Towards an Accessible Crit: Disability and Diversity in Architectural Reviews

The United Nations and many of the world’s governments define accessibility in the built environment as a human right, and U.S. architectural degree accreditation requires that accessible design be included in architectural degree curricula. However, architecture programs themselves have rarely been examined for their (in)accessibility. Looking at the architectural critique, or the crit, we note barriers for people with physical, sensory, mental, and cognitive disabilities including uncomfortable seating, long sessions with few breaks, and high-pressure extemporaneous speaking. These practices often go unquestioned, but the inaccessibility of crits is part of an overall culture of discouragement and discrimination for anyone who does not fit traditional expectations, and particularly people with disabilities. An accessible crit consciously addresses the range of abilities and needs that may be present among both students and critics. Here we highlight four different perspectives on accessibility: historical representation of disabled people in architecture training, diversity and equity-focused practices in critiques, applying constructivist pedagogy to architectural critiques, and accessibility as critical to sustainability and resilience. Each perspective offers opportunities for transforming the traditional crit to better meet the needs of participants while furthering architectural education. Disability is rarely included in professional discussions of diversity; for example, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) keeps statistics on members’ race, ethnicity, and gender, but not disability. Meanwhile, statistics on college and graduate students show a significant portion who experience disability, including physical and sensory disabilities along with the “invisible” disabilities of mental illness, neurodiversity, and chronic illness. Since 2020 the physical and mental stresses of higher education have been even more apparent, as well as related stresses of both in-person and remote learning during a pandemic. Rather than returning to “normal” operations that present barriers, we propose taking this moment to re-examine one of the most fundamental practices in architectural education, and using it to leverage a more equitable and productive learning environment.

https://doi.org/10.35483/ACSA.AIA.Inter.22.2

Volume Editors
Gail Napell & Stephen Mueller

ISBN
978-1-944214-42-13