Advertisement

Illusions of Utopia: When Prison Architects (Reluctantly) Play Tetris

  • David ScheerEmail author
  • Colin Lorne
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Prisons and Penology book series (PSIPP)

Abstract

Although prisons are increasingly built away from cities, prison architects are imagining prisons as cities. Such an urban metaphor is perhaps unsurprising; both the prison and the city are often assumed to be relatively bounded places, prisons arguably resembling self-sufficient cities with facilities such as accommodation, classrooms, workshops, laundries, health clinics and gardens contained within their walls. The vocabulary of the city is also pervasive when justifying prison architecture. In this chapter we consider why prison architects use the metaphor of the city to describe the prisons they design, using terminology such as ‘walled bungalows’, ‘penitentiary houses’, ‘vertical prisons’ and ‘cell apartments’, and we examine the significance of this rather dystopian urban imaginary in allowing architects to retain some agency within a design process which minimises their creative and political input.

References

  1. Allen, Arthur. 1981. ‘The language of architecture.’ The Canadian Architect, July 1981, 26(1): 1–8.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, Arthur. 2014. ‘Architecture and confinement an open letter to the profession of architecture.’ https://www.academia.edu/11115882/Open_Letter_at_3_to_the_Profession_of_Architecture.
  3. Awan, Nishat, Tatjana Schneider, and Jeremy Till. 2011. Spatial Agency: Other Ways of Doing Architecture. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Banham, Rayner. 1982. ‘The architect as gentleman and the architect as hustler.’ RIBA Transactions 1: 33–38.Google Scholar
  5. Bauman, Zygmunt. 2003. ‘Utopia with no topos.’ History of the Human Sciences 16(1): 11–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bentham, Jeremy. 1791 [2002]. Panoptique. Mémoire sur un nouveau principe pour construire des maisons d’inspection, et nommément des maisons de force. Paris: Mille et une nuits.Google Scholar
  7. Carlier, Christian. 1998. Histoire de Fresnes, prison ‘moderne’. De la genèse aux premières années. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  8. Chantraine, Gilles (dir.) et al. 2011. Les prisons pour mineurs. Controverses sociales, pratiques professionnelles, experiences de reclusion. Research report, Paris, Mission Droit et Justice.Google Scholar
  9. Claus, Hans (ed.) 2015. Les Maisons. Vers une approche pénitentiaire durable. Brussels: Academic and Scientific Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Combessie, Philippe. 1996. Prisons des villes et des campagnes: étude d’écologie sociale. Paris: Editions de l’Atelier.Google Scholar
  11. Davis, Mike. 1990. City of Quartz: Excavating the Future of Los Angeles. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  12. Dickens, Charles. 1854. Hard Times – For These Times. London: Bradbury and Evans.Google Scholar
  13. Ducpétiaux, Edouard. 1834. Avant-projet de loi sur le régime des prisons, soumis à la commission chargée par l’arrête royal du 25 juin 1853 de préparer la révision de la législation pénitentiaire: exposé des motifs, projet de loi et appendice‬. Brussels: imprimerie de M. Weissenbruch‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬.Google Scholar
  14. Espinas, Jean-Denis. 1989. ‘Révolution pénitentiaire: les chemins de l’architecture.’ Déviance et société 13(4): 367–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Evans, Robert. 1982 [2010]. The Fabrication of Virtue. English Prison Architecture, 1750–1840. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Faulconbridge, James R. 2009. ‘The regulation of design in global architecture firms: Embedding and emplacing buildings.’ Urban Studies 46: 2537–2554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Foucault, Michel. 1975 [2007]. Surveiller et punir. Naissance de la prison. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  18. Goss, Jon. 1993. ‘The “magic of the mall”: An analysis of form, function, and meaning in the contemporary retail built environment.’ Annals of the Association of American Geographers 83(1): 18–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grosz, Elizabeth. 2001. Architecture from the Outside: Essays on Virtual and Real Space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Harvey, David. 1989. The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Imrie, Rob, and Emma Street. 2009. ‘Regulating design: The practices of architecture, governance and control.’ Urban Studies 46: 2507–2518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jacobs, Jane M. 2006. ‘A geography of big things.’ Cultural Geographies 13(1): 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jameson, Fredric. 2004. ‘Politics of utopia.’ New Left Review 25: 35–54.Google Scholar
  24. Jenkins, Lloyd. 2002. ‘Geography and Architecture 11, Rue du Conservatoire and the Permeability of Buildings.’ Space and Culture 5(3): 222–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Knox, Paul L. 1987. ‘The social production of the built environment; architects, architecture and the post-modern city.’ Progress in Human Geography 11: 354–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kozlowski, Guillermo, and David Scheer. 2015. ‘Haren, le future village pénitentiaire.’ La Revue nouvelle 6: 39–46.Google Scholar
  27. Kraftl, Peter. 2007. ‘Utopia, performativity, and the unhomely.’ Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 25(1): 120–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kraftl, Peter, and Peter Adey. 2008. ‘Architecture/affect/inhabitation: Geographies of being-in buildings.’ Annals of the Association of American Geographers 98: 213–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Langlois, Denis. 2006. ‘Obstacles à la surveillance du système pénal en pays andins: l’exemple bolivien.’ Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 48(2): 197–222.Google Scholar
  30. Law, John, and Annemarie Mol. 2002. ‘Local entanglements or utopian moves: An inquiry into train accidents.’ In Utopia and Organization, edited by Martin Parker. Oxford: Blackwell, 82–105.Google Scholar
  31. Lees, Loretta. 2001. ‘Towards a critical geography of architecture: The case of an ersatz colosseum.’ Cultural Geographies 8(1): 51–86.Google Scholar
  32. Llewellyn, Mark. 2003. ‘Polyvocalism and the public: “Doing” a critical historical geography of architecture.’ Area 35(3): 264–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lorne, Colin. 2017. ‘Spatial agency and practising architecture beyond buildings.’ Social and Cultural Geography, 18(2): 268–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. MacLeod, Gordon, and Kevin Ward. 2002. ‘Spaces of utopia and dystopia: Landscaping the contemporary city.’ Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 84(3–4): 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marchal, Hervé, and Jean-Marc Stébé. 2010. La ville au risque du ghetto. Paris: Lavoisier.Google Scholar
  36. Massey, Doreen. 2005. For Space. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Mincke, Christophe, and Anne Lemonne. 2014. ‘Prison and (Im)mobility. What about Foucault?’ Mobilities 9(4): 528–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moran, Dominique. 2013. ‘Between outside and inside? Prison visiting rooms as liminal carceral spaces.’ GeoJournal 78(2): 339–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moran, Dominique. 2015. Carceral Geography: Spaces and Practices of Incarceration. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  40. Moran, Dominique, Jennifer Turner, and Yvonne Jewkes. 2016. ‘Becoming big things: Building events and the architectural geographies of incarceration in England and Wales.’ Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 41(4): 416–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. More, Thomas. 2012. L’utopie. Paris: Folio.Google Scholar
  42. Picon, Antoine. 2013. ‘Learning from utopia: Contemporary architecture and the quest for political and social relevance.’ Journal of Architectural Education 67(1): 17–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rose, Gillian, Monica Degen, and Begum Basdas. 2010. ‘More on “big things”: Building events and feelings.’ Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 35(3): 334–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rose, Gillian, Monica Degen, and Clare Melhuish. 2014. ‘Networks, interfaces, and computer-generated images: Learning from digital visualisations of urban redevelopment projects.’ Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 32(3): 386–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Saint, Andrew. 1983. The Image of the Architect. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Scheer, David. 2015. ‘“Condamnés à l’immobilité”. La prison contemporaine en quête de discipline.’ SociologieS. doi: http://sociologies.revues.org/5176.
  47. Scheer, David. 2016. Conceptions architecturales et pratiques spatiales en prison. De l’investissement à l’effritement, de la reproduction à la réappropriation. PhD thesis in Criminology, Brussels: Université Libre de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  48. Skarbek, David. 2010. ‘Self-governance in San Pedro prison.’ The Independent Review 14(4): 569–585.Google Scholar
  49. Tafuri, Manfredo. 1976. Architecture and Utopia: Design and Capitalist Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  50. Till, Jeremy. 2009. Architecture Depends. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  51. Verne, Jules. 1986. Les cinq cents millions de la Bégum. Paris: Le Livre de Poche.Google Scholar
  52. Yaneva, Alberta. 2009. Made by the Office for Metropolitan Architecture: An Ethnography of Design. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers.Google Scholar

Other sources

  1. DBFM contract for the Haren’ prison complex (Belgium)/Specifications, document KOH/AM 09-038328.c, 2010.Google Scholar
  2. Public Federal Service (Belgium)/Justice website (consulted on November 17, 2015).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre lillois d’études sociologiques et économiquesUniversité libre de BruxellesBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Manchester Business SchoolUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations