Design wasn't always in the hands of architects, interior designers, or
engineers.  Of course, these are all young professions.  Nor has design
always been in the hands of "master builders".  As a small minority of
architectural researchers have documented (Rudofsky, Myron Goldfinger,
myself) . . . many buildings have always been designed & built by their
owner-users.  Sometimes, as in many historical examples, the results can
be excellent in a context of designer-builders sticking to a local
vernacular, and in other cases which I have researched and documented,
the results can be excellent -- in a context of relative freedom to "do
your own thing".  

The 'universal design' writing I've seen, so far, is all of the "Me
Designer - - - You Client"  type.  But there is a whole other realm of
research, into environmental adaptations devised by the users who have
disabilities, that I would say is also well worth exploring.

A tiny sample from yesterday's New York Times, "Home Section", page 1
article about a house renovation by the photographer John Dugdale, who
several years ago due to AIDS, lost all the sight in one eye and lost
80% in the other.  (..."the result he says, is like looking through six
Baggies".)  

Quote:  "Mr. Dugdale hired... a local craftswoman, to paint every other
step in the narrow stairway leading from the basement to the front hall
a dark shade of gray in order to help him distinguish it from the
existing white steps."

This 18th century farm house also has a second floor.  The lengthy
article by Christopher Mason ("Fearless Vision Brings an Artist Home")
does not mention the  staircase to that floor.  Presumably, as an
exposed stair, in a finished and "proper" space, it has not been
similarly modified; perhaps out of some combination of having better
lighting, and the "impropriety" of doing such an "unusual" thing, in an
otherwise fairly strict orthodox preservationist renovation.    

He had been renovating the house for a decade before losing most of his
sight, and had removed the electrical wiring, in favor of kerosene lamps
& candles..  After losing his sight, the article reports that he feared
knocking over these light sources, and so went back to electric
lighting, referred to as "1880's Thomas Edison carbon filament light
bulbs he found in a theatrical prop house.  "With my sight, they look
like blurry fireflies"  "These lamps are ideal for me because they don't
create a glare." 

////\\\\///\\\\////\\\\\\//////\\\\

It's nice that Mr. Dugdale found a lighting solution, that works equally
well for his house restoration's aesthetic and for his particular kind
of low vision...  BUT.... This has got me wondering.....

HOW MANY strict preservationist renovations - - - have resulted in a
design priority of historically-authentic everything, including
lighting, providing light levels that are "low" by today's standards....
and which CONSTITUTE A BARRIER TO EQUAL & INDEPENDENT ACCESS, to people
with low vision?  

I would include as a "barrier", not just the question of "you can or
cannot get into the space, or navigate to your destination", but even
the hole range of "public safety" issues.  If "authentically original"
light levels are so low, for example, in a crowded train station, so
that the person with even slightly imperfect vision, is constantly
bumping into others, or constantly having "near misses"....and needs a
flashlight to look at a printed train schedule) then, that, to me, would
not be equal access.   

If anyone out there has any such examples, especially concerning "Public
Space"... I would love to hear about them.  

I'm thinking about either expanding an article-in-progress to include
this, or perhaps writing a separate article about it.

Jim Davis



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%