BUILDERS and the Myth of 'Neutral' Environments
How to Build for Comfort Beyond Sensory Design
There has been a significant increase in conversations around DEI in recent years. DEI, which stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, was developed primarily as an organizational framework, most often applied to workplaces and employees.
At its best, DEI seeks to promote fair treatment and full participation for people who have historically been marginalized or excluded. These values are important, necessary, and worth defending.
From Wikipedia:
Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are organizational frameworks that seek to promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people, particularly groups who have historically been underrepresented, marginalized, or subject to discrimination based on identity or disability.
These three notions (diversity, equity, and inclusion) together represent “three closely linked values”, which organizations seek to institutionalize through DEI frameworks.
Diversity refers to the presence of variety within the organizational workforce in characteristics, such as race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, age, culture, class, veteran status, or religion.
Equity refers to concepts of fairness and justice, such as fair compensation and substantive equality. More specifically, equity usually also includes a focus on societal disparities, allocating resources, “decision making authority to groups that have historically been disadvantaged,” and taking “into consideration a person’s unique circumstances, adjusting treatment accordingly so that the end result is equal.”
Inclusion refers to creating an organizational culture that creates an experience where “all employees feel their voices will be heard” and a sense of belonging and integration.
As a member of multiple different marginalized groups myself, I certainly recognize and support the importance of DEI.
However, DEI is also intentionally broad.
That breadth makes it flexible, but it also makes it easy to gesture toward without materially changing how spaces actually function.
Much like the SOLACE Model (TM), which focuses on sensory conditions beyond basic accessibility compliance, DEI values often need more explicit translation into observable, measurable practice.
As I was reviewing the initial responses to Neuromix’s Public Space Comfort Survey, a few people had left comments in the ‘anything else you would like to add’ section that got me thinking. Respondents had surfaced adjacent issues that clearly affected whether people felt able to enter, remain in, and engage with a space.
Although the survey was designed to focus on sensory comfort, two comments in particular stayed with me:
“Don’t forget accommodations for different body sizes.”
“What about sober spaces?”
These were not sensory issues in the narrow sense, but they definitely fall under ‘comfort and access’ issues. That’s when it became clear that there was room for a complementary framework, one that makes often-implicit inclusion considerations explicit.
I know that as with sensory considerations, there has also started to be more consideration around having non-alcoholic alternatives available at events, and some events have even intentionally gone ‘dry’. As a non-drinker myself, I really appreciate this.
But sobriety (for example) does not only encompass alcohol. Some people do not feel comfortable in spaces where other substances (such as marijuana) are being used, or where people will come to the event ‘already high’.
I began developing a new acronym.
The first iteration was BUILDS, which stood for:
• Bodies
• Under-resourced
• Identity
• Land acknowledgement
• Dietary restrictions
• Sobriety
As the framework evolved, it became clear that some key dimensions were still missing. That expansion resulted in BUILDERS:
• Bodies
• Under-resourced
• Identity
• Land acknowledgement
• Dietary restrictions & Sobriety
• Expression
• Relational Reality
• Social Safety
A fair question at this point is: aren’t these already covered under DEI?
In theory, yes. In practice, not always.
DEI’s strength is its breadth, but that same breadth can make it difficult to operationalize.
BUILDERS is not intended to replace DEI, but to function as a more explicit inclusion lens that helps translate values into observable conditions. It’s easier for organizations to claim DEI considerations without more concrete proof.
For me, spelling these factors out more explicitly helps with ‘corporate social responsibility’.
But again as with SOLACE, this additional framework can apply to any space. DEI focuses on staff and employees, while BUILDERS can apply to staff, patrons, students, patients, etc. It’s a more explicit inclusion framework.
BUILDERS is intended for anyone responsible for shaping shared spaces, including workplaces, events, educational settings, and public-facing organizations.
BUILDERS focuses on how social, relational, and structural conditions are designed and signaled through spaces, policies, and norms, rather than on individual identity alone.
Some readers may also experience a degree of acronym fatigue. That reaction is understandable.
However, specificity is not complexity for its own sake. Naming things clearly is often the difference between performative commitment and meaningful action. BUILDERS is very easy to remember because it is a real word in the English language, and because it reflects a practical lens rather than an abstract label.
So what do these letters/categories really stand for and why are they included?
Let’s break it down:
B.U.I.L.D.E.R.S.
Bodies
Bodies of all shapes, sizes, and abilities
Bodies refers to the physical realities people bring into a space. This includes body size, height, mobility, stamina, chronic pain, fatigue, pregnancy, aging, visible and invisible disabilities, and variability in strength, balance, and endurance.
While disability is technically included under DEI, many spaces are still designed around an unspoken “default body.” One that can stand for long periods, fit comfortably into standard seating, move easily through narrow aisles, tolerate long days, and recover quickly from physical strain.
Explicitly naming bodies helps surface these assumptions. It shifts the question from “is this legally accessible?” to “who can actually remain here comfortably and safely, and for how long?”
Under-resourced
Under-resourced refers to material and structural constraints that limit people’s ability to participate fully, even when they are technically “included.”
This includes people who are unhoused or ‘couch surfing’, under-employed or unemployed, students, caregivers, newcomers, people without reliable transportation, and those without financial buffers or institutional support.
Disabled and queer individuals, on average, earn less and face higher barriers to stable employment and housing than their straight, cisgender, and non-disabled peers. Within LGBTQ+ and disability communities, this reality is increasingly acknowledged via “sliding scale” prices for events/experiences, therapy services, and other instances.
Under-resourcing often shows up invisibly in spaces that assume disposable income, flexible schedules, unpaid labor, or the ability to absorb unexpected costs.
Naming it makes equity concrete rather than abstract.
Identity
Identity refers to the social identities that shape how people are perceived, treated, and expected to behave within a space.
This includes gender, pronouns, sexuality, race, ethnicity, culture, and intersecting identities that influence safety, credibility, and belonging.
Many organizations have made progress here, particularly around pronoun use and inclusive language.
At the same time, identity-based inclusion remains uneven and often context-dependent, with increased resistance in some regions due to transphobia, racism, or politicization of identity itself (such as discrimination against people who identify as covid-conscious who still wear masks to social or professional events).
Including identity explicitly reinforces that inclusion is not neutral. It requires active, ongoing attention to whose identities are centered, tolerated, or marginalized.
Land acknowledgement
Land acknowledgement recognizes that spaces do not exist in a vacuum. They exist on land with histories, treaties, displacement, and ongoing Indigenous presence.
In Canada especially, land acknowledgements have become more common, but their depth and intent vary widely. Sometimes they are thoughtful and integrated. Sometimes they are rote and disconnected from action. For interest sake, here is the current progress in Canada towards the Truth and Reconciliation Act.
In practical terms, land acknowledgement invites organizations to consider who has historically been excluded from land, space, and decision-making, and how those patterns may still be reflected in who feels welcome, visible, or empowered today.
Including land acknowledgement in BUILDERS is not about performative statements. It is about situating inclusion within a broader historical and structural context, and acknowledging that access, ownership, and belonging have never been evenly distributed.
Dietary restrictions & Sobriety
Dietary restrictions and sobriety address bodily autonomy, health, culture, religion, and recovery.
Dietary needs may stem from allergies, chronic illness, disability, religion, culture, or ethical choices.
Sobriety may relate to health, trauma, medication interactions, recovery, or personal values.
While both have become more visible in recent years, they are still often treated as “preferences” rather than access needs. Many spaces offer alternatives only when asked, or in ways that single people out.
Grouping dietary restrictions and sobriety together reflects a shared principle. People should be able to participate without pressure to consume substances or foods that compromise their safety, health, or well-being.
Expression
Expression refers to how people communicate, signal belonging, and participate culturally.
This includes language fluency and accent, ESL or ETL realities, signed languages and Deaf culture, communication styles, dress, and cultural norms around formality, eye contact, volume, and interaction.
Many spaces unintentionally privilege a narrow range of expression that aligns with dominant cultural norms. Those outside that range are often perceived as less competent, less engaged, or less professional.
By naming expression explicitly, BUILDERS recognizes that inclusion is not only about who is present, but about whose ways of being are understood and respected.
Relational Reality
This dimension may be the least familiar or most challenging for many organizations to operationalize, as relational norms are often so deeply embedded that they function invisibly. That invisibility is precisely why explicit attention is needed
Relational reality refers to the wide range of relationship structures people live within, beyond the narrow default assumption of monogamous, romantic, cohabitating couples.
Most systems and spaces are designed around this default.
Registration forms, benefits, seating, housing assumptions, emergency contacts, and social norms often presume a single primary romantic partner or a nuclear family structure.
When people’s real relationships do not fit that model, they are often rendered invisible or treated as less legitimate.
One example of this is queerplatonic relationships, a term that originates in the asexual and aromantic communities.
From Wikipedia:
Queerplatonic relationships (QPRs) are committed intimate relationships between significant others whose relationship is not necessarily romantic in nature. A queerplatonic relationship differs from a close friendship by having the same explicit commitment, status, and structure as a formal romantic relationship, whilst it differs from a romantic relationship by not involving feelings of romantic love.
Like romantic relationships, queerplatonic relationships are sometimes said to involve a deeper and more profound emotional connection than typical friendship. While this relationship structure is not dependent on romantic or sexual attraction, queerplatonic partners may still engage in behaviors which would otherwise typically be reserved for romantic partners.
Relational reality also includes other non-traditional relationship structures such as ethical non-monogamy and relationship anarchy.
From Wikipedia:
Relationship anarchy (sometimes abbreviated RA) is the application of anarchist principles to interpersonal relationships. Its values include autonomy, anti-hierarchical practices, anti-normativity, and community interdependence. RA is commonly, but not always, non-monogamous.
This is distinct from polyamory, solo poly, swinging, and other forms of “dating”, which may include structures such as hierarchy of intimate relationships, and autonomy-limiting rules.
These relationship styles are not inherently disruptive or unstable. What creates friction is the mismatch between lived relational reality and systems built around a single assumed norm.
Although relationship structure technically falls under diversity and inclusion, people who do not conform to traditional monogamy are still more likely to experience subtle discrimination.
This often takes the form of exclusion from benefits, erasure in language, or pressure to conceal their relationships in professional or public settings.
Including relational reality within BUILDERS makes this structural assumption visible. It shifts inclusion from “tolerance of difference” to recognition of how deeply relational norms shape access, safety, and participation.
Social Safety
Social safety refers to the extent to which people can exist in a space without credible risk of harm, threat, coercion, or retaliation, both physical and social, and without needing to engage in constant self-protection.
Many spaces claim to be inclusive while still placing the burden of safety on individuals.
People are expected to manage risk quietly by staying alert, avoiding certain areas or people, moderating their behavior, or deciding whether it is worth speaking up at all.
Social safety shifts that burden from individuals to the environment itself.
In practice, social safety means people feel able to:
• Be present without fear of violence, assault, or harassment
• Move through a space without being targeted, followed, or cornered
• Express boundaries, verbal or non-verbal, without punishment or disbelief
• Decline interaction, substances, touch, or participation without social penalty
• Exist visibly without heightened risk due to gender, race, disability, queerness, body size, age, or power imbalance
Social safety is not created through good intentions or signage alone. It emerges from clear expectations, visible norms, and consistent responses when boundaries are crossed.
In workplaces, this includes psychological safety, protection from retaliation, and trust that concerns will be taken seriously regardless of role or seniority.
In events and public spaces, it includes clear codes of conduct, trained staff empowered to intervene, and accessible reporting pathways that do not require escalation to crisis before action is taken.
In educational settings, it includes predictable expectations, enforcement consistency, and respect for boundaries.
Without social safety, other forms of inclusion remain conditional. People may technically be welcome, but only if they are willing to absorb risk, remain silent, or self-regulate in ways that others are not asked to.
Including social safety within BUILDERS makes this explicit. Safety is not a personal trait or an individual responsibility. It is a design outcome.
Social safety is foundational, it is the condition that determines whether any of the other BUILDERS dimensions can function in practice rather than in theory.
Looking Forward
Now that we’ve covered what BUILDERS stands for and why it matters, let’s look at how it is implemented and how it pairs with SOLACE.
What BUILDERS is NOT
BUILDERS is not a moral ranking system, nor a declaration of virtue.
It is a visibility tool designed to surface assumptions and gaps, not to demand perfection or ideological alignment.
How BUILDERS and SOLACE Work Together
SOLACE focuses on sensory and environmental conditions that affect regulation, clarity, and endurance in shared spaces. SOLACE provides a model for observing and measuring sensory conditions.
DEI provides values, BUILDERS provides a structured lens for translating those values into observable conditions.
BUILDERS focuses on social, relational, and structural conditions that affect whether people feel safe, respected, and able to participate.
Together, they address different layers of the same question:
Can people enter, remain, and engage in this space without undue strain or risk?
One without the other leaves gaps.
How BUILDERS Is Used
BUILDERS is not a certification and not a compliance checklist. It is an explicit self-assessment and design lens.
Organizations adopting BUILDERS might ask:
• Which of these dimensions are currently considered, and which are routinely overlooked?
• Where are assumptions being made about “default” bodies, resources, relationships, or behaviors?
• What policies, practices, or signals actively reduce risk, and which unintentionally increase it?
BUILDERS can be applied during:
• Event planning and venue selection
• Policy review and staff training
• Program design and communications
• Post-event or post-program evaluation
The goal is not perfection, but clarity, accountability, and continuous improvement.
A short section about BUILDERS was included in the Contrast Collapse whitepaper, published last month.
Alongside Neuromix’s proposed sensory accessibility badge, BUILDERS is accompanied by a visual badge intended to signal explicit inclusion commitments.
Paired together, the three look like this:
These badges are not certifications. They represent transparency, intent, and willingness to be held accountable to stated values, not a claim of having “solved” inclusion.
BUILDERS is offered as a living framework, one that can evolve as our understanding of access, safety, and participation continues to deepen.
If you would like to learn more and discuss implementing BUILDERS in your organization or event, book a call with Neuromix.
Lacey Artemis (she/they) is a neurodivergent researcher, speaker, and consultant focused on systems-level sensory inclusion and design. She is the founder of Neuromix Consulting, where her applied research and advisory work supports more comfortable, accessible public spaces.
Survey | Whitepaper | SOLACE Model | LinkedIn • YouTube • IG • FB • BSKY