Funktionskravet tillgänglighet och användbarhet används sedan 2009 i regelverk för den svenska byggsektorn. Funktionskravet anger en lägsta kvalitetsnivå för byggnadens egenskaper och utformning med tanke på användare med en funktionsnedsättning. Samtidigt får även andra användare stora fördelar av en tillgänglig och användbar byggd miljö. Kravet omfattar både bostäder och offentliga byggnader. Det är byggherrens ansvar att genomföra funktionskravet. Kravet avser både det byggda rummets egenskaper och utformning. Genomförandet ska bejaka användarens rörlighet och förflyttning i rummet samt deras förståelse och orientering i det. Kravet kontrolleras i den kommunala bygglovshanteringen och samrådsprocessen. För medlemsländer i den Europeiska unionen är funktionskravet aktuellt, eftersom EU arbetar med ett nytt direktiv för tillgänglighet och användbarhet i offentliga byggnader, servicesektorn och transporter.

Informanter i nationella och internationella nätverk för forskning, sakkunnigkontroll och myndigheter medverkade i studien. Totalt 122 informanter från nio länder inom EU, samt från Japan, Kanada, Storbritannien och USA inbjöds att delta i enkät om tillgänglighet och användbarhet som funktionskrav. Enkäten innehöll 37 frågor som behandlade funktionskravet i regelverk och praktisk tilllämpning. Sammanlagt 62 svar lämnades varav 43 svar var direkt avböjande svar. Nitton informanter besvarade hela enkäten. Svaren var möjliga att analysera vidare för att få en bild av funktionskravet i Belgien, Danmark, Finland, Frankrike, Grekland, Irland, Japan, Kanada, Nederländerna, Storbritannien, Spanien, Tyskland och Sverige. Svaren lämnades av 10 kvinnor och 9 män, företrädesvis med arkitektkompetens.

Funktionskravet fokuserar ofta på byggnadstekniska lösningar såsom ramplutningar, svängytor för rullstolar, eller passagebredder. Kravet har utvecklats från början av 1960-talet och framåt. Under 2000-talet har flera länder inkluderat bristande tillgänglighet i den byggda miljön i diskrimineringslagstiftning. I de flesta länder används enbart tillgänglighet, medan kravet förekommer tillsammans  med användbarhet i Danmark och Sverige. Kravet är ofta sammankopplat  med funktionhinderspolitiska målsättningar om barriärfri utformning, inkluderande  eller universell utformning. Informanter ansåg att funktionskravet skulle  kunna utvecklas vidare och vinna på en tydligare knytning till användares behov. Funktionskravet har även en oklar koppling till hållbarhet.  

Forskningsresultatet visar att funktionskravet tillgänglighet och användbarhet  är i behov av att utvecklas. En sådan utveckling kan vara att inkludera mer information  om användares krav på bostadens utformning i ett livsperspektiv.  Kravställningen i byggregelverket kan i högre grad betona passningen mellan  egenskaper i och utformning av bostaden till livsbehov som uppstår på grund av  nedsättningar hos användaren på grund av långvarig sjukdom, fysiska begränsningar  i kroppen, kognitiva nedsättningar eller åldersrelaterade besvär. I det moderna  samhället har hemmet blivit navet för vård och omsorg. En sådan utvecklingen  av funktionskravet gör att det tydligare kan länkas till utformningsstrategier  som design för alla, inkluderande eller universell utformning. Ett förtydligande  av funktionskravet tillgänglighet och användbarhet i relation till den mänskliga  användaren leder också till ett tydligare hållbarhetsperspektiv på bostaden, men  även andra byggnadstyper. Kravet på hållbarhet lyfter fram behovet att ställa utformning  mot både användarens behov och byggnadens underhåll i ett livscykelperspektiv.  

Since 2009, the functional requirement of accessibility and usability is used in building regulations for the Swedish building sector. The requirement specifies a minimum level of quality for the design of buildings and their commodities in relation to people with disabilities. However, most users benefit from an accessible and usable built environment. The requirement covers both residential and public buildings. It is the developer who is responsible for implementing the functional requirement. The requirement concerns the architectural design of the built space as well as its commodities. The realization shall enable different users’ movements and navigation in space as well as their perception and use of space. The requirement is monitored during the municipal building permit and consultation processes. For member states of the European Union, the functional requirement is topical since the EU prepares a directive on accessibility and usability in public buildings and for services and transports.

Informants active in national and international networks for research, accessibility audits and public authorities participated. A total of 122 informants from nine countries within the EU as well as Japan, Canada, Great Britain, and the United States were invited to participate in a questionnaire about accessibility and usability as a functional requirement. The survey contained thirty-seven questions that dealt with the requirement as part of regulatory frameworks and put into practice. A total of sixty-two responses were received, of which forty-three responses were declining. Nineteen informants filled out the questionnaire. Their answers were possible to analyze further for understanding the use of the requirement in Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Japan, Canada, the Netherlands, Great Britain, Spain, Germany, and Sweden. The answers were submitted by ten women and nine men, mainly architects.

The requirement is focused on technical aspects for ramps, turning space for wheelchairs, or widths for passages. The functional requirement started to develop from the early 1960s and onwards. During the 21st century, many countries included poor level of accessibility of the built environment in discrimination legislation. In most countries, the requirement accessibility is used, while this requirement in combination with usability is only used in Denmark and Sweden. The requirement is often linked to objectives for national disability policies like barrier-free design, inclusive or universal design. The informants thought that the requirement could be developed further. It would benefit from a clearer connection to user needs. The requirement has an unclear connection to sustainability.

The results showed that the functional requirement of accessibility and usability needs to evolve. One such development could be to include more information about users' demands on the design of the home setting in a life course perspective. In building regulations, the requirement should emphasize the fit between the design of the home with its commodities, and the needs due to potential impairments during living, long-term diseases, physical limitations in the body, cognitive impairments, or age-related problems. In modern society, the home has become the locus for care and caregiving. Such a development of the functional requirement suggests that it can be linked to design for all, inclusive or universal design. A clarification of accessibility and usability in relation to human users promotes a clearer sustainability perspective of the home and other types of buildings. A requirement of sustainability highlights the need for a life-cycle perspective in architectural design that relates to user needs and building maintenance. 

Utställningen Allmänningen handlar om våra gemensamma rum. De torg, stråk och gröningar dit allmänheten idag har tillträde. Mellan tätort och landsbygd, längs med åar och vattendrag, via våtmarker och kulturminnesplatser, över höjder och ängsmarker. Det är platser för demokrati, kulturellt utbyte, handel och rekreation.

I utställningen Allmänningen möts historiska spår, planerare och några nedgrävda kartor. Genom olika kartläggningspraktiker som rör sig mellan plats och representation visas hur allmänningen som fenomen har transformerats över tid. Den har genomgått ett antal olika förändringar och människor har trots dessa skiften alltid tagit platser i anspråk: gröningar, gator, parker, stråk, torg – på landsbygd, i tätort, längs med åar och vattendrag, via våtmarker och kulturminnesplatser, över höjder och ängsmarker. Det är platser för demokrati, kulturellt utbyte, handel och vila. 

Här presenteras allmänningen som ett begrepp, som fysisk plats och kulturell enhet. Från kroppens intima skala till värderingen och regleringen av mark. 

Utställningen är kopplad till forskningsprojektet Allmänningar och stråk för rumslig rättvisa i urban fullåkersbygd finansierat av forskningsrådet FORMAS.

Shared housing is a rather unusual phenomenon in Sweden. However, due to the decreasing availability of affordable housing and a large share of single-person households in urban areas, sharing is on the rise and new forms of shared housing have entered the market. By analysing how shared housing overlaps with existing patterns of socioeconomic segregation and by interviewing developers of diverse forms of shared housing in the cities of Stockholm and Malmö, this article aims to evolve the understanding of sharing housing from a perspective on housing inequality. We find that while many households are sharing housing because there are no other options, others share because they have the possibility to share certain spaces and facilities, which makes life easier and enhances a sense of togetherness. While the first category is concentrated in marginalized and racialized areas of the cities, the other category is concentrated in well-off areas. Developers offering shared solutions in marginalized areas are few but do so based on a discourse of ‘receiving less for more’, while developers offering shared housing in wealthier districts are doing so based on ‘sustainability’ and ‘making life easier’, as the shared housing includes private facilities and services that aim to support an effortless lifestyle in districts with existing urban assets. The conclusion is that sharing housing is no longer solely built on community spirit and de-growth, but sharing housing is also a reflection of contemporary housing inequality.

Kolböra mosse i Djurslöv och Enskifteshagen i Malmö är platser som använts gemensamt sedan medeltiden. I den här studien har jag använt narrativ kartografi för att analysera hur användningen och markerna förändrats över tid. Enskifteshagen har varit fäladsmark och är idag en park i centrala Malmö. Kolböra mosse har varit torvtäkt och idag finns vandringsleder dit allmänheten har tillträde. Kunskap om historiska förändringar bidrar till att vi idag kan främja och försvara det som finns kvar av våra gemensamma allmänningsmarker.

Gated communities and gated housing enclaves have primarily been identified as elite spaces of privilege that support self-imposed disaffiliation and spatial and social withdrawal by the affluent. Over the past decade, however, European countries have also seen a rise of gating in large housing estates. Drawing on previous research and a comparative case study that includes interviews, observations, and mapping, this article analyses policies and practices of gating in large housing estates since 2010 in Malmo, Sweden and since 2000 in Paris, France. We argue, first, that gating is legitimised by policy arguments about 'defensible space', by a critique of the modernist design, and by a perceived need for diversification. Secondly, we expand the notion of urban gating and identify four types of enclosure: complete enclosure, semi-enclosure, enclosure through densification, and enclosure of parks and playgrounds. We conclude that the notion of the welfare state has changed, not only in financial terms but also as an urban form, leading to the micro-segregation of housing and land, which makes visible the social stratification within large housing estates. Gating of large housing estates thus leads to 'enclosed communities' rather than 'gated communities'.

Sharing housing with non-family members has increasingly become a way to reduce costs while pursuing an auton-omous yet communal living throughout the life course. During the past decade, a new form of shared housing hasentered the Swedish real estate market: coliving. Like shared housing generally, some of the aims of coliving are to helpaddress the housing shortage, decrease loneliness, increase the sustainability of housing and provide flexible hous-ing for an increasingly mobile population. Based on the design of sixteen coliving hubs and interviews with thirteencoliving developers and operators as well as fourteen colivers, we show how the visions and experiences of developersand residents are mutually constitutive, but also at odds with each other. We argue first that even though coliving isset in a discourse of commoning as an alternative form of exchange, production and living, developers decrease thesize of shared spaces and reduce options for residents to manage their homes and participate in choosing whom tolive with. As a consequence, colivers feel the need to develop strategies to manage privacy and practice self-care, sincehaving emotional balance becomes a prerequisite for an intensely shared life. Furthermore, the emotional labour ofcolivers revolves primarily around socializing with others similar to themselves while services, such as cleaning andmaintenance, are provided by staff. In conclusion, we define commoning practices in coliving as a form of covertcommoning built on contradictions between discourse and lived experience.

Los trabajos reunidos en esta colección tienen en común la aplicación de perspectivas interseccionales para entender la vida urbana desde los bordes, a través de situaciones observadas en diversos contextos nacionales y regionales, en el espacio público, el acceso a la vivienda, experiencias y estrategias de resistencia espacial, entre otros tópicos relevantes.

The Folkhem era in Sweden set high architectural standards for social infrastructures dispersedly located in cities. Over the past two decades, however, Swedish planning, when it comes to the localization of social infrastructure, has been increasingly characterized by privatized social infrastructures added to housing. Methodologically, this article draws on a compilation of architectural designs of shared housing that includes social infrastructure, 12 interviews with developers, and 22 interviews with residents. The article argues, first, that two historical approaches can be identified: one in which porous borders support urban social life in and around the housing complex and another where distinct boundaries form an edge where things end. Secondly, the article argues that in recent shared housing complexes, the infrastructures of fitness, health care, and privatized services—previously available solely in the public realm—have moved physically and mentally closer to the individual, largely replacing residents’ everyday use of public space. The article concludes that in recent shared housing complexes, ambiguous borders are formed. Ambiguous borders allow a flow of goods and people, but the flow is based on the needs and preferences of residents only. Overall, such privatization counteracts the development of urban social life while adding to housing inequality, as this form of housing is primarily accessible only to the relatively wealthy. Furthermore, there is a risk that urban planning may favour such privatization to avoid maintenance costs, even though the aim of planning for general public accessibility to social infrastructure is thereby shifted towards planning primarily for specific groups.