine to be fixed in order to conform with normative values" (4). In other words, a disabled body is an imperfect form that should endeavor to be restored.

While a tremendous benefit for those who desire such change, critics of this ideology note that the model denotes disability as an unwelcome and injurious condition – asserting that all people with disabilities wish to be cured of them (5) . Efforts to relieve the world of recognized impairments, whether based in pure scientific pursuit, or couched in ideological dogma, share an attitudinal vector whereby we try to direct humanity away from the conditions of the impaired body.

Understanding the Impairment Experience

Contemporary disability studies pursue an understanding of the embodied experience of impaired individuals. Investigations into the nuanced experiences of living with impairments reveal the myriad effects of living in a world that is physically unaccommodating and habitually invalidating. Like all discriminatory scenarios, the discriminated are perceived as ‘lesser than’. However, these marginalizations are understood to transcend rational evaluations of (dis) ability. It is well-documented that impaired individuals are perceived as having diminished intellectual capacity, as well as reduced social, economic, and political value, despite a lack of corroborating evidence (5) .

Existing in a world that is physically inhospitable, and emotionally and economically invalidating is part of the challenge of inhabiting an Ableist universe. Ableism, a term that came into use in 1981, expresses society’s ubiquitous discrimination in FAVOR of non-disabled people (6). At present, the condition of being impaired can be shown to have limitless disadvantages – societal, environmental, economic, and it bears acknowledging – many impairments are associated with physically adverse qualities like chronic pain, incontinence, infertility, etc. However, within the immense spectrum of experiences these social studies reveal, at least one element permeates all interactions with the built environment: the inherent understanding that as an impaired person you live in a world that is not meant for you.

Image 1:

Standing, powered wheelchairs (like the Phoenix II model, shown), extend the user into a stable, upright position. The vertical position can be maintained while in motion, including in the climbing of stairs.

Source: Wheelchair88

Image 2:

The ReWalk Personal Exoskeleton usurps spinal cord injuries through wearable robotic tecnology, restoring the ability to walk and climb.

Source: GoLifeward

Image 3:

Mapping of the lumbar RNA network (accomplished in 2021) has advanced the science of spinal reanimation. The development of Brain-Spine Interfaces can transform electrical signals from the brain into controlled muscular contractions. Through training, recipients can restore walking and climbing movements.

Source: Nature/WalkingNaturallyAfterSpinalCordInjuryUsingABrainSpineInterface; Lorach, Galvez, Sagnolo et al. Schematic by AFPGraphics

Amplifying the Affected

The origins of Disability Rights (globally led by efforts in the United States in the mid-20th century) corresponded with the progress of the Civil, Women’s, and Indigenous People’s Rights Movements of the same period(7). There was inevitable value in assembling large groups of marginalized communities when demanding similar objectives: equitable labor laws, housing access, educational reform, etc. Generalization about discrimination can be fruitful when addressing social issues – including the right to building access, but it understandably lacks the precision of an individualistic approach. The efforts of the disabled community to ensure they received the same rights and recognition as all others ultimately resulted in a clustering of what might otherwise be recognized as very different impairments, “presenting them as a monolithic, insufficiently individuated group of people"(8). Specifically, when considering how to accommodate different abilities of the body in regards to architectural access, a homogeneous approach has led to filtering diverse conditions down to their greatest common denominator(s), and revising architectural spaces accordingly. In current practice, this has resulted in efforts at ‘Universal Design’/’Inclusive Design’ that ensure bodies that lack mobility, hearing, and seeing are equally assuaged in public spaces (Image 4). This approach grows even more expansive with the inclusion of neurodiversity and intellectual disabilities. A democratic approach to access is undoubtedly a hallmark of a compassionate society, but unlike the rules that serve to eliminate applied discriminatory practices and actions, the rules regarding access directly affect form within the built environment. And, as we will explore further in, the built environment has always been an expression of, and response to our own form (the human body). Doesn’t it then follow that form should reflect individual characteristics and unique bodies – rather than be a neutralized expression of ‘all’ bodies?

For Whom Do We Design?

At present, the prevailing human condition is one of a single-gender-identifying, cis-hetero, upright, bi-pedal, ambulatory, right-handed, hearing, seeing, speaking, neuro-normative individual (Image 5). This quantification belies the fact that globalizing societies have begun to more consciously acknowledge that occupying a majority position does not equate to being the unequivocal baseline to which all other conditions condescend. We are progressively deconstructing outdated paradigms; gender, sexuality, skin color, language, physical form, and even architectural styles are less likely now to be considered as intrinsically hierarchical. Not simply a welcome evolution in human perspective, this is an opportunity to reconsider the paradigms in which we envision and create form.

Image 4:

Current pictography depicts conditions addressed in public, accessible architecture: vision, hearing, and mobility impairments. Recent advocacy has promoted the use of a revised icon depicting individual wheelchair use known as the ‘Go Logo’, shown above in blue.

Sources: www.ISO.org, www.AccessibleIcon.org

Image 5:

The latest estimates identifying prevailing human characteristics indicate the majority of global citizens are ‘neuro-normative’ (non-presenting for ADHD, Autism Spectrum Disorder, Dyspraxia, etc.) (Deloitte Center for Integrated Research 2021), possess the capacity for sight, hearing, and speech (United Nations 2023), are right-handed (Peters, Reimers and Manning 2006), identify with their biologically-recognized gender at birth (Zhang, et al. 2020), identify as heterosexual (Ispos 2021), and have the capacity to walk (including with difficulty) (United Nations 2023)

Graphic by Author, 2024

SECTION 2

Context: A Closer Look

Image 6 (above):

Detail drawing from the late fifteenth century by Francesco di Giorgio depicting the evocation of the upright human form in classical architecture.

Source: Ashburnham Codex, 361, f.13v

Image 7 (below):

Late fifteenth century depiction of the “Ideal Man in Circle and Square; The Proportions of the Human Body”, often referred to as the ‘Vitruvian Man’. The artist’s notations shared his belief that “Man is the model of the world”.

Source: Leonardo Da Vinci, 1450-1500, Accademia, Venice

RECOGNIZING THE BODY IN ARCHITECTURE

Humans Building

The inception and evolution of Architectural form can be understood as an expression of our humanness. Not simply an issue of ergonomics, the built environment reflects the ideals, interests, behaviors, and limitations of the human mind and body. Demonstrated in examples from Vitruvius to Le Corbusier, architectural anthropologists have drawn connections between the corporeal conditions and the architecture we’ve created(9,10). These connections have been understood by different scholars as varying in degree; from direct representations of proportion and scale, to implied expressions of gender, dress, and movement. The representation of our own physical nature in the forms of our built environment is the most natural, logical, and reasonable of responses: we build (for) what we know.

(Certain) Humans' Buildings

Of course, this should be understood to mean we have referenced our most ideal selves. We have manifested in our built environment a body of faultless proportions, with unflawed abilities. Architects reveal an empirical bias towards physical perfection in their resounding application of proportion and form that echoes the normative human body. “Diseased, impaired, or ill bodies” are not observed as “core to bodily identity, experience, and performance” in architects’ conceptions(11). Depictions of the ‘Ideal Man’ as a bi-pedal, upright male continue to serve as a keystone in our ongoing creation of built form.

Referenced in Section 1, the median human shares a finite set of social and physical capabilities. Sensorially, we are understood to possesses eight possible capacities: Sight, Hearing, Smell, Taste, Touch, Vestibular Sense (the sense of movement and balance), Proprioception (body awareness in relation to itself), and Interoception (perception of the body’s internal sensations)(12). In effect we are mobile, sentient beings, who perceive and respond to our internal and external environment in order to further our own causes (survival, and subsequently, prosperity).

Humanity’s collective architectural output reveals evolution in form, expression, theory, material, and technology. Across this creative timeline we can observe limitless changes to the forms themselves, the world they are constructed in, and our understanding of both. However, one architectural progenitor has declined to evolve: the unimpaired human actor.

8:

Los Clube’s culturally evocative facades. Luis Barragan, Mexico, C.A.

Original photography by Réne Burri - Magnum Photos

Image 9:

MUSAC Museum’s expressive homage to stained glass. Mansilla+Tuñón, Leon, Spain. Original photography by Jordi Bernadó

Image 10:

Winona County History Center’s contextual brick addition. HGA Architects, Minnesota, U.S.

Original Photography by Paul Crosby Photography

Image

Can We Isolate Our Human Qualities in Architecture

Understanding how form has evolved in relation to our own humanness, could it then be reverse-engineered? Could a unique human attribute embodied in our architectural designs be isolated? The nature of humanness is so ingrained in our existence and our expressions – that attempts to evaluate the influence of a singular human quality on the development of form would be speculative at best. The finiteness of a certain human quality may however, make the inquiry more straightforward. For example, our visual senses are so intrinsic that to attempt to extricate the ability to see from the development of form is perhaps irresoluble. Let’s take the example of color.

Colorless Form

It is estimated that 4.5% of humans have some form of color blindness. One form is Achromatopsia, a condition where the world is perceived in black and white(13).

What is the effect of color perception on the built environment? In a colorless society the use of color in materials might be reduced - or even eliminated. We might imagine that the importance of shadow-sensitive textures, tectonic facades and forms, wet surfaces, and 3-dimensional details would increase – in order to bolster the expressiveness lost with the omission of color surfaces. Forms might have inherently developed differently, without the ability to rely on color to express depth, prominence, contextualization, and other areas of architecture where both contrasting, and compatible hues can be considered a critical design element. By deleting one finite human quality from our evolution, we can imagine a significant change to the built environment. Though simplistic, it can provide context for the following question: When considering a built environment without color – would architectural expression be different if we retroactively removed color versus never introducing color in the first place?

Walking, and Architecture

Unlike the limited example above, the concept of being upright and its impact of architecture is harder to discern. Certainly, there is an immediate suspicion that a change in the proportions of body heights and ceilings would result in lower floor heights. But more challenging, is to try and predict how the difference in the way our bodies move might have impacted how we design. If, for instance, humans walked ‘on all fours’, would the built environment be meaningfully rearranged? Could we imagine Francesco di Giorgio’s depiction of an architectural column with a quadruped replacing the erect male form?

The act of walking (ambulating) is purported here to be an inextricable part of our architectural evolution. It is understood that our ‘uprightness’ has been a fundamental contributor to our ability to evolve as a species(14), and is evidenced in our architectural output since the beginning of the built environment. We can understand this as an expression of enaction(15), whereby we build a world around ourselves that is based on our embodied knowledge, including a normative view of our own bodies. More than simply the act of moving in a certain way through a building, walking is part of our critical human infrastructure informing our experience of architecture. Even in the act of standing still, we perceive and inhabit space in a unique, upright manner. Ambulation is then very likely impossible to isolate from the whole of built form. Architecture for ambulating actors is architecture in its most common, original form.

Image 11:

Timeline identifying 8000 years of architectural expression, and the advent of accessible design agendas.

Graphic by Author, 2024

Images 12-17:

Top Row: Wheelchair used by King Phillip II of Spain, 1595 (Artist unknown) (Biblio Nationale, Brussels, MS 11 1028.f157 ); Wood and leather wheelchair circa 1660 (Fairfax Family); Three-wheeled ‘Invalid chair’ used in England, circa 1850 (CreativeCommons.org).

Bottom Row: Chain-driven wheelchair, 1910-20, U.K. (ScienceMuseumGroup.org); The wooden wheelchair belonging to U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, 1931 (National Park Service); England’s ‘Model 8’ self-propelled, lightweight, folding wheelchair, 1950 (also referred to as an 'X-Frame') (Creative Commons).

REGULATING THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

A ‘New’ Type of Movement

Impairment that affects human mobility has always existed. The body has had unique configurations since our species first developed legs; from genetic abnormalities, the results of accidents, violence, and/or disease. Of importance however, is that until the relatively recent past, these conditions were statistically erratic. In other words, beyond their disproportionate occurrence, humans with disease or debilitating injuries were less likely to survive due to the immature state of medical triage and treatment. Recalling also that humanity has a long tradition of associating impairment with low worth, we understand that responding to the needs of impaired bodies was not of great concern in the formation of our built environment. In summary, humans have always coexisted with mobility impairment - but society and industry advanced without significant reflection and general accommodations for these atypical conditions.

In David Gissens’, The Architecture of Disability, the author shares historical impressions of living with mobility impairments before the advent of mechanical aids. Lacking the ability to walk was generally accommodated by being carried physically by others. Gissens provides an example of a person being carried on a stretcher up to a Grecian temple (the stairs of which are an inconvenience to the carriers, but not a barrier). Being carried eliminates all human self-reliance relating to movement, and adds great stresses upon oneself and one's caregivers – but, notably, requires no significant amendments to architectural form. Even passage through narrow doorways, or up ladders, can be done in a single-file fashion while physically transporting another human.

Mobility adaptations inevitably evolved over time, and truly advanced when impairments affected people of higher wealth and education levels. Different mechanical and fixed solutions were developed that ultimately provided a limited number of actors with semi-independent access to previously inaccessible settings. It was critical advancements in the field of medical science that consequently induced the greatest changes to mobility accommodations. In the early 1900’s medical transport and medical triage techniques were greatly improved on the World War I battlefields of Europe(16), leaving resilient veterans with survivable, if disabling wounds. Tens of thousands of international wounded returned from the First World War(17), and their population only grew with the Second World War, and the United States’ Vietnam and Korea conflicts. Veterans suffering from spinal injuries, lower limb disfigurements or amputations ultimately benefited from the development of the “Model 8” standardized wheelchair, (Image 17), developed circa 1950 in England, and from which all more-recent models are derived(18)

Including the Rolling Public

As described in Section 1, progressive acceptance of those who rely on wheelchairs has led to mandated changes in the built environment. The architectural equity agenda has taken many forms: Accessible Design, Inclusive Design, Universal Design, Barrier-Free Design, et Al.; all advocating for amendments to traditional architectural environments.

The regulatory guidelines that determine these changes were first legislated in response to the work undertaken by the United States’ National Council on Disability in the mid-1980s. Similar architectural initiatives have now been independently implemented throughout many of the world’s developed countries, and within larger global entities, such as the adoption of the United Nations 2006 Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. In an increasingly globalized world this is not simply an ethical benchmark. Increasing access for all bodies has economic benefits - including increased tourism benefits for even the smallest of localities.

The regulatory guidelines adopted by participating countries direct new designs by retroactively adjusting existing building design codes; expanding traditional hallway dimensions, reconfiguring traditional lavatories to accommodate turning radii of wheelchairs, and ensuring elevators and/or ramps where required. It’s possible to enact these changes without meaningfully affecting the behavior or form of a space, as nothing ‘new’ has been introduced to the environment; ramps, elevators, spacious hallways/restrooms have long been present in buildings regardless of accessibility requirements. However, there is some evidence of new formal elements in ‘stramps’, and ‘transforming stairs’ (Images 18-19)which more successfully incorporate level changes without segregating users. These design accommodations are still in response to a traditional architectural condition (the ‘abrupt’ changing of levels), but demonstrate a willingness to hybridize architectural elements in an equitable and innovative manner.

The notable increase in wheelchair use (currently 1.85% of the global population is estimated to be wheelchair-dependent)(19), and the subsequent advancement of worldwide accessibility regulations may give the impression that impaired bodies are understood by the normative design world. A present-day designer can apply the required accessibility amendments to a design, with the expectation that their buildings can be accessed equally by actors of all ages, with all manner of impairments. However, it is relevant to note that this framework creates a category of the ‘typically atypical’. That is, our expectation of impaired bodies from a regulatory standpoint is that of a human body that is lacking one of the expected senses/abilities. Statistically this expectation is not accurate. With regard to wheelchair users our expectation might be of a single-operator, wellproportioned adult who has full upper-body muscular and motor-skill control. In fact, it is only a very small proportion of wheelchair users who do not have comorbidities and who use their chairs independently. Additionally, chair use can be occasional, or short-term (temporary).

Image 18: Exterior “stramp” (combination stair-ramp) at Robson Square in Vancouver, CA; designed in 1983 by architect Arthur Erickson and landscape architect Cornelia Oberlander.

Photo by Greg Richardson

Image 19: Developed by English hydraulic engineers, Transforming Staircases resolve issues of level changes in limited space, and are especially applicable in historic building renovations.

Source: Sesame - Access For All

In design, the importance of a thorough understanding of the world of actors and their respective abilities cannot be understated, however to be truly responsive to every unique arrangement of actors’ abilities is likely impossible. Therefore, despite the reality that a ‘common’ wheelchair user is not as common as we might imagine, the remainder of this project will concern itself with a uniquely specific actor, with a specificized set of abilities, which will be clarified in Section 3 of this document.

REEVALUATING OUR RESPONSES

Does a Master Key Open All Doors

The architectural goal of Access for All is self-explanatory. But the principles adopted to reach that goal are worth closer examination. The common themes in the accessibility and inclusion agenda(s) are to allow the architectural experience to be predictable, equitable amongst users, avoid unnecessary complexity, and 'not draw attention to one’s disability’. Critique of these approaches suggests that they reflect a “problem solving paradigm” – leading to design responses that frame architecture in a purely normative landscape(20). While this critique is germane, we can also consider the accessibility principles with respect to a different set of design goals: the aim to make unique, memorable, celebratory architectural forms – which may be inherently inaccessible to wheelchair users.

Consider the following examples of human architecture – without regard for issues of equitable access (Images 20-24). At first glance, these architectural spaces appear intriguing, complex, and expressive. They also inherently celebrate the human body’s ability to climb, sidle, pivot, and crouch. These spaces, albeit completely unaccommodating for wheelchair users, remain valid and explicit expressions of our human desire for dynamic form. This leads to two questions: One, are these works inherently worthy of being part of our built environment? And, two, is there value in celebrating unique (not necessarily universal) human abilities – like the ambulatory actions mentioned above?

Disinclined to Normalize

The modernist agenda (aka the International Style), is one of the more recent examples of applying dogma to form. The pervasive inclination to adhere to a rigid set of spatial criteria is understood not as a dedication to design style – but a belief in an indissoluble set of principles that underscore the best intentions of the design world. Architectural history is full of moments when designers chose (or had imposed upon them) a design ethos which was believed to lead to the highest fulfillment of form, with examples from all cultures and corners of

Image 20-24 (Clockwise from top left): Medieval tower with vertical stair access at Bab Zuwayla Gate, Cairo, Egypt (Photo credit Evgeniy Fesenko); Stairs and niches of the Chand Baori in Abhaneri, India (Public image, all rights released); The extremley narrow street passage found in Calle Varisco, Venice (All rights released); Cliffside pueblo dwelling in Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado, U.S. (Public image, all rights released); Chambord Castle spiral staircase, Chambord, France, designed by Leonardo DaVinci (Unidentified photographer)

the world. But the natural world is entropic; inclined to disorder and expansion. While standardization and homogeneity may not be an innate aspect of our creative ethos, we can still see that it has been implanted in our design practices. Once a theme, principle, or standard reaches a moral level of certitude in society, it spreads like ink dropped in water.

At what point do we reconcile our human inclinations towards discord, delight, and creative expression with our professional agenda of instituting a normalized, predictable, architecturally-accessible landscape? What has kept us from meaningfully adopting both? The design world’s inattention to dismantling disability in architecture by means other than earnestly enacting accessibility guidelines is very understandable. Succinctly stated, the design world cannot be expected to re-envision a neo-normative architectural landscape that goes ‘beyond guidelines’ with regard to impairment, without dismantling the social and economic constructs that guide our work as designers.

Architectural design is a mediation between its originator(s), its patron(s), and its user(s). These can all exist in one person – or expand in size to that of a body of students (originators) designing for a community of stakeholders (patrons) on a project that will be used by the population of a city (users). Using as an example a call to design a small theatre in a city center – lets quickly consider the conditions which might instinctively limit designers from expanding on principles of equitable accessibility.

Personal constraints: Designers and developers have, at times, not expressed adequate consideration for the presence and needs of impaired actors. Due to their statistical minority, even an empathetic able-bodied designer may reasonably regard wheelchair users as 'ancillary actors', whose needs as theatre patrons can be satisfied with the application of regulatory guidelines.

Should a designer wish to prioritize/enhance the wheelchair-using actor’s experience in the theatre beyond the absence of barriers, how feasible is it to make meaningful improvements to the space in a manner that remains within guidelines but expresses an even greater level of creative inclusivity? If architects do not consider the spatial experiences unique to disabled actors as a fundamental design factor(21), an absence of barriers could be understandably celebrated as an architectural accomplishment. Thus, it would not be unexpected that a design for a theatre would appear to express the same typological characteristics as any theatre – simply with more elevators, wider doorways, etc.

Practical Constraints: Architecture, construction and development are very time-consuming fields, requiring endless approval processes from concept to completion. Without an initial directive to prioritize the needs of impaired users, most designs come close to completion before designers confirm the dimensional attributes of spaces will meet accessibility codes, and that level changes can be adequately traversed with ramps or lifts.

“Spatial relationships need to be experienced. Persons with disabilities must be able to enjoy the psychological aspects of a structure, not only the individual points or planes within it.”

– I.M. Pei, 1982

Image 25:

Architect I.M. Pei photographed by the Boston Globe in front of the JFK Presidential Library and Museum, Boston, U.S.

Photograph by Ted Dully via Getty Images

Quotation Source: Telephone interview with C.D. Goldman, as reported in Architectural Barriers: A Perspective on Progress, published in The Western New England Law Review, 1983.

These requirements can be complicated by site restrictions: the buildable area may not be at grade, large enough to accommodate circuitous ramps, or other physically restrictive factors. In short, even when the will to explore and enhance the impaired actor’s experience exists, the effort may be retarded by economics, environment, and expectations.

Professional Preferences: There is also the issue of presentation and preferences. A theatre is a unique typology, which traditionally directs all user views in one direction, requires sloped (typically fixed) seating, relies on dynamic lighting, has a performance space at a different grade, and has highly technical requirements for performance needs (backstage, and overhead). There is also the desire to infuse these spaces with drama and excitement, adding unique expressions of form and function to enhance the visitor’s experience above and beyond the performance itself. These are a particularly challenging set of constraints within which to design, irrespective of accessibility needs. So, if one were to prioritize the former, and minimize the latter, it would be a reasonable professional approach. And further, if a design feature were particularly popular with designers, patrons, and the public – the inclination to include it may be difficult to resist.

Consider the increasing use of stair-form seating in public and semi-public spaces. While unwelcoming to wheelchair users and other impaired bodies, the enthusiasm for this architectural form has allowed its use to flourish. It is credited with more than aesthetic value; proponents say the arrangement of sloping tiers creates ideal settings for collaborative work, social gatherings, and directed learning. With the notable popularity of this type of architectural form, including the positive economics of eliminating individual furniture– choosing to include a tribune in a theatre design is a popular professional preference.

Images 26-32 (Clockwise from top left): Bolidt Innovation Center by Ee Stairs, 2016 (ArchEXPO); Neuehouse NYC by David Rockwell, NY, NY, 2013 (Eric Laignel); Granary Stair Steps by Townshend Architects, London, U.K., 2019 (KingsCrossNIC); Kellogg School of Mgmt by KPMB, Illinois, US, 2017 (Bruce Damonte); Why Factory by MVRDV, Delft, Netherlands, 2009 (Daniel Portilla); CAH Greenhouse by BDG Architects, Droten, Netherlands, 2012 (BDG); Cultural Center by Fredblad Arkitekter, Landvetter, Sweden, 2015 (Per Kårehed); Where's House Warehouse by pbm, Bang Na, Thailand, 2023 (Spaceshift Studio)

Images 33-35:

The Guggenheim Museum, New York, U.S., Frank Lloyd Wright, 1959 (Rights-released image); The Vessel, New York, U.S., Thomas Heatherwick, opened 2019 (Rights-released image); The Ribbon Chapel, Hiroshima, Japan, Hiroshi Nakamura, 2013 (Photo courtesy of Nakasa & Partners)

As a final example of the preference for dynamic form and the challenges of accessibility, we can consider the following examples (Images 33-35) which demonstrate our ever-present desire to create expressive, immersive spaces. Examining three examples of helical form (a shape that ultimately can offer greater accessibility options for wheelchair users), designers’ aspirations are palpable. These designs prioritize the experience and expression of form, but are not able to do so while meeting wheelchair-accessibility guidelines.

It is not impossible to imagine that a designer may simultaneously possess a desire to abide by regulations, adhere to economic constraints and professional expectations, be inclusive of all actors and, to express creativity. Yet, we must acknowledge that commingling these desires is exceedingly challenging. It would seem that originating a design process with a primary, critical intention of inclusivity may result in more successful spaces, as the design process can now follow a linear trajectory (versus a retro-active approach to revising designs after they begin to take shape). With this expectation we will examine thirteen works of architecture that each began with a goal of expanding the architectural landscape for wheelchair-users (and other impairments), and which have been largely endorsed for their bespoken barrier-free designs.

Bespoken Barrier Free

The following analysis has been compiled to understand the creative best practices in wheelchair-responsive approaches to architecture. That is, to identify extra-ordinary changes to traditional forms. Therefore, the following summaries will not include an inventory of all customary accessibility responses (i.e., coderequired amendments to traditional building forms). Only exceptional or unique attributes will be recognized. Many of the projects include remarkable ‘formaltering’ design elements that are responsive to visual and hearing impairments however, the analysis will omit anything not directly related to wheelchairdependent actors. The 13 projects range in age, building type, ownership, and program use.

Projects:

• The Slattery House

• Lowell Justice Center

• Central Bank of Ireland

• Enabling Village

• Musholm

• Laurent House

• Center for People with Disabilities

• Wheelpad

• The Ramp House

• National Rehabilitation Hospital

• House of Disabled People's Organization

• St. Pauls Cathedral

• Morgan's Wonderland

SLATTERY HOUSE

Private residence designed and built to accommodate the needs of a family and their son who was physically impaired following an accident at age twelve. The design focus was stated as accessibility, and environmental sustainability.

Images 36-38 (Clockwise from top left):

Facade and tower; Tower interior with lift and ladder; Isolated ramp in interior of home. Photography by Rachel Sale

Project Data Design Choices Affecting Form

Built: 2015

Type: Private Home

Place: Maryland, U.S.

Design: AlterUrban

Site: Three-acre site leveled to a traversable grade

Entry: Pocket doors (Push-button operation)

Detail: 12” Baseboards

Views: Accessible living (planted) roof

Level Changes: Three story view tower with pneumatic chair lift and optional calibrated pulley system (user can pull themselves up manually, or use the lift)(both options require transfering out of wheelchair).

Source: www.homeanddesign.com/2016/08/26/portfolio-a-new-normal/

LOWELL JUSTICE CENTER

The project's expressed design goals were given as environmental sustainability and "dignity". Seventeen courtrooms, a law library, and other public/private work spaces are accessible via shared elevators and smooth ground planes.

Project Data

Built: 2020

Type: Public Building

Place: Massachusetts, U.S.

Design: Finegold Alexander

Recognition: 2021 Boston Society for Architects (BSA) Accessible Design Award

Design Choices Affecting Form

Image 39: Smooth ground plane with no separation of access for wheelchairs and walkers

Image 40:

High visibility and wheelchair-compatible seating in public corridors

Photography by Anton Grassl Architectural Photography

Site: Entry plaza sloped to resolve 4M difference in grade

Entry: Single point of entry for all users

Views: Floor to ceiling exterior windows; Liberal use of interior glass dividers/room separators.

Source: www.faainc.com/project/lowell-justice-center

CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND

The banking center implemented 100 inclusivity recommendations in its design and construction. Many were social in nature (eg. personnel training), however, many minor spatial adjustments were implemented that were lauded by visitors and employees alike: half-height mirrors in elevators, left-handed bathroom cubicle doors, and extra expansive doorways, restroom cubicles, and elevators.

Image 41 (above): Uninterrupted exterior views are standard in public gathering spaces

Image 42 (right): Atrium-spanning catwalks create accessible connectivity while adding dynamism. Note the prominent tribune feature in bottom center of image.

Photography by Donal Murphy

Project Data Design Choices Affecting Form

Built: 2017

Type: (Reuse) Commercial Bank

Place: Dublin, Ireland

Design: Henry J. Lyons

Recognition: 2017 Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland (RIAI) Universal Design Award

Entry: Extra-wide doorways and elevators

Detail: Accessible catwalks crossing open-air atrium

Views: Floor to ceiling windows

Source: www.henryjlyons.com/projects/the-central-bank-of-ireland

ENABLING VILLAGE

In Bukit Merah, Singapore, a disused vocational campus was transformed into a 15,000 square meter ‘inclusivity campus’. The project’s critical goal was to integrate disabled citizens into the larger community by amassing assistive services, inclusive programs (schools, workcenters), and social gathering areas to ensure impaired bodies can coexist without barriers.

Image 43 (above):

The centralized ampitheatre/courtyard with winding ramps to ensure wheelchair access

Image 44 (right):

A prominent tribune element in the inclusive library

Photography by Edward Hendriks

Project Data

Built: 2016

Type: Multi-use development

Place: Singapore

Design: WOHA Architects

Recognition: 2016 Buildings and Construction Authority (BCA)

Platinum Universal Design Award

Design Choices Affecting Form

Site: A hillside area was converted to an ampitheatre/ courtyard with traversable ramps

Source: www.woha.net/project/enabling-village/

MUSHOLM

The Danish Muscular Dystrophy Association created Musholm as an extension to an existing vacation resort to provide leisure resources for people with disabilities. The building circumscribes a 100m activity path that connects the major and minor spaces.

Images 45-46 :

Plan views of ground level, and holiday home level with central courtyard; Musholm facade, revealing the internal circulation ramp; Plans via AART, Photograph by Kirstine Mengel

Project Data

Built: 2015

Type: Sports Resort

Place: Stockholm, NH

Design: AART Architects

Recognition: 2016 International Association of Universal Design (IAUD) Award for Inclusivity

Design Choices Affecting Form

Detail: Slope of the internal ramp circulation is visible in the exterior facade

Views: Floor to ceiling windows

Level Changes: 100 meter circulation and activity ramp winds through entire structure connecting all interior spaces

Source: aart.dk/en/projects/musholm#:Votedworldsmostsociallyforwarddisabilitorganisation

LAURENT HOUSE

A private residence designed for a disabled client during the mid 1900’s by noted American architect, Frank Lloyd Wright. The open plan design preceded the adoption of formal regulations and recommendations related to building accessibility.

Images 47-49 (Counter-clockwise from top left):

Ground floor plan; Garden Room; Interior view of Study (note window height, a common feature of the architect’s designs, and in this usage restricts views for client in wheelchair).

Plans via The Laurent House; Photo by Nels Akerland; Photo by Andrew Pielage

Project Data

Built: 1952

Type: Private Residence

Place: Illinois, U.S.

Design: Frank Lloyd Wright

Design Choices Affecting Form

Site: Multi-acre grounds were leveled to ensure grade was contiguous from exterior through interior

Entry: Wider-doors and passageways (not a standard guideline at the time of design)

Views: Main body of the house includes many floor to ceiling windows; Exterior landscaping has been designed to compliment low-level interior sightlines.

Source: www.laurenthouse.com/the-house/

CENTRE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

This public health facility is located in the medieval city of Avila - which is advertised as the "most accessible city in Europe". The pavillion’s size of only 350 square meters allows the entire roof plane to be supported by the load-bearing walls, creating a structure-free interior and unobstructed exterior transitions.

Images 50-52 (Clockwise from top):

Simple, legible geometry expressed at the exterior; Floor to ceiling windows with tempered glass at base; The cantilevered roof plane shelters the exterior corridor at the building’s periphery without interrupting the ground plane with support elements. All photography by Pedros Ramos

Project Data

Built: 2015

Type: Public Health Facility

Place: Avila, SP

Design: Amas4Arquitectura

Recognition: International Union of Architects (UIA) Friendly and Inclusive Spaces Award

Design Choices Affecting Form

Detail: Cantilevered roof-plane for uninterrupted interior spaces and interior/exterior transitions

Views: Floor to ceiling glass panels include an opaque ribbon at base

Source: www.amas4arquitectura.com/aspaym-avila

WHEELPAD “SUITEPAD”

The PAD (Personal Accessible Dwelling) was designed to meet the short-term needs of a new and/or temporary wheelchair user. Prefabricated units are transported to a site for use as an independent structure or as an accessory dwelling to an existing home or business (2024 cost approx. $130,000 USD (~€100,000)).

Images 53-56 (Clockwise from top):

Floor plan for the ‘SuitePad’ model (Note the integrated hoist structure, and ingress at top (to enter an adjacent structure)); On site as an independent structure; Constructing a connection between existing home and SuitePad; Interior of SuitePad (Note ceiling track).

Plan and images via WheelPad

Project Data

Built: 2004 (Orig. design)

Type: Residential Tiny Home

Place: U.S. (Made in Vermont)

Design: LineSync Architecture

Design Choices Affecting Form

Site: Custom deck/porch with ramp must be constructed to reach PAD floor level

Entry: Sliding doors (exterior), swinging doors (interior)

Detail: (Technology/Equipment: Integrated full-length ceiling track for hoisted transfer of occupant between living space and bathroom); Interior wall angles are rounded at floor level.

Source: www.wheelpad.com/suitepad

THE RAMP HOUSE

A family home designed to eliminate physical barriers for a family and their (non-autonomous)-wheelchair-using daughter. There are six distinct zones, all connected by a singular ramping pathway.

Images 57-59 (Clockwise from left):

Circulation plan of the Ramp House; Exterior facade expressing slope of the ramping pathway; Interior view of pathway (Note limited visibility out of windows for wheel-chair users).

Design diagram by Chambers McMillan Architects; Photographs by David Barbour

Project Data

Built: 2004

Type: Private Residence

Place: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

Design: Chambers McMillan

Recognitions: 2013 Scottish Design Awards Chairman's Award for Architecture

Design Choices Affecting Form

Detail: Fenestration reflects slope of interior (adjacent) ramp

Level Changes: Circulation through entire residence is a single, continuous ramping pathway

Views: The circuitous open-plan design ensures parents can see and hear their daughter from all zones

Source: www.cmcmarchitects.com/the-ramp-house/the-blog

NATIONAL REHABILITATION HOSPITAL:

A 120-bed extension to an existing hospital facility that provides rehabilitative treatment for patients with physical or cognitive disabilities. The design emphasizes continuity between interior rooms and exterior courtyards.

Images 60-61:

(Left): The design diagram illustrates how the project incorporated access to gardens and courtyards from all levels. (Right): Multiple internal courtyards were created throughout the project - many of which prominently feature rounded forms.

Plan by O'Connell Mahon Architects. Photography by Ros Kavanagh

Project Data

Built: 2020

Type: Public Hospital

Place: Dublin, Ireland

Design: O’Connell Mahon

Recognition: 2023 International Union of Architects (UIA) Friendly and Inclusive Spaces Award

Design Choices Affecting Form

Site: Project site designed to resolve significant topographical changes, allowing level connections between all exterior and interior spaces

Entry: Sliding doors used throughout facility

Views: Extensive use of floor-to-ceiling windows

Source: www.mitchell.ie/project/national-rehabilitation-hospital/

HOUSE OF DISABLED PEOPLE’S ORGANIZATION

The project's stated goal was to create "the world’s most accessible office building". The designers worked to exceed the standard guidelines dictated by building regulations, and seek ‘unbiased solutions’ through a robust knowledge of the needs of functionally disabled users - all while maintaining a strict budget comparable to a non-accessible building.

Images #62-64 (Clockwise from top left):

Double entry elevators (wheelchairs do not need to rotate after entry); The expansive, welllit atrium which acts as the building nucleus; An Illustrated section of the building.

Photography by Martin Schubert; Illustration by FORCE4

Project Data Design Choices Affecting Form

Built: 2012

Type: Office Building

Place: Taastrup, Denmark

Design: Cubo Arkitekter, FORCE4

Recognition: 2013 Nominee Int’l Union of Architects (UIA) Friendly and Inclusive Spaces Award

Entry: Elevators open on both ends for ‘pass through’ convenience

Detail: Seven different toilet room arrangements are customized to accomodate different impairment needs

Views: Perforated balcony railings throughout atrium

Source: www.cubo.dk/projekt/handicaporganisationernes-hus/

ST. PAUL’S CATHEDRAL

St. Paul’s Cathedral (Sir Christopher Wren, 1711), undertook multiple years of analysis and design collaboration with the disability community as part of their ‘Equal Access Project’. The northern transept was transformed from a radial staircase to a hybrid entrance that introduced flanking sinusoidal ramps, with the same stone, and aluminum bronze railings, as the original.

Images 65-66:

New ramps flank the original 1711 North transept to the historic stone cathedral; Plan view Before (left) and After (right).

Photography and Plans: Caroe Architecture

Project Data Design Choices Affecting Form

Built: 2022

Type: Alteration

Place: London, U.K.

Design: Caroe Architecture

Recognition: 2023 Laureate Int’l

Union of Architects (IUA) Friendly and Inclusive Spaces Award

Source: uia.awardsplatform.com/gallery/

Level Changes: Addition of two sinusoidal stone ramps to flank the primary historic stair entrance which rises 2 meters from grade

MORGAN’S WONDERLAND

The world’s first fully-accessible water park. Inspired by the discovery that his daughter Morgan (a wheelchair user) could not participate in traditional water and adventure parks, Gordon Hartman created an expansive, fully-inclusive ‘wonderland’, with wheelchair-compatible rides, an above-ground adventure course, and all-inclusive water attractions for children and adults.

Project Data

Built: 2017

Type: Commercial Activity Park

Place: Texas, U.S.

Design: Luna Middleman

Recognition: 2018 Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) Barrier-Free America Award

Source: www.morganswonderland.org/

Image 67:

All water amenities are on a single traversable plane

Photograph by Robin Jerstad

Image 68:

The elevated adventure course allows rolling participants to travel along two parallel wooden tracks

Photograph via BlooLoop

Design Choices Affecting Form

Detail: (Technology/Equipment: Wheelchair accessible rides (user remains in their native chair throughout)); Elevated adventure course paths feature double tracks for wheelchair wheels.

Level Changes: All amenities on one-level with the exception of a wheelchair accessible overhead adventure course

Collectively, these projects reflect a commitment to inclusiveness towards wheelchair users, and their patrons’ willingness to inform and fund projects that meet or exceed accessibility standards. Architecturally, these projects have satisfied all standardized/regulated needs for interior/exterior accessibility, and many undertook significant site redesigns to address previously untraversable grades and obstacles. Many projects incorporated full-height glass panes into their exterior and interior designs, which, although not code-required, ensure wheelchair-users have equal access to views, and improves interior wayfinding. Despite their design agendas, some projects include contradictory elements –such as windows that aren’t proper height for wheelchair users (e.g, the Ramp House, and Laurent House (Images 49, and 59), or anti-accessible tribunes (e.g., the Central Bank of Ireland, and the Enabling Village’s ‘Gathering Stair’ (Images 42 and 44)).

With regard to form, very little is unique. Projects articulate traditional typological forms (‘Hospital’, ‘Residence’, ‘Office Building’, etc.). With the exception of a few projects (for example, the exterior fenestration of the Ramp House (Image 58), and the roofline of the Musholm building (Image 46), both of which have sloping profiles that reflect interior ramps), most projects do not reveal any internal characteristics of their accessibility agenda. It is notable however, that the National Rehabilitation Hospital in Ireland, a facility with over 80% of users occupying wheelchairs(22), includes a strongly expressed circular form in the central courtyard (albeit, an outdoor seating sculpture (Image 61)). All other examples of expressive design (materials, shapes, colors, lighting) are represented by the architects as being intentionally incorporated as calming, ‘normal’, ‘noninstitutional’, design choices that herald inclusivity.

In summary, exemplary architecture that prioritizes accessibility generally demonstrates competence in equitable architectural spaces, but responses are well within the paradigm of applying equalizing principles to traditional forms in order to “normalize” them. Identifying the above works as ascribing to the established paradigm of ‘retro-actively accommodating’ different bodies is not an admonishment. These works are highly successful in architectural expression, functionality, and accommodation (most projects received special recognition for their contributions to the world of accessible architecture). These projects provide us with an understanding of the current state of proactive inclusive architecture – the forms, facades, and features of spaces designed for impaired and non-impaired bodies alike. If we now wish to reconsider our approach to designing for the impaired body, we can do so with an understanding of the current apex of accessible architecture.

SECTION 3

Reimagining Context

Image 69: MSH Garden of Eden Collage by Author, 2024

RECONSIDERING OUR APPROACH

The Value of a New Perspective

The paradigm that has been elucidated in the previous sections is the enduring perspective that impairment, while manageable, is a deviation from the norm - a departure from the ideal. We minimize barriers to equity and access, yet we do so by grouping all uniquely impaired parties into one constituency – an entity whose cumulative distinction is merely non-normativity. Architecturally, we abide by building laws to ensure access and usage, and rarely go beyond that target. These designs belie a perspective that ‘the body can be restored’ when placed in spatially-considerate surroundings, and that relieving an actor of their impairment is the essential goal of accessible architecture. We implicitly concede that the built environment should not reference or revere unique bodies – but rather allow them to participate in the normative landscape.

Can wheelchair-accessible architecture really only be about ergonomics and access? Are we satisfied with the act of removing barriers as the ultimate expression of this form of architecture? If we believe that architecture serves a greater purpose than simply providing shelter from the elements, and if we acknowledge that architecture has historically acted as a demonstration and interpretation of the human form, then it would seem that in relation to wheelchair-accessible architecture there is more opportunity for exploring form than we have previously pursued.

Should our goal be to uncover new forms that collaborate with and celebrate the unique bodies of wheelchair users, it may be more fruitful to suggest a new construct in which to explore this possibility, rather than trying to ‘amend’ our traditional, long-standing-built environment. To illustrate the fundamental difference proposed here – let’s consider an example of architecture that responds to a different impairment than mobility – visual impairment.

At present, buildings that welcome the visually-impaired add pro-active wayfinding measures: braille signage, auditory signals, color-contrasting details, and increasingly, the use of tactile surfaces on the ground. Designers are encouraged to consider the needs of the visually impaired as being of equal importance to that of all users. “Architects who adopt the principles of Universal Design understand that the needs of a blind client are the same as those of all people”(23). But, lets suggest expanding in a way that emboldens and validates the presence of sightless actors. Is it easier to hypothesize a completely new world – one in which sight had never existed? A built environment created exclusively for a blind population might have a skyline of only rounded domes; it might be a city of ubiquitous tactility with continuously connected buildings interspersed with fragrant planted sectors for olfactory-enhanced placemaking. Building interiors might be shaped by the needs of echolocation, touch, and temperature. Decorative fenestration might be omitted entirely. Even stairs might have

Image 70: Mobile, seated human: flesh, muscle, and bone. AI generated image (MidJourney) by Author, 2024

different riser to tread ratios depending on proximity to certain landings. In short, a Tabula Rasa exercise may be an optimal way of conceptually exploring new ground.

This strategy is not proposed as an exercise in disability justice, nor should it suggest a desire to fetishize specific impairments, or to ultimately endorse a mutually-exclusive landscape of impairment-specific forms and spaces. It is suggested as an advantageous approach from which to think about uniquely expressive and functional architecture that may fundamentally differ from that of the normative built environment. The underlying goal is to stimulate architects and designers to develop new and unlimited forms which express and embody unique corporeal conditions. It is to help answer the question - Is This All?

This strategy of a hypothetical design context will be applied to the remainder of this project. We will identify a specific body of actors, adopt carefully selected nomenclature, and provide clear framework for experimentation. The project will not identify a specific architectural site, nor have a goal of designing a singular work of architecture. Rather the intention is to create a collection of viable architectural elements, objects, forms, and spaces that are unique to the hypothetical universe and its actors.

THE HYPOTHETICAL DOMAIN

Context

To pursue experimental form not found ex post facto, this project proposes a world occupied exclusively by people who use wheelchairs.

We will consider the world’s humans as being born into the form of a wheelchair occupant. One might imagine these humans as either fully formed of sinuous tissue, muscle and bone, or simply our native bodies sitting in standardized wheelchairs (more on wheelchair and body form to follow). To further defer a conciliatory representation, we might consider this as an evolutionary upgrade: that this world’s actors are able to propel themselves over great distances, have an omni-present lap available, and other physical conveniences.

Fully Functional Muscle Weakness

Severe Joint Impairment

Paralysis

Image 71:

The World Ability Sport Organization’s assessment scale for sportspersons ranges from F1 to F9 (only a portion of which are shown above), allowing opposing teams to populate their sides equItably based on the cumulative functionality of players.

Graphic by Author, 2024

Images 72-75 (Clockwise from left):

The standard X-frame wheelchair and its components; A ‘sports model’ wheelchair with angled wheels and a lowered backrest; Wheelchair with an e-bike attachment that can be manually added and removed at the user's convenience; A six-wheeled, motorized wheelchair with a rechargable battery pack and terrain-climbing capability.

Labeled Image: Photo, All Rights Released, notations added by Author; The Matchpoint Chair by Quikie; E Bike attachment by Yanko Designs; The 360 OffRoad by Magic Mobility.

Biomechanics

Over time, the dimensions of the human body have been used as averages for common ergonomic responses in architecture: they inform the depth of staircase treads, the width of doorways, the height of shelves, etc. To investigate our hypothetical universe, we will begin by defining the physical capabilities and proportions of our wheelchair-using actors.

Within the field of wheelchair sports there is a need to ensure opposing teams are equally matched. This is accomplished with a calibrated system of classifications administered by the World Ability Sport Organization (formerly the International Wheelchair and Amputee Sports Federation (IWAS)), which provides an assessment scale ranging from F1 to F9(24). For the purposes of this Thesis project, we will identify all of our actors as belonging to the F7 Class, effectively assuming “wheelchair-boundness” (non-ambulating), but otherwise not disenfranchised by additional physical incapacities (Image 71).

To further clarify the abilities of the actors, the wheelchair used by all of the actors in our project will be a standard X-Frame (Image 72). Unlike power chairs or sports models (Images 73-75), the X chair allows for self-propulsion without power or the option for pushing from behind, is foldable for transport, and has standard dimensions. (In 2001, almost 90% of wheelchairs used were a simple, mechanical model (25)).

With regard to our actors’ range of motion, center of gravity, reach and rotation, we will reference the most recent anthropometric (ergonomic and biomechanical) standards for wheelchair users and associated movements. These are represented graphically on the following pages (Images 76-83).

Language

For the purposes of convenience, as well as to dissuade any tendency to revert to our previous paradigms regarding impaired individuals, we will adopt a specific nomenclature for this body of actors. Over time the terminology applied to wheelchair users has changed from crippled, to handicapped, to disabled, to differently-abled, to, most recently, identifying a person by their given name followed by the descriptor ‘a person with a disability’ (ex/ Steven, who uses a wheelchair). When we consider the most critical characteristics of our actors in reference to our design goals, the term “Mobile Seated Human” (hereafter, MSH) will be used to describe our specific actors. This phrasing is not a part of the current accessibility lexicon and has been developed solely for use in this project.

Image 76 (top) and Image 77 (below): Dimensions of actors in chairs, side, and top view (Values reference Table 1, pg 67) Graphics by Author, 2024

Conditions

To ensure a concise design scope, certain assumptions are established. This project presumes:

That, aside from mobility, our actors are prototypical humans. They have the same behavioral preferences that are statistically prevalent in all humans –for example, the human preference for symmetry, for beauty and functionality, to choose the path of least resistance, to seek out privacy, and so on.

That, although a rational progression of wheelchair design would undoubtedly be far advanced in this hypothetical world, that no additional improvements will be used for our project’s wheelchairs. This project will only reference actors' use of the aforementioned manually-operated X-Frame wheelchair.

That MSH building construction technologies and capabilities meet or exceed those in place today. That is, we will not be concerned regarding the development and use of ladders, cranes, tunneling, or other mobility and fullfunctionality development tools that may have developed quite differently in this hypothetical world. For our purposes we will assume that if we can imagine it, we can construct it.

That the wheelchair user can transfer out of the chair for sleeping in a horizontal position, swimming, etc. but that all reliance on ‘transferring’ as a mode of seeking accommodations to architectural form will be strictly avoided.

That wheelchair users can and will occasionally perform ‘wheelies’ (whereby the actor shifts their weight towards the posterior direction while simultaneously lifting up their front wheels, thereby overcoming small obstacles on the ground plane).

Image 78: Dimensions of MSH pivoting in a full revolution on-center, and the neccessary dimensions to make a u-turn (Values reference Table 1, pg 67)

Graphic by Author, 2024

Images 79-80: Dimensions of MSH forward-front, and side-front reach capacity (Values reference Table 1, pg 67)

Graphic by Author, 2024

Image 81: Dimensions required for visibility of MSH spectators (Values reference Table 1, pg 67)

Graphic by Author, 2024

Image 82-83: Ramp dimensions illustrating maximum vertical slopes and associated travel distances (Values reference Table 1, pg 67)

Graphic by Author, 2024

Anthropometric Data Key (Table 1)

Data sources for values include:

2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design (U.S. Department of Justice)

2014 DIN Standards (18040, 33402))

2008 ISO Standards (7176)

Leitfaden Barrierefreies Bauen (Bundesmisterium fur Umwelt, Naturchulz, Bau and Reaktorsicherheit, 2016)

Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities (American National Standards Institute, 2018)

SECTION 4 Finding New Form

EXPERIMENTATION IN MSH ARCHITECTURE

The following work is intended to illustrate possibilities of the MSH world; landscapes, interiors, spatial relationships, building forms and features. The illustrations and models are conceptual experiments and provocations resulting from observations and understandings of the unique MSH experience. Walking into this world should feel formally different; from subtle shifts in perspective, to distinctive divergences of form.

While this work originates in the MSH universe, certain design factors transcend a distinction in mobility. Hence, certain fundamentals of design will be relied upon. Some design investigations will include discussions and illustrations addressing normative/traditional forms in order to clarify innate incompatibilities with MSH actors - often as a means or explaining proposed deviations from long-standing architectural responses.

Despite limitless opportunities to compliment the MSH experience by introducing non-static elements (i.e., mechanical devices that would automate much of the building/human interface), this was specifically avoided.

The conceptual MSH responses include:

The Historic Center; Archetypal Form; Anthropomorphism: Form and Materials; Anthropomorphism: Religious Reference; Movement; Doors and Fenestration; Landscape Experience; Separation from the Ground Plane; Relief Capacity; Functional Expressions, including: Public Library; Residential Kitchen; Performing Arts Theatre

The Historic Center

Traveling to developed countries frequently includes a visit to 'the old part of town', highlighting remnants of past architectural styles, infrastructure, and urban configurations. In contrast, present day cities are typically appreciated for their logical treatment of density, mobility, greenspace, etc., but lack a certain chaotic charm.

The organic quality of vernacular urban growth has other charms as well. It is often more expressive of function: Paths were carved more by process, then by planning. And of course, paths were re-carved, re-laid, re-directed, and so on. This scarification is an infrastructural echo of the routines of the past.

In considering what the earliest settlements of an MSH world would look like, it was natural to consider initial developments would emphasize access and convenience. This led to a consideration of how such a location would grow over time. Unexpected expansion, route redirection, and growing concerns for privacy would undoubtedly create a visually disorganized, but functionally purposeful arrangement of structures and streets.

Images 84 and 85:

Model of an early MSH settlement. Paths bisect living units, passing around them, through them, and over them. Units orient towards a communal tower reached by a helical ramp. Living units expanded horizontally, and vertically over time, changing paths accordingly.

Models, photos, by Author, 2024

Archetypal Form

A small pitched triangle on top of a square conveys a North American ‘home’. A string of vertical projections are seen as towers for living and working. In the MSH evolution of form, certain physical fundamentals would undoubtedly take shape within collective consciousness.

Images A-G at left depict a residential space in the MSH vernacular environment. First, bark and boards are used to enclose the area around a tree, its canopy protecting the interior. The spiraling shape allows entry and visual privacy without a door. Presumably, ground conditions would ultimately encourage the creation of a raised sleeping/living platform, which would be reached by an interior circumscribing low-slope ramp. Functional needs would subsequently lead to introducing a secondary egress so logical one-way travel can terminate at the home’s exterior. This type of counter-clockwise movement favors the righthanded majority – ensuring the right hand is free while the left hand can rotate the push-ring – which results in counter-clockwise rotation of the body (up and around the ramp). This may become an established orientation for all structures; entering ‘on the right’ and proceeding ‘to the left’ (non-axial orientations will be discussed further in a following Section). Finally, we can imagine inevitable expansion of the simple structure over time. The original form still remains, with the building enlarged around it (predominantly to the left of the primary entrance). An extended ramp now provides access to multiple levels at varying heights, before carrying the body out from the home and back to the ground plane. This original model shape will be retained as a ‘house’ archetype, and the essential geometries and orientations may inform (and remain perceivable in) larger, more dynamic residential structures.

As in our shared world, the evolution into multi-unit residential buildings would have developed at a rate faster than the invention of the elevator. And without the ability to move upward with switchback stairs, a straightforward vertical tower would be unlikely. A different type of verticality might be expressed as ‘progressive’, i.e., a shape that communicates methodical, tempered movement upward.

Image 86 A-G:

Concepts of an evolving archetype for a free-standing single living unit

Drawings by Author, 2024

Image 87:

Concept of an evolving archetype for a multi-unit mixed-use tower, including ramping ingress/egress, and fire-escapes.

Drawings by Author, 2024

Image 88:

Archetypal mixed-use tower after the addition of elevators. Vehicular travel is now through and under buildings, while old-growth trees are retained.

Drawing by Author, 2024

The proportions of multi-story buildings would reflect appropriate ceiling heights for MSH, and floors and units could be staggered to optimize privacy and access. Prior to the addition of elevators, circulation might be 'rounded': circumscribed ramps that allow for entry and egress, and access to necessary fire escapes (depicted at left as rotating wheels with individual platforms). The ground space between towers would act as a neighborhood corridor.

Over time these buildings would inevitably be retrofitted to include elevators/ lifts, as well as adding standard amenities like underground parking. Externalized ramps may no longer be valued, allowing the units to be expanded outwardly - with more residential space, and much-desired terraces. Buildings could now grow taller, and the circumscribing circulation of the past is replaced with axial movement: elevators from below ground to, and through, units; horizontal paths between towers, and; vehicular and pedestrian access through and under buildings. As a result, the feel and formwork of a cityscape would not be recognizable as a series of vertical towers, but one of deferential staircases for living.

The progression of archetypical multi-story development

Drawing by Author, 2024

Image 89:

Image 90: Compositional elements of the MSH form

Image by Author, 2024

Anthropomorphism: Form and Materials

As previously discussed in Section 2, anthropomorphism in architecture is more than a straightforward representation of the human body. It also expresses the energy and spirit of human movement and presence. In author David Gissen’s 2022 article Disabling Form, he recounts the manner in which human qualities are used to describe buildings; They are said to “rise”, “stand”, “spring”, “stiffen”, and so on(26). Gissen also references the specific considerations of Swiss art historian Heinrich Wölfflin, and German architect Adolf Göller – who posited that slender people prefer slender buildings, and larger individuals prefer stockier buildings (Wolffin), and that people with unusual physical characteristics (for instance, the legs of a stork) would appreciate architectural works that “resonated with their physical perceptions and physiology” (Göller). Ultimately Gissen notes that “The beauty apprehended by a beholder is ultimately a type of innate knowledge of the physique carried by a beholder”.

It is in this vein that the following concepts for building form are presented; directly and indirectly revealing the shape of this world's actors.

The MSH body is symmetrical along the frontal plane, but not the sagittal plane. When seated, the upper portion of the body is strikingly different from the lower - both in plan, and section. Moreover, the cumulative MSH form introduces beautiful and precise shapes and dimensions: revolving circles, curving tubes, and equally spaced circular sectors. Unlike the upright form, the MSH body can be viewed as additive and reductive: spaces are carved out from the form, leaving pockets for light and air – between the legs, under the seat, and above the lap.

In addition to the form of the MSH oneself, is the representation of movement. Unlike the erect, ambulating body which can march in sharp rows and pivot at right angles, the MSH actor is inherently curvier. There is always a radius to the movement, even when it is the revolution of a wheel while traveling in a straight path. Moreover, the rolling form of the MSH is less securely rooted on the ground. There is more of an understanding of potential energy (impending movement) than a standing body. This would also be an element of MSH-embodied form: the action resonating in stillness.

Finally, there is material. Comparisons have long been made between the smooth form of marble, and the skin of the human body. Or the muscularity of concreteor the femininity of parametric materials. But with the MSH, the beautiful human form also encompasses expressive metal: thin spokes, cylindrical connections, and crisscrossing supports. At present, metal, cylindrical detailing and repetitive circular forms are found primarily in the architectural styles of the Art Deco and Deco Moderne styles. In this world, it is posited that metal would be a more familiar treatment in architecture – for instance, as conspicuous gutters, landscape detailing, and interior/exterior elements of form.

Image 91 A-K: :

Concepts for anthropomorphic form in MSH architecture. Buildings, columns, fenestration, and even street lighting echo the corporeal elements of MSH.

Drawings by Author, 2024

Images 92A (top) and 92B (bottom): Excerpted illustrations from Francesco di Giorgio's (1439-1502) Tratti di Archittetura Ingegneria e Arte Militare, depicting the male form in the plan and elevation of religious buildings

Source: Ashburnham Codex, 361, f.13v (Yale University Library Digital Collections)

Anthropomorphism: Religious Reference

A common example of anthropomorphism in architecture is seen in the designs for Christian cathedrals. Not simply a physical representation of a human male standing, it is understood to be a representation of (Jesus) Christ on the Cross. Christian theology identifies Christ as the physical embodiment of their God.

Anthropomorphism is fundamentally "an attribution of human characteristics to a god-figure"(27). As much of the western world depicts their gods in human form, religious architecture has understandably reflected this expression. In the example below, architecture embodies the mythology of Christ’s sacrifice - death by crucifixion.

In the MSH world, it is natural to imagine similar representations would have been explored in form. Setting aside the explicit depiction of crucifixion, we can imagine how else the MSH God would be reflected in religious structures.

The conceptual forms herein reflect more than the body's expression - they also respond to unique attributes of the MSH experience.

When MSHs approach one another from opposite directions, they frequently do not meet in a 'head-to-head' orientation - but position their bodies at an angle to each other when communicating. In plan, these vectors appear not as two arrows facing each other, but as arrows that are convergent, and/or, anti-parallel vectors. Spatial psychologists recognize this as being a result of the empirical calibration humans have for determining the amount of space/distance from objects and others in which we’re most comfortable. (It should be noted that these distances are irrespective of physical capacity; a hearing-impaired person may lean closer to better understand a speaker, but will not bring their entire body closer. Conversely a non-hearing person would not move further away from others).

It is suggested that a common attribute of the MSH world is a preference for nonaxial alignments and approaches - as these are the most familiar and commonly occurring positions for bodies and objects. This may be expressed in major routes to building entrances being located off-center, or at ends of buildings.

Another consideration is the need for physical orientation and alignment in assembly areas. Without fixed seating, every gathering space lacks orienting devices - so how does one know where to position themselves to ensure they will be able to see, to know they can pivot and retreat when needed, and to ensure proper spacing with others?

In the conceptual design for a church presented here (Image 93H), the floor acts as an orienting device for positioning bodies optimally. The subtle sloping and inlaid dividers position parishioners optimally in order to assemble and view the service, to move through a procession or communion, and to spend moments in quiet reflection. The form also relies on extended arms that gather visitors from the public realm (bottom left of plan), circulate them through the building, and return them to the public afterwards (bottom right of the plan). It also provides sheltered space to gather and socialize before and after a service.

Image

Drawings by Author, 2024

Image 93 A-H (left): MSH anthropomorphist concept sketches (religious building type)

94 (above): Decorative floor detail, showing MSH parishioners oriented towards pulpit speaker

Image 95: Inset tracks in the finished floor of the George Kolbe Museum, Berlin. Originally used as the artist's studio, the tracks facilitated movement of large sculptures between working spaces and gallery.

Image by Author, 2024

Movement

Circulation within a building or a city should be pleasurable. It provides an opportunity to view your surroundings, orient to your context (cultural or geographical), and enjoy different views and experiences that the shortest route may not provide. An ambulating body can stride, sidle, climb, maneuver in close quarters, and wander. Two ambulators can easily hold hands while walking. Walking requires balance, weight management, directional information, and safety – so you don’t fall off a platform, lean over a bridge, or overload a limited space.

Conversely, MSH circulation often requires greater directional rigor. The body has less carefree ability to navigate around unexpected obstacles, changes in levels, and even tightly pivot around others in compact spaces. Small differences in ground conditions, for instance, an upraised edge like a lip or a curb, are defacto breaks to forward movement.

These physical parameters can be also be considered advantageous. If a small raised edge restricts movement, it can also ensure safety and directionality without imposing a visual barrier. The MSH also possesses the ability to travel greater distances with less physical effort, when the potential to revolve your wheels along low-friction, evenly-graded surfaces is prioritized. How can we consider movement and circulation in a manner that expresses the limitlessness of MSH?

Although effort has been made to not elucidate design concepts that predominantly feature mechanical or technical components, two of those ideas take shape here.

There is an opportunity to carve travel channels into the ubiquitous hardscape of the MSH ground planes – that gently guide an MSH’s rear and castor wheels (Image 96A). This shallow restriction ensures that even a single-handed rotation will maintain a straight course (Image 96B). Low-tech options like adding ball bearings to the ‘tracks’, or even belt-driven bases to the ‘tracks’ could act as friction reducers/accelerators (Image 96 C,F). Unlike tram or trolley car tracks which have made roadway crossings dangerous at certain angles, these tracks are suggested as very minor disruptions at grade (Image 95).

A desire to make movement more efficient is, generally speaking, inevitable. This may be especially true for civilizations where stairs are an unlikely, if not impossible development. If we consider the earlier suggestion that cylindrical metal could be a stereotypical element of the MSH built environment, and accounted for the rigid base of the MSH, perhaps vertical travel would have been pursued that builds upon these elements.

Imagine a large open space within a multi-level building's interior. If metal tubing were to be angled in parallel tracks from the ground plane to a level above, it would provide a fixed travel path for an MSH body to follow. Drive chains could be inserted into the free-standing tubing that propels the MSH body upwards. Unlike the step-roller mechanism found in escalators in the contemporary world, this concept features only the framework for forward motion; it does not create a solid, shape-shifting base - but a free-standing metal vector that does not impede views (Image 96J). Handles could be added for convenience and stabilization, allowing ever greater angles of inclination (Image 96I). Despite being a stylistic reinterpretation of an existing mechanism, it is included here as a suggestion that this unique structural framework would present a distinctly different experience and use of form in large, open spaces.

Image 96 A-J:

Concepts for MSH-specific movement in interior and exterior architectural settings

Drawings by Author, 2024

Images by Author, 2024

Image 97-98: Man entering through a doorway; Man leaning out a window..

Doors and Fenestration

Thresholds in architecture can act as a moment of celebration and announcement. They often predefine the interior experience, illustrate a central design concept, or express the openness or restrictiveness of the building's program. They can also be one of the more challenging elements in architecture for wheelchair users. The entrance to a building is a common location for grade changes, unwieldy doors, unclear passage (does the person entering use their right door and the person exiting use their right door?), and so on.

While location and shape of entrances are stylistically diverse, a doorway's dimension and shape are fundamentally built upon the proportions of its users.

Contemporary designs do not overlook accessibility issues, - making entryways wider, more frequently automated, and when possible, provide transparency to allow users to anticipate the subsequent travel conditions.

Likewise have windows been rearranged to ensure their heights, hardware, and opening styles accommodate wheelchair-using actors. What new opportunities exist for fenestration and doors with regard to MSH?

Initial concepts for MSH entrances tried to develop door-free ingress and egressby using a series of offset horizontal and vertical planes that create visual privacy, without limiting access or requiring upper body contact with the door (i.e., pushing or pulling). There was also an exploration of low-tech, but mechanical, entryway concepts that responded to a change in weight from an MSH rolling onto a platform, and would result in the platform rotating into a 'door', and vice versa on exit. Ultimately it seemed unlikely that humans would want to exist without the physical measure of security and sound protection that a closed door provides for a space. Although the experimentation above was visually interesting, it felt to be prescribing non-human characteristics to MSH (i.e., "in this world, wanting to have total isolation from people, sound, risk, etc. is not a concern like in our present world"). As a result, conceptual work returned to a more 'predictable' direction. That is, doors and windows have existed for ten centuries - but, what have we not considered yet?

Proposed at left is a window design which is formed around the MSH body. The design fully accommodates the unique MSH proportions, and allows them uninterrupted exposure to the sky. The fenestration concept also incorporates prominent (metal) gutters, and a verticalized-landscape element. This concept could evolve into an actual hybridization of window and wall - different from a wall with inset windows - or a vertical window-wall.

Understanding that modern doors are extremely dynamic - with diverse designs that pivot, rotate, slide, and include all manner of automation - it might seem there is little to innovate upon. However, harkening back to our Archetypal suggestions, the proposed door shown here is curved, with the concavity towards the interior of the building. Sliding the door to one's right actually results in partially pivoting the MSH body into a better position from which to enter. When opened, the entrance area accommodates the area needed for the MSH, and allows for the continued entry of other guests. On closing the door, the reverse sliding effort pivots one into a more optimal position to then continue into the home. With a nod towards the ubiquity of cylindrical metal in MSH architectural details, a perpendicular door handle is proposed which also facilitates this movement (Image 99N).

Notably, this door is square in elevation - a geometry rarely seen in non-industrial use. When assembled (Image 99M), the residential entry appears quite rectilinear in elevation, but is in fact curved in plan. The total dimensions belie any 'lowering' of ceilings/roofs (which may or may not be proposed as a standard of the MSH world).

Image 99 A-N:

Concepts for residential fenestration and doorway

Drawings by Author, 2024

An impediment-free landscape in the MSHverse.

AI generated image (MidJourney) by Author, 2024

Image 100:

Landscape Experience

The exterior urban environment defines the relationship between buildings. Architects and designers use these spaces to reiterate the proportions and purposes of structures, and vice versa. For instance, the distances between opposing building faces (i.e., the dimensions of sidewalks and streets) are defined by necessity (the depth needed to route vehicles and pedestrians between them), as well as an awareness of ‘enclosure’. When buildings are too far apart, it creates feelings of isolation and vulnerability. Conversely, a narrow sidewalk between colossal buildings gives one the uncomfortable feeling of being in a cavern.

Likewise, the importance of the ground surface itself. A homogeneous hardscape is an often-unwelcoming environment. Large Italian piazzas are spectacular for their open volumes, including the stark contrast between the uniform ground plane and the dynamism of adjacent vertical structures – but are most popular when populated with water elements, outdoor cafes, and markets. Unbroken horizontal and vertical views are advantageous for understanding and appreciating the urban context, but unsheltered exterior spaces create challenges in non-optimal weather conditions.

The ground plane must also be considered as an empirical expression of wayfinding and placemaking. Urban environments with raised curbs not only direct rainwater away from footpaths and traffic, but communicate the difference between vehicle and pedestrian zones. In passive areas, changes to the ground plane may communicate how spaces should be used. We see a field of manicured grass outside a public building and know it is an extension of a building’s passive space – or a public gathering space.

In the MSH environment, the same information would be communicated – entry and exits, areas of caution, areas of respite, direction of travel, and so on – but, with the possibility of different forms.

Hardscape would be imperative to ensure safe passage; organic landscape areas would be desirable, but unaccommodating as a traversable surface. Street furniture such as benches would be superfluous. Elevated curbs are currently identified as notorious limitations to accessibility, but eliminating them entirely could encourage unsafe mid-block crossings, not to mention needs for passive stormwater drainage. Efficient trajectories are desirable to all humans, but what directionality could be imparted in a homogeneous hardscape? How can spaces be tacitly understood as respite, waiting, or gathering areas? Also considering the MSH need to use both hands when in motion, inclement weather might be considered a significant nuisance when traveling through uncovered areas.

In the MSH world, perhaps the horizontal green ground plane is tilted up on end. Green walls are place-makers with atmosphere, enclosure, interest. They create dappled or opaque shadowing on the ground plane, redefining passive areas throughout the day. In fact, these ‘upended’ lawns have greater visibility and experiential potential than traditional horizontal landscapes.

Hardscape could be interspersed with sloping level changes that define passive areas. Frequent sun shaded areas, or weather breaks can be established liberally across the ground plane. Without interrupting smooth passage, they help define entrances, focal points, and gathering areas. Individual or grouped trees can be used not as borders to outline a path, but as vertical path markers – placed in the center of an intended route. They help define right and left (i.e., ingress and egress), and distinguish routes from a distance (something less obvious in a ubiquitously hardscaped area). Hardscape designs can also be wildly expressive: mosaiced, scribed, colored, polished or rough, in order to communicate different intentions (potentially reinterpreted over time, as popularity and styles change). Certain paths may be defined as ‘express routes’ by embedding particularly swift channels in an area (as proposed in the Movement section). More laconic routes might be expressed by using low-profile planting strips that can be centered between the body as it moves in parallel with the path.

Finally, there is an opportunity for increased, but uniquely presented hard scape ground plane directors. Should elevated curbs be eliminated (as is a current goal in many accessibility-promoting urban areas), what might be established in their stead? Unique to the MSH is the fact that a very low vertical profile is a de-facto limit for passage. This can be used advantageously to distinguish and direct street crossings in a safe and orderly fashion; to identify areas (and types) of entry; to playfully encourage and inform wayfinding; and, at its smallest profile – to create a tiny lip over which one can easily pass with slight effort– but which creates a momentary ‘enclosure’ which keeps the chair from rolling without having to apply brakes.

Image 101 A-I:

A conceptual MSH landscape; hardscape, water channels, vertical landscaping, curbcommunication, shelters, ground markings, and grade changes.

Drawings by Author, 2024

Separation from the Ground Plane

A unique condition of MSH is that one's feet don't touch the ground. We can propose an intentional change to ground conditions, highlighting moments where this distance can be used as an atmospheric advantage. For instance, water elements could be periodically embedded in the ground plane to denote a change in purpose/programming/'possession' of spaces, as well as improving native drainage. Exterior (and, presumably, interior) ground planes could be scribed with shallow channels that allow MSH to pass over and through, without disrupting travel (and without fear of the body taking on water).

Functionally, converting the ground plane to a surface that is lightly carved out for water has a number of advantages. In the MSH world, soft, permeable ground is difficult terrain to navigate. A preference for hardscape would then reduce the available pervious surface area for natural drainage. In the transition from exterior to interior spaces, MSH also would likely wish to ‘knock off the dirt’ one might bring inside. As discussed earlier, another unique condition is the lack of need for fixed outdoor seating, which could otherwise be used to demarcate a path.

An additional consideration is the MSH relationship to water bodies. It is reasonable to consider that the immersion of an MSH actor in a body of water is, at a minimum, more challenging. That does not reduce the desire for or appreciation of water as an environmental design element. In fact, it might increase the desire to incorporate more water in urban environments – if it is less accessible in its natural context (i.e., native conditions of river banks and beachfronts).

In addition to experiencing moving and still water in the ground plane, impromptu ‘wet screens’/waterfalls can be passively introduced by designing weather shelter-ing elements that redirect rainwater not only towards the ground channels, but towards the pervious green walls previously described in the Landscape Experience. These spontaneous ‘wet walls’ are not just attractive, but provide a sense of privacy and intimacy when behind an arc of falling water.

Assembling all of the above concepts together, we might find a natural MSH development would be to utilize shallow water-filled channels as a demarcation of spatial purpose; as stormwater infrastructure; as a ‘pre-entry wheel wash’; as a tributary for covered walkways and outdoor gathering areas; as a source for organic green walls, and; as a collection point for spontaneous wet walls.

Image 103 A-I:

Conceptual possibilities that celebrate a bodies' separation from the ground; water filled channels that inform and activate the landscape.

Drawings by Author, 2024

Diagonal Transfer

Takes transfer position, swings footrest out of the way, sets brakes

Side Transfer

Removes armrest, transfers

Moves wheelchair out of the way, changes position (some people fold chair or pivot it 90° to the toilet)

Positions on toilet, releases brake

Takes transfer position, removes armrest, sets brakes

on toilet

Image 104: Transferring as depicted in a regulatory architectural guide. Top images show the actions involved in a 'Diagonal Transfer'; those below illustrate a 'Side Transfer'.

Source: ADA Standards for Accessible Design, 2010, United States Department of Justice

Transfers

Positions

Relief Capacity

The relief and release of bodily waste has been a factor in architectural design since the beginning of civilization. There is infrastructure needed to store, deliver, and treat waste water; the design and placement of bathrooms themselves, and; it is one of the remaining vestiges of formally-designated gender-specific space.

Restrooms are time-honored ‘units’ of design. Dimensions, ergonomics, plumbing, access, safety, placement, etc. are all well-established recommendations and/or regulations. In public buildings in much of the world, the quantity of restrooms needed for a certain building use is also highly regulated. The number of restrooms required is typically proportionate to (a value determined by) the building’s use and design; An office building or factory will require a number of toilets proportional to the number of employees; a theatre, to the number of seats; a hospital to the number of beds; a shopping mall, to the amount of commercial square footage; and so on. In countries with established accessibility building codes, a subsequent proportion of the total number of restrooms must be accessible to wheelchairs. And, at present, the number of restrooms required is also sub-divided in relation to gender: a certain allocation for each.

A simple example follows: In a university building of three floors, containing two lecture halls and ten classrooms (total of 500 seats) – a total of 25 water closets might be required. These would be a mixture of standing urinals (~7), typical toilet stalls (~14), and accessible units (~4), with the accompanying space needed for sinks, dryers, baby-changing stations, etc. Out of the 25 total, perhaps a little more than half would be prescribed for female use.

The experimentation on this topic began with the following observation: Accessible toilet units are obviously larger than traditional toilet stalls. It was then followed by this presumption: If a building such as the above requires 25 toileting units (4 of them accessible), and the same building in the MSH world requires 25 toileting units, but all of them accessible – then the total area assigned to toileting in the MSH world would be a much greater portion of a building’s total area. Perhaps the amount would be so large, that it would affect the formal relationships within, and between, buildings.

If the amount of space allocated to meet this need became as large as anticipated – two responses seemed possible: Either envision a different toilet unit for MSH, or consider a different relationship between ‘toileting space’ and ‘non-toilet space’ within a building or buildings.

Addressing the former issue first requires an understanding of the mechanics of using a restroom. In simple terms, an MSH requires more effort and more space to use the ‘front-facing’ toilet and ‘adjacent’ sink of traditional bathrooms, than it does an upright, ambulating person.

Remembering that the purpose of this project is to investigate form (not to suggest technical or mechanical solutions), the reason to consider re-envisioning an MSH toilet room is that any significant reduction in the amount of area required for an accessible toilet unit could potentially lead to a reinterpretation of all interior spaces within MSH public buildings.

Preliminary observation revealed the potential for reconsidering bathroom interiors – due in part to the obvious incongruencies between how MSH must navigate toileting in contrast to one’s own experiences. For instance, why would an MSH create such an inefficient fixture/facility? Wouldn’t the MSH toileting space be designed to allow one to ‘leap frog’ onto a toilet, and simultaneously access a sink to preserve hygiene before having to redress/reposition in one’s seat? (Image 105A)

Regardless, preliminary design work to explore this avenue made it clear that there would be no significant difference in the total area/volume needed for an MSH restroom unit. Thus, it was not pursued further.

Addressing the latter issue (the possibility that all-MSH public buildings would have to assign a significant portion of total floor space to toileting) let’s consider another brief example. If the University building in the prior example required 25 bathrooms, and an adjacent university building required 30 bathrooms –and two neighboring others brought the total needed (MSH) bathrooms to 100, the amount of combined bathroom space needed could overcome the space needed for the academic functions.

But, if buildings were purposefully ‘married’ – sharing connectivity with an independent structure that housed all the restroom facilities, space could be optimized. A new typology could be established: Bathroom buildings. More than a perfunctory accessory, these structures could be an incredible chance to explore new architectural form. With roots in Roman bathhouses, echoes of Mikvehs, or other cultural undertones, these buildings could be exceptionally expressive. They might feature industrial dynamism like massive displays of piping (again, related to the corporeal conditions of the MSH); or, be conservatories for light and water conservation (feeding grey water into a vertical growth system for fragrant flowers); or, explore a synergy between automation (u.v. lighting, steam cleaning, etc.) with reclaimed materials. From a functional perspective, this could free up volume in the original buildings, as well as streamline expensive plumbing requirements throughout non-bathroom structures (it should be assumed that a small number of inner-building restroom facilities would always remain). The possibilities are intriguing.

Image 105 A-C:

A: Concept for a hybrid toilet and sink that is approached directly and mounted with the use of parallel grab bars. B: Concept sketch depicting the reconfiguration of individual restroom requirements to a centralized 'Bathroom Building'. C: Bathroom Building preliminary concept drawing.

Drawings by Author, 2024

After all of the above speculation, but before any concept sketches were carried further, some basic quantitative analysis put an end to earlier speculation.

Ultimately it was determined that converting all public restrooms from partiallyaccessible - to fully accessible - actually reduced the amount of space needed in public buildings for bathrooms.

Images 106 A-D at left illustrate the central issue vis-a-vis dimensional area. The modern-day public restroom layouts depicted identify the total square meters of each bathroom, divided by the number of units in each:

A = 1 Accessible stall, 2 traditional stalls, and 2 urinals: 40m2/5 = 8m2

B = 1 Accessible stall, and 4 traditional stalls: 56m2/5 = 11m2

C = 1 Accessible stall, and 10 traditional stalls: 88m2/11 = 8m2

When accounting for an equal portion of the shared space of a total bathroom, the average space requirement for a single unit is between 8 and 11 square meters. Conversely, the dimensions of a single standing accessible unit (including accessible toilet, grab bars, accessible sink, hand drier, and trash) is 5.25 square meters. In short, if all 'communal' public bathrooms were converted to individual accessible rooms, there would be a reduction in the total space needed for required bathrooms.

Moreover, if restroom units were all independent (not communal), there would be no distinction needed between gender of users - potentially reducing the requirements further (as one would not need to account for male and female units as mutually exclusive values).

Before eliminating any further exploration, the possibilities of changes in form resulting from a reduction in bathroom space needed was considered. Ultimately it appeared that by interspersing restrooms throughout a building (say, placing one between every few offices or classrooms), there would be no significant change to the perception of form. The remaining consideration was a change in building structure. Since Accessible units require at least two structured walls on which support bars can be mounted (which differs from the non-structural stall-separators (plastic, wood, metal, etc.), used to isolate individual stalls), could this significantly alter the necessary structural needs of the building, i.e., increase the number of finished, non-load bearing, interior walls needed in a building?

While the change in interior finishes would not be insignificant, the change to total structural needs is not enough to require a change to a building in a larger fashion. That is, it would not further drive a change in form. Thus, this concept was not pursued further.

Image 106 A-H:

Summary graphic depicting the considerations related to a potentially significant increase in restroom space needed in MSH buildings

Drawing by Author, 2024

Images 107 - 109:

Top: Young woman in library (Source: Gesellschaftsbilder)

Top Right: Concert attendees on wheelchair-guest platform (Photo by Timo Hermann)

Right: Woman in a contemporary, accessible residential kitchen (All rights released)

Image 110:

3-D printed wheelchair, 1:10, with projection lines

Photo and Model by Author, 2024; 3-D printed wheelchair by George Ackerman

Functional Expression:

It is well understood that creating an MSH-responsive space requires ergonomic specificity. Placing shelves and counters at the correct heights and depths is essential for comfortable access.

Alternatively, spaces could be designed that primarily originate as ergonomicdriven models, allowing form to respond foremost to function – which is then followed by equally important design factors.

Three examples will be developed; kitchens, libraries, and theatres. In each case, emphasis will be placed on determining form that satisfies not simply the body’s physical characteristics, but takes advantage of these characteristics as opportunities to improve a building's program and operations.

For example, public libraries often disenfranchise MSH due to the ubiquitous practice of storing books in vertical floor-to-ceiling shelves – but this building type also has other, universal challenges. Designers frequently struggle to simultaneously resolve issues of visual access, asset security, and users' personal privacy. Libraries undergo a great deal of ‘secondary’ design’, that is - revisions to the user layout to ensure daily operations are possible. Libraries are also an interesting typology as their programs have evolved over time – from dense repositories of invaluable books – to multi-media centers, co-working spaces, and community gathering quarters. This is a change that will be advantageous to creating a less dense arrangement of spaces and 'stacks'.

While kitchens are regularly referred to as the ‘heart’ of a home, designs often vacillate between feeling too open (impersonal), or to 'too removed' (no longer a natural nucleus of the home). More than a food-storage location, and less than a restaurant prep workspace, these rooms need to contain people, activities, and inventory while balancing the desire to be a home's natural confluence area.

Theatres have unique needs for viewing angles, acoustics, light, and other technical concerns regarding storage and performances. The typology is infused with drama; dynamic forms: dramatic interiors, and; excitement-inducing promenades. But, for every theatre seat available for an upright, ambulating body, there is a miniscule fraction of space available for wheelchair users. Attending a performance while in a wheelchair is likely an experience where you cannot help but feel 'different'. We will discuss these issues and explore how to assemble and arrange a large gathering of MSH in a functional, yet celebratory manner.

Functional Expression: Library

Besides access to reading materials, the key concerns of a library are visibility, security, and privacy. This conceptual design accounts for those elements, while creating a space uniquely designed for MSH actors.

Entering a library is a securely-controlled activity. Assets must be retained, and individuals must proceed in an orderly fashion. Utilizing the curbed communication addressed earlier in the document, access can be streamlined in a visually non-daunting manner (Image 111L). Once inside, the first engagement is with the custom-designed Librarian nooks - all three of which are based on the radial dimensions needed to pivot in an exact rotation. This allows access to all patrons, multiple occupancy, and control of the secured content within the workspace.

The entire structure is established on a hexagonal matrix. The rays of the hexagon provide the book storage areas, and the definition that separates spaces and reading rooms from each other. The angles are where the structure is resolved, providing the momental rigidity needed for the open shelving to span the distance between vertical weight-bearing members. The shelving is open to both sides, including along the building's periphery where the glass-lined shelves look out to the exterior environment

Dimensionally, everything is based upon comfort levels for viewing and retrieving books, revolving with one handed rotation (to allow your other arm to select books) (Image 111 F, I).

The reading rooms feature floor to ceiling light wells, which are expressed as repetitive arcing curves. Each curve denotes a space for reading or working. The fabric, light-translucent arcs provide a sense of enclosure and privacy, while simultaneously allowing librarians to be aware of all activities within the facility. One's presence is visible through the light screen (so occupancy and usage can be known), however, patrons feel a sense of security and independence. Working areas can be created with 'ironing-board-like' drop down surfaces, which seamlessly fold into walls when not in use - but provide ample working areas when extended.

Free-standing book bins are spaced throughout the facility, providing three long access 'troughs' where titles can be viewed easily, and retrieved at waist height. Making these elements relocatable gives librarians the customization they often seek - to celebrate different reading seasons and author/subject highlights.

Image 111 A-M:

Concept sketches for elements in an MSH LIbrary; Independent book shelves stretched between structural supports; translucent light wells as reading and work areas; hexaganol arrangements of reading rooms.

Drawing by Author, 2024

Functional Expression: Kitchen

As discussed in the introduction to this section, a successful residential kitchen provides access to inventory, work surfaces, tools, and ideally, the rest of the home. A kitchen should feel 'contained', and also, welcoming to all visitors and users from other areas of the home.

By locating the kitchen in the center of the home, all routes pass through this space. The dimensions respected allow all MSH to rotate in place when working, and move in radial arcs throughout the space (and the rest of the home).

A ceiling mounted, rotating, circular work surface is accessible to someone working on the interior, as well as multiple MSH gather around its periphery. An (optional) slide-down translucent lip (Image 113H) ensures that when only the periphery is in use that lemons don't roll off the edge towards the center. The 'lazy-susan' center piece has a layer of drawers under its surface, providing constant access to food preparation tools, spices, et. al. The armature to rotate the central island is metal and cylindrical - a recurring theme of MSH design.

Each niche within the kitchen is properly sized to allow full connection with the work surface. Cabinetry and open shelving is at one's fingertips, and surfaces are expansive, yet embracing (Images 113 K, L).

Open views to other parts of the home are critical to the design. Similar to the 'kitchen bar windows' popular in the mid-20th century - these open view portals continue to connect the home and its users.

The definition of the kitchen is through the change in materials, as well as the transition from hallway spaces to the kitchen itself. The home's hallways are proposed to be non-rectilinear. This is the first suggestion of circulation dimensions being responsive to the MSH proportions. Bending the ceiling plane into the wall provides area for HVAC, but mainly acts as another 'embracing and channeling' element within the home.

Image 113 A-L:

Concept sketches for an MSH kitchen: rotating kitchen island; custom niche designs; overlapping relationships between the kitchen and other rooms in the house.

Drawings by Author, 2024

The overall design concept of the home reflects many elements previously discussed; the archetypal entrance, and the inclusive fenestration (Image 114 B,E, respectively). The garage is located proximal to the home's entrance, but also allows direct connectivity with the kitchen for grocery deliveries. The garage is a 'drive through' concept - which supports the 'rear-entry' model proposed as a ubiquitous automobile in the MSH world.

Bedrooms, office space, and a dining/gathering room are all located to allow radial movement to and from the kitchen, and the rest of the home. Doors to private spaces need not be kept closed in order to ensure a level of privacy throughout the home; the design minimizes view corridors for the private spaces.

The most critical element of the design is ensuring the ceiling plane in the kitchen creates a sense of containment, of calm, and yet, of celebration. Due to the floor dimensions and the nature of the home's circulation, a dynamic ceiling is needed to provide a semi-enclosed spatial experience.

Overlapping 'bandage' style ceiling panels are proposed as a means of achieving a memorable, but highly functional ceiling. The chaotic arrangement belies the necessary order assembled underneath, and yet echoes the circular sectional geometry present in the MSH form. Sound-absorbing materials allow light from the roof to pass through, without visible light sources (electric lighting is located behind panels as well). Each niche and the center island also have independent lighting - which changes the experience of the space depending on which areas are highlighted, or dimmed.

Image 114 A-N:

Concept design for MSH kitchen within a residential home.

Drawing by Author, 2024

Functional Expression: Theatre

Performance spaces must provide more than seating before a stage. Their critical responsibilities are to ensure visibility, acoustical clarity, and a feeling of connectivity between the patrons and the performers.

Understanding that our civilization has a long and efficacious history of designing tiered viewing spaces, it would seem that the traditional stepped geometry of theatre forms is a purely organic response to the fundamentals of visibility. Simply put, each person must be able to see over the person in front of them, towards a central area of focus. It's possible this form that would be self-evident in any universe.

Nevertheless, experimentation into an MSH theatre began by conceptualizing planes in new and unique configurations: All spaces tilted underground; audiences and performers facing each other as if two vertical bookends; fixed stages spread throughout a theatre, with an audience that pivots in place throughout the show, and; designs that explored reflectivity and other 'view-transference' concepts.

Before those ideas were tested for viability, there was a need to learn more about the fundamentals of performance space views. An exploration of the quantifiable relationship between audience and subject was enlightening, not least because it clarified the inability of traditional theatre forms to be more accommodating to MSH patrons.

The drawings at left reveal the inherent conflicts with MSH in traditional performance spaces. Image 116A illustrates the critical visibility value "C" that is necessary for a successful viewing experience. Conventional designs like the example shown in plan (Image 116B) and section (Image 116C), abide by this tenet. The calculation ensuring patrons' views relates their collective heights and depths with the vertical and horizontal distances from the shared point of focus (e.g. the center of a performance stage).

Applying the above equation to a ramp-routed but otherwise similar theatre form, resulted in Image 116E. The section sketch reveals the proportions of a theatre that ensures MSH can see the stage when each elevated tier is reached from a shared ramp. In comparison with the theatre section in Image 116C, only a single row of patrons would be possible. It became clear that a new form would be required in order to allow MSH to assemble in large groups, and to ensure they had not just visibility, but a feeling of connectivity between other patrons, and with the performers.

Image 116 A-F:

Theatre standards visualized. C values ensure views over or between heads are resolved. An MSH slope of 6% (3.4 degrees upwards or downwards) results in a unfeasibly deep theatre.

Drawing by Author, 2024

To create enough travel-distance for MSH to reach a reasonable viewing height, without introducing a slew of lifts/elevators or other mechanical solutions, a non-linear geometry might be a possible design approach.

Initial concepts (Image 117 A,B,D) suggested a repeating radial form might accommodate the most guests. The focus might be non-axial as well (Image 117D), but ultimately proved non-viable without adding complexity (mainly attributed to the creation of multiple crisscrossing paths which may obscure patrons' views).

If entrances weren't singularly shared, greater difference in grades could be accomplished, especially if entering takes place at different heights (Image 117C).

Despite non-existent seating, repeating terraces would require a prescriptive grid in which MSH could align themselves, addressing reservations, safety, and optimal viewing angles. Could follies or other architectural forms be used as orientation markers? Or would floor separators be required? Could inlaid LED thread-like channels outline an algorithmically-arranged seating grid - based on the number of possible occupants? Could this be a dynamic feature of the space - highlighting the ground plane and introducing visual interest and complexity?

Returning to the issue of visibility, it was critical to accept the limitations built into using traversable ramps as the theatre's main circulation. As referenced in Section 3, ramp regulations are based on safety and comfort - a parameter that would still be respected in this design scenario. Based then on the possible horizontal distance one can travel on a slope (6 meters) before a level landing is required (of at least 1.5 meters long), and based on the vertical distance one can travel with that slope (a gain of approximately 4,2 cm in height), approximate three landing-ramp-landings would be needed to reach a height where visibility could be guaranteed (C value ≥ 12).

Image 117G contains 18 different seating areas, three entry/gathering spaces, and a network of ramps and landings that loop, switchback, and even cross under each other at different heights.

Image 117 A-G:

Expanded concepts for an MSH theatre. Ramping and revolving planes could ensure visibililty, but must respect ramp parameters for height, distance, and radii.

Drawing by Author, 2024

Image 118A's preliminary 'seating' concept reflects a goal of creating sociable spaces, despite the tempered density of the theatre. Descending paths (blue), and ascending ramps (green), carry patrons to their shared viewing platforms. The proposed elevation values in Image 118G have been moderated to reduce unnecessary travel, although the design concept endorses a certain level of leisureliness. Nevertheless, each path has been reduced to ensure the travelling experience is exploratory, but not overly demanding. Image 118F illustrates the particular requirements that allow people to enter and exit without disrupting neighboring patrons.

The ramps, landings, and platforms are envisioned as shallow, cantilevered concrete planes. The entire floor surface is conceived as concrete, covered with glass (Image 118E). Its structural, aesthetic, and maintenance properties are potentially an ideal response for an MSH theatre - where lowered friction, uninterrupted planes, and non-dynamic loads are mutually beneficial to the design, and users. Theatres might integrate glass fiber optics into floors - creating programmable seating plans, providing wayfinding information, or simply, to add drama. The sound-absorption considered integral to certain theatre floors is a design consideration that bears further analysis.

Finally, the platforms and travel paths are all bordered with the low-level channeled curbing seen in other sections of this document. Crested with cylindrical metal detailing (Image 118E top-left detail), they prevent tipping or mis-direction, while ensuring expansive, unlimited views while traveling to - and looking out from - the audience areas. Lighting could be incorporated into the linear elements as well, to help with directionality, section identification, and naturally, drama.

Image 118 A-F:

Concepts for an MSH theatre. Patrons reach different platforms by non-overlapping but adjacent pathways. Views are open and uninterupted by railings and walls.

Drawing by Author, 2024

SECTION 5 Reviewing Our Purpose

Reviewing Our Purpose

The world is never not changing.

The built environment evolves; driven by refinements in materials, new technologies, new theories, and the evocative abilities of artifical intelligence.

Our bodies change; we age and transform; we break and heal; we accept medical interventions that can restore abilities lost to mismatched DNA, accidents, and disease.

A never-ending hope for refining ourselves and our environment is what drives our efforts. Not simply an exercise in eliminating what we don’t want – like inaccessibility, unhelpful paradigms of ‘otherness’, or outdated architectural expressions – but to realize our human ideals of perfection.

This quest is unsatisfyingly non-linear. It’s an ever-changing reevaluation of our principles, priorities, and purpose. The world seems to increasingly consider bodies in wheelchairs within design. This acceptance is seen in buildings and landscapes erasing inequity. And, yet, there is a personal, persistent sense that we may be missing something. Not a regulation we haven’t enacted yet – but something pleasurable and interesting: a new opportunity for form. It is this suspicion that impelled this project forward.

The explorations and experimentation expressed in this project were hard fought. It was always possible that a thorough investigation into MSH-form could result in almost no meaningful change to the environment. An additional fear was elicited from the tacit hope to uncover forms that weren't merely a combination of unfamiliar shapes – but that held within them a sense of serendipitous delight. A hope of discovering logical, celebratory, innovative, alluring, and ultimately, meaningful elements of form and space that would validate the suspicion that there is more to be discovered in an MSH-centric world.

One possibility for evaluating this effort, is to consider the potential of our current architectural agenda of inclusivity in ultimately producing a homogeneous, less dynamic architectural landscape. Due to the issues inherent in breaking new ground in accessibility-forward design (discussed in detail in Section 3), there should be value in ensuring we do not limit ourselves creatively when considering the parameters within which we are able to approach vertical circulation, entry and egress, visibility, etc. in public building design. What could a similar design exercise tell us about spaces for other non-normative states of being?

We may also consider that our ‘acceptance’ of diversity is in a nascent stage. That is, as we expand our architectural responses to accommodate all matter

of neo-normative conditions, these responses may still be inherently indicative of a willingness to accept otherness – not a fundamental perception that all is otherness. We must be cautious of the creative limitations that are satisfied by the sense we are doing something optimal by eliminating environmental restrictions. This is another creative trajectory that can be applied irrespective of actor-type, time period, or other contextual framework. Could a non-traditional approach to ‘accepting our differences’ help us reach a new architectural expression of equality? Or introduce greater efficacy in all design endeavors?

Despite the inconceivable scope of comprehensively revising our extant built environment to accept more human conditions, there remains new design territory to consider. It is estimated that 80% of people with disabilities are citizens of low-income countries, lacking basic services for access, rehabilitation, etc.(27). In regions that currently lack any accessible buildings and/or landscapes, there is endless possibility for these provinces to explore new architectural responses during their inevitable development.

Experiments like these are akin to medical studies that advance non-imperative biological findings; they are rarely prioritized, and understandably so. It is a unique benefit of academic agendas that one can attempt to investigate possibilities in a field that are otherwise not significant enough to propel advancement. That is, if only an extremely small percentage of people are affected by something, and there are acceptable treatments that minimize larger conflicts (for instance, existing mandates that ensure impaired bodies can access employment and living situations), then, how critical is it to continue to consider potential new avenues?

It is an Architect’s job to transform ideas into built form. Humans have spent eight millennia shaping mass and materials into functional, formidable forms. And, one of the most consistent pleasures in designing architecture, is its ever-changing complexity. Save gravity, and omnipresent concerns for monetary costs, the work of buildings is always evolving. Buildings have responded to every different fluctuation in existence: cultural developments, technological changes, political ideologies, regulatory parameters, stylistic preferences, terrestrial challenges, et. Al. But, for all intents and purposes, we have always created architecture for one actor - a typically able-bodied human. The opportunity to extend our formal responses to more actors should excite us: a chance for new creative complexity. Ideally this would not be a simple engirding of new actors, or an architectural acquiescence towards 'accommodations' – but a deep realization of new forms that embody the spectrum of all human conditions.

WORKS CITED

1. Mobilizing Disability: Experience to Inform Architectural Practice:. Vermeersch, Peter-Willem and Heylighen, Ann . 2, 2015, Journal of Research Practice, Vol. 11, p. 24.

2. Thomas, Pam, Gradwell, Lorraine and Markham, Natalie. Defining Impairment within the Social Model of Disability. Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People Magazine. July 1997, p. 3.

3. World Health Organization. World Report on Disability. s.l. : WHO, 2011. p. 325.

4. The Cartesian Melodrama in Nursing. Paley, John. 3, October 2002, Nursing Philosophy, Vol. 3, pp. 189-283.

5. Sutherland, A.T. Disabled We Stand (Sterotypes of Disability). London : Souvenir Press, 1981. p. 158.

6. Scope: Equality for Disabled People. [Online] [Cited: March 6, 2024.] https:// www.scope.org.uk/about-us/disablism/.

7. Wright, Marisa. A Shared Struggle for Equality. Legal Defense Fund. [Online] July 31, 2023. [Cited: November 13, 2023.] https://www.naacpldf.org/disabilityrights-and-racial-justice/.

8. The Social Model of Disability: Thirty Years On. Oliver, Mike. 7, 2013, Disability & Society, Vol. 28, p. 3.

9. Vitruvius, Marcus. De Architectura (Book 3, Chapter 1). 20-30 B.C.

10. LeCorbusier. Le Modulor. s.l. : Faber and Faber, 1954.

11. Architects' Conceptions of the Human Body. Imrie, Rob. 1, 2003, Sage, Vol. 21, pp. 47-65.

12. Pathways.org. [Online] 2024. https://pathways.org/topics-of-development/ sensory/.

13. ColorBlindAwareness.org. [Online] 2024. [Cited: March 17, 2024.] https://www. colourblindawareness.org/colour-blindness/.

14. HumanOrigins.Smithsonian. [Online] 2024. https://humanorigins.si.edu/ human-characteristics/walking-upright.

15. Varela, F.J., Thompson, E. and Rosch, E. The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. Cambridge : MIT Press, 1991.

16. Treatment of War Wounds: A Historical Review. Manning, M.M., et al. 2009, Clinical Orthopaedics.

17. Britannica.com. [Online] 2021. https://www.britannica.com/event/World-War-I/ Killed-wounded-and-missing.

18. ScienceMuseum.org. [Online] 2024. https://blog.sciencemuseum.org.uk/ history-of-the-wheelchair/.

19. WheelchairFoundation.org. [Online] 2024. https://www.wheelchairfoundation. org/fth/analysis-of-wheelchair-need/.

20. Universalism, Universal Design, and Equitable Access to the Built Environment. Imrie, Rob. 10, 2012, Disability & Rehabilitation, Vol. 34, pp. 873-882.

21. Exploring the Potential of Disability Experience as Consultancy in Architectural Design. Schijlen, J., et al. The Hague : s.n., 2015. Reframing Design. Proceedings of the 4th Participatory Innovation Conference. pp. 124-131.

22. Architects, O’Connell Mahon. UIA Competitions and Prizes. [Online] 2023. [Cited: March 15, 2024.] https://uia.awardsplatform.com/gallery/jOXpPyaD/ LoBJjzod?search=9486da2ce4e93831-2.

23. González, María Francisca. Architecture for the Blind: Intelligent and Inclusive Spaces for the Blind User. ArchDaily. [Online] August 15, 2019. [Cited: March 21, 2024.] https://www.archdaily.com/923028/architecture-for-the-blind-intelligentand-inclusive-spaces-for-the-blind-user.

24. WorldAbilitySport.org. [Online] 2024. [Cited: May 23, 2024.] https:// worldabilitysport.org/.

25. Manual Wheelchairs: Research and Innovation in Rehabilitation, Sports, Daily Life and Health. van der Woude, L.H.V., de Groot, S. and Janssen, T.W.J. 2006, Medical Engineering Physics, pp. 905-915.

26. Gissen, David. Disabling Form. ArchDaily. [Online] August 22, 2022. [Cited: March 21, 2023.] https://www.archdaily.com/987625/disabling-form.

27. Dictionary, Oxford. 2022.

28. Disability Data Portal. [Online] 2024. https://www.disabilitydataportal.com/.

29. Wright, Marisa. Legal Defense Fund. [Online] July 31, 2023. [Cited: January 13, 2024.] https://www.naacpldf.org/disability-rights-and-racial-justice/.

30. The Linear Medical Model of Disability. Fisher, Pamela. 2007, Sociology of Health and Illness, pp. 66-81.

31. Deloitte Center for Integrated Research. A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats. 2021. p. 24.

32. United Nations. Global Survey Report on Persons with Disabilities and Disasters. Department for Disaster Risk Reduction. 2023. p. 43.

33. Hand Preference for Writing and Associations with Selected Demographic and Behaviorial Variables. Peters, Michael, Reimers, Stian and Manning, John T. 2, 2006, Brain and Cognition, Vol. 62, pp. 177-189.

34. Epidemiological Considerations in Transgender Health: A Systematic Review with Focus on Higher Quality Data. Zhang, Qi, et al. 2020, International Journal of Transgender Health, pp. 125-137.

35. Ispos. LGBT+ Pride 2021 Global Survey. 2021.

36. Slessor, Catherine. Redefining Modulor Man for a New Era of Inclusivity. ArchDaily. [Online] October 03, 2014. [Cited: January 14, 2024.] https://www. archdaily.com/553365/ar-issues-redefining-modulor-man-for-a-new-era-ofinclusivity.

37. Environmental Barriers and Disability. Gray, D. B., Gould, M. and Bickenback, J. E. 2003, Journal of Architecture and Planning Research, pp. 29-37.

38. Gissen, David. The Architecture of Disability. 2022.

39. van der Woude et al., 2001.

In a world of only wheelchairs, what might Architecture look like?