Design vs Codes?
Or can they still work together to achieve a better result?
Or can they still work together to achieve a better result?
I admit that I’m a Regulations and Codes “worm,” as a former expert in state expertise of architectural and engineering projects and a co-author of state codes for accessibility and football and athletics stadiums. From that perspective, I developed a slightly different approach for implementing the Code requirements at the initial stages of the design compared to other "traditional" ways of using them.
Typical concerns of the architects and designers that you might hear regularly:
◾ Codes are too old and don’t meet my project's changed reality/scale, or “they are too conservative”.
◾ Codes for accessibility are only a “ticking the box” exercise and do not provide true accessibility.
◾ Fire codes limit the design's freedom, and we will solve all the issues in performance-based studies.
◾ Codes differ in different countries; how can we know them without local consultants?
All these points are valid – but only when looking at codes like annoying formality without understanding their reason. So what, as I believe, every architect should understand and consider, regardless of design type or location of the project?
Here are a few principles that form the basis of all the rules in every country:
🌍 Safety,
🌍 Accessibility,
🌍 Human health.
Human physiology, sanitary needs, and reactions to stress are similar everywhere. While culture can affect human behaviour, our instincts and abilities don’t depend on a nation. That makes all the codes very common, based on our bodies' performance.
If we look at the basis listed above, does it seem unimportant? Does it say anything against a creative approach? Or are all the limitations only in our heads?
Any architect can design for the majority of the population, but only the best one can consider the needs of all minorities.
What kind of architect do you want to be?
hashtag#architecture hashtag#design hashtag#accessibility hashtag#inclusion hashtag#safety hashtag#health hashtag#CodesForLife hashtag#equity
Typical concerns of the architects and designers that you might hear regularly:
◾ Codes are too old and don’t meet my project's changed reality/scale, or “they are too conservative”.
◾ Codes for accessibility are only a “ticking the box” exercise and do not provide true accessibility.
◾ Fire codes limit the design's freedom, and we will solve all the issues in performance-based studies.
◾ Codes differ in different countries; how can we know them without local consultants?
All these points are valid – but only when looking at codes like annoying formality without understanding their reason. So what, as I believe, every architect should understand and consider, regardless of design type or location of the project?
Here are a few principles that form the basis of all the rules in every country:
🌍 Safety,
🌍 Accessibility,
🌍 Human health.
Human physiology, sanitary needs, and reactions to stress are similar everywhere. While culture can affect human behaviour, our instincts and abilities don’t depend on a nation. That makes all the codes very common, based on our bodies' performance.
If we look at the basis listed above, does it seem unimportant? Does it say anything against a creative approach? Or are all the limitations only in our heads?
Any architect can design for the majority of the population, but only the best one can consider the needs of all minorities.
What kind of architect do you want to be?
hashtag#architecture hashtag#design hashtag#accessibility hashtag#inclusion hashtag#safety hashtag#health hashtag#CodesForLife hashtag#equity
заголовок
This tragedy resonates deeply with my ongoing thoughts and conversations about the divide between code-driven fire safety, egress solutions, and performance-based approaches. Rather than viewing them as conflicting, we should focus on combining these methods to double-check every design decision.
Only through collaborative work—bringing fire consultants, engineers, and architects together from the earliest stages of a project—can we truly prevent disasters like this from happening. By uniting our expertise and rigorously evaluating each solution, we create safer, smarter designs.
Only through collaborative work—bringing fire consultants, engineers, and architects together from the earliest stages of a project—can we truly prevent disasters like this from happening. By uniting our expertise and rigorously evaluating each solution, we create safer, smarter designs.
“How was it possible in 21st century London for a reinforced concrete building, itself structurally impervious to fire, to be turned into a death trap that would enable fire to sweep through it in an uncontrollable way in a matter of a few hours despite what were thought to be effective regulations designed to prevent just such an event?”
Today’s report https://lnkd.in/d5p7_JxN. is a sober reminder to all in the infrastructure sector of the utterly non-discretionary importance of setting and sustaining the right safety outcomes across our industry. If this is your arena, please do challenge where needed and ensure you are working with those who care and commit to uncompromising safety outcomes at every level. Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA), BRE, Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO), Reds10, Landmarc Solutions. Хэштег#rememberGrenfell, Хэштег#safety, Хэштег#leadership
Today’s report https://lnkd.in/d5p7_JxN. is a sober reminder to all in the infrastructure sector of the utterly non-discretionary importance of setting and sustaining the right safety outcomes across our industry. If this is your arena, please do challenge where needed and ensure you are working with those who care and commit to uncompromising safety outcomes at every level. Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA), BRE, Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO), Reds10, Landmarc Solutions. Хэштег#rememberGrenfell, Хэштег#safety, Хэштег#leadership
заголовок
True understanding of the principles of accessibility in architecture often emerges from personal experiences with disability. The deeper I delve into this field, the more I am convinced of this truth.
Recently, I engaged in a detailed discussion with colleagues about a project with a significant architectural element—a massive staircase leading to a podium with building access. During this conversation, I was asked to elucidate why the solution of integrating a ramp into these stairs is impractical from my perspective.
Such design solutions, often showcased under the banners of 'urban planning,' 'accessibility,' and 'inclusion,' are seen in various projects worldwide, purportedly ticking the boxes for code compliance. But what is the reality of these solutions? Are they genuinely practical, or do they merely look appealing?
Here are some of my observations:
✔ The steps are cut to 60-70% of their width to accommodate the ramp, making the stairs challenging for even those without disabilities, as they are forced to use only the uncut sides.
✔ This design leads to another issue—the landings of the straight parts of the stairs double as ramp landings, creating intersections that disrupt the flow of movement.
✔ Considering the ramp itself, it's difficult to assess its incline; ideally, it would be a comfortable 1:20 ratio. However, even if this is the case, the ramp would need railings to aid those using active wheelchairs, ensuring safety and reducing effort.
✔ The integration of railings intersects with the steps, rendering them practically unusable.
✔ Lastly, a cherry on top: the steps and the risers are the same monochromatic colour. At certain times of the day, under bright sunlight, this can cause the edges of the steps to blend into each other, posing a severe risk to individuals with visual impairments, brain injuries, or those recovering from a stroke.
I am certain that individuals with different types of disabilities could extend this list, noting additional hazards not only for themselves but also for young children and the elderly.
Design is an immensely powerful tool—but only when backed by thoughtful reasoning and understanding. Accessibility codes are not design constraints; they are essential safeguards designed to protect people from potentially hazardous solutions
Хэштег#accessibility Хэштег#architecture Хэштег#urbanplanning Хэштег#CodesForLife Хэштег#design Хэштег#ramps Хэштег#ADA Хэштег#access
Recently, I engaged in a detailed discussion with colleagues about a project with a significant architectural element—a massive staircase leading to a podium with building access. During this conversation, I was asked to elucidate why the solution of integrating a ramp into these stairs is impractical from my perspective.
Such design solutions, often showcased under the banners of 'urban planning,' 'accessibility,' and 'inclusion,' are seen in various projects worldwide, purportedly ticking the boxes for code compliance. But what is the reality of these solutions? Are they genuinely practical, or do they merely look appealing?
Here are some of my observations:
✔ The steps are cut to 60-70% of their width to accommodate the ramp, making the stairs challenging for even those without disabilities, as they are forced to use only the uncut sides.
✔ This design leads to another issue—the landings of the straight parts of the stairs double as ramp landings, creating intersections that disrupt the flow of movement.
✔ Considering the ramp itself, it's difficult to assess its incline; ideally, it would be a comfortable 1:20 ratio. However, even if this is the case, the ramp would need railings to aid those using active wheelchairs, ensuring safety and reducing effort.
✔ The integration of railings intersects with the steps, rendering them practically unusable.
✔ Lastly, a cherry on top: the steps and the risers are the same monochromatic colour. At certain times of the day, under bright sunlight, this can cause the edges of the steps to blend into each other, posing a severe risk to individuals with visual impairments, brain injuries, or those recovering from a stroke.
I am certain that individuals with different types of disabilities could extend this list, noting additional hazards not only for themselves but also for young children and the elderly.
Design is an immensely powerful tool—but only when backed by thoughtful reasoning and understanding. Accessibility codes are not design constraints; they are essential safeguards designed to protect people from potentially hazardous solutions
Хэштег#accessibility Хэштег#architecture Хэштег#urbanplanning Хэштег#CodesForLife Хэштег#design Хэштег#ramps Хэштег#ADA Хэштег#access
How can it be connected to design and architecture?
Through the understanding of the current statistics, birth ratios, and prognoses for the next few decades for many countries, that shows that quite soon, the percentage of people over 40 and older will "beat" the rate of the youth.
That will lead to a different approach to the architectural design of public buildings, spaces, and residential zones—one that is more related to the needs of ageing nations and more inclusive and accessible.
Хэштег#Accessibility Хэштег#AgeingNations Хэштег#Architecture Хэштег#InclusiveDesign Хэштег#Inclusion Хэштег#Design
That will lead to a different approach to the architectural design of public buildings, spaces, and residential zones—one that is more related to the needs of ageing nations and more inclusive and accessible.
Хэштег#Accessibility Хэштег#AgeingNations Хэштег#Architecture Хэштег#InclusiveDesign Хэштег#Inclusion Хэштег#Design
заголовок
There may be different opinions on why global warming is occurring, but it is an undeniable reality. One of the less obvious yet crucial effects of global warming is the increasing strain on electrical grids. As temperatures rise, more people use air conditioners for cooling. In countries with typically mild or cold climates and aging infrastructure, this can lead to grid failures during peak hours.
This is where a truly sustainable approach to building design becomes essential. It involves integrating studies focused on optimal building orientation, effective shading, possibilities for natural ventilation (which can be challenging in hot climates), and a thoughtful approach to solar panel installation. If solar panels are connected to the city grid, they can add extra load, as the grid must manage both the power it receives and the power it supplies.
Shifting the focus from the abstract goal of 'saving the Earth' to addressing everyday human needs might be a more effective driver for change.
This is where a truly sustainable approach to building design becomes essential. It involves integrating studies focused on optimal building orientation, effective shading, possibilities for natural ventilation (which can be challenging in hot climates), and a thoughtful approach to solar panel installation. If solar panels are connected to the city grid, they can add extra load, as the grid must manage both the power it receives and the power it supplies.
Shifting the focus from the abstract goal of 'saving the Earth' to addressing everyday human needs might be a more effective driver for change.
заголовок
The Paralympic Games in Paris are coming soon, and with them will come extended requirements for sports facilities in terms of hosting spectators with different abilities.
As per the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) requirements, the number of accessible seats for wheelchair users is set to double, from a minimum of 0.5% of the stadium or arena capacity to a minimum of 1.0-1.2%. This significant increase will not only have a notable impact on the fire egress strategy but also necessitate careful planning and execution.
As a co-author of the National Code on Accessibility, I have studied this question, compared codes, requirements, and cases, and interviewed people with disabilities to understand their awareness of the means of escape dedicated to them.
The primary outcome is that in countries where providing refuge zones for all wheelchair users expected to be on the floor level is not a mandatory requirement, there will be only one or a maximum of two safe spaces provided in the egress staircase landing or the smoke-stop lobby, which does not cover all the needs of the spectators or other types of visitors, even for the minimal calculation of 0.5% of attendees. So, increasing the expected number of visitors will make the situation even harder because the transformation of the tribunes doesn’t lead to the transformation of the means of escape.
The requirements for buildings with automatic sprinkler systems could be relaxed after certain conditions are met, which still require the provision of places of safety. But quite often, I can see that even these relaxed requirements are not met, as they are not mandatory in the state where the venue is built. Therefore, sometimes I hear, “Why spend money on a case that will probably never happen when we don’t have to do it according to the law?”
Indeed, on paper, everything looks right. Still, people who use wheelchairs or have other movement impairments have told me that sometimes they have no idea how they will be evacuated from the venues they attend, and most of the time, they don’t see a clear explanation of the escape routes dedicated to them.
I firmly believe that a safe egress strategy and a clear definition of the refuge zones should be combined with the requirements for building accessibility and made mandatory. This is especially crucial considering the ageing of the nations and the growing number of visitors with different abilities, highlighting the importance of our collective advocacy for these changes.
Additional studies can be done to check the viability of transforming the areas on the wide concourses into refuge zones through different engineering solutions to avoid building massive empty rooms on each level.
Хэштег#accessibility Хэштег#safety Хэштег#paralympic Хэштег#architecture
International Paralympic Committee
As per the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) requirements, the number of accessible seats for wheelchair users is set to double, from a minimum of 0.5% of the stadium or arena capacity to a minimum of 1.0-1.2%. This significant increase will not only have a notable impact on the fire egress strategy but also necessitate careful planning and execution.
As a co-author of the National Code on Accessibility, I have studied this question, compared codes, requirements, and cases, and interviewed people with disabilities to understand their awareness of the means of escape dedicated to them.
The primary outcome is that in countries where providing refuge zones for all wheelchair users expected to be on the floor level is not a mandatory requirement, there will be only one or a maximum of two safe spaces provided in the egress staircase landing or the smoke-stop lobby, which does not cover all the needs of the spectators or other types of visitors, even for the minimal calculation of 0.5% of attendees. So, increasing the expected number of visitors will make the situation even harder because the transformation of the tribunes doesn’t lead to the transformation of the means of escape.
The requirements for buildings with automatic sprinkler systems could be relaxed after certain conditions are met, which still require the provision of places of safety. But quite often, I can see that even these relaxed requirements are not met, as they are not mandatory in the state where the venue is built. Therefore, sometimes I hear, “Why spend money on a case that will probably never happen when we don’t have to do it according to the law?”
Indeed, on paper, everything looks right. Still, people who use wheelchairs or have other movement impairments have told me that sometimes they have no idea how they will be evacuated from the venues they attend, and most of the time, they don’t see a clear explanation of the escape routes dedicated to them.
I firmly believe that a safe egress strategy and a clear definition of the refuge zones should be combined with the requirements for building accessibility and made mandatory. This is especially crucial considering the ageing of the nations and the growing number of visitors with different abilities, highlighting the importance of our collective advocacy for these changes.
Additional studies can be done to check the viability of transforming the areas on the wide concourses into refuge zones through different engineering solutions to avoid building massive empty rooms on each level.
Хэштег#accessibility Хэштег#safety Хэштег#paralympic Хэштег#architecture
International Paralympic Committee
заголовок
I admit that I’m a Regulations and Codes “worm,” as a former expert in state expertise of architectural and engineering projects and a co-author of state codes for accessibility and football and athletics stadiums. From that perspective, I developed a slightly different approach for implementing the Code requirements at the initial stages of the design compared to other "traditional" ways of using them.
Typical concerns of the architects and designers that you might hear regularly:
◾ Codes are too old and don’t meet my project's changed reality/scale, or “they are too conservative”.
◾ Codes for accessibility are only a “ticking the box” exercise and do not provide true accessibility.
◾ Fire codes limit the design's freedom, and we will solve all the issues in performance-based studies.
◾ Codes differ in different countries; how can we know them without local consultants?
All these points are valid – but only when looking at codes like annoying formality without understanding their reason. So what, as I believe, every architect should understand and consider, regardless of design type or location of the project?
Here are a few principles that form the basis of all the rules in every country:
🌍 Safety,
🌍 Accessibility,
🌍 Human health.
Human physiology, sanitary needs, and reactions to stress are similar everywhere. While culture can affect human behaviour, our instincts and abilities don’t depend on a nation. That makes all the codes very common, based on our bodies' performance.
If we look at the basis listed above, does it seem unimportant? Does it say anything against a creative approach? Or are all the limitations only in our heads?
Any architect can design for the majority of the population, but only the best one can consider the needs of all minorities.
What kind of architect do you want to be?
Хэштег#architecture Хэштег#design Хэштег#accessibility Хэштег#inclusion Хэштег#safety Хэштег#health Хэштег#CodesForLife Хэштег#equity
Typical concerns of the architects and designers that you might hear regularly:
◾ Codes are too old and don’t meet my project's changed reality/scale, or “they are too conservative”.
◾ Codes for accessibility are only a “ticking the box” exercise and do not provide true accessibility.
◾ Fire codes limit the design's freedom, and we will solve all the issues in performance-based studies.
◾ Codes differ in different countries; how can we know them without local consultants?
All these points are valid – but only when looking at codes like annoying formality without understanding their reason. So what, as I believe, every architect should understand and consider, regardless of design type or location of the project?
Here are a few principles that form the basis of all the rules in every country:
🌍 Safety,
🌍 Accessibility,
🌍 Human health.
Human physiology, sanitary needs, and reactions to stress are similar everywhere. While culture can affect human behaviour, our instincts and abilities don’t depend on a nation. That makes all the codes very common, based on our bodies' performance.
If we look at the basis listed above, does it seem unimportant? Does it say anything against a creative approach? Or are all the limitations only in our heads?
Any architect can design for the majority of the population, but only the best one can consider the needs of all minorities.
What kind of architect do you want to be?
Хэштег#architecture Хэштег#design Хэштег#accessibility Хэштег#inclusion Хэштег#safety Хэштег#health Хэштег#CodesForLife Хэштег#equity
LET'S CONNECT!
You’ll be added to our email list but you can unsubscribe at any time.