The Social Psychology of Architectural Design

1
The Social Psychology of Architectural Design

• Faye Braithwaite
• APSY610
• 16 September 2005

2
Overview

• Very brief history of the relationship between
  social psychology and architecture
• Newmans theory of Defensible Space
• Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
• High-Density Living
• Proposed taxonomy of architectural dimensions
  that influence psychological processes

3
Historical Relationship between Social Psychology
and Architectural Design

• During the 18th century the architecture of
  classical antiquity came to represent civic
  virtue as well as social order. To be able to
  order space was to be able to order society (at
  least theoretically).
• The elevated status of the architect, which
  emerged in England with the rebuilding of London
  after the Great Fire in 1666, represented the
  need for new models of ordering. The architect
  was seen a great designer with knowledge of the
  classical arts who was able to translate ideas
  about the ordering of space into the ordering of
  society.

4
Defensible Space (Newman, 1972)

• In the evolution of human habitat, different
  cultures have developed mechanisms to defend the
  territorial realm of their dwellings, which have
  evolved through change and adaptation.
• In architectural history there is ample evidence
  of territorial definition and symbolization in
  the forms of previous residential environments.
  Newman (1972) claims that residential
  environments of 20th century cities broke with
  tradition simply because needs seem to change
  dramatically, particularly in developing high
  density housing to keep up with high population
  growth rates.
• Present urban environments may encourage criminal
  behaviour.

5
Some explanations of Defensible Space

• Defensible space is a model for residential
  environments which inhibits crime by creating the
  physical expression of a community that defends
  itself.
• Defensible space is a surrogate term for a range
  of mechanisms real and symbolic barriers,
  strongly defined areas of influence, and improved
  opportunities for surveillance that combine to
  bring an environment under the control of its
  residents.
• A defensible space is a living residential
  environment which can be employed by inhabitants
  for the enhancement of their lives, while
  providing security for their families, neighbours
  and friends.
• Newman, 1972

6
4 elements of defensible space (Newman, 1972)

• The territorial definition of space in
  developments reflecting the areas of influence of
  the inhabitants. This works by subdividing the
  residential environment into zones toward which
  residents adopt territorial attitudes
• 2. The positioning of windows to allow residents
  natural surveillance of the public areas of their
  living environment.
• 3. The adoption of building forms which avoid
  the stigma of peculiarity that allows others to
  perceive the vulnerability and isolation of the
  inhabitants.
• 4. The enhancement of safety by locating
  residential developments, in functionally
  sympathetic urban areas immediately adjacent to
  activities which do not provide continued threat.

7

• The four elements of defensible space have one
  common goal an environment in which latent
  territoriality and sense of community convert
  into responsibility for ensuring a safe and
  well-maintained living space.
• Newman attacks the design of housing projects in
  the United Sates society may have contributed
  to the victimisation of project residentssaying
  with every status symbol available in the
  architectural language of our culture, that
  living here is falling short of the human state.
  (Newman, 1972, p12)
• Architecture is not just about style, image and
  comfort. Architecture can create encounter and
  prevent it. An architect with some understanding
  of the structure of criminal encounter can simply
  avoid providing the spaces which supports it.

8
Chicagos Public Housing Projects

• Architecture, racism and even good intentions
  have conspired to create a poverty trap in
  Chicago's housing projects. As elsewhere in the
  United States, public housing was first designed
  in the 1930s as transitional housing for the
  working poor. The problems began in the 1950s
  when local politicians, began to use public
  housing to segregate the city's rapidly growing
  black population. Meanwhile, city builders had
  become fixated with Le Corbusier's vision of
  urban buildings. The result was huge high-rises
  in poor black neighbourhoods, the worst of which
  is an uninterrupted four-mile stretch of public
  housing. - The Economist, 11 July 1998

9
Defensible Space Research (Merry, 1981)

• Merry (1981), examined the pattern of
  intervention in crimes in a modern American
  housing development. The research was carried out
  over an 18-moth period and included the
  distribution of a questionnaire which examined
  attitudes towards crime and danger and
  experiences of victimization. The questionnaire
  included a series of photos of the housing
  project and participants were asked to categorise
  each place as safe or dangerous.
• The New York City project selected consisted of
  500 apartments and 100 units and was surrounded
  by vacant lots, industry and parking lots, and a
  major highway. At the time the area had one of
  the highest crime rates in the city, with police
  statistics indicating the highest per capita rate
  of robberies and assaults in the city.
• Superficially the project was well-designed for
  defensible space it was small, only four
  families share a single entrance area, apartments
  are closely associated with public space in front
  and private fenced space in the rear, and the
  windows are well-positioned for surveillance.

10
Results

• Over 50 of the robberies reported in the survey
  occurred in areas which are architecturally
  defensible representing approximately
  two-thirds of the project area. The remainder
  occurred in areas characterised by Newman as
  supporting crime (secluded, complicated lobbies,
  narrow, poorly lit areas between buildings,
  hidden crevices that serve as short cuts, and
  sidewalks along streets cluttered with concrete
  pillars and recessed alcoves)
• Why were the defensible spaces not defended?
• Why is the crime rate in these areas as high as
  in obviously poorly designed places?

11

• Several factors account for this failure to
  intervene in space that appears architecturally
  defensible. For a bystander to intervene in an
  emergency they must first notice that an
  emergency is taking place, then must interpret
  the event as an emergency, assume the
  responsibility to act, decide what form of
  assistance to provide, and finally, decide how to
  implement this intervention.
• Aspects of physical design as well as features of
  the social organisation of the project interfere
  with this sequence.
• First, many subtle features of design violate
  principles of defensible space and prevent easy
  surveillance, even though in general the project
  contains many of the characteristics of good
  defensible space. For example, the exterior
  stairwell is actually not easily subject to
  surveillance. Although it is not enclosed in the
  building, the outer wall is translucent not
  transparent and since it makes four turns before
  arriving at the landing of the apartment
  entrances, it is impossible, from the bottom to
  see who is in it .

12

• Furthermore, if spaces are observable, this
  feature is only effective in reducing crime when
  crime is observed. Even when residents observe
  intruders or witness criminal, disorderly, or
  destructive behaviour, they rarely intervene.
• One reason is residents inability to distinguish
  intruders from neighbours who are strangers to
  them.
• A second reason is the lack of effective methods
  of intervention. Most believe there is little
  point in calling the police because they come too
  slowly and rarely catch the culprit or recover
  the property.
• A third reason residents do not intervene to
  defend the spaces they observe is the pervasive
  fear of crime and retaliation. And fourth,
  residents are much less likely to intervene to
  help strangers than people they know personally
  or close friends.

13
Conclusions

• Architectural design is necessary to create
  spaces that can be defended, but actual
  intervention seems to depend on a sense of
  responsibility and control over territory, access
  to effective methods of intervention, and
  commitment and involvement in the neighbourhood
  community.
• Discrepancies between the sense of danger and the
  objective incidence of crime at a specific
  location suggest that places appear dangerous not
  simply because of the frequency of crime but also
  because of their design, their familiarity,
  residents anticipation that someone will
  intervene to help them, and the behaviour and
  reputations of their habitual users.
• Poor design can create spaces which are widely
  perceived as dangerous where intervention does
  not occur, but good defensible space design
  neither guarantees that a space will appear safe
  or that it will become part of a territory which
  residents defend effectively. The presence of
  dangerous individuals can make architecturally
  safe places seem dangerous.

14
(No Transcript)
15
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17
(No Transcript)
18
Walkup Building (source Newman, 1972)
19
Highrise Building (source Newman, 1972)
20
Location of Crime in Walkups and Highrises
(source Newman, 1972)
21

• A familys claim to a territory diminishes
  proportionally as the number of families who
  share that claim increases. The larger the number
  of people who share a territory, the less each
  individual feels rights to it. Therefore, with
  only a few families sharing an area, whether it
  be the interior circulation areas of a building
  or the grounds outside, it is relatively easy for
  an informal understanding to be reached among the
  families as to what constitutes acceptable usage.
  

22

• When the numbers increase, the opportunity for
  reaching such an implicit understanding
  diminishes to the point that no usage other than
  walking through the area is really possible, but
  any use is permissible. The larger the number of
  people who share a communal space, the more
  difficult it is for people to identify it as
  theirs or to feel they have a right to control or
  determine the activity taking place within it. It
  is easier for outsiders to gain access to and
  linger in the interior areas of a building

23
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

• CPTED the proper design and effective use of
  the built environment which can lead to a
  reduction in the fear of crime and the incidence
  of crime, and to an improvement in the quality of
  life (Crowe, 2000, cited by Cozens, 2002).
• CPTED has emerged as a socio-physical perspective
  within both criminology and urban planning.
• Newmans theory of defensible space is behind
  modern CPTED initiatives worldwide.
• CPTED adds another dimension to Newmans 4
  elements of defensible space the effective and
  continuous maintenance and management of urban
  space.

24
Three-D Approach to CPTED

• Designation establishing the intended use of the
  area and the behaviours that will be accepted.
• Definition identifying the physical limits of
  the area, including planning for potential risks
  and misuse.
• Design using architectural design to support the
  intended use of the space safely and efficiently.

25
High-Density Living

• Crowding (the perception of unwanted high
  density) is associated with increased blood
  pressure, arousal and discomfort, as well as
  alienation, withdrawal, helplessness and death.
• Baum and Valins (1977) found that some interior
  design variables mediate the effects of high
  density by affecting the degree to which groups
  from or that individuals are able to control
  their social experience.
• Control over social experience appears to be an
  important aspect of response to high density
  when such control is threatened or reduced,
  crowding and its associated consequences are more
  likely to occur.
• Group formation in these settings is an
  influential component of this control the
  structures provided by the group reinforce
  individual members ability to regulate
  interaction.

26
High-Density Living Research (Baum Davis, 1980)

• Baum and Davis (1980) conducted field studies in
  university dormitories and three settings were
  compared a standard long-corridor (housing one
  group of 40 students, a short-corridor (housing
  three groups of 20 students), and an
  architecturally modified long-corridor (housing
  two groups of 20 students). The groups were
  separated by lounge areas and unlocked doors in
  the modified long-corridor and the short-corridor
  conditions however, the residents of the standard
  long-corridor condition had no dividing lounge
  areas.
• Survey and observational data was collected from
  the residents.

27
Results

• Questionnaire data provided evidence of continued
  stress and control-related problems among
  residents of the standard long-corridor floor and
  indicated that the intervention reduced these
  problems on the modified long-corridor floor.
• Standard long-corridor residents reported more
  crowding and control related problems and less
  small group development than did either of the
  other two groups.
• After 12 weeks of residence, standard
  long-corridor residents reported increasing
  difficulties in regulating social contact in the
  dormitory and perceived dormitory life to be more
  hectic and less controllable than residents in
  the other two conditions. Standard long-corridor
  residents were also more likely to attribute
  problems to the large number of people they lived
  with and reported knowing fewer friends.

28

• Behaviours observed in the standard long-corridor
  dorm after 12 weeks of residence were more
  suggestive of withdrawal than the other two
  conditions and less social activity was observed
  overall.
• Previous research has indicated that open bedroom
  doors on the dormitory floor signal that the
  occupants are willing to interact with their
  neighbours. Counts of open doors indicated that
  standard long-corridor residents were less likely
  to leave their bedroom doors open than
  short-corridor or modified long-corridor
  residents.

29

• Dividing the long-corridor with lounges and doors
  resulted in more positive interaction on the
  dormitory floor, more small group development,
  more confidence among residents in their ability
  to control events in the dormitory, and less
  withdrawal. These residents actively developed
  and used shared spaces for social purposes, were
  able to effectively regulate social contact with
  neighbours and experienced less crowding stress.
  The modified long-corridor residents demonstrated
  social patterns more similar to those observed in
  the short-corridor dorm than in the standard
  long-corridor dorm.
• This study highlights the usefulness of
  architectural intervention in high-density
  residential settings and suggests that
  behavioural data can be used in the design of
  residential environments.

30
Proposed Taxonomy

• Evans Mitchell-McCoy (1998) proposed a Taxonomy
  of Architectural Dimensions that influence
  Psychological Processes.
• 5 architectural dimensions that influence
  psychological processes
• Stimulation
• Coherence
• Affordances
• Control
• 5. Restorative

31
Stimulation

• Stimulation describes the amount of information
  in a setting or object that impinges upon the
  user. Intensity, variety, complexity, mystery and
  novelty are specific design qualities that
  influence stimulation. Too much stimulation
  causes distraction and overload which interfere
  with cognitive processes that demand effort of
  concentration.

32
Coherence

• Coherence refers to the clarity or
  comprehensibility of building elements and form.
  Ambiguity, disorganisation and disorientation
  negatively impact on design coherence. Coherence
  enables users to make reasonable deductions about
  the identity, meaning and location of objects and
  spaces inside of buildings. Stress can occur when
  changes or disruptions in physical surroundings
  makes prediction difficult. Conflicting
  information from design elements or abrupt
  changes in size, colour, texture or stimulation
  levels can heighten stress. Highly ambiguous
  spaces may also cause stress because people
  cannot make sense of them.

33
Affordances

• We utilize interior spaces according to our
  understanding of the functions they provide us.
  When we are unable to pick up on the functional
  properties of a space or building misaffordances
  occur. Ambiguities about the functions of design
  elements can occur for several reasons and
  usually involve vague or missing cues or too many
  competing cues. Many accidents in buildings are
  attributed to misaffordance. In addition, design
  features that provide little or no feedback about
  the consequences of their use can also elicit
  negative reactions from users.

34
(No Transcript)
35
Control

• Control refers to the ability to either alter the
  physical environment or to regulate exposure to
  ones surroundings. Physical constraints,
  flexibility, privacy, defensible space and
  certain symbolic elements are key design concepts
  salient to control. In addition to the amount of
  available space, openness of the perimeter,
  brightness and extent of view have all been shown
  to moderate the effects of crowding on human
  behaviour. Jurisdiction over space is enhanced by
  actual or symbolic ownership which encourages
  feelings of territoriality. Territoriality
  enables regulated use and occupancy of space. It
  also enhances the expression of personal or group
  identity.

36
Restorative

• Restorative qualities define the potential of
  design elements to function therapeutically,
  reducing cognitive fatigue and other source of
  psychological stress. Design can function as a
  coping resource that can help occupants of a
  building alter the balance between environmental
  demands and personal resources. Restorative
  design elements include retreat, fascination,
  exposure to nature and minimal opportunity for
  distraction.

37
Conclusions

• There are many ways in which architectural design
  is influenced by social and other areas of
  psychology, such as environmental and criminal
  psychology.
• Newmans Defensible Space theory has had a
  substantial impact on contemporary architectural
  design and urban planning.
• The high-density living environment in large
  cities worldwide may not be ideal living
  environments, however design principles such as
  defensible space may have a positive impact on
  such environments.

38
References

• Baum, A. Davis, G. E. (1980). Reducing the
  Stress of High-Density Living An Architectural
  Intervention. Journal of Personality and Social
  Psychology, 38(3). 471-481
• Cozens, P. M. (2002). Sustainable Urban
  Development and Crime Prevention Through
  Environmental Design for the British City.
  Towards an Effective Urban Environmentalism for
  the 21st Century. Cities, 19(2). 129-137
• Evans, W. G. Mitchell McCoy, J. (1998). When
  buildings dont work the role of architecture in
  human health. Journal of environmental
  Psychology, 18. 85-94

39

• Hetherington, K. (1997). The badlands of
  modernity. Routledge. UK, London
• Merry, S. E. (1981). Defensible Space Undefended
  Social Factors in Crime Control Through
  Environmental Design. Urban Affairs Quarterly,
  16(4). 397-422
• Newman, O. (1972). Defensible Space.
  Architectural Press. UK, London
• The Economist. (11 July, 1998)