The Vernacular of Control, Undergraduate Dissertation, 2016 by Ivo Pery

The Vernacluar of Control: The Social Impact of Defensive Architecure â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the degree of BA in Architecture, 2016â&#x20AC;&#x2122; By Ivo Patrick Pery 120158599 Final Word Count: 8357

Acknowledgements I owe my gratitude to the following individuals, without whom this paper would not have been realised in its final state: My dissertation supervisor Professor Andrew Ballantyne for his continued help and guidance, Peter Kellett for his words of reassurance, and Matthew Margetts for his time and insight. I would also like to thank Emily Maitland and Andrew Robinson, who supported and directed me throughout.

Abstract Architects and planners use design as a tool for control. This is most evident within our cities where many facets of life are manipulated by the built environment. Pro-social behaviours are often encouraged, while antisocial ones are eradicated and condemned via the installation of exclusive designs referred to as â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Defensive Architectureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. This paper hopes to explore the impact that defensive design can have on society as a whole, before examining other design strategies that could be utilised to greater effect.

iii

Illustrations Cover Image. Author’s own. Figure 1. Barbed Wire, Brentford, London, Author’s own photograph. Figure 2. Factory Wall, Brentford, London, Author’s own photograph. Figure 3. Bench near King’s Cross Station, London, Author’s own photograph. Figure 4. Ibid. Figure 5. Anti-skateboarding devices outside King’s Cross Station, London, Author’s own photograph. Figure 6. Sculptural bench by Central Saint Martins, London, Author’s own photograph. Figure 7. The Camden Bench, Factory Furniture. Available at: <http://factoryfurniture.co.uk/index/ products/seating/camden-bench.html> [accessed 12 October 2015] Figure 8. Ibid. Figure 9. Pay & Sit, Fabian Brunsing. Available at: <http://www.fabianbrunsing.de/> [accessed 30 December 2015]. Figure 10. Ibid.

Figure 11 Body Configurations Testing Resistance On..., Sarah Ross. Available at: <http://www.insecurespaces.net/ testingresistance.html> [accessed 11 November 2015]. Figure 12. Archistuits, Sarah Ross. Available at: <http://www.insecurespaces.net/archisuits. html> [accessed 11 November 2015]. Figure 13. Ibid. Figure 14. Social Integration Furniture, BAUM LAB Architectura Available at: <http://www.baumarquitectura.com/?post_ type=portfolio&p=4393> [accessed 17 January 2016]. Figure 15. Ibid. Figure 16. Raincity Housing Benches, Spring Advertising/ Raincity Housing. Available at: <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ worldnews/northamerica/canada/10926855/Antidoteto-anti-homeless-spikes-instant-bench-shelters.html> [accessed 28 September 2015]. Figure 17. Ibid. Figure 18. Desire Lines, Photographer unkown. Available at: <http://www.welshgeek.com/wp-content/ uploads/2014/02/park-1.jpg> [accessed 15 January 2016]. Figure 19. Paving the Cow Path, Dan Lockton. Available at: <http://architectures.danlockton. co.uk/2011/09/12/architecture-urbanism-design-andbehaviour-a-brief-review/> [accessed 16 October 2015].

Contents Introduction ........................................................................ page. 1 Chapter 1 - Manipulation of the Masses .................... page. 5

The Subtleties of Control .............................................. page. 6 To Sit or Not to Sit? ..................................................... page. 10

Chapter 2 - Defensive Architecture and its Implications................................................................... page. 15

Unpleasant Design ........................................................ page. 16 Exclusive To Whom?..................................................... page. 18 The Homeless ................................................................. page. 21 The Law of Unintended Consequences ..................... page. 23 The Moral Obligation of the Designer ......................... page. 25

Chapter 3 - Fightback: a Collection of Case Studies .......................................................................... page. 23

A Thorny Issue ............................................................... page. 35 Political Satire ................................................................ page. 35 Artistic Response............................................................ page. 36 Unpleasant Design Competition ................................. page. 38 Urban Acupuncture ...................................................... page. 41

Chapter 4 - New Design Approaches Which Could be More Effectively Utilised ............................................................ page. 45

Desire Lines and Cow Paths .......................................... page. 46 Integrated Practice ......................................................... page. 49

Conclusion ........................................................................... page. 43 Bibliography ......................................................................... page. 57

Introduction

rchitectural determinism is the theory that the built environment is the chief or even sole determinant of social behaviour. It was an idea that was popularised during the modernist movement with the belief that the right kind of building could turn us into healthier, happier people. As Ittelson explains, “[i]n its simplest interpretation, [determinism] holds that man can manipulate environments to produce specified behaviours.”1 It is now usually associated with a time gone by and is widely criticised for putting too much emphasis on the role of the Designer. “It implies a one-way process in which the physical environment is the independent, and human behaviour the dependent variable.”2 Closer scrutiny however reveals a counter argument. Simon Richards certainly feels that determinism is still a part of modern architecture and design: “Far from going away this idea has become more deeply entrenched and has diversified in complex ways... …while the architectural forms and solutions may have changed, the commitment to use them to reform behaviour and society has not.”3 This raises a contradiction in the claims from architects and planners that determinism is a thing of the past. Certainly this can be seen in our public spaces which go some way to authenticating the validity of Richards’ claim. It seems as though these areas are subject to a particularly harsh brand of determinism. 1 William H. Ittelson, An Introduction to Environmental Psychology, 2nd edn (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1974), p. 345. 2 Maurice Broady, ‘Social Theory in Architectural Design’, in People and Buildings, ed. by Robert Gutman (New York: Basic Books, 1966) p.174. 3 Simon Richards, Architect Knows Best: Environmental Determinism in Architecture Culture from 1956 to the Present (United Kingdom: Ashgate Publishing, 2012), p. 1.

Strangely though this is something that is not often acknowledged by modern architects and planners. It has become a subconscious part of the discourse and as such is difficult to quantify in any real or meaningful way.4 This inability to see the continued existence of deterministic design defies logic at times: “Every once in a while we still get calls from people [who] say: ‘Well, we all know that design doesn’t affect behaviour. What are you claiming here?’ And all I have to do is look out the window and see the bands of children walking to the movies. All I have to do is walk out in the middle of the night and see three or four neighbours in the middle of the street chatting with each other.”5 Whether or not determinism is deliberately used by architects and planners is immaterial; I am not trying to prove or disprove the theory. Instead I will be arguing in support of Richards’ claim, using it as a frame of context from which I will scrutinise the controlling nature of modern cities. The fact is, design is a tool used by planners, architects, and politicians to encourage some behavioural trends, or to eradicate others. Indeed there are increasingly few facets of urban life that are not controlled at some level. Public spaces are often designed to impact on the social behaviours of a city’s users, with many different techniques used across a variety of areas. These can be for strategic reasons or for reasons of health and safety, but often we are manipulated for commercial profit, an approach which might be seen as unethical. Even something as simple as seating can offer a whole range of hidden ulterior motives when examined closely.

4 Geoffrey Scott, Henry Hope Reed and Paul Barolsky, The Architecture of Humanism; a Study in the History of Taste, 5th edn (New York: Norton, 1974) p.123. 5 Andrés Duany, Interview with the Author, 1 August 2003, as seen in: Richards, Architect Knows Best, p. 154.

More worrying however is the rise in defensive architecture: designs which seek to eliminate or remove any perceived negative traits of society. These designs often target the most destitute among us, raising troubling ethical questions. They are hostile in their nature and exclusive to certain users, exposing the culture of fear and paranoia which permeates society and the political sphere. They are also seemingly contradictory in their nature as antisocial designs are used to combat antisocial behaviour. But is this design approach appropriate or even necessary? By exploring a range of different case studies as well as the work of urbanists, environmental psychologists and architectural theorists, I hope to show the detrimental impact it can have on our cities. I will examine in detail the cause and effect of defensive architecture with the aim of highlighting its fallacious nature, and by bringing to light other design strategies I hope to offer some remedial qualities to the problems at hand.

Chapter 1

Manipulation of the Masses

The Subtleties of Control “There is no doubt whatever about the influence of architecture and structure upon human character and action. We make our buildings and afterwards they make us. They regulate the course of our lives.”1

rchitects and Planners have a direct and intrinsic effect on human behaviour. The environment in which we live has an undeniable impact on the way we inhabit a place and the way in which our culture may grow and develop. This has been true in the natural environment and throughout human evolution but it is even truer today as the way people live their lives becomes more closely linked to the designed environments they inhabit. It is estimated that more than half of the world’s population now live in an urban environment, and this number is predicted to increase.2 As such it is becoming more important than ever before to provide these urban dwellers with useable public spaces, and more to the point, sociable public spaces. In some instances social patterns come about as a consequence of a considered and measured design, while in other cases pre-existing habits influence the pattern of architecture and the design of our cities. In the first instance spaces are designed to impact on the behavioural patterns of the public, sometimes for strategic reasons - to direct people a certain way, or for health and safety reasons; but often cities and public places are designed to impact on people’s social interactions. Spaces can be designed to optimise chance encounters and to bring people together within the community. This can either be implemented on a large scale through the planning of public realms such as parks and high streets, or at a smaller level via the spatial arrangements of shops and restaurants. Architects and planners exert a significant level of control in their intended 1 Winston Churchill, addressing the English Architectural Association, 1924 2 World Health Organization, Urban Population Growth (2015) available at: <http://www.who.int/gho/urban_health/situation_trends/ urban_population_growth_text/en/> [accessed 8 January 2016].

patterns of interactions through the placement of partitions, corridors, doors, windows and entrances within a shell. “Designers often aspire to do more than simply create buildings and places that are new, functional and attractive — they promise that a new environment will change behaviours and attitudes.”3 This deterministic attitude seems to be commonplace among modern designers and is certainly visible in our surroundings. In an article written for the Guardian this year, Alex Andreou stated that “The architecture of our cities is a powerful guide to behaviour, both directly and in its symbolism.”4 In the most literal sense we are controlled, penned in and directed by a great number of different strategies. A simple example is seen in the implementation of barriers which are plentiful in modern cities and used to prevent access to certain areas, channel people in certain directions (e.g. staggered pedestrian crossings which aim to direct pedestrians to face oncoming traffic5) or simply angled to reduce foot traffic. However we are symbolically and surreptitiously influenced by many other means. The fabric of a building may dictate our mood, the form may affect our outlook and the spatial qualities may affect our decisions and inform our choices about how long we may wish to stay in any particular place. Simple design features that we might not be aware of give architects the possibility of altering our perception of what is appropriate or even possible within a set area, and our

3 Alexi Marmot, ‘Architectural Determinism. Does Design Change Behaviour?’, The British Journal of General Practice, 52 (March 2002), 252-53 (p. 252). 4 Alex Andreou, Anti-Homeless Spikes: “Sleeping Rough Opened My Eyes to the City”s Barbed Cruelty’’, The Guardian (18 February 2015) available at: <http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/ feb/18/defensive-architecture-keeps-poverty-undeen-and-makes-usmore-hostile> [accessed 28 September 2015]. 5 Department for Transport, The Design of Pedestrian Crossings. Local Transport Note 2/95 (1995) available at: <https://www. gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/330214/ ltn-2-95_pedestrian-crossings.pdf>

Figure. 1 and 2: Some design methods are less subtle in stating their intention: â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;No entry allowed.â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

tendency for social conformity means that as a population we will more often than not respond in the intended way.6 Materials, as well as design are also used to draw our attention, and to curb particular behaviour: rumble strips placed on roads for example, and textured concrete tiles at pedestrian crossings are used to subtly alert us to potential hazards. We are not just affected by physical stimuli either: light and sound can be used as deterrents. High pitched sound can be used to stop teenagers from congregating, and the installation of pink lights in Nottingham is said to have a calming effect whilst also highlighting skin imperfections, creating a less seductive atmosphere.7 Strategic designs are commonplace in the retail industry: one of the most heavily controlled environments in the modern world. The escalators in almost any shopping centre or large high street outlet are placed in opposing directions meaning that shoppers must travel the maximum distance through the shop in order to traverse floors, opening them up to the possibility of being seduced by the goods on show.8 Even the external areas of a high street are not spared these subtleties: the paving stones of Northumberland Street, Newcastle appear to radiate out from the entrance to Eldon Square Shopping Centre, perhaps a subtle way of drawing people in. When evaluating the ethical merit of strategies such as these it is worth asking, “Who benefits?” If the answer is anyone but the user then it could perhaps be suggested that it is an unethical design approach.

6 Dan Lockton, Architecture, Urbanism, Design and Behaviour: A Brief Review (12 September 2011) available at: <http://architectures. danlockton.co.uk/2011/09/12/architecture-urbanism-design-andbehaviour-a-brief-review/> [accessed 16 October 2015]. 7 Dan Lockton, Anti-Teenager “Pink Lights to Show up Acne” (26 March 2009) available at: <http://architectures.danlockton. co.uk/2009/03/26/anti-teenager-pink-lights-to-show-up-acne/> [accessed 9 January 2016]. 8 Frank Swain, Secret City Design Tricks Manipulate Your Behaviour, BBC (12 February 2013) available at: <http://www.bbc.com/ future/story/20131202-dirty-tricks-of-city-design> [accessed 12 October 2015].

To Sit or Not to Sit?

ometimes it is a case of making it more or less comfortable to do a particular activity. An example of this comes via the implementation of deliberately uncomfortable fixtures, such as the apocryphal story of plastic chairs at McDonalds supposedly designed to be comfortable for a maximum of 15 minutes, encouraging customers to eat their fast food at a fast rate and make space for new patrons.9 Another approach is to remove these fixtures altogether. Osmond coined the terms ‘sociofugal’ and ‘sociopetal’ to describe spaces which drive people apart and together, respectively.10 Sommer noted that airports are among the most ‘sociofugal’ spaces, stating, “[m]any other buildings… such as mental hospitals and jails, also discourage contact between people, but none does this as effectively as the airport.”11 This observation can be seen in Heathrow’s Terminal Five which has just 700 seats in place to service the 31.6 million travellers who passed through in 2014.12 Indeed it is usually the case that the only place these weary travellers can rest their legs is in one of the many food outlets, with obvious commercial benefits.13 The promotion of social interactions is clearly not a driving factor behind this design strategy.

9 Jan Whitaker, Eat and run, please! (9 April 2012) available at: http://restaurant-ingthroughhistory.com/2012/04/09/eat-and-run-please/ [Accessed: 16 October 2015]. 10 Humphrey Osmond, ‘The Relationship between Architect and Psychiatrist’, in Psychiatric Architecture, ed. by Charles E. Goshen (New York: The American Psychiatric Society, 1959) p.8. 11 Robert Sommer, Tight Spaces: Hard Architecture and How to Humanize It (United States: Prentice-Hall, 1974) p. 72. 12 Heathrow, Facts and Figures (2015) available at: http://www. heathrow.com/company/company-news-and-information/companyinformation/facts-and-figures [Accessed: 16 October 2015]. 13 Swain, Secret City Design Tricks.

Even public spaces with ample seating opportunities can be troublesome. William Whyte studied New York plazas for nine years and made the observation that fixed public seating is manipulative in its very nature: “Fixed seats are awkward in open spaces because there’s so much space around them. In theatres, strangers sit next to each other without qualm; the closeness is a necessity and convention makes it quite tolerable. On plazas, the closeness is gratuitous. With so much space around, fixed-seat groupings have a manipulative cuteness to them.”14 He argued that permanent fixtures remove from the user the opportunity for change and choice. Rather than promoting social interactions which should come about naturally, they manipulate people into artificial groups, defined not by social ruling but by the fabric of their surroundings. In contrast he suggests that ordinary chairs are a much simpler and more elegant solution. “...the big asset is movability. Chairs enlarge choice: to move into the sun, out of it, to make room for groups, move away from them. The possibility of choice is as important as the exercise of it. If you know you can move it if you want to, you feel more comfortable staying put. This is why, perhaps, people so often move a chair a few inches this way and that before sitting in it, with the chair ending up about where it was in the first place. The moves are functional, however. They are a declaration of autonomy, to oneself, and rather satisfying.”15 This small freedom is important as it allows users to state their intent in a manner that has not been prescribed to them by some invisible unknown higher power. It humanises the spaces and allows for a higher and more personal level of social interactions.

14 William Hollingsworth H Whyte and The Conservation Foundation, The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces, 4th edn (Washington, D.C.: Conservation Foundation, 1980), pp. 35 – 36. 15 Whyte, pp. 34 – 35.

In short, designers use an extensive array of methods across many fields in order to coax the most desirable behaviours from the users of any given system. The process is not perfect however and in many cases designs are carried out for commercial benefit above any other factor. This control is worrying as it removes the freedom of choice from all members of society, especially in the public realms of our cities.

Chapter 2

Defensive Architecture and its Implications

Unpleasant Design

hile it can be shown that design is utilised as a controlling tool, it is often done so in such a way that the public are not aware of the influence upon them. The mantra of modern design of the public realm appears on the surface to be one of pro-social interactions, affording people the opportunity to relax, sit, talk, and move as they like through the urban quarters of our world. To some extent this has been very successful, with most modern cities presenting their users with a host of opportunities and a wide array of pleasant spaces, but this is not the case for all members of our society. In the last decade there has been a worrying rise in the implementation of ‘defensive architecture’ or design which aims to curb specific perceived negative traits of society. This type of design comes in many different forms, from the introduction of arm rests on public benches to deter rough sleepers, to the use of ‘pig ears’ or protuberances along low walls to discourage skate boarders from performing tricks.1 In their book ‘Unpleasant Design’, Selena Savić and Gordon Savičić identify and explore these design patterns in depth, looking more closely at the sheer scale of this movement. They define ‘Unpleasant Design’ as the following: “1. Discomfort, unhappiness, or revulsion; disagreeable 2. Obstacles, psychological and sensual manipulation in common/ public space 3. … and ways to overcome it” 2

1 Swain, Secret City Design Tricks. 2 Gordan Savičić and Selena Savić, Unpleasant Design (Rotterdam: 2013) Preface.

Figure. 3: ”Obstacles, psychological and sensual manipulation in common/ public space”

Figure. 4: “... and ways to overcome it”

From Top: Figure. 5: Anti-skateboarding devices outside Kings Cross Station, London Figure. 6: A visually striking bench at Central Saint Martins, London, but not so good for sitting

The first point relates to the emotional reaction of the user when presented with some forms of unpleasant design, the second to the physical effect of the manipulation of a space on the user, and the third to the reaction of users when they are aware of the manipulation. Unpleasant design is used by Gordan Savičić and Selena Savić as an umbrella term to describe any form of defensive or controlling system. Examples can be found anywhere in a city, if one knows where to look. Bus stops are filled with slanted seating which prohibit prolonged usage. Empty spots or unused ledges are covered with (often very ugly) ‘decorative’ stones denying access. Bins are designed with slanted tops and small openings to cut out dumpster diving. Lamp posts are given anti-sticker coatings to stop people from posting flyers and advertising. Even some privately owned night clubs fit their toilets with blue lights with the apparent effect of making drug use via injection more difficult.3 Some of these could be categorised as ‘strategic design’ with the intended effect of reducing crime by making it more difficult to carry out. Speed humps are not called sleeping policemen for nothing – they regulate a safe driving speed and force people to keep to the limit, thereby removing the need for human intervention.4 In its purest and perhaps most morally corrupt form, defensive architecture impacts on the actions of people who, rather than breaking the law, are simply acting out of line from what is considered the norm by society.

3 Savičić and Savić, pp. 61 – 91. 4 Dan Lockton, ‘Architectures of Control in the Built Environment’ (8 January 2006) available at: <http://architectures. danlockton.co.uk/architectures-of-control-in-the-built-environment/> [accessed 10 January 2016].

Exclusive to Whom?

ost forms of defensive architecture share one common trait, as Savić explains: “[they] aim to exclude already marginalised populations such as youths or the homeless.”5 When a bench has armrests, it is the rough sleepers who are affected. When walls have pig ears it is the skateboarding community who have to find some other place to practise their sport. Ocean Howell, who teaches architectural history at the University of Oregon shares some insight on the subject. “When you’re designed against, you know it. Other people might not see it, but you will. The message is clear: you are not a member of the public, at least not of the public that is welcome here.”6 This is interesting point and reveals the cunning nature of defensive architecture. It is carried out in such a way that the majority of people are not even aware of its existence. After all, if you’ve never had cause to sleep in a park, then you’ve probably never had a reason to test the bedlike qualities of a bench either. But the affects cannot go completely unnoticed. Artist Nils Norman has been documenting examples of defensive architecture since the late 90s with a series of thousands of photographs from cities around the world.7 Through this exploration he has come to the conclusion that it is not just the fringe members of society that are targeted most harshly, but also the fringes of our cities. This “vernacular of terror”, as he calls it, has its roots in leftover space or “gap sites”: plots that are too small to develop but large enough to encourage loitering.8 5 Swain, Secret City Design Tricks. 6 Andreou, Anti-homeless spikes. 7 Dismal Garden, Defensive Architecture (2015) available at: <http://www.dismalgarden.com/archives/defensive_architecture> [accessed 5 January 2016]. 8 Nils Norman, as seen in: Andreou, Anti-homeless spikes.

He argues that our cities are slowly but surely being altered to maximise control over inhabitants and this is having an intrinsically negative effect on society. “As city spaces become cleaner and more symbolically ‘safe’, defensive design becomes more abundant and paranoid.”9 His photographic evidence suggests that it is often the spaces which are least relevant to the public domain which are most harshly controlled. The inclusion of slanted panels in tight corners to deter urination, and spikes in the voids behind buildings and under bridges seems like a cynical and cruel way of controlling a space which is often only utilised out of necessity by those most in need.

The Homeless

hese design patterns point to a fundamental flaw in our understanding and handling of the people that we are designing against. Take homelessness for example: in 2014 the number of people consistently sleeping rough on the streets of London hit 742 – a 37% increase from the previous year.10 This figure is only representative of the number of people documented by the charity ‘Homeless Link’ and the true number is likely to be much higher. Even so, the homeless represent a statistically insignificant proportion of our community, and although they are almost never aggressive, they are subject to more abuse than any other societal group. A 2004 study conducted in London, Oxford and Cambridge found that homeless people are 13 times more likely to be the victims of violent crimes than the wider population, a shocking statistic.11 While many charities and

9 Ibid. 10 Homeless Link, Rough Sleeping - Explore the Data (2015) available at: <http://www.homeless.org.uk/facts/homelessness-innumbers/rough-sleeping/rough-sleeping-explore-data> [accessed 29 December 2015]. 11 BBC, Homeless Face More Violent Crime, BBC News (16 December 2004) available at: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4099727. stm> [accessed 29 December 2015]

organisations are taking measures to combat this (with varying degrees of success), more industry appears to be put into preventing the homeless from impacting on our everyday lives. As Whyte notes: “It takes real work to create a lousy place. Ledges have to be made high and bulky; railings put in; surfaces canted. Money can be saved by not doing such things, and the open space is more likely to be an amenable one.”12 So why design against them? Our aversion to the homeless stems from a number of different sources, many of them psychological and social, very few of them practical. Christopher Jencks suggests that it is our reluctance to confront a less idyllic reality than our own which drives our ability to ignore the issue at hand. “At a personal level, the faces of the homeless often suggest depths of despair that we would rather not imagine, much less confront in the flesh. Daily contact with the homeless also raises troubling and ultimately unanswerable questions about our moral obligations to strangers.”13 Alex Andreou holds a slightly more cynical view and suggests that we remain wilfully ignorant to the issue: “Fundamental misunderstanding of destitution is designed to exonerate the rest from responsibility and insulate them from perceiving risk… ...Most of us are a couple of pay packets from being insolvent. We despise homeless people for bringing us face to face with that fact.”14

12 Whyte, p. 29. 13 Christopher Jencks, The Homeless (United States: Harvard University Press, 2005) Preface. 14 Andreou, Anti-homeless spikes.

Both of these perspectives share a similar thread, that is, perceived threat - threat to our livelihood, ethical values, and an unfounded threat to our physical and psychological wellbeing. The reality of the situation is that the homeless present little or no risk to the general public, but they represent a harsh truth which people find easier to ignore than face up to. We think of these people as a threat and as a result we design against them; it seems like the logical thing to do. However this attitude can only have a negative effect on public spaces and the ethos of city life. Whyte recognised this, stating that, â&#x20AC;&#x153;They [the homeless] are not themselves much of a problem. It is the measures taken to combat them that is the problem. Many businessmen have an almost obsessive fear that if a place is attractive to people it might be attractive to undesirable people. So it is made unattractive.â&#x20AC;?15 Public space is inevitably a political issue, and defensive architecture is a product of the culture of fear in society today. This seemingly unnecessary paranoia perpetuates throughout city life and contributes to the spread of unpleasant design strategies, often at the detriment of the social life of the city.

Whyte, p. 60.

The Law of Unintended Consequences

n a 2012 paper Dan Lockton contrasted the ideas of POSIWID (an acronym for ‘the Purpose of a System Is What It Does) with ideologies held by determinists. In the paper he asks: “When designing to influence behaviour for social or environmental benefit, does designers’ intent matter? Or are the effects on behaviour more important, regardless of the intent involved?”16 This is an important question as it is often difficult to predict the impact of a new system, especially one necessarily involved with the influence of human behaviour. The law of unintended consequences is loosely defined as the rule that the actions of people and government result in effects that are unanticipated or unintended.17 It is a concept that is entirely applicable to defensive architecture and reflects one of its most contentious issues as, once in place, it is unable to distinguish in its discrimination: a slanted seat in a bus shelter designed to stop youths from loitering for an extended period of time may also deny an elderly user respite during a dizzy spell; spikes designed to discourage rough sleeping may also become a trip hazard for the ill-sighted. Like a weapon that cannot be aimed, when a design is implemented with the sole purpose of exclusion it will inadvertently affect all members of society regardless of the intent. “By making the city less accepting of the human frame, we make it less welcoming to all humans. By making our environment more hostile, we become more hostile within it.” 18 16 Dan Lockton, POSIWID and determinism in design for behaviour change (2012) working paper available at: <bura.brunel.ac.uk/ bitstream/2438/6394/2/SSRN-id2033231.pdf> [accessed 12 December 2015]. 17 Rob Norton, Unintended Consequences (2008) available at: <http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/UnintendedConsequences.html> [accessed 9 January 2016]. 18 Andreou, Anti-Homeless Spikes.

This hostility arises from the fact that defensive architecture is antisocial in its very nature. It is a passive answer to an active problem, uncaring and unmoving. “[It is] non-negotiable. If you have a policeman prohibiting people to sit somewhere, you can still fight with this policeman, or argue with him, you can do things. When you have a bench that has armour, you can’t really as a human do anything about it.”19 These non-negotiable designs can often be attributed to a failure to effectively replace roles which used to be carried out by humans, such as park wardens and bus conductors. As such, a much colder and generally more austere interface between people and the city is created. “The way people use a place mirrors expectations.”20 If the design strategy of a planner or architect reflects their belief that people might act in an anti-social manner, then this might lead to a rise in anti-social behaviour. Whyte demonstrated this perfectly with a case study in New York in which pot dealers began operating in a public plaza. “The management took away about half the benches. Next, it constructed steel-bar fences on the two open sides of the plaza. These moves effectively cut down the people who used the place, to the delight of the pot dealers, who now had it much more to themselves and their customers.”21 The management in question took what they believed to be the appropriate actions: ‘drug deals are taking place on our property? Make those activities more difficult to achieve.’ However all they really achieved was to make the space less inhabitable. The regular patrons of the square did not see a concise and effective stamp-out of crime; they just saw a lack of seating. Rather than making the place more accessible and easier to patrol (which

19 20 21

Swain, Secret City Design Tricks Whyte, p. 63. Ibid, p. 63.

may have provided a more effective deterrent) the place became more difficult to navigate, negatively impacting on the lawabiding users of the plaza.

The Moral Obligations of the Designer

ow the intent of the management would of course never have been to make illegal activities easier to achieve, but by its very nature defensive design measures hold unethical values. “Defensive architecture is revealing on a number of levels, because it is not the product of accident or thoughtlessness, but a thought process. It is a sort of unkindness that is considered, designed, approved, funded and made real with the explicit motive to exclude and harass.”22 Factory Furniture have been making outdoor furniture for 25 years and specialise in defensive designs. A look through their online portfolio reveals a great number of different benches, tables, bins, and tree-surrounds all with the recognisable hallmarks that indicate exclusion through design. Perhaps their most controversial creation yet was the ‘Camden Bench’, a masterpiece of unpleasant design.23 Made from a single piece of cast concrete, the makers state that their design will achieve the following: • • •

22 23

“Deters rough sleeping – ridged top and sloped surfaces make it difficult to lie on; Deters drug dealing – there are no slots or crevices in which to hide such materials; Deters bag theft – recesses along the front and back of the bench allow people to store bags behind their legs out of harm’s way;

Andreou, Anti-Homeless Spikes. Swain, Secret City Design Tricks.

Figure. 7 and 8: The Camden Bench, a masterpiece of unpleasant design

• •

•

Reduces littering – there are no flat surfaces or crevices where litter usually accumulates. Dirt and water flow off; Easy to relocate (for example, to move it away from a problem area) – there’s no need to bolt the bench to a foundation and built-in lifting eyes allow the bench to be moved easily by truck crane. Anti Hostile Vehicle Mitigation PAS 68 (security) version is also available” 24

This truly is an example of a bench that has armour, so much so that in the event of a riot or disaster it can be moved by crane and used as a roadblock. Critics argue that the bench is the pure antithesis of social freedom as it makes impossible the opportunity to do anything apart from sit, and even then your time is restricted by discomfort. The creators of the bench are not shy to this fact either and are one of very few manufactures to list these features as positive measures. Unpleasant Design conducted an interview with Factory Furniture which can be found on their blog. When asked how homeless people should be incorporated into our cities they responded with: “Homelessness should never be tolerated in any society and if we start designing in to accommodate the homeless then we have totally failed as a society. Close proximity to homelessness unfortunately makes us uncomfortable so perhaps it is good that we feel that and recognise homelessness as a problem rather than design to accommodate it.”25

24 Factory Furniture, CAMDEN Bench, EA Design (2014) available at: <http://factoryfurniture.co.uk/index/products/seating/camdenbench.html> [accessed 12 October 2015]. 25 ‘Factory Furniture Design Team, Interview with Factory Furniture Design Team (2014) available at: <http://unpleasant.pravi.me/ interview-with-factory-furniture-design-team/> [accessed 5 January 2016].

Much like their bench their argument is both strongly voiced and lacking in compassion. However their design seems to be at odds with their political motivation. It does not alert people to the issue of homelessness or help them to recognise it; instead it removes the problem from the public eye, physically rejecting the topic and making it easier to ignore. The bench is tolerable only because it hides an uglier truth. This trade-off hardly seems ethical. This raises the troubling question of the designer’s moral obligations. The argument against defensive architecture is essentially one for thoughtful or considerate design. The RIBA code of conduct covers this under the ‘Relationship’ heading. “Principle 3 – Relationships 3.1 Members should respect the beliefs and opinions of other people, recognise social diversity and treat everyone fairly. They should also have a proper concern and due regard for the effect that their work may have on its users and the local community.”26 While the designer has no definitive moral obligation to uphold or reflect any political views, they have an obligation to treat all individuals fairly, something that Factory Furniture seem to have failed in doing. While they have not technically broken any rules, their design approach isn’t exactly aspirational and does not promote ideologies that many designers might wish to abide by.

26 RIBA, Code of Professional Conduct for Members of the Royal Institute of British Architects (1 January 2005) available at: <https://www.architecture.com/Files/RIBAProfessionalServices/ ProfessionalConduct/DisputeResolution/ProfessionalConduct/ RIBACodeOfProfessionalConduct.pdf> [accessed 9 January 2016].

As a side note, and whilst on the subject, it is worth noting Whyte’s amusingly cynical view: “Benches are artefacts the purpose of which is to punctuate architectural photographs. They’re not so good for sitting… ...Architects have had a way with chairs; for some reason they seem to come a cropper with benches.”27 Defensive architecture is a part of life today, this is a fact. It is used as a tool to regulate the lives of its users, creating an autonomous world in which human interactions are kept to a minimum. It prevents crime and anti-social behaviour, a good thing perhaps, but it does so through the use of anti-social systems. The effects of these systems can be felt through the cold interface that is created between the people and the city. Choice is removed and control is maximised. At best this suggests ignorance on the part of the designer, and at worst a deeply unethical approach to design. The attempts to control users is worrying also as it suggests that designers exert a good level of power, and in the instance of defensive architecture, this power is wielded in what appears to be a wantonly careless manner.

Whyte, pp. 33 – 34.

Chapter 3

Fight Back: A Collection of Case Studies

Figure. 9 and 10: Fabian Brunsing’s ‘Pay & Sit’, 2008

A Thorny Issue

s public awareness about the topic of defensive architecture rises, so too does public outrage. In the summer of 2014 ‘anti-homeless spikes’ were installed adjacent to the entrance of a central London block of flats.1 On the 6th of June a photograph was tweeted2 and then re-tweeted over 2000 times by people registering their indignation and disgust. A petition was signed, a sleep-in undertaken and even Mayor Boris Johnson exclaimed his revulsion. Within a week the spikes were removed. For many, this would have been their first encounter with any form of defensive architecture – it is something that is not widely discussed for the simple reason that it has no tangible effect on the majority of people living in large cities. In this instance, social media was the key proponent in the recognition and removal of this ugly side to urban design, but there are many other notable designers and artists trying to raise awareness of such phenomena in the hope of creating more welcoming cities.

Political Satire

ne such example comes in the form of Fabien Brunsing’s ‘Pay & Sit’, a satirical art installation. It invites the user to sit on a bench, one absent of armrests it should be noted, but at a price. The user must enter a coin into a slot whereupon sharp metal spikes are lowered from the seat’s surface. This allows the user comfort for a prescribed amount of time, depending on how much they entered in the first place.3 The message is clear 1 David Batty, Anti-Homeless Studs at London Residential Block Prompt Uproar, The Guardian (21 June 2014) available at: <http://www. theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/07/anti-homeless-studs-london-blockuproar> [accessed 30 December 2015]. 2 Ethical Pioneer, Anti homeless floor studs, Twitter (6 June 2014) available at: <https://twitter.com/ethicalpioneer/ status/474981723022049280/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw> [accessed 17 January 2016]. 3 ‘Fabien Brunsing, Pay& Sit (2008) available at: <http://www. fabianbrunsing.de/> [accessed 30 December 2015].

and concise: ‘if you are not a paying member of society, then you cannot have a seat.’ It was designed to bring attention to the issue of defensive architecture, but the meaning was lost on some: “Chinese officials, completely missing the joke, thought that this was a great idea and installed similar benches in Yantai Park of the Shangdong province.”4

Artistic Response

nother artist raising awareness about defensive architecture is Sarah Ross. Over the past decade she has undertaken a number of projects highlighting the ridiculous nature of some of the measures taken to prevent access to, and remove choice from public spaces. In her 2005 piece, ‘Body Configurations Testing Resistance On…’(Figure. x) she photographed subjects attempting to lie on benches, bollards, fences, and rails designed to restrict such actions.5 In 2006 she did a follow up photo shoot titled ‘Archisuit’ (figure. X). She defined the project as: “An edition of four leisure jogging suits made for specific architectural structures in Los Angeles. The suits include the negative space of the structures and allow a wearer to fit into, or onto, structures designed to deny them.”6 When viewed together the pieces highlight the great lengths that designers go through to eliminate certain behaviours by showing the exaggerated solutions one must dream up in order to overcome them. Projects like these are designed to poke fun and raise awareness around the subject.

4 Andreou, Anti-Homeless Spikes. 5 Sarah Ross, Body Configurations Testing Resistance on…. (2005) available at: <http://www.insecurespaces.net/testingresistance. html> [accessed 10 January 2016]. 6 Sarah Ross, Archisuits (2005-06) available at: <http://www. insecurespaces.net/archisuits.html> [accessed 10 January 2016].

From Top: Figure. 11: Sarah Ross, ‘Body Configurations Testing Resistance On...’ ,2005 Figure. 12 and 13: Sarah Ross, ‘Archisuit’, 2006

Unpleasant Design Competition

ordon Savičić and Selena Savić approached the subject with a similarly mocking tone. As part of their book Unpleasant Design they launched the ‘Unpleasant Design Competition’ which looked for “dangerous ideas and extreme design solutions to encourage critical thinking about our interaction with the urban environment”.7 The competition was launched in March 2012 and called for submissions of both pleasant and unpleasant design solutions. They received a variety of proposals, many of them amusing. One runner-up included the ‘Maze Door Lock’ by Anthika Thaker - a device which takes “some time and skill to be unlocked” and would therefore have the effect of being more difficult for an individual who was drunk or high on drugs to gain access to certain areas.8 Other entries were more serious and the winning design came from ‘BAUM LAB Architectura’ of Seville (Spain) who proposed a simple seat. Designed to be made easily and at low cost, the fabrication plans are now published online for anyone who wishes to construct one of their own.9 The seat was designed for the community of road-side tissue vendors, many of whom had come to Spain with immigrant status and this lowly job was their only form of income. It features a space to store their products as well as a chair and could be attached parasitically to any traffic light or lamppost. Rather than try to tackle the problem of immigration in Spain, they chose to address a useable solution which would make the current reality easier to bear. “Since the institutional social organisations or the municipality have unfortunately not found an integrated solution so far, with our proposal

7 Savičić and Savić, p. 189. 8 Anthika Thaker as seen in: Savičić and Savić, Unpleasant Design, p. 191. 9 BAUM LAB, Social Integration Furniture – (bau)m (2012) available at: <http://www.baumarquitectura.com/?post_ type=portfolio&p=4393> [accessed 17 January 2016].

Figure. 14 and 15: BAUM LAB Architectura, ‘Social Integration Furniture’, 2012

for a specific urban seat we attempt to improve the everyday tasks of hundreds or thousands of immigrants in Spain.”10 They hope that by bringing attention to this situation which affects a not insignificant number of people, more focus, time and funding might be brought in to tackle the problem on a wider scale. By viewing immigrants as an important and active part of society they bring validity and credibility to the project. “Following the idea of urban acupuncture, we induce a global change by stimulating a local point. Often, single selective interventions like the one we planned, lead to an improvement of the overall situation.”11 This idea is not just conjecture: while it is true that hostility does breed hostility, it can also be shown that kindness and humanity can create a more welcoming environment for all involved. Whyte noted this when examining the effects of plazas designed for disabled users: “If circulation and amenities are planned with them in mind, the place is apt to function more easily for everyone. Drinking fountains that are low enough for wheelchair users are low enough for children. Pedestrian paths that are made easier for the handicapped by ramps, handrails, and steps for gentle pitch are easier for all.”12 Of course there are big differences when generalising about the disabled and immigrants, however there are also similarities. Both are groups that represent a small part of the population, and both groups represent individuals who are unlikely to be in this position through their own volition, but rather as

10 p. 145. 11 12

BAUM LAB as seen in: Savičić and Savić, Unpleasant Design, Ibid. p. 145. Whyte, p. 33.

a result of forces beyond their control. That is not to say that all marginalised members of our society should be put at the forefront of architectural design, but an approach which seeks to make life easier for those most in need will inevitably create a more welcoming urban environment for all involved.

Urban Acupuncture

he idea of ‘urban acupuncture’ presented by (BAU)M LAB is one that was at least partially achieved in the autumn of 2013 through ‘Raincity Housing’, a non-profit organisation based in Vancouver which provides shelter for people living with mental health issues, addiction and other challenges.13 They installed benches that unfold into shelters and read, “This is a bench” during the day, but lit up at night to read “This is a bedroom”. Another variation read, “Find shelter here”, and then when erected, offered the user the address of their nearest Raincity accommodation in the area.14 By placing these dual purpose benches in well-used public spaces they forced members of the community to confront the problem of homelessness. Unfortunately the scheme did not receive much recognition at the time of completion, but it came to surface again in 2015 after the instalment of anti-homeless spikes in London was publicly condemned (as mentioned previously). Nearly two years after the Raincity Housing publicity campaign was finished it was lauded for its empathetic and considered approach and used as a powerful political tool to shame London planners. The end result not only brought attention to the charity, resulting in an increase in donations, but also served as a tool to bring awareness to a problem occurring thousands of miles away in London. That said, the benches were always intended as a publicity stunt, and when asked whether or not they would fund a similar venture, the response of the Raincity Housing Communications manager, Bill Briscall, was this: 13 ‘Raincity Housing, A Home for Every Person (2016) available at: <http://www.raincityhousing.org/> [accessed 3 January 2016]. 14 Raincity Housing, as seen in: Andreou, Anti-Homeless Spikes

Figure. 17 and 18: â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Raincity Housing Benchesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, 2013

“We wouldn’t put money into something like that. We would put money into real, actual housing. We would want to put money into something a little more permanent than a bench.”15 This response presents a stark contrast to the values held by Factory Furniture, the makers of the Camden Bench. Defensive architecture will always be contentious issue. It deals with issues of free will and removes the liberty of choice from those it affects. Projects such as these help to raise awareness of the subject and under the right conditions can help to alleviate the hardships at the source of the issue, whether that be homelessness, immigration or some other perceived threat.

15 Bill Briscal as quoted in: Steve Lus, Homeless Benches in Vancouver Draw International Attention (2014) available at: <http://www. cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/homeless-benches-in-vancouverdraw-international-attention-1.2692269> [accessed 28 September 2015].

Chapter 4

New Design Approaches Which Could be More Effectively Utilised

Desire Lines and Cow Paths

efensive architecture holds deterministic ideologies at its core, aiming to manipulate users. It is a product of our political environment, but does our attitude towards design worsen the effects? Current approaches seek to define during the design stage the future behaviour and lifestyle of a systems users. This approach, referred to as ‘high road’, often fails in the respect that architects and planners cannot correctly identify changes in cultural and behavioural trends, meaning that structures and spaces are too rigid both in their intended use and their material state to adapt to changing social-political environments.1 Defensive architecture certainly is incredibly rigid and unmoving, and therefore when designers get it wrong their mistakes are felt far and wide. As Stewart Brand famously stated, “All buildings are predictions. All predictions are wrong.”2 When abstracted slightly this idea highlights the crux of the problem with ‘high road’ design – it is impossible to predict the way people might use a space or the effect this space may have, intended or otherwise. This has been shown through Whyte’s exploration of New York plazas and can be observed in the cold, autonomous interface between the city and its users. The idea may also go some way towards explaining the ‘death of the high street’ in the UK, as designers failed to foresee the impact that the internet would have on shopping patterns and private investors hired architects to build malls specifically designed for the purpose, often removed from the town centre (e.g. Metro Centre, Newcastle, or Liverpool One, Liverpool).3 You could say that it was an ‘unintended consequence’ of the internet age. 1 Dan Lockton, Towards a Design with Intent “Method” – v.0.1 (5 January 2008) available at: <http://architectures.danlockton. co.uk/2008/01/05/towards-a-design-with-intent-method-v01/> [accessed 16 October 2015]. 2 Stewart Brand, How Buildings Learn: What Happens after They’re Built (New York, NY: Viking, 1994) p. 178. 3 Anna Minton, Ground Control: Fear and Happiness in the Twenty-First-Century City (London: Penguin, 2009), pp 15 – 18.

However there is another design attitude which takes an inverse and opposite approach. ‘Low road’ derives its approach from a desire to adapt and cope with changing trends and emergent behaviours. As such these schemes often achieve far higher success rates as their ability to adapt increases their longevity. An example of ‘low road’ design strategy comes through the identification of desire lines, or cow paths. The usual current use of the term (often attributed, although apparently in error, to Bachelard’s The Poetics of Space4) is to describe paths worn by pedestrians across spaces such as parks, between buildings or to avoid obstacles—“the foot-worn paths that sometimes appear in a landscape over time.”5 These routes become self-reinforcing as subsequent generations of pedestrians follow what becomes an obvious path.6 They occur naturally through user interface, and the documentation of these lines can offer insight into the preferred usage patterns of a population. Rather than manipulating users through design, designs are manipulated and formed by their users. This strategy was famously used by Elizabeth Barlow Rogers in the reconstruction of pedestrian routes across New York’s Central Park.7 This is a bottom up approach to design, quite opposite to the usual control heavy architectural approach of our cities. As Myhill explains: “An optimal way to design pathways in accordance with natural human behaviour, is not to design them at all. Simply plant grass seed and let the erosion

4 Gaston Bachelard, The Poetics of Space (New York: Viking Books, 1964). 5 Adam Mathes, Folksonomies -Cooperative Classification and Communication through Shared Metadata (2004) available at: <http:// www.adammathes.com/academic/computer-mediated-communication/ folksonomies.pdf> [accessed 11 January 2016]. p. 7. 6 Dan Lockton, Architecture, Urbanism, Design and Behaviour: A Brief Review 7 Elizabeth Barlow Rogers, Rebuilding Central Park: A Management and Restoration Plan (New York: MIT Press, 1987) p. 25.

From top: Figure. 19: A desire line highlights the shortest route accross a square. Figure. 20: Whereas this one has been paved after pedestrians wore a definitive path.

inform you about where the paths need to be. Stories abound of university campuses being constructed without any pathways to them.”8 Interestingly this is a technique that is increasingly used in web design as consumer patterns are documented and website layouts can be altered to improve usability. Facebook for example uses information about its users (age, gender, location, education, interests etc.) to reach the right audience for advertisements.9 Similarly, when applied to business models, companies which use this approach in the design of goods and services can implement strategies which permit the emergence of desire lines and allow for a greater alignment of interests between consumers and manufacturers.

Integrated Practice

he idea is applicable to any industry which necessarily includes an interface between the user and a product. Adam Greenfield states that every piece of design “encodes a hypothesis about human behaviour.”10 These hypotheses, like Facebook, are based on assumptions about user preference, age, culture, wealth and so on. They are a necessary part of the design process and this approach can certainly be attributed to the design of many of the public spaces within our cities. However the reasoning behind design strategies often remain hypotheses: assumptions that are rarely backed up by study or evidence. As Marmot notes:

8 Carl Myhill, Commercial Success by looking for Desire Lines, 6th Asia Pacific Computer-Human Interaction Conference (2004) available at: http://www.litsl.com/personal/commercial_success_by_ looking_for_desire_lines.pdf [accessed 17 October 2015] 9 Ads Tools, How Facebook Ads Work (2016) available at: <http://www.socialadstool.com/facebook-ads-guide/how-facebook-adswork/> [accessed 14 January 2016]. 10 Adam Greenfield, Against the Smart City (New York: Do projects, 2013) Chapter 1.

“Designers may inspire clients and users with visions of benefits at the start of a project, but rarely return to assess whether or not the outcomes have been attained.”11 This is where the issue lies with defensive architecture: designs are installed without any real research or reasoning about the overall impact they may have. As Whyte showed, this can lead to negative unintended consequences. Lang and Moleski argue that there is currently a gap between Environmental Psychologists and Architects – the findings are existent but they are not made readily available: “An organized theory of the functioning of the built environment will help to reduce the gap between research findings and the creation of design principles of utility to architects. It will enable architects to explore their options with greater clarity and to argue for their designs based on knowledge not simply unsubstantiated beliefs and hopes.”12 They reason that a greater marriage between the social sciences and design will lead to a more integrated style of practice and their argument is essentially one for evidence based design. Through conducting studies and observing human behaviour, patterns can be identified. These patterns represent the desire lines of the users, not in a physical sense perhaps but in a way that returns very useable and applicable data. As Lang stated in his 1987 book, ‘Creating Architectural Theory: Role of Behavioural Sciences in Environmental Design’.

11 Marmot, Architectural Determinism. Does Design Change Behaviour? p.252. 12 Jon T. Lang and Walter Moleski, Functionalism Revisited: Architectural Theory and Practice and the Behavioural Sciences (Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing, 2010), p. 29.

“[Environmental psychologists] provide a learning model in which conceptual formulations are confronted and compared to real experience: hypotheses are tested rather than just generated and believed. In this way the environmental design profession will take on more of the quality of the professions that have incorporated science/ research as the basis for professional practice.”13 If this approach were to be applied in our cities then the negative impacts of defensive architecture may not be felt so strongly. Through careful studies, and proper research it may be possible to effect design strategies which alleviate the negative impacts of defensive architecture and promote a sociable cityscape once more. In this way spaces can be designed without the need to exclude certain portions of the population. Architecture, design and environmental psychology are all interconnected fields of study, and as they assimilate ever further it is becoming increasingly important for architects to be trained in all fields. Architecture will never stop being used as a tool of control; it is as Geoffrey Scott said, “part of the discourse”14 and it is therefore vital that designers have a greater all round understanding of the cause and effects of new designs. This, paired with a more ethical approach could lead to the creation of pleasanter public spaces.

13 Jon T. Lang, Creating Architectural Theory: Role of Behavioural Sciences in Environmental Design (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1987), p. 246. 14 Geoffrey Scott, Henry Hope Reed and Paul Barolsky, The Architecture of Humanism

Conclusion

hrough my research I feel that I can state with some confidence that Simon Richard was correct. Determinism is deeply engrained into the design of our cities, and widely used to manipulate behaviour. The reason it is not often talked about is due to the fact that it has been relabelled, dispersed into many different formats under new headings such as strategic design, and more worryingly, defensive architecture. Our public spaces are slowly but surely becoming more autonomous and this is having a negative impact on society. We are controlled in many facets of city life and for many different reasons. Strategic design helps us to navigate the city safely, while the retail industry employs subtle and manipulative techniques to maximise profits. However the promotion of social interactions within our cities has been side-lined by a culture of fear and paranoia, evidence of which can be found in defensive architecture. We target the most destitute among us since they are the living embodiment of our societal insecurities. They hold up a mirror and expose our flaws. Defensive architecture is seen as the answer because it provides the most instantaneous solution, surreptitiously removing the offending members from our collective sight and minds. However it eliminates the freedom of choice from all users as antisocial behaviours are combatted with antisocial designs. This seems to me to be a deeply flawed logic and it raises the question of cause and effect â&#x20AC;&#x201C; do antisocial behaviours lead to antisocial designs or is it the other way round? Whatever the answer, these hostile designs lead to a cold and hostile urban environment. They are passive and immovable. The most incredulous part is that most of the time, the fear from which defensive architecture is born is completely unfounded. The homeless, immigrants, and disenfranchised youths: these people pose society no threat, conversely they make up society: without them, for better or worse it would not be what it is. The makers of the Camden bench argue that by accepting the homeless as a part of society we have failed as a society. I propose that the opposite is true: to deny they are a part of society is to deny society itself.

Designers have a moral obligation to uphold an ethical design practice. Perhaps I am naïve but I believe this to be true. Moreover, any type of design which necessarily involves a degree of control should be handled with the utmost care and respect. It is not ethically or financially viable to practise exclusive design. The law of unintended consequences will always come into play at some level, but if designs are inclusive, then perhaps the unintended consequences will be positive ones. City spaces might become sociable once more if those most in need are considered first. Advocates of defensive architecture might argue that this ideological design approach will enable individuals to become homeless more easily: ‘more benches will mean more rough sleepers.’ Following the idea of urban acupuncture however I believe that the opposite would be true. Allowing the most destitute among us into our public places would expose their plight and might lead to a wider recognition of the root problems. Greater awareness would lead to greater clarity and might motivate political change and eradicate the issues at source, instead of removing them from sight as is often the way now. Projects like BAUM LAB’s parasitic seat and Raincity Housing’s bench highlight the fact that when aware of unpleasant designs, we as a public are not complicit. These reactions might be seen as the desire lines of society. ‘Low road’ and evidence based design might hold the answers here, as they allow the users of a place to determine its shape and qualities. It allows the public a greater freedom of choice and offers a more honest appraisal of society. Architecture and design are inherently linked to Environmental Psychology, and as such it is of paramount importance that the two fields are more observant of one another. Careful and considerate design based on research and observation is the key to a more sociable city.

Bibliography Books Bachelard, G. The Poetics of Space (New York: Viking Books, 1964). Brand, S. How Buildings Learn: What Happens after They’re Built (New York, NY: Viking, 1994) Davis, S. Designing for the Homeless: Architecture That Works, 1st edn (United States: University of California Press, 2004) Gehl and Jo, Life between Buildings: Using Public Space (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2011) Goshen, C.E. ed. Psychiatric Architecture (New York: The American Psychiatric Society, 1959) Greenfield, A. Against the Smart City (New York: Do projects, 2013) Gutman, R. People and Buildings, (New York: Basic Books, 1966) Harvey, David D., Social Justice and the City (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1988) Hurley, J. A. The Homeless, 1st edn (San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 2001) Ittelson, W, An Introduction to Environmental Psychology, 2nd edn (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1974), p. 345. Jencks, C. The Homeless (United States: Harvard University Press, 2005) Lang and Moleski, Functionalism Revisited: Architectural Theory and Practice and the Behavioural Sciences (Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing, 2010) Lang, J. T. Creating Architectural Theory: Role of Behavioural Sciences in Environmental Design (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1987), Low, Setha, and Smith, eds. The Politics of Public Space, 1st edn (New York, NY: Taylor & Francis, 2005)

Minton, A. Ground Control: Fear and Happiness in the TwentyFirst-Century City (London: Penguin, 2009) Richards, S. Architect Knows Best: Environmental Determinism in Architecture Culture from 1956 to the Present (United Kingdom: Ashgate Publishing, 2012), Rogers, E. B. Rebuilding Central Park: A Management and Restoration Plan (New York: MIT Press, 1987) Savičić and Savić eds. Unpleasant Design (Rotterdam: 2013) Scott, Reed and Barolsky, The Architecture of Humanism; a Study in the History of Taste, 5th edn (New York: Norton, 1974) p.123. Sommer, E. Tight Spaces: Hard Architecture and How to Humanize It (United States: Prentice-Hall, 1974) Whyte, W. H. H.The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces, 4th edn (Washington, D.C.: Conservation Foundation, 1980), pp. 35 – 36.

Journals/ Working Papers Lockton, D. POSIWID and determinism in design for behaviour change (2012) working paper available at: <bura.brunel.ac.uk/ bitstream/2438/6394/2/SSRN-id2033231.pdf> [accessed 12 December 2015]. Lockton, D. Towards a Design with Intent “Method” – v.0.1 (5 January 2008) available at: <http://architectures.danlockton. co.uk/2008/01/05/towards-a-design-with-intent-method-v01/> [accessed 16 October 2015]. Marmot, A. ‘Architectural Determinism. Does Design Change Behaviour?’. The British Journal of General Practice, 52 (March 2002), 252-53. Mathes, A. Folksonomies -Cooperative Classification and Communication through Shared Metadata (2004) available at: <http://www.adammathes.com/academic/computer-mediatedcommunication/folksonomies.pdf> [accessed 11 January 2016].

Myhill, C. Commercial Success by looking for Desire Lines, 6th Asia Pacific Computer-Human Interaction Conference (2004) available at: <http://www.litsl.com/personal/commercial_ success_by_looking_for_desire_lines.pdf> [accessed 17 October 2015]

Legislation Department for Transport, The Design of Pedestrian Crossings. Local Transport Note 2/95 (1995) available at: <https://www. gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/330214/ltn-2-95_pedestrian-crossings.pdf> RIBA, Code of Professional Conduct for Members of the Royal Institute of British Architects (1 January 2005) available at: <https://www.architecture.com/Files/RIBAProfessionalServices/ ProfessionalConduct/DisputeResolution/ProfessionalConduct/ RIBACodeOfProfessionalConduct.pdf> [accessed 9 January 2016].

Newspaper Andreou, A. ‘Anti-Homeless Spikes: “Sleeping Rough Opened My Eyes to the City”s Barbed Cruelty’’, The Guardian (18 February 2015) available at: <http://www.theguardian.com/ society/2015/feb/18/defensive-architecture-keeps-povertyundeen-and-makes-us-more-hostile> [accessed 28 September 2015]. Batty, D. Anti-Homeless Studs at London Residential Block Prompt Uproar, The Guardian (21 June 2014) available at: <http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/07/antihomeless-studs-london-block-uproar> [accessed 30 December 2015]. BBC, Homeless Face More Violent Crime, BBC News (16 December 2004) available at: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/ uk/4099727.stm> [accessed 29 December 2015]

Borromeo, Leah, These Anti-Homeless Spikes Are Brutal. We Need to Get Rid of Them, The Guardian (23 July 2015) <http:// www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/23/antihomeless-spikes-inhumane-defensive-architecture> [accessed 25 September 2015] Jones, R. Antidote to anti-homeless spikes – instant bench shelters, The Telegraph (26 June 2014) available at: <http:// www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/ canada/10926855/Antidote-to-anti-homeless-spikes-instantbench-shelters.html> [accessed 28 September 2015]. Speech Winston Churchill, addressing the English Architectural Association, 1924

Websites Ads Tools, How Facebook Ads Work (2016) available at: <http:// www.socialadstool.com/facebook-ads-guide/how-facebookads-work/> [accessed 14 January 2016]. BAUM LAB, Social Integration Furniture – (bau)m (2012) available at: <http://www.baumarquitectura.com/?post_ type=portfolio&p=4393> [accessed 17 January 2016]. Brunsing, F. Pay& Sit (2008) available at: <http://www. fabianbrunsing.de/> [accessed 30 December 2015]. Dismal Garden, ‘Defensive Architecture’ (2015) available at: <http://www.dismalgarden.com/archives/defensive_ architecture> [accessed 5 January 2016]. Ethical Pioneer, Anti homeless floor studs, Twitter (6 June 2014) available at: <https://twitter.com/ethicalpioneer/ status/474981723022049280/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw> [accessed 17 January 2016]. Factory Furniture Design Team, Interview with Factory Furniture Design Team (2014) available at: <http://unpleasant. pravi.me/interview-with-factory-furniture-design-team/> [accessed 5 January 2016].

Factory Furniture, CAMDEN Bench, EA Design (2014) available at: <http://factoryfurniture.co.uk/index/products/seating/ camden-bench.html> [accessed 12 October 2015]. Hammonds, K. H. How We Sell (31 October 1999) <http://www. fastcompany.com/38514/how-we-sell> [accessed 6 January 2016]. Heathrow, Facts and Figures (2015) available at: http://www. heathrow.com/company/company-news-and-information/ company-information/facts-and-figures [Accessed: 16 October 2015]. Homeless Link, Rough Sleeping - Explore the Data (2015) available at: <http://www.homeless.org.uk/facts/homelessnessin-numbers/rough-sleeping/rough-sleeping-explore-data> [accessed 29 December 2015]. JEMA Studio, Winston Churchill the Architect? (5 May 2015) available at: <http://www.jemastl.com/news/2015/2/16/waswinston-churchill-an-architect> [accessed 17 October 2015] Lockton, D. ‘Architectures of Control in the Built Environment’ (8 January 2006) available at: <http://architectures.danlockton. co.uk/architectures-of-control-in-the-built-environment/> [accessed 10 January 2016]. Lockton, D. Anti-Teenager “Pink Lights to Show up Acne” (26 March 2009) available at: <http://architectures.danlockton. co.uk/2009/03/26/anti-teenager-pink-lights-to-show-up-acne/> [accessed 9 January 2016]. Lockton, D. Architecture, Urbanism, Design and Behaviour: A Brief Review (12 September 2011) available at: <http:// architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2011/09/12/architectureurbanism-design-and-behaviour-a-brief-review/> [accessed 16 October 2015]. Lus, S. Homeless Benches in Vancouver Draw International Attention (2014) available at: <http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ british-columbia/homeless-benches-in-vancouver-drawinternational-attention-1.2692269> [accessed 28 September 2015].

Norton, R. Unintended Consequences (2008) available at: <http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/UnintendedConsequences. html> [accessed 9 January 2016]. Raincity Housing, A Home for Every Person (2016) available at: <http://www.raincityhousing.org/> [accessed 3 January 2016]. Ross, S. Archisuits (2005-06) available at: <http://www. insecurespaces.net/archisuits.html> [accessed 10 January 2016]. Ross, S. Body Configurations Testing Resistance onâ&#x20AC;Ś. (2005) available at: <http://www.insecurespaces.net/testingresistance. html> [accessed 10 January 2016]. Swain, F. Secret City Design Tricks Manipulate Your Behaviour, BBC (12 February 2013) available at: <http://www.bbc.com/ future/story/20131202-dirty-tricks-of-city-design> [accessed 12 October 2015]. Welsh Geek, A Quick Cut through the Park (21 February 2014) <http://www.welshgeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/park1.jpg> [accessed 15 January 2016] Whitaker, J. Eat and run, please! (9 April 2012) available at: http://restaurant-ingthroughhistory.com/2012/04/09/eat-andrun-please/ [Accessed: 16 October 2015]. WHO, Urban Population Growth (2015) available at: <http:// www.who.int/gho/urban_health/situation_trends/urban_ population_growth_text/en/> [accessed 8 January 2016].