Accessibility Standards for Benches vs Hostile Design
I once worked on a project to bring inclusive-themed bench installations to a small municipality. The benches had an inscription on them and were painted bright colours. It was fun!
The committee I worked with was adamant that the benches should have no “anti-homelessness” designs. A sentiment I agree with, but an attitude that can often be misinformed.
When I mentioned this to the fabricator, they said very firmly that they despise those designs and comply with all municipal standards.
So we fabricated the benches with three arm rests: one on each end and one about 2/3 the way across the bench so that people who need double-handed support to sit down and get up can do so with ease, according to the municipality’s standards.
The third armrest was completely open underneath, so if you needed to take a sleep on the bench, you could tuck your legs under the armrest.
Of course, the moment the benches went on social media, we were criticized for an anti-homelessness design on a bench about inclusivity. Sigh. Fortunately, the fabricator we chose is amazing, and they stepped in on social media and firmly and politely explained that two-handed support is necessary for accessibility.
A Personal Anecdote
I recently had personal experience with needing two-handed support to sit down and stand up. I am fortunate that this was temporary for me. In my experience, a seat with a single armrest was significantly harder to use and increased the risk that I might fall.
Since working on the bench project—and having my own experience of needing double-handed support to use seating—I assumed double-handed support was a standard accessibility requirement for public benches. To my surprise, it is not!
Accessible Benches Versus Hostile Benches
First, I want to clear up the tension, and, as with any good fact, complicate the matter a bit.
In my personal experience, an accessible bench should have at least one wide seat with armrests on both sides that can be reached when sitting down and standing up. This allows people to use two hands to support themselves when using the bench. It should have enough height and space under the bench for a user to tuck their legs back to place their centre of gravity on top of their feet.
Additionally, the surface around the bench should be a hard, flat surface that allows mobility devices to move around it unencumbered.
Hostile benches are made prevent certain people from using them. These benches usually target homeless people but negatively impact other bench users as well. The hallmark of an anti-homelessness bench is that it adds unnecessary seat dividers that make it uncomfortable or impossible to lie on the bench. Alternatively, the bench surface might be so narrow or angled that it can only be used to perch your butt on it for a few minutes. These benches are meant to keep people away. Not to give people a place to rest.
Unfortunately, there isn’t a clear line between a hostile bench and an accessible bench.
Take the bench design I mentioned above. One small change—blocking off the area under the middle handle—would prevent someone from stretching their legs across the bench. Adding a fourth armrest would allow three people to use the armrests but prevent lying down.
In the accessibility standards I’ll list below, there are examples of benches that are designed with mobility in mind alone and preclude any other kind of use. Sometimes this is necessary. There is no canonical “good bench” design. The best public spaces have seating for many kinds of uses and abilities.
Bench users don’t just need a place to park their bums! Sometimes users need to put a bag down without having to stoop all the way to the ground, other times they need to lie down to alleviate an injury or sleep, and other times they need a place to lean against without sitting all the way down.
Hostile designs harm everyone by making built spaces for single uses controlled by the people who designed the space. Accessible design incorporates all kinds of moments and activities.
Bench Accessibility Standards
There are some common elements to these standards, but most notably, double-handed support is missing from almost every document I found. I am unsure why this is, but I posit that it’s because needing double-handed support to sit is a less-visible accessibility need than, say, needing a hard surface in a seating area to include a wheelchair and other mobility devices.
Inclusive Spaces: Universal Design Tool
The Universal Design Tool from this EU organization includes some fundamental properties of a accessible seating. Note that they include a diagram of a bench for ischial support (sit bones). One might think seating like this is made to keep people moving rather than sitting. But benches like this allow people to take a break without having to sit all the way down, and they relieve pressure on areas that can be tender for some people.
Aside “Ischial” is a great word, but it really just means “the seat bone,” or as yoga instructors say, “the sit bone” 1
Centre for Excellence in Universal Design
The Universal Design Tool links to the Centre for Excellence in Universal Design’s document “Building for Everyone: A Universal Design Approach”. In the section about seating, they state:
The needs and preferences of a greater number of people can be met if different styles of seat can be provided within seating areas. This could include fixed seats; moveable seats; seats with and without armrests; and seats with higher backs. Perching seats may be appropriate in some areas, particularly if space is limited. For the comfort of everybody, it is preferred if all seats have a fixed cushion.
Variety matters more than specific standards. Personally, I needed double-handed support, but that was only my need. Building spaces with a variety of seating options ensures the broadest group of people can access the space.
Here is another important quote from their document:
Seats positioned or linked in a row should all be of the same style, such as all with armrests or all without. A mixture of seat styles in a single row can cause confusion for some people with visual difficulties.
So, if you are going to add arm-rests, do it to every seat, not just one seat. This is a really good point. Powder-coated steel benches are usually a single uniform colour, which means that if you have an arm-reset 2/3 the way through the length of the bench, a visually impaired person may not see the armrest.
Canadian Accessibility Standards 2.1 (Draft)
The draft CAN-ASC-2.1 – Seating requires benches to have a minimum of one armrest that is not located near the mobility device parking space. While the document does not state this directly, the intent is that a mobility device user could park in this space and then transfer themself to the bench. So in this case, fewer armrests are better.
Similar to other documents, CAN-ASC-2.1 highlights the importance of adequate contrast between seating areas and walkways, and suggests that seating can alternate between having a back rest and no back rest.
City of Ottawa Accessibility Design Standards
The City of Ottawa follows similar standards to everything I’ve found and includes some helpful text in the sidebar:
Where multiple benches are provided…consider different configurations for armrests and backrests.
And later:
Where only one bench is provided, ensure it is accessible with a three arm rest configuration: one provided at each end and one within the middle. Where an arm rest is provided in the middle of the seat, ensure it is located one seat-width from an arm at the end of the bench. For example a three-seat bench would have the middle arm at 1/3 of the width whereas a two-seat bench would have the middle arm at 1/2 of the width.
These two notes are in sidebars! They aren’t in the main text of the document. I find this interesting because it means someone was thinking about double-handed support but it didn’t get included in the full standard, which only requires a minimum of one armrest.
The City of Ottawa standard does not seem to include standards that allow mobility device users to transfer onto the bench, which would naturally conflict with their recommendation to have three armrests.
Conclusion
Accessibility means something different for everyone, and more seating options available in public spaces make the space usable by more people.
I learned a few things doing this research:
- Sit bone/leaning benches: I’ve seen these before, but they’re not common. I think they’re a great idea for transitional spaces like bus stops and cab stands. I could also see good use for them in a park for people who can’t fully sit down.
- Contrast is important for distinguishing armrests from the bench and the seating area from areas for other uses.
- Mobility device transfer: benches without armrests allow people to transfer from their mobility device to the bench, provided there is solid ground beside the bench.
- The three-armrest design is not common and not well-documented in accessibility standards.
- Taking the last two points together creates an interesting bench with two armrests towards one end and no armrest on the other. This is actually a pretty good design!