employment, ecological sustainability, and others – to describe in general global mechanisms that go far beyond the reach of local or national governments.
Armborst et al. argue as well that ‘Cities bring people together, but they're pretty good at keeping people apart too’ (Armborst et al. 2017) and see a similar dialectics as Wirth with their research on ‘Arsenals of inclusion and exclusion’ – a research on artefacts, policies, and practices that are most often deliberately instrumental in determining the level of inclusivity in cities. Christiaanse (van den Bergen and Vollaard 2009) sees a duality as well in cities, as they have neighbourhoods ‘open’ and not open to all. He advocates the model of ‘Open Cities’ as scenarios of local dynamics, in which different, culturally diverse groups coexist and inclusive urban innovation and economic development happen owing to reciprocal influences. While anticipating that the city as such cannot be a solution per se to the dilemma of differences, also Netto (2018) argues that the city, as place of random encounters with ‘the other’, can be enacted as an open fabric capable to converge the socially different in situations of co‐presences, to disrupt processes of exclusion and produce permeabilities between social groups – as an important prerequisite for a ‘reciprocity of perspectives’ to emerge.
But while enabling inclusivity appears here to be a rather spatial criteria, aiming for the disruption of exclusion and the production of permeability should be on the agenda for all potential levers in the making of habitats – design, planning, social and economic practices, policies, and operations, to mention a few. They should be benchmarks not only for the inclusion, participation, and empowering of vulnerable groups like seniors or handicapped citizens but for all who are affected by systemic inequality, translating ever more acutely into unaffordability of housing as a main driver of exclusion in cities. In order to engender the ‘Open Cities’ that Christiaanse promotes, Rieniets et al. (2009) imply that coexistence could and sometimes needs to be designed. The authors advocate a design culture where spatial and social designers, activists, policymakers and other stakeholders cooperate with one another at local scales, to propose multidisciplinary designs as catalysts for sustainable and inclusive urban developments, that balance, moderate, and amplify each other's capabilities.
Inclusive Design
Originally, inclusive design as an established practice has been predominantly discussed in the context of products, services and places catering disabled or senior citizens or other vulnerable groups requiring special environs, care and support, but it is interesting to uncover its narrative and understand if its criteria might in general inform an inclusion‐minded design and planning culture. Coleman et al. (2003) contextualize the origins of inclusive design paradigms in a period where a growing sensitivity and politization of designers regarding social aspects coincided with increasing citizen activism pushing for more awareness and participation. The authors refer to the exemplary initiatives of black citizens in the USA against discrimination, that led to the Supreme Court decision in 1954 that ‘separate is not equal’, to condemn any kind of segregation due to one's background; a precedent spurring in general campaigns for inclusion, equality, and broader civil liberties. Design thinkers such as Victor Pappanek, one of the first to point out at the social issues in the design world, co‐curated in 1976 the groundbreaking London conference ‘Design for Need’, which initiated a discussion on the social aspects of design and the idea of ‘designing out disability’ (Bicknell and McQuiston 1977). Such changing social and political aspirations and design thinking were followed by respective legislation and regulations with the intent to create frameworks for a more inclusive society. A rationale for design that is inclusive rather than exclusive (Coleman et al. 2003) emerged that moved away from favouring special solutions for the ‘excluded’ in segregated settings, but aimed to increase accessibility and inclusivity in liveable settings open to everyone, and to enable co‐presences and active participation.
Looking at how these discussions also influenced guidelines for the planning and designing of built environments, two policy guidelines might illustrate the complex layers of inclusive habitats, one at a neighbourhood scale, the other specifically focusing on housing. Melbourne's concept for a ‘20‐Minute Neighbourhood’ (Victoria State Government 2019) defines multilayered socio‐spatial criteria for ‘inclusive, vibrant and healthy neighbourhoods’ that might serve as a benchmark for what an inclusive urbanism should cater: it requires proximity and access to essential social conditions such as diverse and affordable housing options, abilities to age in place, local employment options, and life‐long learning opportunities. Means of mobility are as important – with safe and walkable streets and cycling networks, and local public transport options giving access to jobs and services within the region. It requires, next to places for consumption, nearby public facilities, such as schools, healthcare and service supply, and opportunities for recreation at playgrounds, parks, community gardens, and sports grounds.
Specifically set up as guideline for inclusive housing the 2018 Canadian National Housing Strategy (Government of Canada 2018) defines social inclusion with a list of 10 ‘social inclusion proximity score criteria’ similar to those to be catered for in Melbourne's ‘20‐minute neighbourhood’ plan. Policies and designs are meant to supply the resources and opportunities necessary for disadvantaged individuals and groups to actively participate in society, and to provide a physical environment that is designed to be ‘safe, enabling and home‐like’, with support services that maximize the independence, privacy, and dignity of residents. While affordable housing options and their accessibility are defined in general as important premises for social inclusion, the focus here is predominantly on vulnerable groups like women and children fleeing domestic violence, seniors, people with disabilities, racially discriminated citizens, refugees, LGBTQ people, young adults, and homeless people.
A literature study on inclusive housing (Harvey et al. 2019) deducts some common criteria that could contribute to a general understanding of an inclusive urbanism, beyond the provision of safe shelter. According to the authors, social inclusion in and through housing should be best understood in terms of the access, safety, sustainability, and the choices it provides for all ages and abilities. Inclusive housing should not be considered as isolated agenda but must be – spatially and socially – embedded within the broader settings of inclusive societies. Both affordability and accessibility are essential, inherently depending on each other. It should cater social and economic inclusion and empower to participate in society. Three main criteria are considered important: Either actively establishing or empowering ‘social mix’ is driven by principles of integrative diversity, social justice and equality. It unites different social and economic backgrounds and persons with and without disabilities and other vulnerabilities. ‘Social wellbeing’ depends on ensuring health, social participation, and quality of life. It necessitates opportunities to socialize and participate, and requires comfortable and manageable spaces and the provision of a sense of home and belonging to a community. ‘Community development’ aims to enable mutual dignity and support by empowering self‐help and capabilities to contribute to and participate in common resources. From a design perspective, adaptable, liveable housing projects that supply a physical and social infrastructure working for people of all ages and abilities are considered important. This includes the provision of access, safety, sustainability to accommodate changing needs, the offer of choices, and necessary services needed for supportive housing. Importantly, it should also involve dwellers in the planning, design, and operation of habitats. Therefore, inclusive built environments would have to be considered as settings with interrelated aspects, that would impact the hardware, orgware, and software of habitats and that beyond the mere provision of safety and affordability must also enable equal access to and participation in the social, economic, political, and social processes that cities entail.
Exclusion
But while such guidelines might rather describe an ideal planner and designer perspective, with the intent to design inclusively along certain sometimes normative formulas, the mechanisms of exclusion are more dynamic, leaving it increasingly uncertain who might be affected. An essential aspect to be considered
