An article in today’s New York Times notes the increasing use of military style design principles in cities. For them, this is a totally new groove, or at the very least a post 9/11 groove. While very specific design elements may have become more commonplace after 9/11, many of them had been in place for the last thiry years or so. The first modern urban threat remember was not the Arab terrorist, but the black rioter. Buildings like Detroit’s Renaissance Center were noted not only for their use of curves as opposed to angles, but also for its use of military style bunkers to keep urban (read: black) denizens out. The bunkers have since been removed, but the first thing that I thought of as a young kid looking at it was the Morlocks. The curves (the building is in effect a series of connected tubes) served to disorient people rather than welcome them–which of course makes sense if the only population the designers want in the building in the first place are people who know where they are going. And the use of surveillance cameras were first popularized in the US in Baltimore, while dealing with a crime spree associated with young black male criminals.
If someone were to study the shifts in these design elements over time in response to what is in effect racialized fear, it’d be hot. And if they could combine a study of building design with car design they’d be really onto something.
I recognized this a while back, and although I’d be hesitant to second an essential racialized component, there’s definitely a defensive angle.
I can remember the first Isuzu commercial in which the entire vehicle disappears into a giant pothole, and the beginning of the trend towards cocooning.
But back to your premise. Is there a place that we should allow black rage to roam free? If the pain and suffering that disaffected blacks feel is real and legitimate, should the urban landscape reflect that in a gritty way? Should streets be mean?
What should the 21st Century City do? What should be the role of democracy within it? And of course this last question implies the public doesn’t it? Because the question isn’t really about black rage, the question is about how we can create urban spaces that are secure but open. A commons vs. a fort.
Doc ,should the design reveal the intent ?Urban institutions i.e.Wayne State ,John Hopkins and Harvard located in inner cities do not structurally welcome their neighbors;cement barriers imped traffic.
It would be interesting to see the impact of proximity of threat to changes in architecture. If you’re reacting to a real threat, you put bars on the windows and big walls and fences up where you’re at risk–like the way buildings and houses in high-crime areas tend to look. If you’re reacting to generalized fear, you put bars on the windows and big walls and fences up (or the architectural equivalent) in places where there’s little or no risk.
Another approach to the same question would be to look at architectural features that actually increased security against some threat, vs. features that made the building seem stronger or safer.
In both cases, the question is, are you responding to a threat, or to a feeling or fear?
So there are a set of institutions–like urban colleges–that have throughout the modern era used various techniques designed to stave off urban populations. And it would be interesting to see if different sets of urban spaces inculcate different types of designs.
Albatross you’ve hit the nail on the head. there is a growing literature that examines “racial threat” and it wouldn’t be that difficult to theoretically port it over. And I’d add surveillance tech to the pot as well.