Through the eyes of a deaf architect: reconsidering conventional critiques of vision-centered architecture

Abstract

Critics point towards an excessive visual emphasis in (western) architecture bringing about a weakened sense of belonging, and a disconnection from places and from other people. Architects' visual way of knowing and working is further criticized for contributing to an alienating "architecture of the eye." This article aims to challenge this critique by offering a more nuanced understanding of vision and its connecting potential. To this end, it engages with how a d/Deaf architect, George Balsley, uses and attaches meaning to vision, partially prompted by the highly visual and spatial dynamics inherent to sign language. It relies on several interviews, observations, and a guided tour through a building he helped designing, the Sorenson Language and Communication Center (SLCC) in Washington DC. The article looks specifically into the building's vision-centered features in relation to George's d/Deaf ways of being. His way of seeing is reflected in distinct characteristics of the SLCC that sustain (sign) language, mediate interpersonal communication, and facilitate connection to and understanding of spacesfeatures that are relevant for but also beyond the d/Deaf community. The architecture that issues from George's d/Deaf ways of seeing thus challenges the critique that vision-centered architecture by definition disconnects.

Accessibility of the Built Environment for People with Sensory Disabilities—Review Quality and Representation of Evidence

“…Strong colour and tonal contrasts can be used as well to help residual sight users provide missing information [8,31,45]. Alternatively, people with auditory or hearing disabilities rely on clear visual cues to help provide the missing information from the lack of sound [19,[21][22][23]47]. Therefore, due to the opposite types of sensory cues, the important distinctions between the two communities need to be properly addressed [24].…”

“…Therefore, due to the opposite types of sensory cues, the important distinctions between the two communities need to be properly addressed [24]. To illustrate, the use of glass walls represents a good example where, for the people who are d/Deaf, they help provide accessible levels of communication while providing a visual separation of spaces [23]. Then, again, for the visually impaired, glass walls are problematic for those who rely on residual vision as they cannot easily detect the glass.…”

“…The reliance on visual emphasis has been criticized in Western architecture as it alienates people with different needs. For that reason, Pérez Liebergesell et al investigated the potential to connect people by exploring the experiences of George Balsley, an architect who is d/Deaf who utilized vision in his designs reflecting the interaction of visual and spatial dynamics in sign language [23]. The study was based on interviews and observations about the design of his building, the Sorenson Language and Communication Center (SLCC) in Washington, DC.…”

“…People with hearing disabilities are presented with barriers to their communication, especially when considering the signing population, and much of the associated research focuses on the social aspect of accessibility within the interior environment. Communication through visual means is one of the key features to accommodate the hard-of-hearing community, regardless of whether the individual uses assistive hearing devices, lip-reading, or sign language [19,[21][22][23].…”

Designing for a future self: how the architect Stéphane Beel empathises with wheelchair users

“…When being or becoming disabled themselves, architects gain direct access to a kind of experience other design professionals may only empathise with at best. Previous studies on blind architects Carlos Mourão Pereira and Chris Downey, 8 wheelchair-user architect Marta Bordas Eddy, 9 and deaf architect George Balsley, 10 examined the relationship between their embodied experiences and design practices and outcomes. These studies suggest that, whereas all four architects acquired embodied knowledge that helps them design inclusive environments (especially for people similar to them), they also develop an awareness that their knowledge is oftentimes not sufficient and thus draw on other people's input.…”