“In urban planning and design, [ableist] prejudices are played out and reflected in the built and digital form – through our housing and streets, infrastructure, interiors and exteriors, public and private spaces. Exclusion of body-mind diversity is far and wide – disabled people are constantly reminded that “you don’t belong—the world is not built for you.”

– Lisa Stafford, Leonor Vanik, & Lisa K. Bates. “Disability Justice and Urban Planning”^[1]

As a recent review of disability and urban planning notes “ableism exists across urban and regional planning, yet it is largely unknown, untaught, and unchecked in planning education and practice. It is entrenched in urban policy, codes, transport systems, and in the designs of our streets and communities.”^[2]  Even progressive urbanists often fall into ambivalent ableism – think of “walkability scores” or the narrowcasting of universal design (discussed later in this scan) as merely in the realm of physical design.

Access to the public realm within a city, a vital requirement for democracy to function, is not just a matter of physical access.  As Canadian disability activist Gabriel Peters notes “Carding and street checks, the criminalization of poverty, systemic racism and ableism – all these things are barriers to accessibility of public space and active transportation for disabled people. I can’t imagine something more fundamental to active transportation and accessibility than the idea of being able to go outside without worrying about someone calling the police on you for existing in public space and that resulting in your arrest or death.”^[3]

In recent decades, there has been a shift towards a more inclusive approach to urban planning, with an emphasis on accessibility for individuals with disabilities. This has resulted in the implementation of universal design principles, such as providing curb cuts, accessible public transportation, and accessible buildings.  As reported in the Institute’s Scan on Aging and Thriving in Canada, numerous cities have also declared age-friendly strategies to help guide their planning (though with wildly different implementation commitments).  Age-friendly strategies can be a very useful corollary to disability-friendly planning commitments.

An example of how certain urban priorities or movements have been reframed is the shift from pedestrian and cycling advocacy and infrastructure toward the less tokenistic, more inclusive notion of “active transportation”.  A simple example of a universal design spec that enhances safe local mobility, not just for seniors and people with disabilities, but for everyone, is automated pedestrian crossing signals at all intersections (which is actually cheaper than the non-universal design alternative of installing “beg buttons”).  Seattle requires automated pedestrian signals at three quarters of the city’s intersections.^[4]

Some countries set a higher standard for planning.  One standout example is Norway, which has embedded universal design as a required component of urban planning across all municipalities.^[5] Some cities also set a higher standard for accessibility in land use planning, transportation planning, and building requirements.  In the US, the ADA requires municipalities to be compliant with a minimum set of physical accessibility standards.  But some municipalities go beyond these minimum specifications. Some cities in the US, for example, require all new houses to include a full bathroom and bedroom on the main level.

SPOTLIGHT: AccessTO