A couple of mini rants
This campaign to stop architects working on prison designs (via Design Observer) seems rather inconsistent to me. OK, so prison might not work very well and for sure there are too many people locked up. But I would bet a lot of money that the kind of architects that would sign up to this boycott have never been asked to design a prison in their lives, and I am sure there will be no shortage of people willing to sign off drawings for new prisons, given that I can't see clients starting to boycott architects who design prisons. Hell, there are probably architects who only design prisons.
Surely we should be actually looking for better prison designs. Will Alsop has, I have seen, being working on precisely that, with prisoners themselves. Isn't this a more intelligent and clever way to turn the prison paradigm around into something positive, using the power of good design to make an environment that allows prisoners to see some hope, experience some creativity and be stimulated by the environment that surrounds them? Even speculative designs for 'alternative prisons' might spark a much more interesting public debate on what prisons are really meant to achieve, which might ultimately lead to a much better understanding of why we need to imprison less.
And argh - I don't know why this blog on Christian musings on urban regeneration in Sheffield makes me feel so shivery. But something about "lives and communities fundamentally transformed through encounters with Jesus" being the definition of 'regeneration', and the fact that this guy actually works for a local authority regeneration department, makes me really worried. I'm not sure that the rest of secular (or non-Christian) Britain thinks that this is how their problems should, or can, be solved.
Kinda interesting to see that plastic shopping bags actually use way less energy to produce than paper bags. But of course, they aren't biodegradable. Still, my lovely and eco-friendly BF will be pleased to see that the ultimate recommendation is to use cloth bags for your groceries.
Surely we should be actually looking for better prison designs. Will Alsop has, I have seen, being working on precisely that, with prisoners themselves. Isn't this a more intelligent and clever way to turn the prison paradigm around into something positive, using the power of good design to make an environment that allows prisoners to see some hope, experience some creativity and be stimulated by the environment that surrounds them? Even speculative designs for 'alternative prisons' might spark a much more interesting public debate on what prisons are really meant to achieve, which might ultimately lead to a much better understanding of why we need to imprison less.
And argh - I don't know why this blog on Christian musings on urban regeneration in Sheffield makes me feel so shivery. But something about "lives and communities fundamentally transformed through encounters with Jesus" being the definition of 'regeneration', and the fact that this guy actually works for a local authority regeneration department, makes me really worried. I'm not sure that the rest of secular (or non-Christian) Britain thinks that this is how their problems should, or can, be solved.
Kinda interesting to see that plastic shopping bags actually use way less energy to produce than paper bags. But of course, they aren't biodegradable. Still, my lovely and eco-friendly BF will be pleased to see that the ultimate recommendation is to use cloth bags for your groceries.
Comments
"Eg, if you found through your research that x% of prisoners were minors/mentally ill/illiterate and you started to produce propositional drawings that reflected that spatially, it might bring it home to a lot of people that don't really understand or grasp the situation at present." Or you just might end up confusing the public even more. be careful, they are not all trained in thinking about proposals for spatial depictions of these things, but also don't underestimate the public for what they already know.
if you are interested in "publicizing the debate" for the general public, highlighting the abhorrence of prisons through re-design, that, in the end I am afraid, does not make the public think to themselves, 'hey, we have way too many horrible prisons, but since we can make them better designed, maybe we should stop building them altogether now.' I think the unfortunate consequence of designers' 'good intentions' to design more humane incarceration structures, may, in the end, oinly show we are capable of making perfectly humane and tolerable prisons. And that may confirm therefore that building more of them is perfectly okay, because we can make them now something other than the horrible places that they are. So in terms of public perception, better designed prisons (can) = a higher tolerance and increased respect for the functions they serve. i understand you feel the Alsop story helps the public understand a critique, but i think it only makes the public, in their short attention of the matter, feel okay about adding more prisons to the stock.
as for architects, what could be a more substantial critique of prisons (as gross ideological constructs) than a unified voice protesting their own profession's involvement with seeing them built? again, how do you critique the prison-industrial complex by designing better prisons? you only say by doing so, look how awful these places are, that's why we are redesigning them. its sort of like naively assisting in creating a more sophisticated cover up for a hideous system that's totally out of control. sadly, i fear that with nice humane prisons comes less public concern and scrutiny. b/c the public already knows how awful they are. redesigning them is an unneeded form of getting public confirmation of that. re-designing prisons to me, only says, you are still willing to work with the system, which is utilizing these horrible places to escape from larger institutional oversight and reform. by redesigning prisons, your critique of the system can only go so far as your designs can articulate, to a generally un-design savvy public anyway. but to stand outside of the equation altogether, now you are free to truly criticize the flaws of our justice system, and that means prisons are probably the last place you should look, at that point.
sorry to mini-rant, i know we all want the same thing, and as long as prisons exist i too want them to provide as substantially humane a condition as they can. but reworking bad ingredients (prisons) doesn't make the stew (justice system) taste any better. i just think we need to put our energy into the prevention of building any more prisons at this point rather than trying to humanize them, which may only encourage future development.
its a jam for architects, who want the benefit of designing better prisons to help make more prominent their importance in society to the public, and obviously to build nicer places for inmates. but i say, don't be duped into camouflaging the hideous irresponsibilities of our justice system. let's hold them accountable and put more resources into prison-alternatives instead.
I didn't really mean design better prisons in real life - that's not going to happen, because the clients won't buy the designs. Even Will Alsop's project was not intended to be built. But it had huge media coverage in the UK and I think a really interesting and not at all 'comfortable' impact on the debate about prisons and prisoners in that country. And he's just one guy. So I was just wondering, couldn't architects all over the place start doing similar projects, if they really cared enough about the justice system - they could range from really amazing poster designs for mass transit, to exhibitions, competitions, etc. That would be more eye-catching and vivid than a boycott (which in this case is somewhat invisible and intangible, you can't go and see it anywhere, unlike the most effective boycotts - the civil rights movements ones)
anyway, that was just my idea...something about best use of our skills and our potential for impact and attention-grabbing on a mass scale. I don't think that this approach is in any way 'covering up' or band-aiding the fundamental problems, it is just 'how do you use design to highlight problems and demand solutions?'
If a boycott was the answer, shouldn't architects be lobbying the contracting industry to stop building the damn things? but that's of course a much harder thing to do (which is sort-of my point, that the architects boycott is the easy way out of addressing a really difficult area of policy to change - you feel like you are doing something when really you're not having major impact)
And the state of the US justice system is such an infinitely complex area to try and 'solve' - if such a thing is possible. Ultimately all one can do is lobby and pressure. I for one feel like I really don't know what kind of 'solution' I woudl like to see and I'm not comfortable putting my name to a petition that has huge policy implications that are really complex and that, maybe, we don't fully understand. Less prisons only works if there are changes to every other aspect of justice, and even pre-justice type areas like social security, education, social services, family support and so on. The need for prisons (and the increasing numbers of people being convicted) is a symptom of much greater things - why do people commit relatively petty crimes to start with, how can we support young people so they don't start criminal activity, how can we use probation/community service/education as alternatives. Etc. So I guess, if I was lobbying, I might focus on some of these areas. Which is why I work in urban renewal I guess...QED!
i agree wholeheartedly about architects finding better ways of using their skills to enlighten the debate to the public more. The prison design boycott is actually hosting a Poster Design Contest right now (http://www.adpsr.org/prisons/poster.htm).
what sorts of project sare you working on right now, any supportive housing? I am trying to learn as much as i can about building homes for homeless/low low inc people.