Opinion | From access routes to belonging: designing buildings that work for everyone

Property is an industry that shapes who can participate. It determines who can get through the front door, use the facilities, find their way, stay safe, and thrive without more barriers. Property Council New Zealand’s Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee already recognises that inclusion is about “equal access to opportunities,” and that diversity includes disability.

So here’s a proposition for our sector: accessibility should move from being a compliance checkpoint to being a leadership standard. Because it’s fundamental to performance, dignity, and good development practice.

This isn’t about ignoring commercial constraints. It’s about designing smarter, strategizing earlier, and with a broader understanding of who our buildings actually serve.

In 2023, Stats NZ estimated 851,000 (17%) of people living in New Zealand were identified as disabled. Disability intersects with gender, ethnicity, age, and identity in complex ways with some communities experiencing higher rates of disability:

• Females 18%
• Males 15%
• Māori 21%
• People in the LGBTIQ+ 29%

Disability isn’t just wheelchair access. It has a broad range of impacts to almost 1 in 5 of us across the board throughout our lives. It includes visual impairment, hearing impairments, sensory overstimulation, temporary injuries, dementia, Alzheimer’s and the list just keeps going.

For example, I once learned during dementia design training that certain heavily patterned carpets can be visually misinterpreted by people living with dementia. Sometimes the carpet can appear as moving objects like bugs all over the floor. In otherwise compliant buildings, this can make spaces feel confusing or unsafe, leading people to avoid them altogether. It can quietly limit someone’s ability to participate in everyday community life which can go on to impact their overall wellbeing and deteriorate their health.

The entire property industry shapes our cities and can impact their way of life and access to more to feel safe and part of our communities. Infrastructure, housing, education, commercial, health, retail, industrial … you name it, and it applies.  

New Zealand already requires accessibility in many contexts. The Building Act 2004 says that where members of the public are to be admitted, “reasonable and adequate provision” must be made for access, parking, and sanitary facilities for people with disabilities. In practice, many projects demonstrate compliance using accepted pathways such as NZBC D1/AS1 and NZS 4121, supported by accessibility reporting that addresses accessible routes, signage, and toilets.

But minimum compliance has a ceiling. A building can meet a set of dimensions and still be difficult, frustrating, or excluding in real life especially when you consider the full diversity of disability and the everyday realities of how people move, work, communicate and navigate.

When we look to our neighbours in Australia, they introduced their Disability Discrimination Act in 1992 and the Access to premises standards 2010 making access to properties mandatory and a criminal offence if not provided. Their National Construction Code (NCC) integrated Liveable housing design standards (LHDS) to ensure new homes are accessible, adaptable and cost effective for people of all abilities “to ensure that housing is designed to meet the needs of the community, including older people and those with a mobility-related disability”.

There are very simple, cost effective design changes that can allow homes to be adapted affordably.  New South Wales in Australia made it mandatory for mid-rise apartment buildings between 3-6 stories to have a minimum of 1 in 10 of adaptable homes. In Victoria, at least 1 in 2 dwellings to integrate affordable adaptable homes requiring a minimum 850mm wide entry to the dwelling and main bedroom, a clear path of 1.2m, an adaptable bathroom and bedroom. Allowing affordable adaptability provides longevity of housing stock needed long term in communities to support people of different ages, backgrounds and needs.

So what does “industry leadership on accessibility” look like in practice without turning every project into an endless wish list? I think it comes down to three commitments.