Vem bygger vi för? : Om tillgänglighet och universell utformning i stadens rum

Sammanfattning: Who are we building for? This is the overarching question in this licentiate thesis.The thesis aims to shed light on and problematise how people are included orexcluded in the built environment due to if, and how human diversity is expressedand visible in the plan and construction process. It is based on two studies that dealwith how the intended users of the built environment are categorised in planningand policy documents, what capacities and abilities they are expected to have, andhow values and goals linked to Universal Design (UD) can be traced in the builtenvironment.The first study examined how users of the built environment were described indocuments from the planning phases of future construction projects. How theywere categorised, which groups of people were made visible and invisible, andwhat requirements are placed on the user at an early stage of the process wereexamined in a selection of 15 policies and planning documents from a mediumsizedSwedish municipality. The results showed that categorisations appearedwidely in the documents and that patterns of differences and inequalities werefound throughout the material. Prominent characteristics of expected users wereyouth, education, health and success. Particularly notable was how older peopleand people with disabilities were absent in the materials. When they werementioned, it was primarily in connection with issues related to accessibility orcare. The image of the user that dominated was a young, mobile and highlyeducated cyclist. The study also showed how high demands were placed on theusers’ functional abilities, not least in connection with descriptions ofenvironmental sustainability.The second study was carried out as a multi-case study of eight selected, recentlycompleted remodelling and new construction projects in Gothenburg. The purposeof the study was to highlight the presence and absence of UD by identifying howthe completed building and sites included or excluded users. One goal was also toidentify critical phases during the planning and construction process, where humandiversity risk being lost, by examining what happens to UD-related values andgoals from start to finish of the process. The material included underlyingdocuments for the eight objects, 265 documents throughout the planning andconstruction process, notes and 436 photos from field observations.The results showed some clear patterns. One of the more surprising results washow UD goals and values were more prominent in the rebuilding projects than inthe new constructions. The differences between remodellings and newconstructions also showed how UD-related goals and values appear more clearlyin projects that are not primarily market-driven and where the ambitions to create aplace for everyone is visible throughout the entire process. It shows the importanceof diversity thinking being included in thought, action and demands through theprocess as a whole. The results from observations of the completed environmentsshowed that the invisibility of certain users in the planning stage corresponded to agreat extent with the invisibility of these groups in the completed environment.Common to several of the new construction projects examined, mainly in housingprojects, was how a very high profile was maintained regarding greensustainability, with innovative and costly elements, while minimum levels ofaccessibility related to building regulations were not achieved. These deviationsfrom the regulations have not been noticed during the process, and several of theprojects have instead been highlighted as exemplary projects, as they have wonprestigious awards in architecture and urban planning. Accessibility solutionsoften bore unmistakable signs of ‘adaptation measures’ that have either beenadded during the process or abandoned altogether. It gives the impression that it ishousing being built for the narrow norm of ‘normal users’.Categorisations of users existed at an early stage in the planning process and werealso found in the completed built environment. There seems to be a lack of tools totake better account of human diversity in the planning process and assert publicinterests as accessibility. The ‘normal user’ stereotype is strong, and the changedplanning conditions with a stronger market influence support this image.The results show how it is built for a particular imagined type of people andbehaviours, while others are excluded. New inequalities arise, and specialsolutions are created for some users. The studies confirm what has beendiscovered in previous research in several aspects, and show a great need forincreased knowledge, changed attitudes and ways of thinking that put humandiversity in focus. More equal conditions can be achieved if we set therequirements on the built environment instead of on the user’s functional abilities.By increasing the demands on the built environment, based on UD’s principles andgoals, conditions can be created to achieve values such as equity, inclusion andsocial sustainability.