The Fifthteenth Annual Berkeley Undergraduate Prize for Architectual Design Excellence 2013
Berkeley Prize 2013

Eve Edelstein Final Report


Eve Edelstein, M.S., M.Arch., Ph.D. (Neuroscience),EDAC, Assoc.AIA, F-AAA 
College of Architecture, Planning + Landscape Architecture (CAPLA)
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA



The study of both the mental and biological human reactions to built space are now subject to the scrutiny of science due to new opportunities borne of technological innovations. The evolution of neuroscience, and the use of emerging simulation and behavioral tracking technologies enable us to explore the neural bases for attributing value to architectural design, and to use such advances to develop principles that may be applied in design thinking and in practice (Edelstein, EA. World Congress Design & Health Journal, 2013).

The fundamental synergy between architecture and the human sciences has recently been embodied in a ‘neuro-architectural’ approach, applying a practice-based process that utilizes a scientific process to relate the sensorial input of built environments to their bio-clinical impact (See Figure 1). 

Figure 1: Neuro-Architectural Process.

Legend: A flow diagram using a conceptual framework derived from the scientific method, links the physical stimuli of a built setting as the input to the responses of the body, brain, and mind, yielding behavioral output.  A feedback loop between all elements represents the complex interaction between physical and human outcomes.  (Edelstein, Eve A. “Research-based design: New approaches to the creation of healthy environments.” World Health Design Journal, October (2013): 62-67.)

To date however, there are few who have entered the design profession with training in the scientific method or its use as a conceptual framework for translating biological research into design applications.  A conceptual framework was presented to discuss many components of physical input that each design option modulates (light, sound, texture, dimension etc.), and the human reactions to those features in terms of the neural system that drive those responses (sensory, perceptual, emotional, cognitive, and behavioral).  Architectural and environmental experts contribute to the definition of the physical features that comprise the physical stimuli to which the program, and people respond.  Similar to an integrated project delivery processes, consultants (neuroscientific, clinical, physiological, and psycho-social specialists) should supplement the design team to search for and interpret the rigorous findings into terms that can be translated into design. Scientific consultants assess the reliability, repeatability, validity, and translation of such data into design principles.  In order to generalize research into design, user/experts provide experience and guide priorities to identify outcomes and rank solutions that are best suited to serve the diversity of human outcomes. 

Modeled on evidence-based medicine, the use of rigorous data describing human responses to specific components of physical conditions provides a valid basis to explore the relationship between design and human reactions.  Biological data offers a significant benefit as it forms the basis for human responses in all architectural types. For example, the perception of speech is determined by the physics, materials, and geometries of a space in addition to the individual’s clinical ability to hear, regardless of the architectural type.  Beneath the layer of culture, biology and clinical data add to psycho-social observations to expose the fundamental interaction between people and places. The 7 universal design objectives serve as essential outcomes.  Together, such data inform design hypotheses, and can be used to prioritize and rank the benefits and limitations of each design intervention.  Together, this information focuses design thinking on the diverse range or ‘users and uses’ that each design decision must embrace.


The BERKELEY PRIZE Teaching Fellowship provided the opportunity to demonstrate that the neuro-architectural process could be merged with universal design objectives in an existing undergraduate design studio.  A ‘Neuro-Universal Design’ curriculum was created for 3rd year design studios in tectonics (fall semester) and land ethics (spring semester), spanning the 2013-2014 academic year at the School of Architecture, College of Architecture, Planning & Landscape Architecture (CAPLA) at the University of Arizona, Tucson. The cohort comprised sixty-three Bachelor of Architecture undergraduates, six architectural design faculty and the Berkeley Prize Fellow a faculty member in architecture, planning and landscape architecture, who is also trained in clinical neuroscience, anthropology and architecture.

In order to provide iterative and in-depth interaction, user/experts from the staff of the Disabilities Resource Center (DRC) at the University of Arizona and a faculty expert from the Interworks Institute, College of Education at San Diego State University joined in lectures, discussions, field trips, studio critiques and juries. Together, they represented user/experts with expertise in 1) design and architecture, 2) neuroscientific research-based design, 3) assistive technologies and 4) environmental equity. (See Acknowledgments.)

A series of lectures by the DRC and invited user/experts discussed the philosophy and impact of equitable design. The concept that architecture can and should ‘flex’ to meet the continuum of human needs was introduced, in contrast to design philosophies that demand people ‘bend’ to built settings. The politics of design equity was highlighted, challenging students and faculty to consider for example, if the ‘poetics of stairs’ should supersede the ‘politics of space’.  The disability resource faculty attended studios, mid-term and final juries, providing iterative feedback and insights to inspire equitable design, prompting students to consider the balance required in design for social equity. 

The practical application of these philosophical concepts were demonstrated in field trips and discussions at the University California Berkeley, the Ed Roberts Center, and the Center for Independent Living, during a field trip to California.  Designers, clients and users provided valuable real-world perspectives and their experience and rationale for the creative, high-quality design that employed spaces and assistive technologies that supported equitable use.  (See Acknowledgements.) 



Semester One:

A cohort of 63 students beginning their 3rd year undergraduate B.Arch. degree program. All students were required to produce projects representing universal design principles

a) Techtonic Urban Design: Community transportation center and café

Project 1 considered design of a transportation hub in downtown Tucson. Students’ deliverables included design boards, physical and digital models. The design hypotheses proposed were analyzed in terms of design input, human response, and desired universal outcomes.   Annotated boards outlined the impact of design elements proposed.  The students presented their conceptual framework, inquiry process, and design solutions to the faculty, students, and disability resource specialists in studio round-tables, conversations, and juried reviews.

b) Urban High Rise: urban garden and community center that attended to tectonic considerations.

Project 2 required that students create a multi-story tower in downtown San Francisco in the Embarcadero district. Site visits with the design faculty, DRC and SDSU staff yielded valuable opportunities for individual and group discussions about the challenges posed in an urban context.  Students were challenged to seek imaginative solutions for equitable inclusion, engagement, and mobility within a multi-story complex structure.

Semester Two:            

The cohort of students went on to complete their 3rd year undergraduate B.Arch. degree program. All students were required to produce projects representing universal design principles.

a) Land Ethics & Arid Habitats: The program comprised a spiritual and educational campus in a natural desert habitat that respected land ethics and resource use.

Project 3 spanned the Spring semester with a focus on ethical use of land and building resources. The assignment comprised of a religious and educational program set in an inaccessible and arid valley in a high desert plateau.  Students were asked to focus on the phenomenological experience of this natural setting, to overcome the difficulty of gaining access during site-visits, and to propose a spiritual campus with equitable access in a rugged, hot, and potentially hostile climate.  The site presented great challenges. The first issue was to ensure that all students and user/experts could access the site chosen for the project.  The challenge that followed was inclusive thinking in order to create without excessive use of resources, spaces and interactions that were pleasant for all.

The existing program focused the 3rd year studios on National Architectural Accreditation Board (NAAB) student performance criteria (SPC) related to technical design and responsible land ethics.  Therefore, the neuro-universal content had to fit within the exiting course content. Discussions were reduced, and assignments were not graded. There was no reduction in work-load associated with tectonic or land ethics assignments, and the students were fully absorbed by the acquisition of skills, understanding and ability to produce their design projects.

Although it was expected that the human-centered NAAB performance criteria were learned during the previous years, the students themselves reported that they had not sufficiently mastered the knowledge regarding codes and accessibility requirements, and did not feel ready to leap to address the breadth of neuroscientific or universal design concepts.  

Nonetheless, many projects demonstrated thoughtful design that addressed mobility in their first term projects.  Many of the second term projects incorporated design solutions that addressed sensory and cognitive, as well as mobility issues.  Students used neuro-architectural relationships to develop design hypotheses, and to articulate universal objectives.


The students began to incorporate neuro-universal design principles in their projects as second-nature, assuming that all projects and places should offer equitable design.  Surveys and discussion groups revealed how student attitudes changed as a result of the pedagogical strategies. A post-course survey was completed by the Berkeley Prize ‘neuro-universal’ studio after the academic year by 17% (11 of 63) of the students. Using a 5-point scale (Strongly agree = 1; Agree = 2; Neither Agree or Disagree = 3; Disagree = 4; Strongly Disagree = 5), four questions probed how students thought about design, and how the experience of the class influenced their thinking.  Ninety % (n=10) of the students strongly agreed or agreed that “These experiences made me think about designing for people with a broad range of abilities.”  Seventy-two % (n=8) strongly agreed or agreed that “These experiences made me think about how my senses, movement, emotion, and thinking change with design.” Eighty % (n=8) strongly agreed or agreed that “These experiences influenced the design of my studio projects.” Ninety % (n=9) strongly agreed or agreed that “These experiences will influence how I design in the future.

Students revealed the benefit of both the neuro-architectural conceptual framework, and universal design objectives in their responses to open questions:

I had a much broader range of considerations after these experiences, I began thinking about all the senses and not just physical mobility or blindness.” 

“UD is no longer an afterthought… the goal is now imbedded into initial sketches…before any hard lines are drawn.”



While surveys and design projects demonstrated their appreciation of direct interaction with user/experts, students felt unable to dedicate sufficient time or attention to the additional neuro-architectural assignments as well as their techtonic and land ethics assignments.  Although the faculty acknowledged the value of regular contact and open discussions with user/experts, the there was little time afforded to conversation that would have helped students and faculty to ask the ‘hard questions’ or to break down barriers to understanding. 

Faculty commented that:

“…some of the assigned [NAAB] criteria should have been lessened in order to facilitate integration of this [human-centered] curriculum in an easier way for faculty and students.”


“Even though it should be an inherent part of the design process, there needs to be a commitment beyond the superficial, … it is not a simple issue … of additional check box item.”

A greater commitment to human-centered design in studio is essential.  Pre-course workshops with user/experts should be held so that all studio faculty may become equally fluent in universal design.  User/experts should also spend time in discussion and workshops to learn about real-world constraints on design.

In addition, faculty recognized that undergraduate students, having completed only 2 years of study, may lack the skills necessary to graphically represent their passion for design that serves all users, or to verbally express the extent of their understanding of the continuum of human needs in built settings.  However, they are not lacking in a concern for ‘empathetic design’.  I have found that students in this course, and in all previous courses, have been open to design that meets the many needs of many users.  It is up to their faculty and the accreditation process to ensure that their curriculum makes time for human-centered design.  If courses cannot accommodate additional assignments, regular contact with user/experts in special lectures, desk crits, and juries will instill empathetic thinking.

To encourage students to take on additional effort, a ‘Neuro-Universal Design Merit Prize’ was set up and judged by the Berkeley Prize Teaching Fellow and the Disability Resource team.  The winner, outspoken in her passion and attention to universal design wrote:


“I may not be able to change the entire world, but now I can begin.”

Finally, the Berkeley Prize Teaching Fellows should adopt the courage of their convictions. Despite the constraints encountered, the exposure to neuro-universal concepts resulted in a significant shift in student attitudes. Most rewarding was a comment from one of the students, a user/expert, who observed a dramatic change in his peers compared to his previous 2 years with the same cohort. 

“I can assure you that you have had a great impact on the way students think.”



The author gratefully acknowledges the Berkeley Prize sponsorship award. Many contributed to valuable discussions, studios, and field trips that exposed students and faculty to expansive and diverse thinking, including members of the groups as follows:

Elaine Ostroff, Ray Lifchez, Ben Clavan, and the BERKELEY PRIZE Committee;

Christopher Downey and students at the University of California, Berkeley;

Bill Leddy and the Center for Independent Living at the Ed Roberts Center;

Sue Kroeger, Amanda Kraus, Sherry Santee, Marisea Rivera, and guests, Disability Resource Center, University of Arizona;

Caren Sax, Interwork Institute, College of Education, San Diego State University;

Susannah Dickinson, Luis Ibarra, Bradley Lang, Darci Hazelbaker, Paul Reimer, Paul Weiner, Robert Miller, College of Architecture, Planning & Landscape Architecture, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.




Additional Help and Information

Are you in need of assistance? Please email
Like everyone else, this worker in Mexico needs transportation to his job. Public transport needs to be accessible for persons with mobility, sensory, and cognitive disabilities.
Persons with disabilities around the world are promoting transport systems that provide mobility for everyone. Mexican disability advocates are shown meeting with local transit officials to promote accessible transport. AEI has published guides to assist planners and advocates of inclusive transportation.
An accessible travel chain begins with safe streets and sidewalks. This street in Foshan, China, has separate rights-of-way for pedestrians, human-powered vehicles, and motor-powered vehicles.
Disability advisors at Rio de Janeiro’s Independent Living Center monitored access features for this street crossing, part of the Rio City Project.
Tactile guideways and tactile warning strips assist blind and sight-impaired pedestrians as well as others in Foshan, China.
Tactile warnings alert this blind person crossing a mid-street island in San Francisco, USA.
Busy intersections benefit from pedestrian controlled buttons and assist blind persons to cross through sound and vibration signals
Tactile warnings protect blind persons – and all other passengers – from getting too close to the platform edge in transit stations.
This footway adjacent to a road in Tanzania is protected by curb pieces which separate motor traffic from pedestrians and bicycles. Such basic safety measures are needed to prevent pedestrian injuries along roadways in many countries.
Even better, pedestrian and non-motorized traffic can be kept safely removed from motorized traffic by accessible sidewalks separated from the roadway, in this case by a well-designed drainage system along a main road in Tanzania. Speed bumps are used to slow traffic at crosswalks.
This pedestrian crosswalk provides level access to a bus island at an inter-modal transfer center in Mexico City.
Photo by T. Rickert, courtesy of DFID (UK) and TRL (UK).
Ticket vending machines should be low enough for use by wheelchair users and all short persons, as illustrated by the good design of this machine at a BART station in the San Francisco Bay area, USA.
Stairs are often retrofitted with stair lifts in transit terminals, as here in a Tokyo subway station. However, in new construction, elevators should be considered where possible.
A wheelchair user takes the elevator from the platform level of the Shenzhen, China, railroad station.
Wide doors are needed to accommodate wheelchair riders entering fare-paid areas of transit terminals, as in this subway station in Rio de Janeiro.
Everyone can safely board this BART train, due to a minimal horizontal and vertical gap.
However, care must be taken that horizontal gaps are not too wide. The orange “gap filler” pops up when the doors open in San Francisco’s Muni Metro, assuring a safe gap.
Small portable ramps can provide inexpensive access in many rail stations, as shown here in Tokyo.
All passengers, and especially deaf and hard-of-hearing passengers, benefit from well-located visual information, as with this route display on board a train to the Hong Kong airport.
Advocates Anjlee Agarwal (left) and Sanjeev Sachdeva board the accessible Delhi Metro on its inaugural run.
Photo courtesy of Sanjay Sakaria and Samarthya, from Amar Ujjala Indian Daily
Express buses in Curitiba, Brazil, exemplify universal design. All passengers, including those with disabilities, quickly board with level entry. Similar Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems operate in Quito, Ecuador; Bogota, Colombia, and a growing number of cities around the world.
Photo by Charles Wright, Inter-American Development Bank.
Construction of this Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) trunk line corridor in Pereira, Colombia, symbolizes the rapid spread of BRT systems around the world. BRT systems lend themselves to universal design, but details must be monitored carefully to maximize accessibility.
Although most BRT busways are on broad thoroughfares, this exclusive single-direction bus lane nearing completion in Pereira illustrates that BRT systems can sometimes be built on narrow streets.
This and above photo by T. Rickert courtesy of World Bank
The photo shows an articulated bus docking at a Bus Rapid Transit station in León, Mexico.
Pre-paid passengers inside a station board a high-capacity BRT bus in León.
This and above photo courtesy of Sistema Integrado de Transporte Masivo de León
A prototype low-floor bus is tested in New Delhi adjacent to a platform the same height as the bus floor.
A closeup of the same bus stop illustrates the advantages of fast boarding for all passengers from platforms that eliminate the need for climbing steps to board.
This and above photo courtesy of Gerhard Menckhoff of the World Bank.
This prototype lift-equipped bus serves Mamelodi Township in South Africa. Note the excellent use of contrasting colors.
Photo by T. Rickert, courtesy of DFID (UK) and TRL (UK).
Mexico City officials inaugurated service in 2001 with 50 new buses equipped with lifts and other access features.
Photo courtesy of Marìa Eugenia Antunez.
In addition to a wheelchair lift, this bus in Mexico City has a retractable step beneath the front entrance.
This low-floor bus in Warsaw, Poland, uses an inexpensive hinged ramp which provides easy boarding for passengers with disabilities.
A low-floor bus in Hong Kong also exhibits excellent color contrast, using a bright yellow on key edges and surfaces.
Transit systems around the world have reserved seating for seniors and passengers with disabilities, and often for pregnant women as well, as found on this TransMilenio bus in Bogotá, Colombia.
Even when bus stops are not accessible to wheelchair users, access for seniors and others with disabilities can be enhanced by a level all-weather pad even in the absence of paved sidewalks. The photo is from a TransMilenio feeder route in Bogotá.
This and above photo by T. Rickert courtesy of World Bank.
Thousands of Mexico City’s small inaccessible microbuses are being recycled and replaced with larger vehicles, often with better access features.
One such feature is this priority seating located behind the driver where there is extra leg room and it is easier for blind passengers to hear the driver call out key stops.
Photo by T. Rickert, courtesy of DFID (UK) and TRL (UK).
In other new buses in Mexico City, a wide rear door has low steps and is easily accessed by semi-ambulatory passengers from a raised sidewalk, but requires that drivers carefully pull in to the curb.
Photo by T. Rickert, courtesy of DFID (UK) and TRL (UK).
Community initiatives are playing a growing role in providing accessible door-to-door transport in many countries. This accessible van in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, belongs to the six-vehicle fleet of Persatuan Mobiliti.
Photo courtesy of Persatuan Mobiliti
Artist’s conception of a three-wheeled door-to-door vehicle connecting with an accessible ramped platform with bridge at a bus stop at a key site.
This prototype three-wheeled vehicle was built with AEI’s assistance by Kepha Motorbikes in Nairobi, Kenya.
Detail showing entry via a ramp at the rear of the test vehicle.
This and above photo courtesy of Wycliffe Kepha.
This accessible bicycle rickshaw in India has a rear door which serves as a ramp.
Photo courtesy of Bikash Bharati Welfare Society and Lalita Sen.
A public meeting in Cali, Colombia, discusses accessibility to Bus Rapid Transit systems. Readers can go to the Bus Rapid Transit Accessibility Guidelines in our Resources section, under the links to the World Bank.
Photo by T. Rickert, courtesy of the World Bank.
In this version, the bridge piece is mounted under the platform and put into place by the bus driver.
This and above photo courtesy of DFID (UK) and CSIR Transportek (South Africa).
This test in South Africa of a prototype platform for use at key sites shows an alternative approach to access for wheelchair users.
Copyright © 1998-2024 Berkeley Undergraduate Prize for Architectural Design Excellence
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy
For permission for any form of re-use of any of the contents, please contact
The BERKELEY PRIZE is endorsed by the Department of Architecture, University of California, Berkeley.