Architecture, urbanism, design and behaviour: a brief review |... http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2011/09/12/architecture-...

Architecture,
Architectures urbanism,
| Dan Lockton design and
behaviour: a brief review
12 September, 2011 | Dan | 34 Comments

by Dan Lockton

Continuing the meta-auto-behaviour-change effort started here, I’m publishing a few ex-
tracts from my PhD thesis as I write it up (mostly from the literature review, and before any
rigorous editing) as blog posts over the next few months. The idea of how architecture can
be used to influence behaviour was central to this blog when it started, and so it’s pleasing
to revisit it, even if makes me realise how little I still know.

“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.”
Winston Churchill, addressing the English Architectural Association, 1924

In designing and constructing environments in which people live and work, architects
and planners are necessarily involved in influencing human behaviour. While Sommer

1 of 26 13/03/2014 22:22
Architecture, urbanism, design and behaviour: a brief review |... http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2011/09/12/architecture-...

(1969, p.3) asserted that the architect “in his training and practice, learns to look at
buildings without people in them,” it is clear that from, for example, Howard’s Garden
Cities of To-morrow (1902), through Le Corbusier’s Ville Contemporaine and La Ville
radieuse, to the Smithsons’ ‘Streets in the sky’, there has been a long-standing thread of
recognition that the way people live their lives is directly linked to the designed envi-
ronments in which they live. Whether the explicit intention to influence behaviour
drives the design process—architectural determinism (Broady, 1966: see future blog
post ‘POSIWID and determinism’)—or whether the behaviour consequences of design
decisions are only revealed and considered as part of a post-occupancy evaluation (e.g.
Zeisel, 2006) or by social scientists or psychologists studying the impact of a develop-
ment, there are links between the design of the built environment and our behaviour,
both individually and socially.

Where there is an explicit intention to influence behaviour, the intended behaviours

could relate (for example) to directing people for strategic reasons, or providing a par-
ticular ‘experience’, or for health and safety reasons, but they are often focused on in-
fluencing social interaction. Hillier et al (1987, p.233) find that “spatial layout in itself
generates a field of probabilistic encounter, with structural properties that vary with
the syntax of the layout.” Ittelson et al (1974, p.358) suggest that “All buildings imply at
least some form of social activity stemming from both their intended function and the
random encounters they may generate. The arrangement of partitions, rooms, doors,
windows, and hallways serves to encourage or hinder communication and, to this ex-
tent, affects social interaction. This can occur at any number of levels and the designer
is clearly in control to the degree that he plans the contact points and lanes of access
where people come together. He might also, although with perhaps less assurance, de-
cide on the desirability of such contact.”

“Designers often aspire to do more than simply create buildings that are new, func-
tional and attractive—they promise that a new environment will change behaviours
and attitudes” (Marmot, 2002, p.252). Where architects expressly announce their in-
tentions and ability to influence behaviour, such as in Danish firm 3XN’s exhibition and
book Mind Your Behaviour (3XN, 2010), the behaviours intended and techniques used
can range from broad, high-level aspirational strategies such as communal areas “creat-
ing the potential for involvement, interaction and knowledge sharing” in a workplace
(3XN, 2010) to specific tactics, such as Frank Lloyd Wright’s occasional use of “very
confining corridors” for people to walk along “so that when they entered an open space
the openness and light would enhance their experience” (Ittelson et al, 1974, p.346). An
appreciation of both broad strategies and specific tactics is valuable: from the perspec-
tive of a designer whose agency may only extend to redesign of certain elements of a

2 of 26 13/03/2014 22:22
Architecture, urbanism, design and behaviour: a brief review |... http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2011/09/12/architecture-...

space, product or interface, it is the specific tactical techniques which are likely to be
the most immediately applicable, but the broader guiding strategies can help set the vi-
sion in the first place. For example, the ‘conditions for city diversity’ outlined by Jacobs
(1961)—broad strategies for understanding aspects of urban behaviour—have influ-
enced generations of urbanists.

Following the influence of Christopher Alexander (Alexander et al, 1975, 1977; Alexan-
der, 1979), such strategies and tactics may be expressed architecturally in terms of pat-
terns, which describe “a problem which occurs over and over again in our environment,
and then describes the core of the solution to that problem, in such a way that you can
use this solution a million times over, without ever doing it the same way twice”
(Alexander et al, 1977). The concept of patterns, and Alexander et al’s A Pattern Lan-
guage (1977) will be examined in detail in a future thesis extract, for their form, philos-
ophy and impact, but, as an example, it is worth drawing out a few of the patterns which
actually address directly influencing behaviour architecturally (Table 1). Among others,
Frederick (2007) and Day (2002) both also outline a range of architectural patterns,
some with similarities to Alexander et al’s, including some specifically relating to influ-
encing behaviour.

Two examples of pattern 53? Chepstow, Monmouthshire (restored 1524) and Philips High
Tech Campus, Eindhoven (c.2000)

3 of 26 13/03/2014 22:22
Architecture, urbanism, design and behaviour: a brief review |... http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2011/09/12/architecture-...

Table 1. Summaries of a few of Alexander et al’s patterns (1977) which specifically

address influencing behaviour, simplified into ‘ends’ and ‘means’.

Title End Means

30 Activity nodes To “create concentrations “Facilities must be grouped densely round very small
of people in a commu- public squares which can function as nodes—with all
nity” pedestrian movement in the community organized to
pass through these nodes”

53 Main gate- To influence inhabitants “Mark every boundary in the city which has important
ways of a part of a town to human meaning—the boundary of a building cluster, a
identify it as a distinct en- neighborhood, a precinct—by great gateways where
tity the major entering paths cross the boundary”

68 Connected To “support the forma- “Lay out common land, paths, gardens and bridges so
play tion of spontaneous play that groups of at least 64 households are connected by
groups” for children a swath of land that does not cross traffic. Establish this
land as the connected play space for the children in
these households”

139 Farmhouse To help “all the members “Make the kitchen bigger than usual, big enough to in-
kitchen of the family… to accept, clude the ‘family room’ space, and place it near the cen-
fully, the fact that taking ter of the commons, not so far back in the house as an
care of themselves by ordinary kitchen. Make it large enough to hold a good
cooking is as much a part table and chairs, some soft and some hard, with coun-

4 of 26 13/03/2014 22:22
Architecture, urbanism, design and behaviour: a brief review |... http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2011/09/12/architecture-...

of life as taking care of ters and stove and sink around the edge of the room;
themselves by eating” and make it a bright and comfortable room”

151 Small meeting To encourage smaller “Make at least 70 per cent of all meeting rooms really
rooms group meetings, which small—for 12 people or less. Locate them in the most
encourage people to con- public parts of the building, evenly scattered among the
tribute and make their workplaces”
point of view heard

Layout of physical elements

Practically, most architectural patterns for influencing behaviour involve, in one way or
another, the physical arrangement of building elements—inside or outside—or a change
in material properties. In each case, there is the possibility of changing people’s percep-
tions of what behaviour is possible or appropriate, and the possibility of actually forc-
ing some behaviour to occur or not occur (see future article ‘Affordances, constraints
and choice architecture’). These are not independent alternatives: the perception that
some behaviour is possible or impossible can be a result of learning ‘the hard way’ in
the past.

Barrier on the London Underground (Baker Street, from memory), preventing people running
down stairs directly onto the track. Most stairs don’t open straight onto the platform like this.

The physical arrangement of elements can be broken down into different aspects of po-

5 of 26 13/03/2014 22:22
Architecture, urbanism, design and behaviour: a brief review |... http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2011/09/12/architecture-...

sitioning and layout—putting elements in particular places to encourage or discourage

people’s interaction with them, putting them in people’s way to prevent access to
somewhere, putting them either side of people to channel or direct them in a particular
way (e.g. staggered pedestrian crossings which aim to direct pedestrians to face on-
coming traffic; Department for Transport, 1995), hiding them to remove the perception
that they are there, splitting elements up or combining them so that they can be used
by different numbers of people at once, or angling them so that some actions are easier
than others (termed slanty design by Beale (2007), both physically and in metaphorical
application in interfaces). Urbanists such as Whyte (1980) have catalogued, in colour-
ful, intricate detail the effects that the layouts and features of built environments have
on people’s behaviour—why some areas become popular, others not so, with whom,
and why, with recommendations for how to improve things, in contrast to work such as
Goffman (1963) which focuses on the social contexts of public behaviour in urban envi-
ronments.

The layouts of shops, hotels, casinos and theme parks, especially larger developments
where there is scope to plan more ambitiously, can also make use of multiple aspects of
positioning and layout to influence and control shoppers’ paths—Stenebo (2010) dis-
cusses IKEA’s carefully planned (and continually refined) “fairyland of adventures”
which routes visitors through the store; Shearing and Stenning (1984) examine how
Disney World embeds “[c]ontrol strategies in both environmental features and struc-
tural relations,” many to do with positioning of physical features; while Underhill (1999,
2004), formerly one of Whyte’s students, describes how his company, Envirosell, uses
observation approach to understand and redesign shopping behaviour across a wide
range of store types and shopping malls themselves, much of which comes down to in-
telligently repositioning elements such as mirrors, basket stacks, signage and seating.
Poundstone (2010) cites a study by Sorensen Associates which used active RFID tags
fitted to shopping trolleys to determine that US shoppers taking an anticlockwise route
around supermarkets spend on average $2.00 more per trip; the suggestion is that
stores with the entrance on the right will be more likely to prompt this anticlockwise
movement.

Changes in material properties can involve drawing attention to particular behaviour

(e.g. rumble strips on a road to encourage drivers to slow down: Harvey, 1992), or mak-
ing it more or less comfortable to do an activity (e.g., as Katyal (2002, p.1043) notes,
“fast food restaurants use hard chairs that quickly grow uncomfortable so that cus-
tomers rapidly turn over”). The application of some of these physical positioning and
layout and material property ideas to a particular social issue is described in the blog
post ‘Towards a Design with Intent method v.0.1′ from 2008.

6 of 26 13/03/2014 22:22
Architecture, urbanism, design and behaviour: a brief review |... http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2011/09/12/architecture-...

Often combining positioning and material properties, the effect of different seating
types and layouts on behaviour comprises a significant area of study in itself, with, for
example, work by Steinzor (1950), Hearn (1957), Sommer (1969) and Koneya (1976)
helping to establish patterns of likely interaction between people occurring with ar-
rangements of chairs around tables, and overall room layouts in classrooms and mental
hospitals. Sommer’s design intervention in the dayroom of an elderly ladies’ ward at a
state hospital in Canada—by reducing the number of couches around the walls and
adding tables and chairs in the centre of the room, with flowers and magazines—led to
major increases in the amount of conversation and interaction between residents.

7 of 26 13/03/2014 22:22
Architecture, urbanism, design and behaviour: a brief review |... http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2011/09/12/architecture-...

Osmond (1959) introduced the terms sociofugal and sociopetal to describe spaces which
drive people apart and together, respectively; Sommer (1969, 1974) notes that airports
are often among the most sociofugal spaces, largely because of the fixed, single-direc-
tion seating and “sterile” decor: “Many other buildings… such as mental hospitals and
jails, also discourage contact between people, but none does this as effectively as the
airport… In practice the long corridors and the cold, bare waiting areas of the typical
airport are more sociofugal than the isolation wing of the state penitentiary.” (Sommer,
1974: p.72). Hall’s concept of proxemics (e.g. Hall, 1966) provides a treatment of per-
sonal space, its effects on behaviour, and its significance in different physical spaces as
well as in different cultures. The different ‘distance zones’ identified by Hall—intimate,
personal, social and public—have implications for the design process: “If one looks at
human beings in the way that the early slave traders did, conceiving of their space re-
quirements simply in terms of the limits of the body, one pays very little attention to
the effects of crowding. If, however, one sees man surrounded by a series of invisible
bubbles which have measurable dimensions, architecture can be seen in a new light. It
is then possible to conceive that people can be cramped by the spaces in which they
have to live and work. They may find themselves forced into behavior, relationships or
emotional outlets that are overly stressful” (Hall, 1966, p.129).

Emergence, desire lines and predicting behaviour

“All buildings are predictions. All predictions are wrong”.
Stewart Brand, How Buildings Learn, 1994, p. 178.

“I built skyscrapers for people to live in there and now they messed them

8 of 26 13/03/2014 22:22
Architecture, urbanism, design and behaviour: a brief review |... http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2011/09/12/architecture-...

up—disgusting”.
Ernő Goldfinger, commenting on tabloid reports of violent crime in the Trellick
Tower, above (quoted in Open University, 2001)

In How Buildings Learn, Stewart Brand (1994) contrasts ‘Low Road’ architecture de-
signed to permit adaptation by users, with visionary ‘High Road’ architectural plans
which seek to define at the design stage the future behaviour and lifestyles of buildings’
users. High Road plans often ‘fail’ in this sense, unable to anticipate future needs or us-
age patterns (as Ittelson et al (1974, p. 357) put it, “we are all living in the relics of the
past”), while Low Road architecture can cope with changing requirements, appropria-
tion (Salovaara, 2008) and emergent behaviour. The stereotype of architect as a ‘High
Road’ planner—perhaps living in the penthouse at the top of the tower block he has de-
signed—resonates in both fact (e.g. Ernő Goldfinger’s comment quoted above) and fic-
tion (e.g. Anthony Royal in J.G. Ballard’s High Rise (1975).*

The parallels of the the High/Low Road approaches with the design and use of other
systems—in particular software, but perhaps also economic and political systems in
general—are evident throughout Brand’s book, although never explicitly stated as
such; there are also parallels in planning at a level above that of buildings themselves,
such as the clash in New York (Flint, 2009) between the bottom-up approach to urban-
ism favoured by Jacobs (1961) and the top-down approach of Robert Moses. While it
will unfortunately not be considered in detail in this thesis, the emerging power of
ubiquitous computing, when integrated intelligently into physical space—”city as oper-
ating system” (Gittins, 2007)—could permit a kind of Low Road ‘read/write urbanism’
(Greenfield & Shepard, 2007) in which the ‘city users’ themselves are able to augment
and alter the meanings, affordances and even fabrics of their surroundings.

9 of 26 13/03/2014 22:22
Architecture, urbanism, design and behaviour: a brief review |... http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2011/09/12/architecture-...

A desire path or cowpath is forming across this grass area in the John Crank memorial garden,
Brunel University…

One emergent behaviour-related concept arising from architecture and planning which
has also found application in human-computer interaction is the idea of desire lines, de-
sire paths or cowpaths. The usual current use of the term (often attributed, although
apparently in error, to Bachelard’s The Poetics of Space (1964)) is to describe paths worn
by pedestrians across spaces such as parks, between buildings or to avoid obsta-
cles—“the foot-worn paths that sometimes appear in a landscape over time” (Mathes,
2004) and which become self-reinforcing as subsequent generations of pedestrians fol-
low what becomes an obvious path. Throgmorton & Eckstein (2000) also discuss
Chicago transportation engineers’ use of ‘desire lines’ to describe maps of straight-line
origin-to-destination journeys across the city, in the process revealing assumptions
about the public’s ‘desire’ to undertake these journeys. In either sense, desire lines
(along with use-marks (Burns, 2007)) could perhaps, using economic terminology, be
seen as a form of revealed user preference (Beshears et al, 2008) or at least revealed
choice, with a substantial normative quality.

As such, there is potential for observing the formation of desire lines and then ‘codify-
ing’ them in order to provide paths that users actually need, rather than what is as-
sumed they will need. As Myhill (2004) puts it, “[a]n optimal way to design pathways in
accordance with natural human behaviour, is to not design them at all. Simply plant
grass seed and let the erosion inform you about where the paths need to be. Stories
abound of university campuses being constructed without any pathways to them.” My-
hill goes on to suggest that companies which apply this idea in the design of goods and

10 of 26 13/03/2014 22:22
Architecture, urbanism, design and behaviour: a brief review |... http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2011/09/12/architecture-...

services, designing systems to permit desire lines to emerge and then paying attention
to them, will succeed in a process of ‘Normanian Natural Selection’ (after Don Nor-
man’s work).

…whereas this one has been ‘paved’ after pedestrians wore a definite path.

In human-computer interaction, this principle has become known as ‘Pave the cow-
paths’—“look where the paths are already being formed by behavior and then formalize
them, rather than creating some kind of idealized path structure that ignores history
and tradition and human nature and geometry and ergonomics and common sense”
(Crumlish & Malone, 2009, p.17). Particularly with websites, analytics software can
take the place of the worn grass, and in the process reveal extra data such as demo-
graphic information about users, and more about their actual desires or intention in en-
gaging in the process (e.g. Google is a “database of intentions”, according to Battelle
(2003)). This allows clustering of behaviour paths and even investigation of users’ men-
tal models of site structure. The counter-argument is that blindly paving cowpaths can
enshrine inefficient behaviours in the longer-term, locking users and organisations into
particular ways of doing things which were never optimal in the first place (Arace,
2006)—form freezing function, to paraphrase Stewart Brand (1994, p.157).

From the point of view of influencing behaviour rather than simply reflecting it, the
principle of paving the cowpaths could be applied strategically: identify the desire lines
and paths of particular users—perhaps a group which is already performing the desired
behaviour—and then, by formalising this, making it easier or more salient or in some
way obviously normative, encourage other users to follow suit.

11 of 26 13/03/2014 22:22
Architecture, urbanism, design and behaviour: a brief review |... http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2011/09/12/architecture-...

*It is worth differentiating, though, between a visionary approach which considers human be-
haviour and sets out to change it, and the approach attributed to some other treatments of
the ‘visionary architect’ personality, in which human behaviour is simply ignored or relegated
as being secondary to the vision of the building itself. In fiction, Ayn Rand’s Howard Roark (in
The Fountainhead, 1943) is perhaps an archetype; Sommer’s architect who “learns to look
at buildings without people in them” quoted above is perhaps based on real instances of this
approach.

The ticket hall of Stratford City railway station, London, with Westfield logo and the Olympic
Athletes’ Village under construction in the background, March 2010

The politics of architecture, power and control

“I was aware that I could be watched from above…and that it was possible to go
much higher—to become one of the watchers—but I didn’t see how it could be
done. The architecture embodied a political message: There are people higher
than you, and they can watch you, follow you—and, theoretically, you can join
them, become one of them. Unfortunately you don’t know how.”
Geoff Manaugh, The BLDG BLOG Book (2009, p.17)

Architecture can serve as a regulatory force (Shah and Kesan, 2007) and has been used
to influence and control public behaviour through embodying power in a number of
ways. Direct use of architecture to change the economic or demographic make-up of
areas ranges from policies of shopping centres and Business Improvement Districts to
shift the social class of visitors to an area* (Minton, 2009), to Depression-era Ten-
nessee Valley Authority’s mandate to revitalise impoverished areas through massive
development programmes (Culvahouse, 2007), to government-driven use of settle-

12 of 26 13/03/2014 22:22
Architecture, urbanism, design and behaviour: a brief review |... http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2011/09/12/architecture-...

ments to occupy or colonise territories. In this latter context, Segal and Weizman
(2003, p. 19), referring to Israel, comment that “[i]n an environment where architecture
and planning are systematically instrumentalized… planning decisions do not often fol-
low criteria of economic sustainability, ecology or efficiency of services, but are rather
employed to serve strategic and political agendas”.

Vale (2008) discusses Pierre Charles L’Enfant’s 1791 layout of Washington, DC, often
seen as physically reifying the ‘separation of powers’ principle contained in the US Con-
stitution, by separating the buildings housing the branches of government, although
Vale notes that L’Enfant does not explicitly mention this as his intention. Along perhaps
similar lines, Stewart Brand (1994, p.3) mentions Churchill’s 1943 request that “the
bomb-damaged Parliament be rebuilt exactly as it was before… It was to the good, he
insisted, that the [House of Commons] Chamber was too small to seat all the members
(so great occasions were standing-room occasions), and that its shape forced members
to sit on either one side or the other, unambiguously of one party or the other.” Indeed,
Churchill’s ‘crossing the floor’ in 1904 (and again in the 1920s) perhaps relied on the
physical layout of the chamber for its impact. Ittelson et al (1974, p.139) also note that
“[t]he eight months of deliberations in 1969, preceding the Paris Peace Talks, were
largely centered on the issue of the shape of the table to be used in the negotiations.”

Internal building layouts are analysed for their ‘power’ implications by Dovey (2008),
who uses a system of ‘space syntax analysis’ developed by Hillier and Hanson (1984) to
examine diverse buildings such as Albert Speer’s Berlin Chancellery, the Forbidden City
of Beijing, and the Metro Centre shopping mall in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. One recurring
pattern in political buildings is the intentional use of something similar to what Alexan-
der et al (1977, p.610), in a different context, call ‘intimacy of gradient’—a “diplomatic
promenade” (Dovey, 2008, p. 65) selectively revealing a sequence of anterooms to visi-
tors, their permitted progress through the structure (the deepest level being the presi-
dent or monarch’s private study) calculated both to reflect their status and instil the
requisite level of awe. Nicoletta (2003) looks at the use of architecture to exert social
control in Shaker dwelling houses, e.g. the use of separate entrances and staircases for
men and women, and the lack of routes through the house which did not result in ob-
servation by other members of the family.

City layouts have been used strategically to try to prevent disorder and make it easier
to put down. Baron Georges-Eugène Haussmann’s “militaristically planned Paris”
(Hatherley, 2008, p. 11), remodelled for Louis Napoléon (later Napoléon III) after 1848,
had “[t]he true goal of…secur[ing] the city against civil war. He wanted to make the
erection of barricades in Paris impossible for all time… Widening the streets is de-

13 of 26 13/03/2014 22:22
Architecture, urbanism, design and behaviour: a brief review |... http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2011/09/12/architecture-...

signed to make the erection of barricades impossible, and new streets are to furnish
the shortest route between the barracks and the workers’ districts.” (Benjamin,
1935/1999, p. 12). The Haussmann project also involved “the planning of straight av-
enues as a method of crowd control (artillery could fire down them at barricaded
masses)” (Rykwert, 2000, p.91). Scott (1998, p.59) likens the “logic behind the recon-
struction of Paris” to the process of transforming old-growth forests into “scientific
forests designed for unitary fiscal management”—part of which involves, as Scott em-
phasies throughout his book Seeing Like a State, the idea of making a space (and the peo-
ple in it) legible to whoever is in power by removing or simplifying inconsistencies,
anomalies and local practices to ‘tame’ potentially dangerous ceintures sauvages. Legibil-
ity affords measurement and standardisation, and these (from Domesday Book to the
standardisation of surnames, to biometric IDs) afford modelling, regulation and con-
trol. Drawing on Hacking (1990), Scott (1998, p.92) suggests that it is “but a small step
from a simplified description of society to a design and manipulation of society, with im-
provement in mind. If one could reshape nature to design a more suitable forest, why
not reshape society to create a more suitable population?”

Returning to the specifics of architectural schemes, New York ‘master builder’ Robert
Moses’ low parkway bridges on Long Island are often mentioned in a similar vein to
Haussmann’s Paris (Caro, 1975; Winner, 1986). These had the effect of preventing
buses (and by implication poorer people, often minorities) using the parkways to visit
the Jones Beach State Park—another of Moses’ projects. However, Joerges (1999)
questions details of the intentionality involved, suggesting that the story as presented
by Winner is more of a parable (Gillespie, 2007, p. 72) about the embodiment of politics
in artefacts—an exhortation to recognise that “specific features in the design or ar-
rangement of a device or system could provide a convenient means of establishing pat-
terns of power and authority in a given setting,” (Winner, 1986)—than a real example of
architecture being used intentionally to discriminate against certain groups (see also
the forthcoming blog post ‘POSIWID and determinism’). Nevertheless, Flint (2009,
p.44) suggests in his book on Jane Jacobs’ battles with Moses over New York planning,
that, at least in his earlier years, “Moses strove to model himself after Baron Hauss-
mann”.

*Minton (2009, p.45) interviews a Business Improvement District manager in the UK who
tells her explicitly that “High margins come with ABC1s, low margins with C2DEs. My job is to
create an environment which will bring in more ABC1s.”

14 of 26 13/03/2014 22:22
Architecture, urbanism, design and behaviour: a brief review |... http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2011/09/12/architecture-...

‘Pig ear’ skate stoppers near City Hall, London

Disciplinary architecture and design against crime

“Where the homeless are ejected from business and retail areas by such
measures as curved bus benches, window-ledge spikes and doorway sprinkler
systems, so skaters encounter rough-textured surfaces, spikes and bumps added
to handrails, blocks of concrete placed at the foot of banks, chains across ditches
and steps, and new, unridable surfaces such as gravel and sand.”
Iain Borden, Skateboarding, Space and the City (2001, p.254)

Perhaps difficult to extract from the political dimension of architecture is the notion of
disciplinary architecture, covering everything from designed measures such as
anti-homeless park benches to prison design, via Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon (1787)
and Foucault’s ‘technologies of punishment’ (1977). Howell (2001) notes that this is of-
ten framed as ‘defending’ the general public against ‘undesirable’ behaviour by other
members of the public—in this particular case again, measures to make skateboarding
more difficult. Similar measures may be installed by members of the public to defend
their own properties: Flusty (1997, p. 48) classifies “five species” of “interdictory spaces
—spaces designed to intercept and repel or filter would-be users”, many of which occur
frequently in residential contexts as well as public spaces: stealthy space—areas which
have been deliberately concealed from general view; slippery space—spaces with no ap-
parent means of approach; crusty space—space that cannot be accessed because of ob-
structions; prickly space—space which cannot be occupied comfortably due to mea-

15 of 26 13/03/2014 22:22
Architecture, urbanism, design and behaviour: a brief review |... http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2011/09/12/architecture-...

sures inhibiting walking, sitting or standing; and jittery space—space which is constantly
under surveillance (or threatened surveillance). Some of the ways of achieving these
species of space will be familiar from other examples discussed in this thesis, particu-
larly prickly space.

Prikka strips, a popular brand of add-on DIY plastic spikes for your wall.

‘Design against crime’ has recently received significant attention in the UK via initia-
tives such as the Design Against Crime Research Centre at Central Saint Martins (e.g.
Ekblom, 1997; Gamman & Pascoe, 2004; Gamman & Thorpe, 2007) whose work has
addressed some high-profile areas such as bicycle theft and bag theft in restaurants
and bars (AHRC, 2008) through innovative product design interventions taking ac-
count of the environmental contexts in which crimes occur. While the focus may be on
‘better’ products (as was a much earlier programme by the Design Council focusing on
design against vandalism (Sykes, 1979)), the parallel field of crime prevention through
environmental design (CPTED) has developed from the early 1970s to date, focusing
on redesigning architectural elements to discourage particular behaviours. In the UK,
compliance with an Association of Chief Police Officers’ CPTED initiative, ‘Secured by
Design’—run by ACPO Crime Prevention Initiatives Ltd—has, according to Minton
(2009, p.71), become a condition of planning permission for some large residential de-
velopments, leading to the situation where new estates are required to be “surrounded
by walls with sharp steel pins or broken glass on top of them, CCTV and only one gate
into the estate.”

Crowe (2000) provides a practical guide to implementing CPTED with diagrams and
‘design directives’ for a wide variety of spaces, including schools and student resi-
dences. Poyner (1983), in a guide which is effectively A Pattern Language for CPTED,
outlines 31 patterns addressing different types of crime in different settings—for ex-

16 of 26 13/03/2014 22:22
Architecture, urbanism, design and behaviour: a brief review |... http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2011/09/12/architecture-...

ample, “4.7 Access to rear of house: There should be no open access from the front to
the rear of a house. Access might be restricted to full-height locked gates,” addresses
burglary and break-ins. Many of Poyner’s patterns make use of the principle of natural
surveillance, described in Oscar Newman’s influential book Defensible Space: People and
Design in the Violent City* (1972). Natural surveillance implies designing spaces to af-
ford “surveillance opportunities for residents and their agents” (Newman, 1972, p.
78)—effectively, designing environments so that building users are able to observe oth-
ers’ activities when outside the home, and feel observed themselves (a concept which,
applied in the wider context of digital communications and social media, might be
termed peerveillance**). There should be parallels with Jacobs’ (1961) concept of ‘eyes
on the street’—although as Minton (2009) points out, implementing natural surveil-
lance via enclosed, gated communities where strangers will necessarily stand out
means that the residents can become isolated, targets even for burglars who know that
it is unlikely there will be any passers-by (or even passing police) to see their activities.

Katyal (2002) provides a comprehensive academic review of ‘Architecture as Crime

Control’, addressed to a legal and social policy-maker audience, but also interesting be-
cause of a follow-up article taking the same approach to examine digital architecture
(see future article). One point to which Katyal repeatedly returns is the concept of ar-
chitectural solutions as entities which subtly reinforce or embody social norms (desir-
able ones, from the point of view of law enforcement) rather than necessarily enforce
them: “Even the best social codes are quite useless if it is impossible to observe
whether people comply with them. Architecture, by facilitating interaction and moni-
toring by members of a community, permits social norms to have greater impact. In this
way, the power of architecture to influence social norms can even eclipse that of law,
for law faces obvious difficulties when it attempts to regulate social interaction di-
rectly” (Katyal, 2002, p. 1075).

*‘Defensible space’ covers “restructur[ing] the physical layout of communities to allow resi-
dents to control the areas around their homes.” (Newman, 1996)
**The author used ‘Peerveillance’ for a pattern based on this concept in DwI v.1.0, at the time
(March 2010) finding only one previous use of the term, on Twitter, by Alex Halavais. As of
May 2011, the tweet is no longer findable via either Twitter or Google searches.

Implications for designers

▶ Designed environments influence people’s behaviour in a variety of ways,
and some have been designed expressly with this intention, often for political
or crime prevention reasons

17 of 26 13/03/2014 22:22
Architecture, urbanism, design and behaviour: a brief review |... http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2011/09/12/architecture-...

▶ This can range from high-level visions of influencing wider social or

community behaviours, to very specific techniques applied to influence
particular behaviours in a particular context; the use of patterns facilitates
re-use of techniques wherever a similar problem recurs

▶ Most patterns involve either the physical arrangement of building elements

—positioning, angling, splitting up, hiding, etc—or a change in material
properties, either to change people’s perceptions of what behaviour is possible
or appropriate, perhaps by reinforcing or embodying social norms, or to force
certain behaviour to occur or not occur

▶ There are also patterns around aspects of surveillance—designing layouts

which facilitate or prevent visibility of activity between groups of people

▶ In practice, patterns may be applied in combination to create different kinds

of space with different effects on behaviour

▶ There is potential for ‘paving the cowpaths’ strategically through design,

identifying the paths of particular users—perhaps a group which is already
performing the desired behaviour—and then, by formalising this, making it
easier or more salient or in some way obviously normative, encourage other
users to follow suit

▶ By affecting so completely the way in which people spend their lives,

political or police attempts to control behaviour through the design of
environments can be controversial

▶ Some concepts related to influencing behaviour in the built environment

may be transposed to other designed systems and contexts

References
3XN (2010) Mind Your Behaviour: How Architecture Shapes Behaviour. 3XN.
AHRC, (2008) Fighting crime through more effective design. Available at
http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/About/Publications/Documents/DAC%20Brochure.pdf
Alexander, C. (1979) The Timeless Way of Building. Oxford University Press.
Alexander, C., Silverstein, M., Angel, S., Ishikawa, S. and Abrams, D. (1975) The Ore-
gon Experiment. Oxford University Press.
Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King, I. and Angel, S.

18 of 26 13/03/2014 22:22
Architecture, urbanism, design and behaviour: a brief review |... http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2011/09/12/architecture-...

(1977) A Pattern Language. Oxford University Press.

Arace, M. (2006) ‘Don’t Pave the Cowpaths’. Available at http://mikeomatic.net/?p=59
Bachelard, G. (1964) The Poetics of Space. Orion Press.
Ballard, J.G. (1975) High Rise. Jonathan Cape.
Battelle, J. (2003) ‘The Database of Intentions’. Available at http://battellemedia.com
/archives/2003/11/the_database_of_intentions
Beale, R. (2007) ‘Slanty design’. Communications of the ACM 50(1), p. 1-24
Benjamin, W. (1935/1999) The Arcades Project. Harvard University Press.
Bentham, J. (1787) ‘Panopticon; or, the Inspection-House [...]‘. Available at
http://www.cartome.org/panopticon2.htm
Beshears, J.L., Choi, J.J., Laibson, D., Madrian, B.C. et al, (2008) ‘How are Preferences
Revealed?’ Yale ICF Working Paper No. 08-15. Available at http://papers.ssrn.com
/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1125043
Borden, I. (2001) Skateboarding, Space and the City. Berg.
Brand, S. (1994) How Buildings Learn. Viking.
Broady, M. (1966) ‘Social Theory in Architectural Design’ in Gutman, R. (ed.), People
and Buildings. Basic Books.
Burns, B. (2007) ‘From Newness to Useness and back again: a review of the role of the
user in sustainable product maintenance,’ Presentation at EPSRC Network on Product
Life Spans event on Maintaining Products in Use.
Caro, R.A. (1975) The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York. Vintage
Books.
Crowe, T.D. (2000) Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (2nd ed.). Butter-
worth-Heinemann.
Crumlish, C. & Malone, E. (2009) Designing Social Interfaces. O’Reilly.
Culvahouse, T. (ed.) (2007) The Tennesseee Valley Authority: Design and Persuasion.
Princeton Architectural Press.
Day, C. (2002) Spirit & Place. Architectural Press.
Department for Transport (1995) The Design of Pedestrian Crossings. Local Transport
Note 2/95. Available at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:
//www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/ltnotes/thedesignofpedestriancrossin4034
Dovey. K. (2008) Framing Places: Mediating Power in Built Form (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Ekblom, P. (1997) Gearing up against crime. Available at http://www.designagain-
stcrime.com/files/crimeframeworks/11_gearing_up_against_crime.pdf
Flint, A. (2009) Wrestling with Moses. Random House.
Flusty, S. (1997) ‘Building Paranoia’ in Ellin, N. (ed.) Architecture of Fear. Princeton Ar-
chitectural Press.
Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Allen Lane.
Frederick, M. (2007) 101 Things I Learned in Architecture School. MIT Press.

19 of 26 13/03/2014 22:22
Architecture, urbanism, design and behaviour: a brief review |... http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2011/09/12/architecture-...

Gamman, L. and Pascoe, T. (2004) ‘Design Out Crime? Using Practice-based Models of
the Design Process’. Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Jour-
nal 2004, 6(4), p. 9-18
Gamman, L. and Thorpe, A. (2007) ‘Design against crime’as socially responsive design
for public space’. Innovation and Investment in Research and the Creative Economy,
3-4 December 2007, San Paulo
Gillespie, T. (2007) Wired Shut: Copyright and the Shape of Digital Culture. MIT Press.
Gittins, M., writing as ‘kosmograd’ (2007) ‘The City as Operating System’, Team
Helsinki blog, 14 March 2007. Available at http://teamhelsinki.blogspot.com/2007/03
/city-as-operating-system.html
Goffman, E. (1963) Behavior in Public Places. The Free Press.
Greenfield, A. and Shepard, M. (2007) Urban Computing and its Discontents. Architec-
tural League of New York. Available at http://www.situatedtechnologies.net/files
/ST1-Urban_Computing.pdf
Hacking, I. (1990) The Taming of Chance. Cambridge University Press.
Hall, E.T. (1966) The Hidden Dimension. Doubleday.
Harvey, T. (1992) A Review of Current Traffic Calming Techniques. PRIMAVERA Pro-
ject. Available at http://www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/primavera/p_calming.html
Hatherley, O. (2008) Militant Modernism. Zer0 Books.
Hearn, G. (1957) ‘Leadership and the spatial factor in small groups’. Journal of Abnor-
mal and Social Psychology, 54 (2), p. 269-272.
Hillier, W.R.G., Hanson, J. and Peponis, J. (1987) ‘Syntactic Analysis of Settlements’. Ar-
chitecture et Comportement / Architecture and Behaviour, 3 (3), p. 217-231.
Hillier, W.R.G. and Hanson, J. (1984) The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge University
Press.
Howard, E. (1902) Garden Cities of To-morrow. Available at http://www.archive.org
/download/gardencitiestom00howagoog/gardencitiestom00howagoog.pdf
Howell, O. 2001 ‘The Poetics of Security: Skateboarding, Urban Design, and the New
Public Space,’ Urban Action 2001/San Francisco State University Urban Studies Pro-
gram. Available at http://bss.sfsu.edu/urbanaction/ua2001/ps2.html
Ittelson, W.H., Proshansky, H.M, Rivlin, L.G. and Winkel, G.H. (1974) An Introduction
to Environmental Psychology. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Random House.
Joerges, B. (1999) ‘Do Politics Have Artefacts?’ Social Studies of Science, 29 (3), p.
411-431.
Katyal, N.K. (2002) ‘Architecture As Crime Control’. Yale Law Journal 111, p. 1039
Koneya, M. (1976) ‘Location and Interaction in Row-and-Column Seating Arrange-
ments’. Environment and Behavior 8 (2) p. 265-282
Manaugh, G. (2009) The BLDG BLOG Book. Chronicle Books.

20 of 26 13/03/2014 22:22
Architecture, urbanism, design and behaviour: a brief review |... http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2011/09/12/architecture-...

Mathes, A. (2004) ‘Folksonomies – Cooperative Classification and Communication

Through Shared Metadata’. Available at http://www.adammathes.com/academic/com-
puter-mediated-communication/folksonomies.pdf
Marmot, A. (2002) ‘Architectural determinism. Does design change behaviour?’ British
Journal of General Practice, 52 (476), p. 252–253
Minton, A. (2009) Ground Control: Fear and happiness in the twenty-first century city.
Penguin.
Myhill, C. (2004) ‘Commercial Success by looking for Desire Lines’, 6th Asia Pacific
Computer-Human Interaction Conference (APCHI 2004), Rotorua, New Zealand.
Available at http://www.litsl.com/personal/commercial_success_by_looking_for_de-
sire_lines.pdf
Newman, O. (1972) Defensible Space: People and Design in the Violent City. Architec-
tural Press.
Nicoletta, J. (2003) ‘The Architecture of Control: Shaker Dwelling Houses and the Re-
form Movement in Early-Nineteenth-Century America’. Journal of the Society of Archi-
tectural Historians 62 (3), p. 352-387
Open University (2001) ‘From Here to Modernity: Trellick Tower’. Available at
http://www.open2.net/modernity/3_14.htm
Osmond, H. (1959) ‘The Relationship between Architect and Psychiatrist’. In Goshen,
C. (ed.), Psychiatric Architecture. American Psychiatric Association.
Poundstone, W. (2010) Priceless: The Myth of Fair Value (and How to Take Advantage
of It). Hill & Wang.
Poyner, B. (1983) Design against Crime: Beyond Defensible Space. Butterworths.
Rand, A. (1943) The Fountainhead. Bobbs Merrill.
Rykwert, J. (2000) The Seduction of Place. Oxford University Press.
Salovaara, A. (2008) ‘Inventing New Uses for Tools: A Cognitive Foundation for Studies
on Appropriation.’ Human Technology, 4, (2), p. 209-228.
Scott, J.C. (1998) Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human
Condition Have Failed. Yale University Press.
Segal, R. and Weizman, E. (eds.) (2003) A Civilian Occupation: The Politics of Israeli Ar-
chitecture. Babel/Verso.
Shah, R.C. and Kesan, J.P. (2007) ‘How Architecture Regulates’. Journal of Architectural
and Planning Research, 24 (4), p. 350-359.
Shearing, C.D. and Stenning, P.C. (1984) ‘From the Panopticon to Disney World: the
Development of Discipline’ in Doob, A.N. and Greenspan, E.L. (eds.) Perspectives in
Criminal Law: Essays in Honour of John LL.J. Edwards, p.335-349. Canada Law Book.
Sommer, R. (1969) Personal Space: The Behavioral Basis of Design. Prentice-Hall.
Sommer, R. (1974) Tight Spaces: Hard Architecture and How to Humanize it. Pren-
tice-Hall.

21 of 26 13/03/2014 22:22
Architecture, urbanism, design and behaviour: a brief review |... http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2011/09/12/architecture-...

Steinzor, B. (1950) ‘The spatial factor in face to face discussion groups’. Journal of Ab-
normal and Social Psychology, 45 (3), p. 552-555.
Stenebo, J. (2010) The Truth About IKEA. Gibson Square.
Sykes, J. (1979) Designing Against Vandalism. The Design Council.
Throgmorton, J. & Eckstein, B. (2000) ‘Desire Lines: The Chicago Area Transportation
Study and the Paradox of Self in Post-War America.’ Available at https://www.notting-
ham.ac.uk/3cities/throgeck.htm
Underhill, P. (1999) Why We Buy. Simon & Schuster.
Underhill, P. (2004) Call of the Mall. Simon & Schuster.
Vale, L.J. (2008) Architecture, Power and National Identity (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Whyte, W.H. (1980) The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. The Conservation Founda-
tion.
Winner, L. (1986) ‘Do Artifacts Have Politics?’ In The Whale and the Reactor: A Search
for Limits in an Age of High Technology, pp. 19–39. University of Chicago Press
Zeisel, J. (2006) Inquiry by Design (rev. ed.). W.W. Norton.

Reminiscent of a scene from Ballard’s Super-Cannes, the Philips High Tech Campus also in-
cludes this lake and boardwalk, perhaps affording breakout meetings and secret discussions
away from the earshot of office colleagues, although in full view of the surrounding buildings.

34 THOUGHTS ON “ARCHITECTURE, URBANISM, DESIGN AND BEHAVIOUR: A BRIEF

REVIEW”

Pingback: Putting people first » Dan Lockton on how architecture and urbanism can be

22 of 26 13/03/2014 22:22
Architecture, urbanism, design and behaviour: a brief review |... http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2011/09/12/architecture-...

used to influence behaviour

Ray Gallon
13 SEPTEMBER, 2011 AT 8:32 AM

This is very interesting, but you totally neglect the acoustic dimension. Not acoustics
as engineering discipline but as aesthetic modulator of space. Gothic cathedrals are a
good example and the medieval composer Hildegard Von Bingen understood this and
wrote pieces that “play” the reverberation time. In today’s urban theory we only speak
of sound when it’s a nuisance (noise control). What about the sound we like? How do
we organize our sonic architecture?

Pingback: urbanism.org » Architecture, urbanism, design and behaviour urban news

[almost] daily.

Alex
14 SEPTEMBER, 2011 AT 10:16 PM

These had the effect of preventing buses (and by implication poorer people, often minorities)
using the parkways to visit the Jones Beach State Park

I’ve read (where I don’t know) that this is a myth.

On Haussmann, Vienna is interesting. After the 1848 revolution, in which the revolu-
tionaries used the fortifications, the walls were demolished and replaced by the Ring,
anchored by barracks and churches. In 1890, the outer defence line was demolished
and replaced by the Gürtel. In the next few years, the Ring became the great stage of
mass demonstrations by the Left.

Pingback: Paving the cowpaths: using architecture concepts to improve online user
experience

Pingback: CHECK OUT THIS OTHER BLOG :P « Reason In Madness

Greg Saville

23 of 26 13/03/2014 22:22
Architecture, urbanism, design and behaviour: a brief review |... http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2011/09/12/architecture-...

21 SEPTEMBER, 2011 AT 7:21 PM

Interesting research and engaging architectural angle on an old story told many times
over the years.

I appreciate the design out crime examples, but you might also want to know about
new advances in this field in North America, particularly 2nd Generation CPTED and
the SafeGrowth program. Here are two other examples:
http://www.projecthdesign.org/
http://safe-growth.blogspot.com/2010/06/worlds-first-cpted-town-tumbler-
ridge.html

Well done on your research.

Pingback: Coffee, sense of place, and designing whole experiences

Pingback: Architecture, urbanism, design and behaviour | Sinoconcept Your French Street
Furniture Manufacturer in China

Pingback: “Designing out crime”, street furniture and soft landscaping « External Works

Pingback: The politics of architecture, power and control | Tainted Stream

Pingback: Designer Myopia: How To Stop Designing For Ourselves@smashing | seo博客大

全

Pingback: Designer Myopia: How To Stop Designing For Ourselves | Blogs – NG

Outsourcing

Pingback: Designer Myopia: How To Stop Designing For Ourselves | FloroGraphics.com

Pingback: Designer Myopia: How To Stop Designing For Ourselves | Gold Star Web Design

24 of 26 13/03/2014 22:22
Architecture, urbanism, design and behaviour: a brief review |... http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2011/09/12/architecture-...

Pingback: Designer Myopia: How To Stop Designing For Ourselves | IdentityNepal.com

Pingback: Designer Myopia: How To Stop Designing For Ourselves | DigitalMofo

Pingback: Designer Myopia: How To Stop Designing For Ourselves | Testing themes

Pingback: Designer Myopia: How To Stop Designing For Ourselves | Web Designer
Bacolod City | Ricky Noel Diancin Jr. Webmaster | Wordpress Expert

Pingback: Designer Myopia: How To Stop Designing For Ourselves | Web Design Course
Brisbane: Next Course Sat 10th Dec 2011

Pingback: Designer Myopia: How To Stop Designing For Ourselves | Blog.Grooowbox.Com

Pingback: Designer Myopia: How To Stop Designing For Ourselves | Wordpress Themes

Pingback: The politics of architecture, power and control » Smart Species

Pingback: Designer Myopia: How To Stop Designing For Ourselves | Smashing UX Design

Del Hossain RIBA

11 MAY, 2012 AT 10:04 PM

Well done Dan, this is a terrific blog, with a good collection of essays. Some long stand-
ing topics revisited with fresh eyes.

Pingback: Quora

25 of 26 13/03/2014 22:22
Architecture, urbanism, design and behaviour: a brief review |... http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2011/09/12/architecture-...

Pingback: DESIRE LINES | Jenny Roe

Pingback: Architecture, urbanism, design and behaviour: a brief review | Design with Intent
| Being Dr. Phoenix | Scoop.it

Pingback: Designer Myopia: How To Stop Designing For Ourselves - Goodfav Howto

biological architecture
11 JUNE, 2013 AT 8:53 AM

Very interesting your work! I am very glad I found your blog! I am studying a masters
degree in biodigital architecture in Barcelona. My field of study is a bit different from
yours, but it is also interesting!
Nice to meet you,
Jane

Pingback: Dan Lockton’s PhD thesis on manipulating behavior through architecture | Holly
Cole

Pingback: Dan Lockton’s PhD thesis on manipulating behavior through architecture |

Building a Better World

検査合格 推薦
3 NOVEMBER, 2013 AT 5:37 AM

These are actually enormous ideas in concerning blogging.

You have touched some nice things here. Any way keep up wrinting.

Here is my homepage :: 検査合格 推薦

Pingback: Designer Myopia: How To Stop Designing For Ourselves | Smashing UX Design

26 of 26 13/03/2014 22:22