Today’s blog entry during Autism Awareness Month looks at design for autistic individuals through the lens of ability, rather than disability. It seems that when considering Autistic individuals much emphasis could be placed on the individual’s fears, dislikes and disabilities. This leaves little time and energy to concentrate on an individual’s likes, abilities, and inspirations. Finding ways to provide motivation to perform needed tasks is as important, if not more important, than concentrating on the individual’s inability or unwillingness to complete the task.

At Bittersweet Farms in Whitehouse, Ohio staff is encouraged to view a client’s support plan first in a positive light before considering the negative aspects. This approach has provided an environment of reduced frustration and increased empowerment for autistic clientele. This approach also leaves staff with many positive solutions in resolving a situation that has degraded to frustration or irritation.

One Cleveland-based School for Autism was designed with a well thought-out list of criteria in mind. However, this list of criteria refers mostly to design elements that should be avoided by architects. Elimination of sharp corners, control acoustics, provide lighting sources that do not create a distraction, reduce HVAC noise, and limit stimulation, are just a sample of the design criteria considered for this project. Each of these criteria focuses on disability related to Autism. Instead, perhaps these design criteria should be rewritten to consider abilities. In addition to the above listed design elements that should be avoided,  designers for this project also considered designing spaces for “one-on-one student teacher activities” as well as “allowing children to make autonomous choices”; elements that are far more ability-driven in nature.

Another consideration in designing for ability lies in the belief that many autistic learners are visual learners. How can architects use this ability to better design spaces for these learners? Perhaps instead of thinking about the visual environment as “over-stimulating”, designers can consider using visual stimulation as an aid to learning. Visual stimulation could be used to help individuals orient themselves, and find context within their environment.

Knowing what motivates autistic learners can provide a very meaningful guide to designing environments that empower, as opposed to tightly controlled learning environments. We all deserve to function in spaces that appeal to our strengths, and inspire determination to be the best we can be, regardless of “ability.”

Thank you ArchDaily for raising awareness of this issue. Find more articles written by Christopher Henry here.

We enjoy receiving your feedback. Please feel free to contact us by email: sasha@bildarchitecture.com

Continuing our series on Architecture for Autism Spectrum Disorders, we take a look at Spatial Considerations. The conflicting opinions of architects regarding lighting design continue in regards to space planning. It is believed that individuals with autism tend to be more uncoordinated than their “neuro-typical” counterparts. This may inspire a feeling of uncertainty in the size and reach of their bodies. Therefore, this is an important consideration for architects when designing learning spaces for autistic individuals.

Many architects believe, and rightly so, that they play a role in creating spaces that may help these individuals better understand their place in the environment. Some are of the opinion that spatial volume should be kept small, with intimately proportioned learning environments, thus better reflecting the often one-on-one student/teacher ratio. Others believe that ample space for each child will reduce anxieties surrounding the perceived invasion of personal space.

The small, intimate proportions of the River Street School, designed in 1989, have proven to be a positive characteristic of the school. Now, 14 years later, the River Street School plans to keep those intimate proportions when designing the school’s renovation. Those who believe smaller spatial volumes to be best argue that autistic children feel overwhelmed in large, more complex environments.

Architect Simon Humphreys, designer of the Thomas Bewick School, argues that rather than confining students to small spatial volume areas, students should be allotted a very large amount of personal space. When designing the Thomas Bewick School, Humphreys requested the program to allow at least 460sq. ft. per student. Allocating more space per student might encourage students to feel less guarded and less threatened than they would in smaller spaces. Many believe that autistic students feel as though their personal space is being invaded by other students in close proximity.

While large volume versus small volume continues to be a topic of debate, so does variety and flexibility of space. Some claim that a variety of flexible spaces could make everyone more comfortable and happy. Classrooms with moveable workstations and wall partitions could provide the staff with the flexibility to prepare for any learning situation. However, many feel that it is important for autistic individuals to encounter more predictable space layouts. Students who may be averse to change would likely feel anxious when entering such an environment, never knowing how the room will look on any given day. Teachers have also reported that widely flexible spaces do not serve any one purpose particularly well, and may even promote a lack of order.

Spatial considerations are of the utmost importance to designers when challenged with space layouts for a particular population. We look forward to more research being performed regarding long term results of the small-space versus large-space, versus flexible-space debate.

Thank you ArchDaily for raising awareness of this issue. Find more articles written by Christopher Henry here.

We enjoy receiving your feedback. Please feel free to contact us by email: sasha@bildarchitecture.com

Since April is Autism Awareness month, Bild Architecture has dedicated this month’s blog to exploring architectural design theory in designing for Autistic learners. Designing learning spaces for children on the Spectrum is often misunderstood and has come under much debate over the years. Many believe the “sensory sensitive” approach, aimed at providing environments that tightly control sensory stimulation, are the best learning environments for children on the Autism Spectrum. While others believe the “neuro-typical” approach, aimed at providing environments more consistent with the “real world”, will be the most beneficial to forward the level of functioning in Autistic children.

Today’s blog will touch on the highly debated subject of lighting. The “sensory sensitive” advocates advise us to incorporate limited daylighting and exterior views in our designs, keep ceiling heights low and spatial volumes small, while also avoiding the use of direct fluorescent lighting. The Architecture firm Fletcher Thompson had this to say, “Because of the extreme sensitivity to sensory stimulation clerestory windows and skylights may be counterproductive because shifting patterns of daylight can complicate the visual environment.” Many believe that glare, sunshine, and windows with exterior views cause unnecessary distractions in Autistic learners. James Vance & Associates Architects’ took a slightly different approach to this theory designing wide window overhangs and high sills to cut down on direct sunlight, while allowing some natural light and views of the sky and treetops.

The “neuro-typical” advocates, in contrast, believe environments should reflect real world situations as much as possible, leaving behind the safe havens that allow further withdrawal. The argument is that individuals with autism struggle with translating skills to unfamiliar environments. High ceiling heights, large spatial volumes, and high levels of daylight with outside views will mimic the colors, sounds, lighting and spatial volumes found in the typical environments we encounter in everyday life. Haverstock Associates of London tried to strike a balance by bringing bright daylight in through north facing skylights and large windows, thus providing daylighting without the harsh shadows and contrasts resulting from direct sunlight. Aitken Turnbull of Scotland designed a space flooded with bright sunlight, and floor-to-ceiling windows with a view of the play area outside.

The “neuro-typical” argument goes on to include the welfare of the staff. Sunlight and exterior views have long been thought to increase productivity and reduce sick days for employees. Some believe the advantages of a healthy and happy staff may outweigh the disadvantages of increased sensory stimulation in Autistic individuals.

Nearly everyone can agree that individuals with Autism require an educational program which is consistent, and focuses on repetition and structure. As architects, we strive to design spaces to help students and staff best accomplish these goals. At Bild, we suspect that in working with students with autism, there are times when both the “sensory sensitive” and “neuro-typical” approaches would be warranted. It seems that environments geared towards learning of new skills might use the sensory sensitive approach, while environments geared towards application of those skills could use the neuro-typical approach. The increasing amount of research and awareness surrounding autism will help to close the gap on the debate between the two approaches, resulting in more cohesive environments for everyone involved.

Thank you ArchDaily, for raising awareness on this topic. Christopher Henry’s article “Designing for Autism: Lighting” can be found here.

We enjoy receiving your feedback. Please feel free to contact us by email: sasha@bildarchitecture.com