Practical wisdom for accessible cities : Creative tensions in universal design processes for Swedish urban development
This paper explores knowledge creation in Universal Design (UD) processes that aim to make cities accessible to all. It contributes insights into the practice of urban development in Sweden which, in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, shall utilize UD. Work...
| Autores: | , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2025 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC) |
| Repositorio: | UPCommons. Portal del coneixement obert de la UPC |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:upcommons.upc.edu:2117/429662 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/2117/429662 https://dx.doi.org/10.17411/jacces.v15i1.520 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Design urbain Barrier-free design Universal design Accessibility Urban development Knowledge Collaboration Disseny urbà Supressió de barreres arquitectòniques Àrees temàtiques de la UPC::Urbanisme |
| Sumario: | This paper explores knowledge creation in Universal Design (UD) processes that aim to make cities accessible to all. It contributes insights into the practice of urban development in Sweden which, in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, shall utilize UD. Workshops and qualitative interviews were conducted in three mid-sized cities re-designing a city square, a street and the building of a new library. Drawing on Aristotle’s typology of knowledge, the analysis shows that different kinds of knowledge were in play in local collaboration. UD was akin to phronesis, i.e. practical wisdom. A number of factors contributed to tensions: organizational asymmetries, divisions between professional and experiential expertise, the perception that accessibility is a limited interest for a specific target group, as well as uncertainties about user legitimacy. To overcome these tensions, the article proposes that disability organizations should be seen as contributors rather than commentators. |
|---|