STUDENT NAME: Lê Ngọc Minh Châu

STUDENT ID: 22510800005

SUBJECT: ESP for Interior Design
ASSIGNMENT: Final Writing
TUTOR: Phạm Thị Kim Yến
DATE: Tuesday, 14th May 2024
Due: Tuesday, 21st May 2024, at 13:00
Paper length: Approx. 800 words

Critical review task

Steven J. Orfield has written about ‘the design for the disabled’. Read the article titled “When It Comes
to Design for the Disabled, Let the Science Lead the Process.”- Identify the ratio between public
buildings for the disabled and non-disabled folks. Do you agree or disagree that “Architects don’t want
too much disability design in their disability-based buildings, as it would be unfair to the non-disabled”?
Explain why most design for disabilities uses no standards other than physical disability standards, like
ADA instead of using multi-sensory design standards. Demonstrate that interior design for special needs
can achieve functional and aesthetic purposes. Make sure you include your argument. (Select a nation’s
interior design regulations for the disabled.) Your text should be edited with proper sentences and
paragraphs. Post the source under each illustrated image and place your text under it. Cite your sources
of information at the end. You will be assessed on your analysis, effective argument, clear English
expression, accurate spelling, images (citation under each image) and sources and presentation.
Writing Critical Review
Based on Steven J. Orfield’s article “When It Comes to Design for the Disabled, Let the Science Lead the
Process.”, 40% to 50% of people in commercial buildings are perceptually and cognitively impaired
(PCD). This implies a roughly 1:1 ratio between buildings intended for handicapped people and those
designed for non-disabled people, emphasizing the PCD population’s major presence and demands in
commercial settings.
From my view, I disagree the statement “Architects don’t want too much disability design in their
disability-based buildings, as it would be unfair to the non-disabled” indicates a fundamental wrong
thinking about the regarding inclusive design. According to Steven J. Orfield, that thinking is based on
the incorrect premise that design features that benefit people with disabilities are somehow harmful to
those without disabilities. He contends that this concept is false, as design approaches that improve
comfort and functionality for people with perceptual and cognitive disorders (PCD) are also beneficial to
the wider population. Orfield’s extensive research demonstrates that buildings designed with these
principles, such as low sensory stimulation, simplicity, and nature integration, are not only essential for
PCDs but also create more comfortable space for everyone. The author also emphasizes that common
sensory issues, like excessive noise or poor lighting, negative impact both disabled and non-disabled
people. Therefore, inclusive design does not disadvantage the non-disabled, rather it promotes overall
well-being and satisfaction. For my thinking, a designer’s success is when the product can be used by
everyone, not just one person. Incorporating multisensory design standards and test to ensure
perceptual comfort, architects can create environments that cater to the needs of a broader spectrum
of users, thereby enhancing the overall quality and experience of built spaces. For example,
surroundings that decrease sensory cacophony, simplify design complexity, and incorporate natural
features are generally popular, the building has a wheelchair-accessible bathroom and roll-in showers
that were created to not obstruct people without disabilities, services like ramps, a ramp can provide
equal access to buildings, regardless of individual abilities or disabilities.
ROLL-IN SHOWER is a type of accessible shower for people who have mobility issues or use mobility aids
like wheelchairs, crutches, or walkers to enter or exit the shower.

A ramp is an inclined plane installed in addition to or instead of stairs. Ramps permit wheelchair users,
as well as people pushing strollers, carts, or other wheeled objects, to more easily access a building, or
navigate between areas of different height.
According to the Steven J. Orfield’s article, it is highlighted that most design for disabilities adheres
primarily to physical disability standards, like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), instead of multi-
sensory design standards. There are several reasons for this trend, despite the growing evidence
supporting the effectiveness of multi-sensory design in improving the quality of life for people with
perceptual and cognitive disabilities (PCD). One major reason is the historical focus and regulatory
framework that prioritizes physical accessibility. The ADA, established in 1990, set out to eliminate
barriers for people with physical disabilities, such as providing wheelchair ramps and accessible
bathrooms. While this legislation has been crucial in improving physical accessibility, it does not
adequately address the needs of those with perceptual and cognitive impairments. Designers and
architects, therefore, often default to these well-established guidelines without considering the more
nuanced needs of PCD individuals.
A significant challenge in adopting multi-sensory design standards is the lack of training and education in
this field within the architectural profession, especially in the United States. He notes that U.S. graduate-
level architectural programs tend to focus more on history and theory rather than science-based
research. Consequently, many architects are not equipped with the knowledge or tools to incorporate
multi-sensory design principles into their projects. In contrast, European architectural education often
includes design research science, leading to a deeper integration of scientific principles into building
design. Moreover, there is a prevalent misconception among architects that designing for disabilities
might compromise the aesthetic appeal for non-disabled users. Steven J. Orfield explaining that
environments designed to accommodate PCDs has characterized by reduced sensory noise, simplified
design complexity, and increased natural elements and it is typically preferred by everyone, including
those without disabilities. Despite this, the fear of over-designing for a minority group persists, leading
to resistance against incorporating multi-sensory standards. Financial constraints also play a role.
Developing and implementing multi-sensory design standards can be perceived as expensive. His firm,
Orfield Laboratories, invested approximately $2 million over 15 years to develop such standards, a
significant sum that not all firms are willing or able to invest. This financial barrier, coupled with a lack of
client demand, makes it challenging for firms to prioritize these design principles. Examples of projects
that have successfully incorporated multi-sensory design standards illustrate the benefits of this
approach. For instance, The Cottages, a dementia care facility in Cedar Falls, Iowa, designed by Orfield
Laboratories, showed remarkable improvements in residents’ behaviors and well-being by reducing
perceptual noise and enhancing sensory experiences. Similarly, an autism clinic in Woodbury,
Minnesota, designed with these principles in mind, provides a more comfortable and supportive
environment for its users. Despite these successes, the wider adoption of multi-sensory design
standards remains limited. Architects and designers often overlook the significant percentage of the
population—40% to 50% in many buildings—who fall into the PCD category. Consequently, the default
reliance on ADA standards without considering the broader spectrum of disabilities leads to
environments that fail to meet the needs of all users effectively. In conclusion, the primary reliance on
physical disability standards over multi-sensory design standards in architectural design is driven by
historical regulatory focus, lack of appropriate education and training, misconceptions about user
preferences, and financial considerations. To improve the inclusivity and comfort of built environments,
it is crucial to expand the standards to incorporate multi-sensory design principles, ensuring that all
users, regardless of their perceptual or cognitive abilities, can benefit from well-designed spaces.
Interior design for special needs can achieve both functional and aesthetic purposes by creating
environments that are perceptually quiet, simple, and nature-focused. For example, Orfield
Laboratories' projects, such as dementia and autism facilities, show that reducing sensory noise and
design complexity significantly improves user comfort and social behavior. These environments,
designed with scientific principles, benefit both disabled and non-disabled individuals by providing
peaceful and engaging spaces. This inclusive approach ensures that design is not only functional but also
visually pleasing, enhancing the quality of life for all users.

References
https://www.archdaily.com/984212/when-it-comes-to-design-for-the-disabled-let-the-science-lead-the-
process
https://www.intrendhs.com/what-is-a-roll-in-shower/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheelchair_ramp
https://adata.org/learn-about-ada