Publication - rxnlopVvWmMUwPkllzTNRw50eGw2

Our Manchester Studio was full to the brim for another packed seminar session last week.

Posing the question: 'Designing for EDI: How does design empower people?' our two stellar panellists Stephanie Kyle, associate & inclusive design consultant at Floyd Slaski Architects, neurodiversity specialist and AJ100 Changemaker of the Year & Andrew Bissell, partner - lighting design at Ridge and Partners, and past president of the Society of Light and Lighting, joined David Smalley, director, Material Source Studio on stage to discuss what makes a truly equitable, accessible and inclusive space.

The conversation – which also featured insightful questions from our audience - emphasised the need for flexibility and control. Adaptable spaces are crucial, and inclusivity can only be achieved if stakeholder engagement is properly carried out. And that’s with end users – not just the client. Can one space truly cater for all needs then? “It’s impossible”, says Stephanie. But there is "much that can be done which benefits everybody".

The challenges of outdated standards was raised, such as Part M and Part T, and the importance of research and professional consultation was stressed. The session concluded with a call for designers to consider the journey - not just looking at what's been done before - while asking the right questions along the way. Here’s a snapshot of the evening’s key takeaways.

To begin, Stephanie provided an overview of what neurodiversity means. “There are three neurocognitive profiles: neurotypical, neurodivergent, and neurodegenerative”, she explained.
“Neurotypical is the majority of the population. Neurodivergent means that your brain structure is different - not good, not bad, just different to most of the population. And then neurodegenerative is where, over time, due to a brain disease like Alzheimer's or Parkinson's for example, your brain rewires itself.

“Essentially, every brain is different”, she added. “Everyone experiences the world in different ways. But there are a lot of patterns and a lot of commonalities between the way that neurotypical people experience the world versus the way that neurodivergent people do.”

With this in mind, Andrew believes that when it comes to lighting, we have a long way to go. Why? “Because we’re lighting everything in the same way”, he says. And in a world where everyone has different wants and needs, ‘the same’ doesn’t work. The solution, Andrew suggests, is to offer users "genuine choice and intuitive control".

Equality does not equal equity

David asked the audience to answer a question via Slido, which asked: What does EDI mean to you?

Both ‘equality’ and ‘equity’ featured, and Stephanie picked up on this.

The definition of EDI has been debated since its inception, with a dual meaning that equates to two very different things. Stephanie says, though, that we have to use ‘equity’ over ‘equality’, because giving everyone access to ‘the same thing’, doesn’t mean we’re supporting accessibility.

“If everyone's given equal opportunities, they're given the same no matter what, which is not enough for some people, or it's too much for other people. Whereas equity addresses the inequalities that already exist and acknowledges that some people do need more help than other people”, Stephanie offered… “so equality is positive discrimination?”, suggested David. “Yes”, Stephanie answered, giving the example that if we're saying that everybody has equal access to get into a building, it means that everybody can go through a door to get into the building.

"But if we're saying that actually, the accessible entrance is round the back, a family of four people – one of them disabled – can all go through the front door except the person that's disabled, who has to go around the back. This is equal, but it’s not equitable."

The term EDI has now moved on, Stephanie shared, to also include ‘Belonging’. DEIB (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging) seeks to empower people to feel they can be “their true authentic self” – not having to “mask” or “code switch” to be seen as more socially acceptable.

This sentiment was reflected in another term submitted to Slido, ‘social sustainability’, which Andrew particularly liked, though feels as though there’s much to be done, particularly in the lighting sector, to ensure this. He referenced PAS 6463:2022, which ‘provides guidance to the built environment on how to accommodate for neurodiverse needs’. In most instances, the text says provide adequate lighting but then references guides and standards, which have no information on the subject of designing for EDI. So where do designers start?

Typically, Andrew says, when it comes to lighting, “everyone goes straight to the numbers – 300 lux for screens / 500 lux for reading text – so let’s go down the middle and do 400 lux. It satisfies nobody.”
Stephanie agrees. “Architects and designers typically go to the Approved Documents. They look for the numbers. They look for minimum dimensions. Now, those minimum dimensions have not been updated since before I was born.” In Part M, Stephanie shares the turning circle that’s highlighted is based on the size of a 1950s’ wheelchair. “It doesn’t match technology and the widths of what we have now. You can’t rely on just numbers.”

"What should architects and designers do instead then?" David asked.

“Speak to actual user groups and work out what's best for your building, because even if you comply 100% with Part M, for example, that does not guarantee someone’s ability to use it”, Stephanie answered.

“And be less rigid”, Andrew added. “Work out why those numbers are there. Understand why and how to step away from the numbers.”

One solution to empower all

“What does empowering design actually mean?” David asked the panellists.

“It’s ensuring that everybody has equitable access to easily operate and use the building and use it in a way that suits their needs”, Stephanie said.

“It’s really complicated”, added Andrew. “You want this scenario where everyone's equitable, but everyone needs different things.” Citing a project that’s currently being worked on at Ridge & Partners, Andrew said, “we’re looking at a big office building at the moment and they need certain groups to collaborate. But some also need quiet space. If you’ve got 200 people in an open plan area, how do we give all those people what they need? We’re trying to figure that out at the moment.” Though complex, Andrew shared the first team hire was a neuroscientist. “The client wants to create an environment that people really want to work in.”

“Can you actually design for everybody?” David asked.

“No”, Stephanie responded, “it’s impossible.”

“When we think about designing for disability, we think wheelchairs”, she added. “But, in fact, only 3% of all the disabled population are full-time wheelchair users. Whereas there are over 900 non visible disabilities. So, it's impossible to design a perfect building for every single type of disability that there is. However, there are so many things that we can do which benefit everybody.”
“Is that your starting point when you’re designing a building?” enquired David.

It’s the first point, Stephanie said, the second is “working out what the building needs to actually do.” And she doesn’t just rely on her own experiences – “I’m autistic, but when I'm redesigning a school for autistic children, I don't know what their lived experiences are. We have to speak to the end users. Not just the client. Or the estates team. It’s the people that are going to be using the space. Not those paying for it.

“If I was to give you a case study example of a perfectly inclusive building, that's not going to work.

“You can't copy and paste the same principles” – Stephanie Kyle

Clients are starting to think in this way, Andrew believes. And although there were some early adopters pre-Covid, lockdown was the real catalyst. A survey conducted by Andrew of his colleagues found that people had adapted their homeworking set-ups to be closer to a window. “90% of people didn’t put the main light on during the day. They would tolerate whatever the light level was - because it was daylight, it was a higher quality.”

As well as a realisation of the importance of daylight during the pandemic, Stephanie also suggested it helped people discover more about their own unique needs. “A really interesting statistic that came out of the pandemic due to people being able to control their environment and work from home in a way that suits them actually led to them discovering that they might be neurodivergent themselves. The NHS waitlist right now for an ADHD or autism diagnosis for adults in the country is 10-years. It used to be 6-months.”

“Turn the ‘big light’ off – you will feel better” - Andrew Bissell

A question from Helen Griffith, interior designer, Dreamcatcher Interiors, asked: “If you can’t specify an end-user – say it’s a hotel you’re designing – what’s best practice for being equitable?”
“Start with PAS 6463:2022 on ‘designing for the mind’. It's really, really hard to actually use, because it says you should consider this, or it points out this is a problem, but it doesn't tell you how to fix it. But it’s a start. And then, as designers, we have so much to think about, so we should go to the specialist consultants.”

With lighting, “guides do no harm”, Andrew says, “but there’s a distance between where we are and where we need to be.”

“What about bias – there are 74 different cognitive biases I read?” David mentioned.

“The biggest issue we've got”, Stephanie suggests, “is with clients and designers paying attention to something very specific. If you have an epileptic child, you’ll design everything with epilepsy in mind. Or a client may have had a bad accident when younger which led to them being temporarily disabled, so they’ll focus on that. My goal is to get people to know enough to be able to ask the right questions, to be able to think: Do I need to consult other people? Do I need to get a stakeholder engagement group together?”

“There’s also the perception – ‘I’ve never needed that so we don’t need it now' from some", Andrew offered.

Audience member, Gary Wolstenholme, associate director, DMWR Architects, stated the challenge for designers in demonstrating the benefits of EDI to their clients - "in order to do this we need facts and figures to help demonstrate these benefits", he said.

“Because it will cost more won’t it?...”, asked David. “Or will it?...”, answered Andrew.

“The perception is that inclusive design is expensive”, said Stephanie. “Only in retrospect. If inclusive design is thought about from the very beginning, it doesn't add anything extra.”
Some of the ways it can be considered are in the paint choices – “choose visually inclusive colours”, and in the facades of buildings – “consider the bricks you’re using, and the stimulation they’re causing compared to others.” Ultimately, Stephanie says designers have a “duty of care to end users – not the client – so we must advocate for it.”

In a study published by Gallup, and shared by Gensler just this week, organisations found to prioritise “health and wellness”, saw workers take fewer sick days, perform better, and have lower rates of burnout and turnover, illustrating just some of the business benefits of adopting EDI principles.

Always aim for more

Turning the conversation to toilets – a fundamental space that “so many architects get wrong”, Stephanie says, Part T was called into question.

“We’re working to have it revoked”, Stephanie added, “it’s incredibly exclusive.” Taking the example of universal toilets being for all, except wheelchair users, she highlighted the allocation of dims being “the wrong amount”. Her advice for the architects and designers in the room – “allow for more space than you think you need.”

“We can always do better than the minimum requirement” – Andrew Bissell

From the audience, Jessica B, interior designer, Street Design Partnership, asked for Stephanie’s thoughts on “the shelf”. Stephanie highlighted it was, in fact, evident in previous guidance, BS 8300-2:2018, so though considered new, it's not.

“Part T was pushed out fast – it’s othering and non-inclusive”, Stephanie added.

A comment from Natasha Dance, associate, 5plus Architects, in the audience made the point that sometimes designers are pushed to use the minimum dims, and perhaps there’s more to be done in terms of educating the entire design team, from the client to the contractor. “Speak to them in their language”, suggested Stephanie. “Contractors want to make sure the programme goes on time. So, we say, well, appointing a design consultant early on, getting stakeholder engagement early on, you’ll have less problems later on. With clients, it's often about attracting talent – being inclusive will do that.”
If the Standards aren’t to be relied on, what else can designers look to for guidance when creating inclusive spaces? Asked audience member, Tim Gurl, senior lighting designer, Ridge & Partners.
“The biggest thing is flexibility, and adaptability. You've got to support the widest range of people. So that actually means being even more inclusive if you don't know who's going to be in it. Consider the 3 Cs to cater for the widest range of people”, responded Stephanie. “Calm, clarity and control.”

Picking up on ‘control’, Ash Wilson, interior architectural designer, Sculpt, asked: “In what aspects can we offer control?”

It could range from where a person sits, it could be lighting says Andrew, temperature, acoustics – various sub-zones are needed to offer different atmospheres and ambience. Though all of this needs to be “supported by a good, inclusive strategy”, Stephanie adds.

Bringing the session to a close, Stephanie and Andrew shared their concluding thoughts.

“Designers don't design badly on purpose”, began Stephanie. “When I do my presentations, I share a lot of images and ask, what’s wrong with this? It’s just that the designers’ did not ask the right questions, or they've made assumptions about what people need, or just not thought about it.

“Know what you don't know to be able to ask the right questions. The same way that you would ask an acoustic consultant for help, the same way you would ask a fire consultant for help, you can't just assume.”

Andrew added, “For me, there’s not enough research out there. It’s a big problem in the lighting industry. But we need evidence to do things differently. There’s a risk to doing things differently. My argument is, we know we have to do things differently, so actually the bigger risk is to carry on as we are.”

Designing for EDI: How does design empower people?

April 30, 2025 • Material Source

Read Article

About Material Source

https://www.materialsource.co.uk