Law 13/89 in Italy represents a fundamental pillar for the removal of architectural barriers, aiming to guarantee the accessibility, visitability and adaptability of buildings for people with disabilities. This legislation, issued in compliance with Article 3 of the Italian Constitution, provides a series of technical prescriptions for new constructions, renovations and adaptations. As time has progressed, the law has undergone amendments and additions to improve and update the initial provisions. For example, Ministerial Decree No. 236 of 1989 established the detailed technical prescriptions for constructions, and there have also been revisions to the law as provisions allowing people with disabilities to proceed independently. In addition to the technical prescriptions, the law provides economic incentives, in the form of tax deductions, to encourage the adaptation of existing buildings to the new regulations. The implementation of this law has led to a greater awareness of the importance of accessibility and has encouraged the adaptation of living and public spaces to make them usable for all people, regardless of their abilities.
Law 13/89 and the subsequent Presidential Decree 503/96 in Italy represent national milestones in the elimination of architectural barriers and the inclusion of people with disabilities. While Law 13/89 established the basic requirements for accessibility in construction, Presidential Decree 503/96 introduced more detailed and specific regulations for the adaptation of existing infrastructure and the design of new facilities, both public and private, to ensure accessibility and independent use by persons with disabilities. The synergies between these regulations and European policies, such as the European Disability Strategy and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), are obvious. The EU and its member states have an obligation to align their domestic laws with the international agreements they have ratified. This means that Italian legislation must not only comply with the minimum requirements set by its own national legislation but also adapt to international standards.
Looking at synergies in a broader context, a comparison with other countries might show different levels of progress and approaches to barrier removal. Some countries, for example, may have implemented even stricter standards or may have integrated assistive technology more extensively into their infrastructure. Others may be lagging behind in both legislation and implementation, thus providing a picture of how different governments are working to meet the needs of people with disabilities. An international comparison can reveal best practices and innovative approaches that could be adopted or adapted in Italy or other EU Member States. Furthermore, it offers a perspective on how different societies are moving towards full inclusion and accessibility, and what common challenges all countries still face.
Criticism of Law 13/89, without forgetting its benefits, mainly concerns the need for an update to reflect contemporary needs. It has been suggested that, rather than focusing only on the removal of existing physical barriers, a design approach should be adopted that eliminates barriers a priori, thinking of a broader and more diverse range of users. DM 236/89 provides detailed guidelines for inclusive design, emphasising accessibility, visitability and adaptability of spaces. However, there is a perception that such laws and regulations can lead to the creation of environments that meet legal requirements without necessarily considering individual needs in an integrated way, especially with regard to sensory and perceptual abilities and disabilities, and instead focusing almost exclusively on mobility.
In a hypothetical revision of laws and regulations, it would be appropriate to adopt a less imperative and more indicative regulatory language that opens up to innovative, expressive and inclusive design. The new legislative and regulatory references should act as a guiding framework, offering flexible guidelines that stimulate creative solutions, considering the heterogeneity of users’ functional and sensory needs. At the same time, it would be essential to implement an adaptable evaluation mechanism, based on quantitative and qualitative parameters, to appreciate the appropriateness of the project in relation to the diversity of human conditions and the specificities of the environmental and social context. Such a system should make it possible to balance the need for accessibility standards with the uniqueness of the requirements expressed by the various stakeholders that must be involved in the process, guaranteeing a simplified but effective verification of the design work.
