IDEC Student Design Competition Call 2024-25 Academic Year

Prologue

In today’s rapidly evolving society, the importance of multigenerational communication cannot be overstated. As technological advancements reshape the way we interact and communities become increasingly diverse, bridging the gap between different age groups becomes paramount.

Each generation brings with it a unique set of experiences, perspectives, and values. The exchange of ideas and knowledge across generations not only enriches individual lives but also strengthens the fabric of society as a whole.

Multigenerational communication fosters understanding, empathy, and mutual respect. It enables younger generations to learn from the wisdom and lessons of their elders, while older generations gain fresh insights and perspectives from the youthful energy and innovation of the
younger ones.

Moreover, intergenerational connections serve as a source of support, companionship, and solidarity. They break down barriers, combat ageism, and promote inclusivity, creating cohesive communities where everyone feels valued and heard.

In a world that often emphasizes differences, multigenerational communication serves as a powerful reminder of our shared humanity and interconnectedness. It is through these meaningful exchanges that we can build a brighter, more inclusive future for generations to come.

Conceptual Influences

“The built environment of intergenerational facilities, where both youth and elders receive services, can either foster or discourage social interaction; it influences children’s development as well as elders’ health and well-being. The spatial design of these facilities further impacts the quality of the social interactions that take place there, as well as the associated outcomes.” (Norouzi et al., 2019)

The challenge of creating spatial designs that foster “children’s development” as well as “elders’ health and well-being. “… the physical environment is designed to accommodate the physical and psychological needs of people across the age and ability spectrum, there has been less consideration of ways to create environments that afford opportunities for meaningful engagement…” (see Kaplan et al., 2007). However, many focused on the activities not the spatial elements of the venues which can impede the development and well-being aforementioned (for example, obstructed sight lines, see Norouzi et al., 2019).

Design Scenario

Prompt

A place of intergenerational communities and activities. This sheltered interior space, either indoor or outdoor, should support the development of children and young adults, as well as the health and well-being of elders. The design must address people’s physical and psychological needs across the age and ability spectrum while providing opportunities for meaningful engagement. Key requirements include a gathering space that can comfortably accommodate up to 15 people for communal activities such as workshops, social gatherings, and group exercises, and a small gathering space for more intimate interactions, promoting deeper connections. Adequate storage is essential to keep the area organized and accessible, along with a designated space for an under-counter refrigerator to support food-related activities.

A fully accessible bathroom must cater to the needs of all users, including those with mobility challenges. A flex room should also be included, adaptable for various purposes such as a quiet reading area, playroom, or private meeting space. Design considerations should ensure the space is easily navigable for individuals with varying levels of mobility, featuring wide doorways, ramps, and non-slip flooring. Clear sight lines are crucial for supervision and interaction, creating a sense of safety and connectedness. Comfort should be prioritized with appropriate lighting, acoustics, and ventilation. The space should also incorporate elements that encourage interaction and engagement, such as shared activity stations, interactive displays, and flexible seating arrangements. Finally, foster an inclusive atmosphere where everyone feels welcome and valued, with design elements that reflect the diverse needs and preferences of
different age groups.

Location: A place in your existing community
Time: Current Day or near future
Scope: Maximum 70 square meters
The competition is open to interpretations of community space. You can either choose an existing indoor or outdoor venue, or you can propose a temporary installation that can be relocatable or reproducible in other locations.
Users: Children and young adults (K-12 to college students) interacting with elders (ages 55 and older)
Create a permanent or temporary sheltered interior “environment” for intergenerational connection.

Considerations & Research

Consider the following:

1. What specific needs are being addressed based on your research and site selection?
2. Some communities may experience more multigenerational isolation than others (examples). Are you designing for a specific user group?
3. Your design can push the boundaries of a traditional “space”, but it must have elements of enclosure which may or may not be “built” or physical.

Research topics relevant to intergenerational design, wellness, and inclusion as related to the
narrative that your team creates. The following areas should be explored:

1. Scope of Intergenerational Interaction Issues
   • Examining the common challenges and benefits associated with interactions between different age groups.
   • Investigating barriers to effective intergenerational communication and collaboration.
   • Analyzing the impact of societal changes on intergenerational relationships.
2. Site Considerations
   • Identifying design features that support intergenerational interactions in community and institutional settings.
   • Exploring how public spaces can be designed to be inclusive for all ages.
   • Considering accessibility and mobility issues for older adults and young children in shared environments.
3. Specific Intergenerational Issues Related to User Race, Class, and Gender Identity
   • Investigating how race, class, and gender identity influence intergenerational relationships and interactions.
   • Exploring the unique challenges faced by marginalized groups in maintaining intergenerational connections.
   • Developing strategies to create inclusive spaces that honor diversity and promote equity across generations.

Research should be evident in the narratives, conceptual description, and design outcomes, ensuring that the final design promotes wellness and inclusion for all generations.

Deliverables

• To assure digital viewing, create a single HORIZONTAL [16:9 ratio or 24” x 48”] poster including all the requirements below.
  • All diagrams, drawings, and renderings are to be completed by student teams. Faculty are encouraged to provide critique and feedback to their students in a timely fashion
  • All stages of work including the creation of the poster file must be prepared within the TWO WEEK (14 full days) timeframe of the competition.
  • All entries must be submitted using PDF file format demonstrating the team’s design.

Within the poster your submission must include:

• Design concept (maximum 100 words) supported by visuals and notations.
• Written narrative describing the user and the user’s experience in the environment (maximum 350 words). The narrative should support all design decisions.
• Visual representation of critical aspects of the user experience in context to the environment, including site analysis, research (e.g., observations, interviews), and what you deem relevant.
• Documentation of installation to include plan (site plan if needed), axonometric (or equivalence in three-dimensional visuals) and conceptual diagrams.
• Provide additional notations as needed to enhance visuals. No word count maximum, but notations should be concise in nature.

Each project must adhere to these requirements:

• The file must be .pdf format and the file size must not exceed 100 Mb.
• Format to be 24” x 48” wide or ratio of 16:9 to accommodate digital viewing.
• To assure blind review, submissions must NOT include author(s) name(s), institutional affiliation(s) or branding(s), course numbers, or any other forms of identification. Submissions that do not satisfy all requirements will be disqualified from review.

Judging Criteria

To be considered for judging in the IDEC Student Design Competition, all entries must abide by all the competition rules.

• • 35 points. Needfulness and creativity of overall design solution
  • 25 points. Specificity and effectiveness of the restorative environment
  • 20 points. Specificity of user group, user need and evidence-based design
  • 20 points. Graphic composition of the poster presentation

All drawings, diagrams, and other visual items are expected to be executed to the highest level of craft. All writing must be free of spelling and grammar errors. Quotations or support images must be properly cited.

Timeline

Due to the variety of studio schedules, the overall timeline for this competition is two full weeks, regardless of times or length of classes. It is suggested students work both inside and outside of the studio as they so need or desire to accomplish the goals of the competition, with the first part of the competition devoted to research and the second for design and execution; however that is divided up to studio teachers. Feedback should be given after the first part to ensure the student is on track, and the final poster should be submitted to the instructor in PDF format at the end of 14 days. Students are encouraged to read the referenced articles noted but should also do first person research on this via observation, interviews, or other inquiry.

Schedule:

• July 31, 2024: Student competition is published on the IDEC website.Entries may be completed either in the Fall 2024 or early Spring 2025 semester.
• August 1 – February 7, 2025: Faculty sponsors may choose any consecutive Two-week period during this time to facilitate the competition.
• November 1, 2024 – Feb 7, 2025, 11:59 PM Pacific, in PDF format: Submittal window is open online. Each college or university program can submit up to 2 projects; both may be undergraduate; both may be graduate or a mix of one from each group.
• February – March 2025: Projects are juried and will be judged by IDEC volunteers and professionals. Winners and their respective faculty will be notified prior to the 2025 IDEC Annual Conference.
• March 2025: Finalists are displayed at the 2025 IDEC Annual Conference and recognized, along with the respective faculty. Winners will be displayed digitally and announced at the Annual Conference in March 2025.

Awards

There will be 3 categories for winning entries, for a total of 9 teams recognized.

COMMUNITY/2-YEAR PROGRAM

• FIRST PLACE
• 2ND PLACE
• HONORABLE MENTION

4-YEAR PROGRAM

• FIRST PLACE
• 2ND PLACE
• HONORABLE MENTION

GRADUATE PROGRAM

• FIRST PLACE
• 2ND PLACE
• HONORABLE MENTION

In the case of a tie or limited entries in any categories, the final jury reserves the right to adjust awards accordingly.

Competition Rules

• The IDEC member faculty sponsor must upload entries to the online submission portal by the deadline of Feb 7, 2025, 11:59 PM Pacific, in PDF format.
• Students may work individually or in a team of no more than four.
• In no exception, shall the school be identified within the project. Students may use a specific site on their campus to locate their project, however no school buildings should be identified by the name of program or university. If there are any references to the site, they must be generic and not identifiable (no school mascot, colors or other logos allowed). Entries that show an identification of school or student within the design layout or entries that do not comply with all competition requirements will be disqualified.
• Teams can be cross-expertise including any level of development (first year and 2nd year; First through 4th yr; graduate only per the submission categories). No graduates shall work with undergraduates on this competition.
• Students enrolled in undergraduate or graduate interior design programs that have at least one faculty member that is a member of IDEC are eligible to enter. The supervising faculty will facilitate access to competition materials and updates via the IDEC website.
• Projects must be supervised by a faculty member and completed in a consecutive two-week (14 days) including all changes, edits and revisions.
• Projects must be submitted with no student and/or program identification on the poster or in the file name.
• A total up to two (2) projects will be accepted from each program, including undergraduate and graduate submissions.
• Project information will be available on the IDEC website through Jan 20, 2024 and can only be accessed by a member of IDEC.
• Faculty are encouraged to use this design challenge to aid in fulfilling their school’s learning objectives as well as those outlined in this competition.
• A Q & A section will be available online beginning Aug 20, 2024, with the competition information and will be updated through Jan 15, 2025. It is the responsibility of the supervising faculty to visit the Q & A postings frequently to stay updated on the competition project.
• Questions or inquiries should be directed to: info@idec.org and will be answered within a 48 hour period.

Q & A:

Question: Is a canopy that is affixed to the structure and overhangs deep enough to provide for a few outdoor chairs be considered within the “envelope”?  Similarly, if the student had a cantilever beam or pergola off the structure with seating underneath, would this count in the SF?

• Answer: Yes, if the canopy/cantilever beam/pergola is considered a functional extension of the interior space, contributing to the design’s usability, then it is counted within the “envelope” and its SF will be included in the maximum allotted space.

• Answer: Yes, but if they split up the space into two pods that are not connected, both pods need to serve the design’s purpose of fostering intergenerational connectedness and harmony. Each pod would need to be considered part of the overall SF.

Question: Are there any parameters on wall widths? Are they included in the 70 square meter limit?

• Answer: The space calculation typically includes all enclosed areas, which means that the interior dimensions (usable space) would account for wall widths as part of the overall design. The wall width can be at the discretion of the students, as long as it is code-compliant and appropriate for the structural characteristics of the design.

References:

Literature for Intergenerational Design:
Campbell, N. M. (2014). Designing Retirement Community Third Places: Attributes Impacting how Well Social Spaces are Liked and Used. Journal of Interior Design, 39(4), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/joid.12035

Kaplan M, Haider J, Cohen U, Turner D (2007) Environmental design perspectives on intergenerational programs and practices. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships 5(2): 81-110. https://doi.org/10.1300/J194v05n02_06

Kopec, D. (2018). Environmental Psychology for Design:-with STUDIO. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/environmental-psychology-for-design-9781501316838/

Nelischer, C., & Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2023). Intergenerational public space design and policy:
A review of the literature. Journal of Planning Literature, 38(1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412222109217

Norouzi N, Chen J-C, Ja rrott S, Satari A. Designing Intergenerational Spaces: What to Learn From Children. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal. 2023;16(2):174-188. doi:10.1177/19375867221138929

Norouzi, N., Jarrott, S., & Chaudhury, H. (2019). Designing Intergenerational Space through a Human-development Lens. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 36(1), 35–51. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26949372

Rogers A, Taylor A (1997) Intergenerational mentoring: A viable strategy for meeting the needs of vulnerable youth. Journal of Gerontological Social Work 28(1-2):125-140. https://doi.org/10.1300/J083v28n01_15

Lyndon, S., Moss, H. Creating Meaningful Interactions for Young Children, Older Friends, and Nursery School Practitioners within an Intergenerational Project. Early Childhood Educ J 51, 755–764 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-022-01330-5

Literature for designing for the Elderly:
Balcerzak, B., Kopeć, W., Nielek, R., Warpechowski, K., & Czajka, A. (2017). From close the door to do not click and back. Security by design for older adults. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.1708.07752

Bianco, L. (2020). Universal design: from design philosophy to applied science. Journal of Accessibility and Design for All, 10(1), 70–97. https://doi.org/10.17411/jacces.v10i1.249

Cevallos, N., Ramadhani, W., Lindgren, J. U., Bell, B. M., Martinez‐Cosio, M., Harvey, T., Nanda, U., & Wilson, G. M. (2023). (St)aging in place: Information and communication technologies for a health-centered agile dwelling unit. Frontiers in Public Health, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1057689

Crews, D. E. (2022). Aging, frailty, and design of built environments. Journal of Physiological Anthropology, 41(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40101-021-00274-w

Eckstein, S. M. (2020). Elderly care: current issues and challenges. Nova Science Publishers.

Gomes, G. P. R., Rubin, S., Duker, L. I. S., Benton, D., Kratky, A., Chen, S. Y. A., Jordan‐Marsh, M., & Gotsis, M. (2020). Healing spaces: feasibility of a multisensory experience for older adults with advanced dementia and their caregivers. arXiv (Cornell University). http://arxiv.org/abs/2007.02083

Joshi, S., Stavrianakis, K., & Das, S. (2020). Substituting Restorative Benefits of Being Outdoors through Interactive Augmented Spatial Soundscapes. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2007.13188

Kopeć, W., Skorupska, K., Jaskulska, A., Abramczuk, K., Nielek, R., & Wierzbicki, A. (2017). LivingLab PJAIT: Towards Better Urban Participation of Seniors. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.1707.00030

Ling, T., Lu, H., Kao, Y., Chien, S., Chen, H., & Lin, L. (2023). Understanding the Meaningful Places for Aging-in-Place: A Human-Centric Approach toward Inter-Domain Design Criteria Consideration in Taiwan. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health/International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(2), 1373. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021373

Mauri, D., Kampletsas, Ε., Smyris, G., Tsali, L., Tsekeris, P., Harissis, H. V., Kamposioras, K., Tolia, M., Hyphantis, T., Ntellas, P., Gazouli, I., Zarkavelis, G., Mavroeidis, L., Amylidi, A., Torounidou, N., Gogadis, A., & Nixon, J. (2021). Interior Design: A New Perspective in Supportive Care of Patients with Acute Onset of Debilitating Diseases. Palliative Medicine Reports, 2(1), 365–368. https://doi.org/10.1089/pmr.2021.0031

Najafi, P., & Mohammadi, M. (2024). Redefining Age-Friendly neighbourhoods: Translating the promises of blue zones for contemporary urban environments. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health/International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 21(3), 365. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21030365

Schiavo, G., Mich, O., Ferron, M., & Mana, N. (2020). Trade-offs in the design of multimodal interaction for older adults. Behaviour & Information Technology, 41(5), 1035–1051. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929x.2020.1851768

Singh, D., Kropf, J., Hanke, S., & Holzinger, A. (2017). Ambient Assisted Living Technologies from the Perspectives of Older People and Professionals. In Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 255–266). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66808-6_17

Thakur, N., & Han. (n.d.). A REVIEW OF ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING OF ELDERLY. In Elderly care: current issues and challenges.

Tually, S., Coram, V., Faulkner, D., Barrie, H., Sharam, A., James, A., Lowies, B., Bevin, K., Webb, E., Hodgson, H., & Cebulla, A. (2022). Alternative housing models for precariously housed older Australians. AHURI Final Report, 378. https://doi.org/10.18408/ahuri3225201

While, Z., Crouser, R. J., & Sarvghad, A. (2024). GerontoVis: Data Visualization at the Confluence of Aging. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2403.13173

Zanella, A., Mason, F., Pluchino, P., Cisotto, G., Orso, V., & Gamberini, L. (2020). Internet of things for elderly and fragile people. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2006.05709

The Hogeweyk is a neighborhood with 27 houses, each accommodating 6-7 residents with advanced dementia. It provides a home-like environment rather than a traditional nursing home setting. Dementia is a growing problem, and the traditional nursing home approach often adds confusion to the already confused state of residents. The Hogeweyk aims to create a normalized environment that caters to the needs and preferences of the residents. The Hogeweyk organizes residents into “lifestyle groups” based on their backgrounds, interests, and daily routines, allowing them to live with like-minded individuals and maintain a sense of familiarity and community. Residents are encouraged to engage in social activities, go shopping, visit the pub, and interact with each other and the community, fostering a sense of belonging and purpose.

• Aging and Mental Health: Psychological, emotional, or social health issues may be the root cause of a senior’s physical health problems, and isolation can significantly impact mental health.
• Preventing Isolation: Encouraging seniors to join classes or groups, volunteer, and regularly communicate with friends and family can help prevent isolation and improve their quality of life.
• Finding Joy: Embracing interests, trying new things, connecting with loved ones, and exercising can help seniors find moments of joy, which can improve mood, reduce anxiety and depression, and relieve pain.
• Dealing with Grief: When seniors experience loss, it’s important to encourage them to take care of themselves, talk to supportive friends and family, join a grief support group, and seek professional counseling if needed.