Architecturally Speaking

From Accessibility to Affordability: The Role of Inclusive Design in Modern Architecture

• Ontario Association of Architects • Season 3 • Episode 13

Share episode

In this episode of Architecturally Speaking, host Ryan Schwartz welcomes Ossie Airewele, Senior Associate at BDP Quadrangle, to explore the vital role of socially responsible and inclusive design.

Did you know these two concepts, while closely connected, serve distinct purposes? Ossie explains how socially responsible design emphasizes well-being and quality of life, while inclusive design extends this vision by ensuring spaces reflect and respect the needs of people from diverse cultural and social backgrounds.

With extensive experience leading high-rise residential and mixed-use projects across North America, Ossie brings both expertise and perspective to the conversation. Tune in for an inspiring discussion on how architecture can shape environments that make a meaningful difference in people’s everyday lives.

Subscribe now to Architecturally Speaking on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.


Episode 13 - From Accessibility to Affordability: The Role of Inclusive Design in Modern Architecture


Ryan Schwartz: 00:04.31 - 01:12.52

Hi and welcome back to another episode of Architecturally Speaking. I'm your host Ryan Schwartz and today we're continuing with Season 3 which is brought to you by the Ontario Association of Architects. We'll continue to chat with architects and other industry experts to pull back the curtain on the architecture profession to give you a little peek behind the scenes. Today I'm happy to be joined Ossie Airewele to chat about socially responsible and inclusive design. Asi is an accomplished architect and thought leader at BDP, which is a large internationally renowned architecture practice where he's worked since 2019. He's been helping grow the studio by leading some key high-rise residential and mixed-use projects across North America, including some master planning and some mass timber projects. His passion lies in socially responsible and inclusive design, which is a perfect fit for today because that's exactly what we're talking about. So, Ossie, welcome and thanks for joining. Thank you, Ryan. Thanks for inviting me. I'm looking forward to the conversation. So, first things first, what do we mean when we say socially responsible design, inclusive design? Are these kind of two sides of the same coin? Are they, you know, kind of different? What are we talking about exactly?

Ossie Airewele: 01:14.19 - 02:12.8

I wouldn't say they're two sides of the same coin, but they are intertwined. When we talk about socially responsible design, I think we're really thinking more about an approach that is centered on well-being and quality of life. Inclusive design, I think, really just takes that sphere and makes it as inclusive as possible. your ability or your preferences culturally and socially that you have the ability to enjoy life in the same way as everyone else. So I think the social element really just speaks primarily to having a strong philosophy around elevating everybody in society and in the inclusive element is ensuring that you in raising that bar, make it as accessible to everybody else, to as many groups of society as we can. Right.

Ryan Schwartz: 02:13.10 - 02:16.22

Okay. And then what about responsible design then?

Ossie Airewele: 02:17.55 - 03:24.65

Similar, intertwined, like you said? I mean, responsible design can cover a number of different things. It ultimately depends on what theme you want to be responsible for. I mean, you can take sustainability as an example, which, you know, often gets coupled, I think, more so around environmental sustainability. And clearly, as a mandate that has reached sort of global proportions in terms of the mandate around the planet and saving the planet, dealing with issues that relate to global warming and everything else. But you can extend that sustainability agenda to also social matters as well, matters that relate to elevating the quality of life for the most vulnerable people in our society, and not just those that are privileged physically, socially, and in many other ways that perhaps maybe don't need as much to benefit from all the great things that planet Earth has to offer us. So it really depends on what sort of position you want to take when you speak to the term responsible.

Ryan Schwartz: 03:25.69 - 03:43.09

So going back to inclusive design and that idea of fairness and maybe not equality but equity, what are some examples of inclusive design or just that concept of inclusive design? What's a concrete example that maybe comes to mind?

Ossie Airewele: 03:44.62 - 03:45.84

Around inclusive design?

Ryan Schwartz: 03:46.38 - 03:46.68

Yeah.

Ossie Airewele: 03:46.84 - 05:30.25

Yeah, exactly. I mean, there are many examples. I would say the simplest form would be improving accessibility for all, physical accessibility. And I think it's important to when you say access that you nuance it in those terms. So, physical accessibility is an important one. So, go into public spaces. and feeling like you have the ability to be able to experience everything that is on offer within that building and how it's programmed in a way that doesn't make you feel limited, excluded in any way, which can have a pretty detrimental effect from a point of view of human dignity. If you're in a social situation and suddenly you're limited in a way that others aren't to be engaged in as equal a way socially as everyone else, that is a challenge. And simple examples might be being able to provide ramps as opposed to steps to access spaces There's a good example in Toronto, you can see a very small intervention in the form of Stopgap, which are little ramps that allow us to access some of the shops and businesses that are in more, say, historical areas of the city, where accessible design features weren't necessarily at the forefront. But those sort of simple little interventions are the kind of things that really make a difference. thankfully become the norm and create inclusivity, shall we say, in the way that everybody operates from a physical point of view, at least day to day.

Ryan Schwartz: 05:31.47 - 06:12.29

Yeah, I think those are really good examples and it does bring to light that idea of just people feeling included and not excluded and you mentioned dignity and I think that is kind of an important topic to touch on and that has come up in some other episodes too. We were talking about specifically accessibility in one episode and then healthcare design in another one and that came up a few times. Um, and maybe you can just expand on that a little bit, just that idea of, of, you know, you're in a public space and you, you can, you know, access the same amenities as everyone else. And you're not, you know, having to go through a back door around the back of the building or something like that.

Ossie Airewele: 06:13.23 - 08:41.98

Exactly. Right. And I think that's a, that's an important point to center on. I mean, we, we all have expectations from our, from our lives, you know, in terms of what, what we're, um, what we have historically been capable of doing, and we hope as we grow older that we can maintain that capability. It's a challenge that we will all face as we get older. We live to an age far enough in life to begin to experience challenges and in things that we would previously take for granted. And if we don't design environments that give us the same level of mobility, access, that can impact on our sense of how a sense of dignity in those spaces. And that's just on a level where it's just yourself in isolation in those spaces. But those scenarios can quickly expand when you're with other people. And perhaps maybe those limitations are magnified because you're having to unfortunately experience conditions that other people are able to Sorry, you're able to experience things in a way that is not as fulfilling as others around you. And that can have social limitations. That can have impacts on quality of life. It can impact the ability for you to engage with others in a way that is long lasting. And that's just at a social level. within public spaces, for example. But in the home, you know, dignity could be described as, you know, the ability to make your own food. You know, the ability to dress yourself in the morning. And as life, challenges in life occur, and there will be scenarios where those things that we take for granted, we will need some assistance on. And when we need that assistance, to be able to do that in a way that we are still able to do for ourselves, but we might need some form of technology or equipment to help us do that. I think is also another sort of example in where, you know, preserving dignity and how we live day to day is also really important.

Ryan Schwartz: 08:42.74 - 09:17.13

I think you bring up a really good point in that a lot of the time, you know, if you're an able-bodied person, you may be not limited in many ways or any ways. You tend to think, oh, maybe this doesn't apply to me. But, you know, you sort of zoomed out and said, well, in the future, this might very well apply to you. You know, as we get older and you're not as mobile and you can't get around as well, some of these things, you know, time comes, it comes for us all. So we, you know, these are important things to consider. Absolutely. Absolutely. And another one, um, oh, sorry, go ahead.

Ossie Airewele: 09:17.21 - 10:19.82

No, I was just actually going to very quickly mention to your point, um, one of our principals who helped establish our inclusive design practice here in space, you know, I can't paraphrase exactly, but the term was along the lines of, We are all temporarily able-bodied. For those of us that are born able-bodied, that is a temporary condition because if we're fortunate enough to live old enough, we are naturally going to have limitations in our mobility that require assistance and support. Most of us are living much older now these days, and that scenario will become more prevalent. So this idea of designing and inclusiveness is not necessarily over times, is not necessarily that used to be something that is a design for a fringe group. You know, it's ever more and more becoming actually designing responsibly for a broader group as we all live a bit older. And as a consequence, unfortunately, you know, realize challenges that come with age.

Ryan Schwartz: 10:20.64 - 10:43.05

Yeah. And this idea of equality versus equity, I think I mentioned that earlier, but when I first heard the difference, I think it took a minute to sort of hit home. At first, maybe I didn't even realize there was a difference and I had to think through it. Can you talk a little bit about equality versus equity and what that difference is or just what that means?

Ossie Airewele: 10:43.65 - 12:02.10

Yeah. So I think equality is, maybe I could describe it as, The provision of the same tools to. everybody, and equity, I think, would be a scenario where you realize that everybody has slightly different characteristics, slightly different needs. And in that scenario, you then, in addition to providing the same tools for everyone, you give them the added opportunity to be able to realize the same equal outcome. So, you know, going back to the ramp sort of reference again, you know, you might find, say, three people have been fortunate enough to be given the equal share, a ticket to a community center for a show. and they arrive there and one of them requires accessibility needs and the other two don't. I think it's sort of the equitable component in that is that the building is designed in such a way so they can all not just access but experience the event in the same way that is equally as fulfilling for all of them.

Ryan Schwartz: 12:04.20 - 12:08.68

Yeah. Something to do with like a fairness of outcomes and just being, it's really about fairness.

Ossie Airewele: 12:09.22 - 12:11.10

Yeah, exactly. Fundamentally.

Ryan Schwartz: 12:12.82 - 12:39.71

And you mentioned public spaces and, and, you know, home life, like residential, you know, condos, houses, that kind of thing. Where in your opinion is, is one, I shouldn't say more important than the other, but where is sort of the, the impact of, of this idea of responsible design and inclusivity? Where is it? sort of felt most? Is it public buildings? Is it residential buildings? Is it everywhere? Is that a question you can answer? I don't know.

Ossie Airewele: 12:39.73 - 14:37.64

Yeah. I mean, I would say it's everywhere. I think it's not a challenge that we can isolate to one particular building typology. You could argue that In a public building, you may have one experience that makes you feel like you weren't included, but that experience might resonate with you actually for a while after that event. So the impact of that one event could be quite significant in terms of your sense of confidence within society. If it's in the home, it may be more benign. It may be something more around the basic sort of anthropometrics of the space that you live in, but that scenario time and time over could lead to similar sort of psychological and maybe even physical impact. I mean another good example would be in the workplace so for instance if you don't have your desk in your chair you know on your laptop if you happen to work in an office, properly set in a way that is anthropometrically appropriate for your proportions, you may find that actually using that over time could lead to certain physical impairments that you wouldn't have realized were associated with the subtleties in which your workplace or workstation has been set up. So I think those examples just really speak to the range of importance from whether it's public buildings, which is access and programming, right down to furniture and equipment that are also critically important to your needs and sometimes those needs aren't even really apparent. They could be, you know, not quite right for you and repeated over time can lead to something that suddenly is a problem.

Ryan Schwartz: 14:39.06 - 15:18.17

Yeah. And it's the impacts of this kind of design thinking. I think sometimes it kind of for the average person, it's not even, you know, it's not top of mind. It's not maybe affecting their everyday life, but it, it really can have a profound effect on someone's life positively or negatively. Right. Like these things compounded over time. Like if you're your whole life and your work life and your public spaces are all a challenge, like that's, um, you give some examples. I don't know. Do you want to give some positive examples of how that could change someone's life? Or negative examples too, but I know you touched on a few already.

Ossie Airewele: 15:18.19 - 15:20.77

Examples of how, sorry, Ryan? Could you repeat the question?

Ryan Schwartz: 15:20.83 - 15:29.14

Any of those, yeah. Just the idea of this inclusive design and how it can really benefit someone's life when it is included.

Ossie Airewele: 15:30.40 - 17:32.39

Sure. From a point of view, positive examples, I would just categorize that in just good design. The aim ultimately for any designer, whether it's in a world that affects how people live, work, play, is to design in a way that elevates that human-centered experience. And so, I mean, perhaps maybe not look at it. principally from the point of view yes it's obvious to see scenarios where you know things are negatively impacted but from a sort of positivity standpoint the goal there really ultimately is good design i mean the examples of that would be to be from the point of view of public spaces would be able to you know go to a public space and and see of a variety of people with a variety of needs able to engage in what that public space is intended to offer. In the manner in which where you feel like they're all equally elevated by the experience that they're getting, the level of experience is equally elevated for everybody in that space. There is no one person or group in that moment that is feeling in any way left out. So, you know, designing public spaces, whether they be libraries, whether they be community centers, whether they may be places for music, these are all, you know, it's very clear what those spaces are designed for. And in designing those spaces, we have to just be clear that There are human centered elements that vary depending on people's cognitive and physical needs that need to be addressed upfront to ensure that everybody that experiences those spaces come away with the same level of appreciation for the time they spend there.

Ryan Schwartz: 17:33.65 - 17:54.92

I like that idea of just calling it good design and they just trying to, you know, bring that, that's the baseline. We just want to have it good design for everything and kind of elevate the design of these things and not even necessarily have to, you know, consider that an extra consideration, right? Absolutely. bring the, bring the baseline level up and it's better for everyone.

Ossie Airewele: 17:55.04 - 17:55.48

Exactly.

Ryan Schwartz: 17:55.50 - 18:27.62

Totally. Um, and, and I guess my follow-up question to that would be how, how do we do that? How do we make sure that this kind of idea of inclusive design and designing for everyone, how do we include that when I know there's certain guidelines and, and, um, uh, mandates around building code for accessibility, things like that. But then beyond that, when you're trying to go above and beyond, how do we actually get this stuff included into buildings and projects so it shows up in the real world around us? Yeah.

Ossie Airewele: 18:27.70 - 21:51.65

I think the how is a very good question. I think the first part of it is process-related and maybe just speak across a number of tiers in which that process can be implemented. One is to, from a zoning point of view, from a policy point of view, is ensuring that our communities have the appropriate programming to reflect the needs of that community. that can be easily accessible for everybody, principally talking about walking here. There may be some community programs that might require transit, but at least the idea should be that transit is is efficient and reliable and cycling is another option so just as a sort of a macro level process why is your house in our cities is critically important to enable accessibility to things that. The beginnings of what make. a house, a home, you know, because, you know, that's a fundamental part of you feeling like you belong in a community is to be able to access community facilities. And if you're limited in doing that, because they're not available to the things that really matter to you, then I think that can start to sort of limit your ability to contribute to society in a way that elevates us all. So I think at the macro end, that's important. As you start to get into building itself, you mentioned code, and I think that's absolutely right. I think that the code has a responsibility to set out and map out improvements that we can make for inclusive design, whether that be physical, neurological, whatever it might be, and maybe set out how that can be improved incrementally. over time and say, in four years, in three years, it's going to be this standard. In five more, we're going to elevate it to this one. Five, it's going to be this. There's a kind of mapping, a roadmap that gets us to where we want to get to and back other institutions that sort of push for an enhanced approach to inclusive design. Um, so I think those are probably two examples of processes that we could speak to. Um, I think the remainder of it is really cultural. I mean, again, I touched on a little earlier, the idea that, you know, design culture should be one where. You know, it's recognizing that design fundamentally responds to need. And I say this in our studio often, it's about earning the right to design. And the fundamental part of earning the right to design is understanding the needs of the people you're designing for. And we shouldn't really get too carried away with what the preconceived outcome should be until we've done that homework. And I think once you start to instill that culture within the approach and the process of design, and you're engaging on collective need, an individual need you don't have the baseline a game switch now within the environmental. I'm going to context to start to deliver a response that is inclusive is responsible.

Ryan Schwartz: 21:53.39 - 22:26.67

Yeah, it's tricky, right? I think you're right in that it is going to be a step-by-step gradual process, much like it has been with accessibility standards. It's been slowly pushing forward and it really is about asking the right questions. I think that's a really good point. When it comes to things like a new project and you're either dealing with a client or you're dealing with community engagement. How are you approaching that? What kinds of questions are you asking to kind of get to the root of this problem? Sure.

Ossie Airewele: 22:26.83 - 25:21.68

I mean, I think when it comes to community engagement The fundamental and simplest question is, you know, what does your community need? And you may not ask that question as directly. It may be more centered around asking, you know, and engaging in questions like, what do you like to do in your community? Or what would you like to do in your community? And I think asking the question that way is a much more sort of human way of, you know, getting responses that are articulate in a way that's coming from a slightly more emotional position rather than a sort of practical... Preconceived. Yeah, exactly. And I think that the reason why I think that's important is because there's a lot of Engagement is often about reading between the lines of what is being said, because quite often, unless someone is very direct, what they say requires further follow-up questions to really get to the heart of something. And so being able to strip down the barriers of how you engage in a way that allows people to respond in a very human way, allows you to then be able to see if there's more questions that you need to ask behind the original question to get the level of information you need to then start and engage in the design process. But I think more importantly than anything, it builds a degree of trust, you know, and that's really important because, you know, trust is a Significant component of how we as humans evolved and got to where we are in society we need to trust each other to make advances. I'm undertaking a piece of design that's gonna ultimate result in a bill form that will impact and influence someone for many many years. I'm past has to have the foundation of trust very early on. And in this particular instance, as it relates to engagement, it's centered around the notion that I'm here to help. And the more you can tell me about what you do in your life, how that can be improved, the better I'm going to be able to intuitively ask more questions that could further enhance what we as designers need to know to deliver a building or a space that not just meets your expectations, but maybe in certain instances exceeds those expectations. Because quite often I think, you know, humans have a tendency to be humble about what they need and that can lead to limitations in what they could say in an engagement process that might actually improve things better than what their immediate expectations are. You have to dig in a little bit and- Yeah, exactly.

Ryan Schwartz: 25:21.96 - 25:39.45

Some follow up questions like, what do you mean by that? Yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah, yeah. I wanted to touch on affordable housing a little bit and how that fits into all this because I think it's related, I don't know, what are your thoughts on- Very much so. Affordable housing and how it fits into this topic.

Ossie Airewele: 25:43.89 - 27:38.29

Okay. I mean, we- It's a big topic, buddy. It is a big topic. I needed to take a breath for a moment there because it's a huge topic. I mean, we are in an affordability crisis. There's no two ways about it. House prices in Toronto and in other major cities around Canada, I'm sure to some extent North America, have just continued to increase, increase, and increase. And it's ultimately getting to the point where there's lots of conversations about housing as a human right. And I think when you look at it from that lens, you do understand and appreciate that And it goes back to the other thing I said today about being able to contribute to society in a way that's effective. I think the first part of that is to not just have a place that you can sleep and a place that you can, but a place that you can live, you know, and a place that gives you the dignity to feel like where your home is, is in the community where you can feel free to engage with others within that community. And as I kind of touched on before, I think when you're able to start doing that, then you're able to kind of contribute to society in a really positive way. And once you can do that, that elevates to the quality of life experience for everybody. And, but it all starts with, it all starts with a home. It all starts with a place that isn't just a place where you sleep, but a place that you, you have a sense of pride in being in, and you have a sense of pride in being part of a community where that, where that home happens to be. So it's a kind of two-step, two-stepped approach, I think. Um, and all these things. going back to the central theme of the discussion, elevate the social mandate. And I think housing is fundamental to doing that.

Ryan Schwartz: 27:40.30 - 28:05.76

Yeah, I think that's a really good point. And that if, you know, just speaking to affordability, if you're spending all your time to get, you know, working to get money to afford your rent, and you don't really, you know, you don't really have that sense of contribution, maybe like he, you're surviving, but you're not thriving. And you're not really, you know, adding, we are adding by working, I'm sure, but like, it's, there's more room there for growth and giving back.

Ossie Airewele: 28:06.08 - 28:46.93

Exactly. That's a really good point. Because I think, you know, if you are investing all that time just to put a roof over your head, then you can get to the point where your home is just a place to sleep. And you're just in that cycle. Yeah. Yeah. And your community is a place that you pass through to earn income, to have somewhere to sleep. And that just as a sort of cycle really is the antithesis of, you know, how as human beings, as social people are removed from those kinds of social engagements that really make a difference to A, how we evolve, and B, how we perceive quality of life.

Ryan Schwartz: 28:49.30 - 29:06.31

And I know recently the province of Ontario, they put forth a target of building something like a million and a half homes before 2031, something like that. I know BDP's done a little bit of research into this and I'm not too familiar with it. So can you touch on that a little bit?

Ossie Airewele: 29:06.83 - 34:28.04

Sure. I mean, we did the piece of research around more homes built faster, I think was the act, Bill 23. put in place by the province. The mandate was to deliver 1.5 million homes by 2031. We did a study to explore how you might be able to do that. Right now, within the Toronto context, there are principally two building typologies. One is the tower podium typology. If you were to just deliver 1.5 million homes doing that, it would be in the region of you know, 800 CN towers tall, which is significant, and maybe not the best typology, but you might need the space suit for that one if you were in a building like that one. And the alternative is to just say, well, let's just sprawl. Let's just do single family homes. And if you were to do that and deliver 1.5 million homes, you're in the realms of three times, I think, the area of the Toronto city region. So, you know, neither of those models are ideal. And I think we could very easily argue that we have an urban fabric in many parts of the city of Toronto, just speaking to here specifically, I'm sure it's the same in Vancouver and other major cities in Canada, that could accommodate what we commonly call here the missing middle, which could be a combination of new infill or interventions to existing buildings that have one program that is no longer really a value within the community, so you can convert that into homes. So our study looked at a number of different opportunities where we could provide this intensification, focusing principally on transit nodes, focusing principally on the main avenues and boulevards and a number of other instances. And through this study, we discovered that within the city of regional Toronto alone, you could actually deliver 1.8 million homes. Wow. Yeah. And I think one of the important reasons why we wanted to focus in that area is that you already have a lot of existing infrastructure that's hard and soft. So you have the bones, I say the bones maybe intentionally of a transit system, which can always get better, and it can justifiably get better if you improve the density in areas where there is capacity to increase the density. And you also have obviously soft infrastructure in the form of community programs. But those community programs would obviously need to be supplemented if you increase the number of people that live in that area. But at least you have the basic bones of things, as opposed to being in the middle of nowhere that, A, you have to get to, B, you've got to get to a point of critical mass of people before you can add a school, before you can add a you know so all these things sort of start to sort of tell you why i think at least that building you know in greenfield is not ideal it's not sustainable socially and environmentally and that we should try and make the most of the resources that we already have in urbanized areas before we start to look beyond so the study was centered on that we also touched very briefly on The importance of communities, the fact that every community that makes... Every city has this interesting tapestry of neighborhoods and districts and so on. And some of that is as a consequence of, to some extent, historical bill form. But actually, a lot of it is down to the social cultural elements that make up those neighborhoods as well. And we think that they're critically, critically important. So, if you're going to intensify an area, you have to be mindful of those key characteristics and to develop in a way that not just retains, but enhances those characteristics for the betterment of the people that live there. So giving them more access to the ability to expand their business at one level, but on the other level, for access for others that really like that district to maybe want to live there and contribute in some way to the essence of what makes that district so interesting. So, yeah, I mean, that was kind of the scope of the study. It is available on our website, dare I say. Sure, shameless plug, of course, yeah. Maybe there's a link we can provide to that at the end of this session or something. But I would encourage people to look at it. I think it's a model that's transferable. It's not something that's specific to Toronto. But I think it needs the contribution of planners, policymakers, urbanists, architects. people engaged in public art and fundamentally the community and developers to see how we can realize polite or gentle density that is equitable and centered on quality of life.

Ryan Schwartz: 34:29.87 - 34:56.58

So yeah, bringing that full circle, like that's, that's a lot of homes and it's even, you know, it's called more homes faster, I think he said. And how do we, you know, build all these homes and the supporting infrastructure and not lose sight of, you know, the responsible design and inclusivity, like how, I know it's a tough juggling act and maybe there is no real good answer, but how do you, how do you try and keep that stuff in mind while we are, you know, as quickly as possible trying to build these, these homes?

Ossie Airewele: 34:56.64 - 36:59.52

Yeah. That's not a really good question. I mean, we talked about this in the study. There's like a three-minute video that supports the study. And one of the sort of central points that we were making is that it's not just about building the homes, it's also providing all the appropriate social infrastructure that comes with that. There is a correlation between community programming that is within close proximity to where you live, whether it's walkable distance or um on a bike or accessible transit you know that elevates quality of life and i think there's there's so many studies that we could do more of to understand that relationship between people per hectare and the demographic of of that group and what kind of community needs that they need or that they require and if we were able to establish a model of what that looks like and apply that as a mapping exercise across our neighborhoods and districts across the city, we would very quickly be able to identify what we need, maybe where we're a little oversubscribed, and how we can supplement and sustain as the area grows and the demographic of that area changes. But at the same time, doing so by preserving the innate social cultural characteristics of that neighborhood. It's not a study that we've had the capacity to do beyond the initial study, because I think it requires other people in that conversation, but it's certainly one that I would be really fascinated to engage with, with the city and with other community groups, because I think it would serve as a really strong planning basis to inform not just how many homes we build but what we need from community programming as a consequence of those homes that speak specifically to the social cultural dynamics of that particular area.

Ryan Schwartz: 37:00.82 - 37:46.28

And you sort of answered my next question because I was going to ask how do we Evaluating buildings after they're built is always a challenge, especially around things like accessibility and inclusivity. And I was going to ask, how do we evaluate these buildings? Let's say they've been built for 10 years, 20 years, and we want to go back and see how they're doing. And did they sort of solve those challenges and those problems? And you kind of touched on it from the neighborhood perspective by going back and mapping. I think that would be really interesting. Is there any way to do that with buildings like zooming back into the building. It's a tricky one, but post-occupancy evaluations, things like that. How do you go back and say, this is a successful project and this one has something to be desired still?

Ossie Airewele: 37:48.92 - 40:02.62

I think there's definitely opportunities to do that. I mean, post-occupancy valuations are certainly one way of determining the appropriateness of the building once it's completed at the point of completion for the original design brief. But then as you touched on, you know, the programming of the building over time can change the design brief changes the question is is the building still fit the purpose as a consequence of what changes so i think designer for flexibility is key. The question you've asked that as it relates to, as it relates to the life of a building is probably a little bit more complex, I would say. I mean, my view on it would be that it probably relates just as much to the life cycle of the materials of that building versus how long you intend that building to be around for versus how flexible that building is designed. If you have to design a building that is very particular to a specific use and is very hard to adapt into a different type of use, then I think there are certain types of design elements or criteria that you would apply to the lifetime of the building. Perhaps maybe you put more emphasis on the ability for that building to be dismantled and all the materials used elsewhere more effectively than, say, maybe a home where you might expect it to be around for hundreds of years, ideally. But again, niche change. So it's a tricky dynamic, but I think issues that relate to LCA, life cycle assessment, issues that relate to how long in relation to that life cycle assessment the building should be around for, and issues that relate to the program and how unique the building has to be to that program in such a way it can't be easily used for something else.

Ryan Schwartz: 40:03.38 - 40:15.64

Right, that makes sense. We've kind of meandered all over here and I want to be respectful of your time. I know you're busy as well. Is there anything that we've missed that you'd like to touch on? Anything you'd like to emphasize or double back to?

Ossie Airewele: 40:17.31 - 42:55.38

I mean, first of all, I just want to thank you for the opportunity to have this conversation. I really enjoyed it. I think the questions you posed have given me plenty of opportunity to speak to the things that I wanted to share. So I probably don't have any questions per se, but I think I just maybe want to touch on something I had mentioned earlier, which is I think from a social point of view, we should be, as a society, as a culture, be judged by how much we support the most vulnerable in our society. And, you know, there are plenty of metrics by which we self-promote ourselves in urban design, in architecture, in policy. But in the end, I think we all need to look and dig a little deeper to try and find other ways in which we can evaluate how well we're doing as designers, policy makers, planners, from the lens of how well we're supporting the most vulnerable in our society. Because unless we can start to really lift everybody up, We're going to find it much easier to actually address some of the environmental sustainable mandates that we're pushing for as well. Because if only so few people have the means to be able to respond to those challenges, They're not working 24-7. They're not going from end to end just to make the fundamentals of life work for them and their families. If there's a bigger group of people dealing in times of crisis, then the wider mandate that relates to, the other mandate that relates to environmental sustainability is actually much harder, in my opinion, to achieve to the level that we're all collectively hoping for in terms of global warming, all those issues. So I would say if anyone is concerned about that, and it is an important concern, they should also think seriously about the social element as well, because unless we can lift everybody up, in a way that is equitable, then we have more people that can meet the challenge of the environmental mandate as well. So I just wanted to make sure that that message was shared with anyone that's listening. And I don't know if you're able to provide details. I'd be happy for anyone to connect with me if they wanted to take this conversation further, but I think it's actually optional.

Ryan Schwartz: 42:56.55 - 43:01.19

That's a great point to close on. And then if people do want to get in touch, is there a best way to reach you?

Ossie Airewele: 43:01.98 - 43:12.79

Yeah, you can reach me by email. I'm at BDP Quadrangle Studio in Toronto. But my email address, I don't know if that's something we can provide.

Ryan Schwartz: 43:13.63 - 43:20.47

Sure. Yeah, we could probably put that in the notes so that people can find you, I'm sure, on the BDP website. So that's perfect.

Ossie Airewele: 43:20.73 - 43:21.97

Perfect. Amazing.

Ryan Schwartz: 43:21.99 - 44:08.63

Well, I appreciate your time and the thoughtful conversation. I'm sure those listening really do as well. So that'll bring us to a close today. Thanks to Ossie and all the folks out there listening. If you're enjoying Architecturally Speaking, leave us a quick review, share it with your friends. That'll help us provide more episodes for you in the future. Architecturally Speaking is available wherever you get your podcasts and also on the OAA's YouTube channel. So be sure to check that out for the full video version of today's chat. And of course, if you're interested in learning more about architecture, you can check out the OAA's website. It's got great information for architects and the general public alike. So you can visit oaa.on.ca. So until next time, I'm Ryan Schwartz, and this has been Architecturally Speaking. We'll see you next time.