Search Results
At Home with Autism: Designing Housing for the Spectrum introduces readers to conditions and aspirations of adults on the autism spectrum that demand a new approach to how we provide, locate, design and develop homes in which they live. The book argues that there is no singular stellar residential model, just as there is no singular prototype of autism. Grounded in an extensive array of research sources, the book identifies resident-focused quality of life goals, and profiles design guidelines directed to those goals. The book implores those involved in housing design, production and policy to expand their exposure to what is possible, what is desirable, and to direct their efforts towards expanding residential choices for those on the spectrum.
on rural farmsteads and gated communities set up specifically for individuals on the spectrum? Are there advantages to living with roommates; and if so, how many, and with or not with others on the spectrum as well? What home layouts work best for these arrangements? Do individuals want to live in residential developments intentionally developed for people with disabilities; or do they want to live in housing that is marketed to everyone? Are there home technologies that can enhance security and independence without invading one’s privacy? How appropriate is
expand this PIE orientation by emphasizing the physical environment as well. Most of the research on ASC focuses on impairments, treatment modalities, psychopathology, developmental disabilities and individual limitations (Sigman, Spence and Wang, 2006; Brugha et al, 2011). Few lines of research – and most of this 43 QUALITY OF LIFE DESIGN GOALS is relatively recent – focus on positive attributes and potentials, or quality of life (Renty and Roeyers, 2006; Jordan and Caldwell-Harris, 2012; Kamio, Inada and Koyama, 2012; Wright et al, 2013). The latter is slowly
spectrum – not only in terms of what is built or renovated, but also in terms of how residential spaces are used and how individuals can advocate for what works best for them. We have divided these into three categories: housing types; smart technologies for independent living; and self-advocacy approaches for housing choice. New visions of housing types and models The early attempts to replace institutional living for those with disabilities initially resulted in relatively large residential homes, such as the intermediate care program in the U.S., the Wessex
context of their lives and activities. Disability Studies Quarterly (dsq-sds.org), for example, is an excellent source for such material. While the term “reflective practice” is typically applied to service professionals, such as architects and educators, we use this term to also refer to reflection of one’s own lived experience in the built environment. Our decision to seek and include such material reflects Duffy and Dorner’s position (2011, 214) of recognizing and integrating more “first-person” accounts of autistic individuals who are “active agents of their
) discuss a co-design workshop strategy that brought together residents, support providers and family to formulate ideas for an outdoor living space. Photovoice is another proven strategy that promotes self-advocacy: individuals with autism and other intellectual disabilities have used it to document aspects of their environment and community that are important to them or create obstacles (Brake et al, 2012; Schleien et al, 2013). The importance of working with future residents cannot be over-emphasized: a well-designed environment that addresses the individual
