Designing with Equity: A Conceptual Comparison of the Dignified Design Process and Gensler's Strategies for Equitable Design

Background and Purpose: Marginalized communities—particularly Black, Indigenous, Latine, and other communities of color—have long faced systemic inequities in affordable housing. Historical policies such as redlining, exclusionary zoning, and discriminatory lending have contributed to poverty concentration, disinvestment, and environmental hazards. These inequities result in chronic housing instability, displacement, and inadequate living conditions, significantly impacting physical and psychological well-being. Addressing these challenges requires equitable design strategies that not only provide shelter but also foster dignity, healing, and community well-being.

The Dignified Design Process (DDP) offers a trauma-informed approach to housing design, prioritizing dignity, safety, and emotional well-being for communities affected by systemic oppression. Gensler’s 10 Strategies for Equitable Design provides a structured framework for embedding racial and social justice principles into architectural practice. While both emphasize equity-driven design, their specific strategies and applications remain underexplored in comparative analysis.

This paper provides a review and conceptual comparison of how the DDP advances equity, using Gensler’s framework as an evaluative tool. By examining areas of alignment, divergence, and potential enhancement, this study assesses how these models contribute to supportive housing design and explores how principles from each framework can be integrated to strengthen their impact in addressing systemic housing inequities.

Methods: This study employs a conceptual review and comparative analysis of the Dignified Design Process and Gensler’s strategies. The analysis focuses on:

• Conceptual alignment: Identifying shared equity-driven design principles.
• Differences in scope and application: Assessing unique contributions to equitable housing.
• Implications for supportive housing: Exploring how both frameworks inform best practices.
• Framework enhancements: Identifying opportunities for integration and future research.

Results: Findings from this study highlight key areas of alignment, including a shared emphasis on community engagement, accessibility, and justice-oriented design. Both models prioritize social impact in the built environment, promoting belonging, empowerment, and well-being.

However, notable differences emerge in their approaches. Gensler’s framework provides actionable strategies tailored to industry professionals and urban developers, while the DDP takes a broader, trauma-informed approach that integrates healing and dignity as central design principles. The DDP emphasizes lived experiences, whereas Gensler’s strategies focus on structured implementation within architectural practice.

Conclusions and Implications: This comparison underscores the potential for integrating the DDP and Gensler’s strategies to create more robust, equity-driven approaches to supportive housing design. By synthesizing principles from both frameworks, practitioners can develop design interventions that address systemic barriers while fostering healing, inclusion, and dignity for marginalized communities. Future research should empirically test these frameworks in real-world housing projects. By continuously refining and integrating these frameworks, equitable design can move beyond theory to drive tangible, transformative change—creating dignified, healing-centered spaces.