Pursuing Universal Design for Lifetime Housing Battling ‘Why Bother?’, the Silver Bullet and the Past Kay Saville-Smith Inaugural Universal Design Conference Auckland 24 May 2013 Today I want to address: • Three barriers to:  universal design in the housing sector and  the development of dwellings that work over the lifetime • They are  The ‘why bother’ syndrome  The silver bullet syndrome  The past The ‘why bother’ syndrome: • Change takes effort  Along the value chain  Among consumers  Among regulators • To make an effort people need to:  ‘Get it’  Know they can do it: • With a good chance of return • Without substantial risks of negative, unintended consequences. Getting It: Competing Paradigms • Housing for ordinary people  Assumes a minority with specialised and unique accessibility amenity requirements  This ‘other’ don’t live in ordinary communities, families or households  They are immobile across time and place  Don’t need to be connected  Ordinary people want a house to impress, be tasteful and don’t want to pay for things they will never benefit from Getting It: Competing Paradigms • Housing for life treats:  Ordinary lives as changing and dynamic  Disability as dynamic  Accessibility as an amenity providing value to a diversity of individuals of all ages  Dwellings as sites of social and economic interaction not simply shelter for a specified individual Special Housing pathway: • Involves commissioning dwellings for the ‘special’ population. • Ad hoc adaptation of existing dwellings as a short, medium and long term strategy. • Is heavily reliant on forecasting incidence and prevalence. • Command and control approach to supply. • Heavily reliant on public funding. The Lifetime Housing pathway: • Application of universal design principles to the housing stock • Requires a transformation approach to the building industry and housing sectors • Based on market transactions and has the potential for leveraging private and public investment streams • Stock oriented with the goal of reducing future burden of ad hoc house adaptation • Not dependent on fine grained forecasting of disability incidence and prevalence Special Vs Lifetime Housing • Both attempt to control cost. • Special housing pathway by:  Closely defining the ‘target’ of special housing – rationing  Monopsony-based price control • Lifetime housing by:  Generating increased demand for solutions  Addressing cost drivers  By applying universal design principles Special Vs Lifetime Housing • Special Housing approach:  Easy to implement  Multiple levers to manage fiscal risk: • Rationing • Economies of scale • Productivity gains • But typically:  Fails to meet need  Generates inefficiencies, rigidities and waste  Poor value for money “Predict and Provide” • • • • Stifles labour mobility Generates moral hazard Forecasting problematic Ignores dwelling life – 60% have a disabled person resident over dwelling life • Fails the quantum test:  45%-50% mod to severely disabled in unmodified dwellings  28%-53% of dwellings housing mod to severely disabled have been modified Universal Design for Lifetime Housing: No Silver Bullet • Stock transformation is inhibited by:  Stock inertia  Vicious circle of blame  Innovation chasm • Stock inertia:  In 2050 most of the stock (68%) will have been built prior to 2006  But between now and 2050 we will need around 20,000 stock units added annually Householders “We want an accessible house but there aren’t any and we can’t afford them.” Constructors “We can build houses but the developers don’t ask for them.” Housing Sector “We would invest in accessible houses but there is no demand for them” Developers “We would ask for accessible houses but investors and householders don’t ask for them and won’t pay for them” Cost and Returns • Cost is often cited as the major barrier • Costs are minimised by early design incorporation and range from - <1%-5.5%. • Build costs need to be calculated in relation to reductions in:  In-home support  Home modification costs – 10%-15%  Probability of residential care – 12%-30%  Injury and fall prevention – 14%-41% Cost and Returns • Exacerbated by low industry supply of affordable housing • Blurred distinctions - cost and price. • Additional costs frequently represent poor productivity and limited innovation:  Capability issues  Product deficiencies  Difficulties in managing costs due to: • Complex value chain • Asymmetric information • Low transparency Anxieties about Doing It • Building industry is innovative • Take-up usually occurs when:       Little impact on work processes or design Driven by manufacturers or product suppliers Direct marketing to householders Low impact on consent processes No hump costs for builders or developers Easily accommodated within existing price structures. • Universal design for lifetime housing isn’t like that. The Innovation Gap Levers on Housing • Five levers commonly used to increase supply:  Regulatory and control levers  Funding, subsidies, grants and lending  Accreditation programmes  Planning and procurement initiatives  Capability development and demonstrations International Practice & Outcomes • Marked by:  Levers restricted largely to the owner occupier market, some social housing but virtually absent in the private rental market  Hesitancy to use mandatory requirements. • Where mandatory requirements used:  Low standard of accessibility  Many loopholes  Poorly enforced  Requirements contradictory with other rules  Founder on poor capability development Lifetime housing supply best when: • Part of a wider societal commitment to universal design beyond the housing sector • Clear regulatory requirements for:  building industry  housing sector • Compliance costs are low • Demonstrated and achievable solutions for:  new builds  refurbished stock Supply is stimulated when: • ‘Gear up’ is encouraged by:  Opportunities for provision at scale  Certainty around expectations and phased introduction of regulatory requirements  Developing consumer expectation  Opportunities to reduce systemic costs • Consumers know lifetime housing, have appropriate price expectations and the ability to make informed choices • Standards are credible, flexible and designed to a series of step-wise outcomes Keys to Transformation: • A consistent, single framework of standards that operationalise for universal design:  specified outcome levels (vistability, liveability etc)  housing stocks (existing and new builds) • Value cases • Technical, product and process initiatives implemented through demonstrations • Central and local government strategic leadership, statutory levers and investments • Giving consumers the power to choose  New builds  Existing stock Some Useful Levers • Dwelling matching registers identifying three types of stock:  Modified housing stock  Stock built to meet accredited standards, and  Existing stock assessed according to agreed standards • Existing stock assessment and ‘marking’ at point of sale or rent Some Useful Levers: • Triage and rapid management for building consents approved as Lifemark compliant at a certain level (for permitted use only) • Capacity and capability of building consent officers, designers and developers:  Approved solutions register  Training  Promulgation to designers  Improved training and curriculum development. Some Useful Levers • Targeted product solutions • Incentives and disincentives:  Building consent fees/development levies relief  Recognition through the Accommodation Supplement or tax systems • Funding and procurement to establish:  Better integration across home modifications, retrofit funding, and repairs and maintenance funding for social housing and households  Review opportunities to develop funding stream to facilitate some initiatives in the rental sector in particular the management of tenancy bond funds