Universal Design and City for Everyone
- Joo Yu-Min
The Seoul International Seminar on Universal Design1) that began in 2013 introduced and discussed the universal design of Seoul and major cities around the world. Introduced by Ron Mace, the concept of universal design refers to a functional and attractive design made accessible to all people, regardless of age, disability, or life cycle.2) Therefore, universal design connotes a significant meaning for urban planning and design. Instead of an urban space only for the healthy and economically active group, it aims to make a city for all, including the elderly and persons with disabilities. Universal design also suggests the possibility of a new urban paradigm. The concept of neoliberal entrepreneurial cities that surged in the deindustrialization era placed emphasis on competition among cities to attract capital,3) which deviates from the purpose of a city for all. Many cities struggled to grow and become competitive to acquire higher positions on global city rankings. Sometimes, they were more faithful to meeting the needs of domestic and overseas capitals than taking care of the socially disadvantaged. Accordingly, universal design brings up the creation of social values as the topic instead of competitive values, offering an opportunity to shift the paradigm and make cities warm and kind for more people.
It is welcoming and encouraging that Seoul, an important global city in Asia, hosts an international forum on universal design and social innovation design. In particular, Korea has undergone swift urbanization of cities under the aggressive government that focused on growth during rapid industrialization in the late 20th century. Such a government-driven urbanization experience enabled the efficient development of cities, but this method may be difficult to gain public support these days as we are facing various social problems such as global environmental issues, increasing gap between the rich and the poor, and conflicts among genders and generations. As we welcome in the deindustrialization era, it is necessary to foster new urban competitiveness and take a new approach to urban development based on the diversified needs of people. Accordingly, the SMG began to stress the importance of design in 2007 and implemented the concept of universal design, which used to be unfamiliar at the time, in 2010.4) The SMG has a strong will to make a city for all by reflecting the everyday life of citizens on urban policies in-depth and breaking away from growth-oriented thinking. Specifically, we want to discuss the meaning of universal design for the new paradigm of urban development while focusing on the primary keywords of this year’s Seoul Design International Forum, which include universal, connection, and value production.
There are three kinds of connectivity when conceiving a city for all based on universal design. First is physical and spatial connectivity. Physical connectivity is essential for designing a kind urban space that is convenient for all people to access and use, including persons with and without disabilities, the wealthy and the poor, and the elderly and children. From building designs that cannot be accessed easily by strollers and wheelchairs to gated communities that strictly exclude outsiders, urban environments that lack public nature form a closed space instead of a connected one. A city for all refers to a connected space that can be accessed by people of all social classes. Besides physical accessibility, such a city must also consider software accessibility including psychological accessibility, culture, and services. At the 2016 International Seminar,5) Department Head Park In-taek of Tanseisha in Japan introduced the universal design of hard (physical aspect), soft (aspect of accomplishing the purpose effectively and pleasantly), and mind (psychological and emotional aspect) for “spatial design that is equal and kind to everyone” pursued by Tanseisha. In a similar context, spatial connectivity should involve hardware, software, and mindware in-depth.
Second is governance connectivity. Many speakers at the Seoul International Seminar on Universal Design mentioned universal design governance. For instance, Thomas Bade, the CEO of the Institute for Universal Design in Munich, insisted at the 2017 International Seminar that universal design must guarantee transparency and involve as many people as possible because we can discover and empathize with values that embrace everyone by establishing and executing plans through communication. The SMG perceives the importance of such bottom-up governance based on the participation of people with diverse backgrounds. At the 2018 International Seminar, Kim Seon-su, the Head of the Seoul Design Policy Division, introduced the design governance project that the SMG had been implementing since 2014. While placing emphasis on the process, the SMG pursues a universal design that connects people with various needs to think together and come up with solutions, ensuring that nobody is neglected. This resident-driven bottom-up governance actively seeks the detailed needs of citizens that can be easily neglected by bureaucratic administration, thereby contributing to better policy measures.
Bottom-up governance centered on users or citizens is receiving a greater spotlight in contemporary society, which is becoming complex and changing rapidly. Living lab, an idea widely mentioned with the concept of smart city, also stresses governance for residents, businesses, governments, and academia to solve urban issues together. Nam Min, the Director of Eunpyeong Hospital, mentioned design thinking at the 2015 International Seminar, and this concept has begun to draw attention in policy studies. When responding to complicated and open problems, the bureaucratic policy-making process of creating policy agenda, analyzing problems, and presenting solutions may be less appropriate than design thinking, which attempts to find creative solutions by gathering knowledge and opinions from people of diverse backgrounds. Design thinking specifically comprises the process of empathizing with users, defining user needs and problems, ideating innovative solutions to challenge existing hypotheses, prototyping the solutions, and testing the solutions.6)
The third connectivity is social connectivity. An urban space that is kind to everyone contributes to the possibility of the formation of a more inclusive community by allowing people of diverse backgrounds to harmonize in the same space. Jane Jacobs, well-known in urban studies, regarded human-centered, small-scale design to be important and claimed that a city where people of different social standings meet and chat with one another — which we may call it the art form of the city and liken it to the dance — is an urban space that is safe, healthy, and happy for everyone.7) Universal design means that an urban space can be accessed and used by anyone physically and psychologically. Therefore, universal design is a tool that provides the groundwork for the ideal city image proposed by Jacobs.
The advancement of technologies that enable digital transition today is a double-edged sword for social connections. At the 2017 International Seminar, Lee Geon-bok, the National Technology Officer of Microsoft Korea, introduced the roles of technologies that help people exhibit their abilities. He presented the possibility of diverse and inclusive designs. If more people can use and communicate with urban space through technology, the capability of universal design can be expanded to make a city for all. On the contrary, as the digital world develops, people hesitate to go outdoors and become increasingly isolated by prioritizing communication and experience on a PC. In particular, there is a risk of overly placing emphasis on connections without inclusiveness and diversity as similar groups of people get together and communicate on social media. This is the reason why universal design should be combined with technologies.
As a closing remark, we would like to introduce that a city for all through universal design is directly linked to value production. Jane Jacobs, as mentioned earlier, argued that numerous ideas are produced in an urban environment where people of diverse backgrounds live together, allowing for creative experiments that lead to the vigorous development of the urban economy.8) This argument relates to the concept of creative cities once pursued by many cities around the world, including Seoul. Creative cities with talent, tolerance, and technology were stressed by Richard Florida, and the argument that creative cities can accomplish economic growth through innovative energy9) excited many city administrators facing deindustrialization. The argument proposed a transition from existing policies that focused on attracting businesses for the urban economy to new policies putting the importance on people and the urban environment. There is criticism that the pursuit of creative cities accelerated the gentrification of cities, but the importance of universal design should be further emphasized in the creative city policy process because of such criticism. Creative cities, which require tolerance as one of the three core factors, need to be inclusive cities for everyone.
All of us were once small children who could not have survived without parental care, and we will all become seniors who have inconveniences in living. Our efforts to make a kind and warm city for everyone through universal design are not only for certain persons with disabilities but for all of us.
