084 DESIGN SEMINAR


Right Collin Burry, principal at Gensler


Below Tom Hofton, senior associate at LOM architecture


WITH AN estimated one in seven people considered neurodiverse, there is a sizable population who could be sensitive to light, noise and sensory overload in everyday spaces. Delivering buildings and work environments that meet the needs of all users is a top priority for employers, keen to ensure that they are inclusive and accessible to all. T eresa Dowling, chair of the seminar and


editor of FX, kicked off with a reminder that not so long ago, Le Corbusier designed interiors for the so-called perfect man that was 6ft tall. Note it was male. Over 500 years earlier, Leonardo Da Vinci invented the Vitruvian Man to represent perfect proportions of mankind. So just the one type of human being from them both over a span of 500 years – and that was tall and male. T ank god we’ve come a long way from the linear lines of assessing people, with perfect symmetry of both male architects and inventors. But how do current architects and


‘Clients


may not have expressed it in such terms as neurodiversity, but I think it was always implicit in what they wanted to achieve, and I think we were already doing it to a certain extent.’ Tom Hofton


designers refl ect in their work the many requirements of inclusivity across all types of neurodiversity and gender?


Is designing for the mind being factored into new schemes by architects and designers – and are clients demanding it? Collin Burry, principal at Gensler, said: ‘T ey’re starting to. I think it’s great that we’re thinking about these things. We’ve all been trying to design for inclusivity from a physical perspective, but now it seems things are developing more and more to take account of neuro aspects and that’s a really positive step. ‘We had a fi nancial services client who hired a consultant to advise on such things, and they review all aspects of a design, including the colour palette, lighting, etc, and off er comments and input. It’s all part of creating spaces that meet the needs of all users, whether based on gender, physical ability or neuro factors.’


Tom Hofton, senior associate at LOM Architecture, said: ‘We have always tried to design with choice in mind. As workspace specialists, we create spaces that enable a variety of tasks and functions. We have probably only been really considering well- being and designing for the mind in the last 18 months to two years – at least that’s when these aspects were specifi cally put on the agenda. But in actual fact, we had already been doing many of these things anyway. T ere may not have necessarily been a specialist who would come in and assess it, but I think we had all been drawing on the experience that we all had in appreciating all the diff erent kinds of people who use our building, and wanted to make it as accessible and enjoyable as possible. ‘So I think it has always been there. Clients may not have expressed it in such terms as neurodiversity, but I think it was always implicit in what they wanted to achieve, and I think we were already doing it to a certain extent.’ So who is formalising and refi ning this process? Are facility manager’s (FM) pushing the agenda? Helen Berresford, partner and head of ID:SR, Sheppard Robson’s interior design group, said: ‘I am not sure it is very often FM-driven. I don’t think FMs have always been as highly regarded as perhaps they should within organisations. Instead of just the person to go to with a complaint about the building,


Supported by:


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129