Just Below the Line: Disability, Housing, and Equity in the South

Foreword

We tend to look at issues of design of housing from the perspective of our own disciplines and professions, but barriers between these social worlds obscure our understanding of reality. By breaking down the “silo effect” and using a regional perspective as a lens, the authors of this book present a cogent and powerful argument on the importance of understanding the relationship between housing policy and housing design. They illustrate how housing and health are intertwined and how federal policy plays out differently from region to region due to cultural, historical, and geographic differences. And, by simultaneously taking a phenomenological perspective, they demonstrate the importance of understanding how the home is not only a reflection of self but also shapes the opportunities that people have to manage the presentation of self to others. The concept of universal design emerged in the design fields from criticism of the “barrier-free design” paradigm. Leaders in this field recognized that the goals espoused in barrier-free design were universal goals. They asked, “Doesn’t everyone want a more accessible, convenient, and safer environment?” And, if the world were designed to meet these universal needs, wouldn’t people with disabilities benefit more than if only minimal conditions needed to eliminate discrimination for one group of citizens were addressed? Couldn’t the principles behind barrier-free design be applied on a larger scale? Furthermore, they argued, if everyone benefited from improved design, wouldn’t there be a much greater constituency for better design? In other words, the design goals for persons with disabilities are goals that are relevant for all citizens. This has prompted, over a period of ten to fifteen years, a growing worldwide movement. The authors take a critical perspective on these questions and ask if, in fact, they make sense and how the answers may play out within a regional context. This results in a more sophisticated argument and the identification of a broader agenda for this nascent field. Rather than a one-size-fits-all concept, universal design is about providing universal benefits in ways that respond to the diversity of the human population. It is a way of thinking that can be applied in many contexts but should reflect the unique characteristics of place and culture. In many ways, Arkansas is a vii FOREWORD good proving ground to test the value of the universal design paradigm and how it gets played out in a regional context. Demographic indicators demonstrate that Arkansas has an older population than the United States as a whole, more people receiving social security disability payments, and a higher poverty rate. While viewed from one perspective, this seems like the state is behind the rest of the country. Viewed another way, however, it is a state that is ahead of the country in at least two ways. Projections show that the rest of the country will eventually catch up with Arkansas in terms of aging population and social security disability recipients. The high rate of poverty and the age of the population together not only demand action but also present a challenging context in which to test the assumptions of inclusive design. Using Arkansas as a case study can help us understand how context influences the implementation of universal design on one hand, and what lessons can be learned to improve the universal design paradigm on the other. As the reader will find, the authors broaden our understanding of universal design to include two new dimensions: self-determination and health. They approach the subject from the multidisciplinary field of environment and behavior studies in housing. This literature demonstrates that housing both provides and constrains the opportunities for self-determination and also determines social identity. Thus, someone who has to relocate from an independent free-standing home where they have lived for most, if not all, of their adult life to “housing for the elderly,” due to the inaccessibility of the former gives up a symbol of independence and self-reliance, losing, perhaps a piece of themselves. Likewise, the need to modify a house with limited funds and technical knowledge results in an awkward and ugly solution that stigmatizes the resident. Change in health status, whether related to aging or not, is not easily accommodated by contemporary housing design. But, does this have to be the case? In the design of housing, it is possible to anticipate health needs across the life span and incorporate features that would support independent living without compromising selfdetermination and social identity. In...