What makes design inclusive? Why don’t we ask the people affected?
For Pippa and fellow co-authors Luke Evens and Emily Wang, these questions were a starting point for the report on Queer Perspectives on Public Space published by Arup and the University of Westminster earlier this year.
Many buildings – such as law courts or prisons – have historically been designed to articulate authority and/or intimidate. Non-inclusive service delivery continues to shape a sense of exclusion affecting LGBTQ+ people’s willingness to access key public services. For instance, only one in eight in the UK report hate crimes or sexual abuse to the police.
This problem is aggravated by the threshold fear induced by the design of buildings like museums, police stations or hospitals. This may reflect physical barriers and inadequate wayfinding, but it can be triggered by design aspects too.
For instance, the survey found that LGBTQ+ people overwhelmingly regarded hospitals as impersonal, soulless, and alienating, intended to make people feel uncomfortable. A legacy of Victorian design culture means that they continue to express institutionalisation, not inclusivity.
Surveying LGBTQ+ perspectives
In 2020, the project began exploring how better design might contribute to LGBTQ+ safety and inclusion in public spaces, with preliminary findings published in 2021. This drew attention to the need for more research and evidence on how to apply its findings practically in designing inclusively for public spaces.
A survey was conducted (between October 2023 and January 2024) to capture perceptions of the factors making for safety and inclusion in public space. This was complemented by panoramic examples of distinctive spaces and soundscapes for respondents to comment on, including: a bus station, a park, a ‘gaybourhood’ (gay neighbourhood), a hospital forecourt, a residential street, and a commercial area.
The object of this exercise was to get beyond the generalised language of the toolkit and instead explore how our findings might be applied in real-world settings.
The survey received over 400 responses, with a balance of different genders, sexual orientations, ethnicities, and disabilities. Despite best efforts to promote the survey internationally, 70% of respondents were UK-based, which may result in limiting the applicability of the findings in non-Western settings.
Exploring the security paradox
The survey found that the most important factors shaping inclusivity were street furniture to relax on, green spaces, ease of access via transportation, quality of lighting, and varied usage.
The results also indicated a security paradox: respondents were slightly more inclined to see traditional security features as making a space less safe than feel reassured by them. Respondents commented that "CCTV and hostile architecture… make these spaces feel uncomfortable". Clearly, what matters is the sense of what is being protected and who is being policed.
Another key finding was the need to balance visibility and privacy. Seeing without being seen was a common theme. One respondent noted, there is a need for "somewhere I can see the whole room and the exits, but I myself can’t be immediately and obviously viewed". Others suggested design features to address this. Suggestions included street furniture behind low walls or screened by greenery, providing cosy corners without feeling surveilled.
Respondents clearly favoured passive rather than active surveillance, diverse spaces rather than monotonous ones, and organic and greener spaces over carefully curated ones. This was reflected in clear preferences for busy and diverse spaces with high footfall, where people could blend in and be themselves and not fear being targeted.
What makes a space inclusive?
Another important feature was the impact of the sensory ambience of a space. LGBTQ+ respondents, and to a lesser extent women, were clearly far more responsive to the sounds, smells, and visual ambience of a space than heterosexual men. This reinforces the importance of the quality of the sensory feel of a space, a consideration not always foregrounded by architects and planners.
Art that highlights community and diversity was seen as an important means of creating this atmosphere of inclusivity. LGBTQ+ respondents were three times as likely to emphasise this compared to heterosexual respondents. They also stressed that colourful, inclusive art counters the exclusionary tone of monocultural design.
Yet LGBTQ+ people, in common with women, disabled people and a range of other marginalised groups, are generally under-represented by statues and monuments in the public realm. It is therefore unsurprising that the need for better representation was highlighted by 50% of respondents. It was emphasised that more diverse representation would change the street ambience, making it feel less intimidating.
Attitudes towards gaybourhoods were felt to be overly shaped by wealthier, white, cis gay men and drinking cultures. The need for more diversity in these areas, not least to include the rest of the LGBTQ+ community and provide alternatives to alcohol consumption, was flagged. Many also observed that large numbers of Pride flags in an area could make them feel more likely to be targeted. This points to the need for more diversity and inclusion in all space, as well as to the need to consider the design characteristics of gayborhoods themselves.
Queering particular spaces
The gaybourhood
More nuanced approaches to the gaybourhood emerged in responses to the example in the second half of the survey. These drew attention to the problematic nature of its location. Respondents noted wide streets with harsh soundscapes in which male voices can travel intimidatingly far, the danger posed by lots of vehicle movements in an area with bars, and the risks resulting from cold, harsh lighting provided for motorists rather than pedestrians. This pointed to the need for supplementary ambient lighting to deal with pools of shadow on the sidewalks.
Commercial areas
The space which provoked the most positive responses was the commercial area because of its busyness and plentiful seating. However, the uniformity of seating options in an amphitheatre style negatively affected sightlines and a sense of safety, leading to suggestions for cosier, more secluded options. The flatness of the surrounding commercial buildings in the space was also felt to be claustrophobic and drab. Many mentioned the need to add colour, signal community, and provide artistic interventions to make the space more welcoming.
Parks and green space
There was a more mixed response to the park. Although the atmosphere was seen as welcoming and tranquil, the space was felt to be too open and intimidating at nighttime. Breaking up the space by adding intimate corners, which would cultivate a sense of privacy and security, out of direct sight, was a common response.
Artworks to relieve the openness and sameness were also suggested. Concerns about the need similarly to relieve the uniformity of the residential street example and increase safety at this site by widening the footway were also expressed.
Bus stations and hospitals
The most hostile responses were to the bus station and the hospital. The former was regarded as uninviting, starkly functional, and depressing. The low roof made for an uncomfortable environment in terms of sounds and fumes. Wayfinding was unclear, not assisted by the monochrome and disorienting colour scheme. There was a need for interactive facilities, inclusive signage and more colour.
The design of the approach to the hospital was also noted to worsen anxiety and discomfort. Long, blank concrete walls reinforced the message that hospitals, as one respondent put it, "are about procedures, not people". The lack of good signage was disorienting, and the few benches were of hostile design. These sites need more and better-quality seating, landscaping and orientation in the approach, inclusive and welcoming messaging, plus enlivening with art and colour.
Next steps
We will be working with Pippa, LGBTQ+ community members, and industry leaders to develop a toolkit that will work alongside the Inclusive Design Overlay to the RIBA Plan of Work on design considerations for LGBTQ+ spaces to be released in 2025. The findings of Arup's publication will help to shape the contents of this toolkit, which will be accessible to those within the built environment.
Explore our other equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) toolkits, resources, and initiatives.
