Built Heritage Meets Inclusive Design Identifying Challenges And Strategies Through A Multiple Case Study Enquiry
Article Sidebar
Open full text
Issue No. 22 (2024)
-
Reconstruction of destroyed architectural monuments in Ukraine:
Between historical authenticity and modern needs of the urban environmentOlesya Chagovets, Olena Zhukova1-32 -
Heritage Authenticity as a Source of Personal and Collective Identity
Jelka Pirkovič33-47
-
The ‘open’ Venice Charter
Learning from the Multiple Interpretations and Translations of the Charter’s Article 9Claudine Houbart, Stéphane Dawans49-60 -
Reflecting on the Venice Charter: Constructing an Accessible Environment for the Preservation of Taiwan’s Cultural Heritage
Chih-Yuan Chang61-75
-
Authenticity: A very Greek word in a complex European setting
Dimitrios Zygomalas77-92
-
The heritage of light and shade in Cairo
The missing principle for conservation in Islamic historic citiesHossam Mahdy93-108 -
Built Heritage Meets Inclusive Design
Identifying Challenges And Strategies Through A Multiple Case Study EnquiryLene Van de Bemdt, Ann Heylighen, Negin Eisazadeh109-127
Main Article Content
DOI
Authors
Abstract
Inclusive design aims to accommodate as many people as possible by considering the diversity of human abilities and conditions during design. This raises challenges in relation to built heritage: proposals to make a building more inclusive may encounter objections from conservation authorities. Our research aims to (1) explore these tensions between the conservation of built heritage and the ambition to make the built environment more inclusive and (2) identify strategies that allow addressing them.
Based on existing research, we first examined how the domains of inclusive design and built heritage conservation are related, where they conflict and strengthen each other, as well as how researchers with different backgrounds suggest to address them.
Second, we studied six building projects where built heritage and inclusive design meet, all located in Flanders. Due to the coronavirus pandemic, we relied mainly on desk research. We identified challenges, tensions and issues that came forward in the development of these projects as well as strategies adopted to address them.
Two case studies illustrate how built heritage can be an asset to provide high-quality care. The four remaining cases illustrate how KU Leuven university deals with the challenge of rendering its rich historic building patrimony more inclusive.
Confronting the six cases makes clear that built heritage can be made more inclusive, and might even contribute to inclusive design, and that this involves a time consuming process with transdisciplinary input.
Keywords:
References
Adviesraad toegankelijkheid. (2019, September 12). Stad Leuven. https://www.leuven.be/adviesraad-toegankelijkheid.
Boie G., Vandamme F. (2015, March 1). De toekomst is aan het zorgerfgoed? Psyche 27(1), (pp. 20–21). DOI: https://doi.org/10.5553/NtER/138241202015005005003
Boie G., Vandamme F. (2016, August 1). Relationele architectuur. A+261 [Re]politicize, (pp. 51–55).
Foster L. (1997). Access to the historic environment: Meeting the needs of disabled people. Donhead.Fysieke Toegankelijkheid. (2019, November 8). KU Leuven, Diversiteitsbeleid. https://www.kuleuven.be/diversiteit/fysieke-toegankelijkheid.
Geschiedenis. (2018, June 22). KU Leuven bibliotheken. https://bib.kuleuven.be/2bergen/cba/over/geschiedenis.
Heylighen A. (2012). Inclusive Built Heritage as a Matter of Concern: A Field Experiment, [in:] P. Langdon, P. J. Clarkson, P. Robinson, J. Lazar, A. Heylighen (Eds.), Designing Inclusive Systems (pp. 207–216). Springer-Verlag. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-2867-0_21
Heylighen A., Van der Linden V., Van Steenwinkel I. (2017). Ten questions concerning inclusive design of the built environment. Building and Environment 114, (pp. 507–517). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.12.008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.12.008
KU Leuven, Directie Technische Diensten. (2017). Beheersplan: Complex omvattende het zwartzusterklooster. KU Leuven.
Neyt E. (2008). Erfgoed voor Iedereen.KU Leuven.
Nilsen Ask L. (2015). Access to Cultural Heritage Sites for All. EXARC Journal, 4.
Ostroff E. (1997). Mining Our Natural Resources: The User as Expert. INNOVATION 16(1).
Besluit van de Vlaamse Regering tot vaststelling van een gewestelijke stedenbouwkundige verordening betreffende toegankelijkheid, (2009). https://www.toegankelijkgebouw.be/Regelgeving/Integraletekst/tabid/72/Default.aspx.
Van den Bossche H. (2012). Onroerend erfgoed en toegankelijkheid. Streven naar een betere toegankelijkheid in het kader van de algemene ontsluiting van publiek toegankelijk onroerend erfgoed (Vol. 3). Vlaams Instituut voor het Onroerend Erfgoed. https://oar.onroerenderfgoed.be/publicaties/VIOH/3/VIOH003-001.pdf.
Van der Linden V., Van Steenwinkel I., Dong H., Heylighen A. (2016). Designing “little worlds” in Walnut Park: How architects adopted an ethnographic case study on living with dementia, [in:] P. Lloyd, D. Bohemia (Eds.), Proceedings of DRS2016: Design + Research + Society—Future-Focused Thinking 8, (pp. 3199–3212). https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2016.418. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2016.418
Van Steenwinkel I., Van Audenhove C., Heylighen A. (2014). Mary’s Little Worlds: Changing Person–Space Relationships When Living With Dementia. Qualitative Health Research 24(8), (pp. 1023–1032). https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732314542808. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732314542808
Article Details
Abstract views: 218

