Spatial Participatory Surveillance

Spatial Participatory Surveillance

TEOW HAI-P’NG (HEFFRENCE)

MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE, BUILDING & DESIGN TAYLOR'S UNIVERSITY

June 2018

Spatial Participatory Surveillance Passive Control in Architecture Space through Human Interaction

TEOW HAI-P’NG (HEFFRENCE)

MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE, BUILDING & DESIGN TAYLOR'S UNIVERSITY

June 2018

ABSTRACT The relationship between architecture and surveillance was highlighted when Jeremy Bentham introduced the Panopticon prison in the 18th century. Followed by Foucault’s “panopticism”, it slowly evolves along the history taking form in various architectural space not limited to disciplinary building. In modern context, surveillance then witnessed a departure from passive spatial consideration into active mode infrastructure and technology, primarily Close-circuit Television (CCTV) over its ease of application and free from spatial constraint. Despite the widely accepted uses, scholars had started to argue about overreliance on such active system as ineffective and damaging. The current architecture scene is in demand for a new sustainable mode of surveillance in complementing technology, but recent studies on passive surveillance are however mostly targeted on urban environment rather than architecture space.

While the term “passive surveillance” includes the mean of formal surveillance used in confinement spaces design such as prison, a particular subset within it called “participatory surveillance” is to be explored for a more general application. Coined by Albrechtslund, it takes reference on the idea of surveillance from general population in modern society whereby public actively acts as and shifting the roles of watcher and those being watched. The idea is then appropriated into contemporary architecture by integrating the urban theories into architecture space, as a form of mutual social control through public and private interaction.

Adopting the case study methodology on Lasalle College of the Art, Singapore, the paper aims to examine on how this form of participatory passive surveillance can be implemented in contemporary architecture. The findings will serve to expand the base

for better understanding towards implementation of participatory surveillance design in architecture to create a more holistic, self-governed, and yet non-carceral environment.

Keywords: Panopticism, surveillance, passive surveillance, participatory surveillance, contemporary architecture, safety, crime-prevention

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I hereby wish to express my deepest gratitude to the individuals who have extended their assistance throughout the assembling of this dissertation: •

Dr. Veronica Ng Foong Peng, my supervisor for which her expertise, understanding and generous guidance along the period made it possible for me to work on a topic of great interest to me. Her patience and frequent encouragement had been a great asset for which I had learnt so much over the duration of completing this dissertation.

•

Dr. Sucharita Srirangam, Ar. Ian Ng Aik Soon, Prof. Robert Powell, Dr. Camelia Kusomo and Mr. Keith Tan Kay Hin, as my lecturers for providing supports and constructive advices throughout the journey in the making of this dissertation.

4

DECLARATION I have read and understood the regulation of Taylor’s University concerning plagiarism. I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or written by another person nor material which has been accepted for the award of any degree or diploma of the University or other institute of higher learning, except where due acknowledgement has been made in the text.

Signature:

Name: Teow Hai-P’ng (Heffrence) Date: 3rd June 2018 Student ID Number: 0328937 5

PREFACE This is an original dissertation by the author, Teow Hai-P’ng, submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree in Master of Architecture. It comprises of works and researches done from August 2017 to June 2018.

As the theories of surveillance in contemporary world tends to lean towards technological aspects, this dissertation focuses on the trans-disciplinary relationship between surveillance and architecture by tracing them through the history and evolution as a response in suggesting from another perspective the alternative contemporary means of security control in architecture space.

The research is made solely by the author with reference to the sources. The information and research here will be beneficial for aspiring designers and architects to garner a deeper understanding in surveillance architecturally, and to explore the potentiality of modern passive surveillance through participation and interaction between public and private realms within built environment.

6

CONTENT Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Background study ………………………………………………………..15 1.1.1 The Development of Surveillance in Architecture …………….15 1.1.2 The Persistency of Passive Surveillance ………………………18 1.2 Problem Statement ………………………………………………………21 1.3 Research Question …………………………………………………….... 23 1.4 Research Aim and Objectives ………………………………………….. 24 1.5 Research Design: Method and Methodology ……………………………25 1.5.1 Data Collection Methods and Analysis ………………………..25 1.6 Dissertation Overview…………………………………………………...28 1.7 Justification for the Research …………………………………………... 31 1.8 Summary …………………………………………………...……………31 Chapter 2: History of Surveillance and Architecture 2.1 History and Development of Surveillance in Architecture …………….. 32 2.1.1 Surveillance Empowered by Physical Layout………………....32 2.1.2 Adaptation of the Formal Arrangement ……………………….36 2.1.3 Breaking Apart Spatial Limitation …………………………….39 2.2 Summary ……………………………………….………………………..43 Chapter 3: Passive Surveillance 3.1 Passive Surveillance from Within ……………………………………….45 3.1.1 Territoriality….………………………………………………...46 3.1.2 Natural Surveillance……………….………………………...…48 3.1.3 Image / Milieu …………………………………………………49 3.2 Passive Surveillance from Public ………………………………………..52 7

3.2.1 Public Presence …………………………………………….….53 3.2.2 Program Juxtaposition and Densification ……………………..54 3.3 Passive Surveillance through Interface between Building and Street…...55 3.3.1 Human Interaction …………………………………………….56 3.3.2 Physical Environment Interaction..…………………………….58 3.4 Summary ……………………………………………………………...…61 Chapter 4: Case Study – Lasalle College of The Arts 4.1 Background Study ……………………………………………………….64 4.2 Elements of Participatory Surveillance ………………………………….66 4.2.1 Ambiguous Formal Quality………………………….…….…...66 4.2.2 Spatial Porosity and Diversity……………….……………..…..69 4.2.3 Layering and Transition ……………………………………….75 4.2.4 Mixture of Potential Sightlines ………………………………..81 4.3 Summary …………………………………………………………...……91 Chapter 5: Discussions and Conclusion 5.1 Discussions …………………………………………………………..…..92 5.1.1 Interrelationship between Passive Surveillance Framework …..92 5.1.2 Decoding Passive Surveillance Theory in Sequential Form …..95 5.1.3 Prepping the Architecture to Accommodate and Limit Risk ….97 5.2 Conclusion ………………………………………………………..……100 Reference ………………………………………………………………….………105

8

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – The drawing of Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon (Reveley, 1791) ............... 15 Figure 2 – The plan of History Faculty Library of Cambridge University showing a panoptic arrangement (Architectural Design, 1964) .................................................... 16 Figure 3 – Tracing the development of surveillance theories against the historical timeline from left to right, mapped onto the related field from top to bottom (Author, 2017) ............................................................................................................................ 18 Figure 4 – Visitor circulation loop within CCTV Headquarter and views into various spaces (OMA, 2012) .................................................................................................... 20 Figure 5 – Research frameworks and structure (Author, 2017)................................... 30 Figure 6 – The external view of Presidio Modelo complex in Cuba (Friman, 2005) .. 33 Figure 7 – The internal view of Presidio Modelo complex in Cuba (Friman, 2005) .. 33 Figure 8 – Illustration depicting the functioning of a Panopticon (Ulrich, n.d.) ......... 34 Figure 9 – Arrangement of the library (Architectural Design, 1964) .......................... 39 Figure 10 – The bookshelves arrangement with backlighting of History Faculty Library in Cambridge shows a nostalgic representation of Panopticon (Dream Idea Machine, n.d.) .............................................................................................................. 39 Figure 11 – The relationship between evolution of surveillance and spatial independent, from passive to active system (Author, 2017) ........................................ 40 Figure 12 – The transition of surveillance system and architecture (Author, 2017) ... 44 Figure 13 – Territoriality as control by barrier in between (Author, 2017) ................. 47 Figure 14 – Layout configuration with windows facing away from one another creates a dark spot in between without surveillance that is susceptible to crime (Author, 2017) ...................................................................................................................................... 49

9

Figure 15 – Layout configuration with windows facing one another overlooking common space enables an effective natural surveillance (Author, 2017) ................... 49 Figure 16 – A poorly-maintained entrance to an apartment creates a negative image to the outsider as easily intrudes (Google Earth, 2016) ................................................... 51 Figure 17 – A well-maintained entrance to an apartment speaks of a positive image to the outsider that the place is well-guarded and exerts fear for intrusions (Google Earth, 2016) ............................................................................................................................ 51 Figure 18 – The concept of image/milieu takes precedent in the formation of defensible space, but eventually all ties back to the purpose of enhancing territoriality (Author, 2018).............................................................................................................. 52 Figure 19 – A more permeable building enabling a more holistic surveillance (Author, 2017) ............................................................................................................................ 54 Figure 20 – Juxtaposition of programs and mix-use space attracts more users and public, creating densification and more constant public surveillance (Author, 2017) 55 Figure 21 – The limits of human visual senses in permitting effective surveillance over a space become a way to control the interaction between various user groups (Author, 2017).............................................................................................................. 58 Figure 22 – The relationship between building and street in terms of surveillance and safety (Author, 2017) ................................................................................................... 59 Figure 23 – The creation of soft transition space adds layers of interaction zone to control the contact and penetration (Author, 2017) ..................................................... 60 Figure 24 – Theoretical frameworks for analysing case study in term of passive participatory surveillance (Author, 2017) .................................................................... 62 Figure 25 – The black monolithic façade on the exterior creates a stoic, unassuming image that strongly defences the space within. (Author, 2016) ................................... 66

10

Figure 26 – The transparent, multifaceted façade on the interior creates a playful and vibrant interior, enhance the sense of belongings and being well monitored around.

(Author, 2016).............................................................................................................. 67 Figure 27 – The ambiguous profile of the building design works to enhance defensiveness and the sense of territoriality, hence the ease of surveillance (Author, 2017) ............................................................................................................................ 68 Figure 28 – Lasalle College of the Arts located within close proximity to public transportation node, in between various tourist area such as Bugis, Little India & Orchard Road, while surrounded by various amenities. (Author, 2017) ..................... 69 Figure 29 – Presence of various cues in inviting and prolong public participation within the space. (Author, 2017).................................................................................. 71 Figure 30 – The largest entrance and drop off area of the Lasalle College of the Arts opens up and connects to the adjacent public park. (Muneerah Bee, 2017) ................ 72 Figure 31 – By responding to the adjacent field, public activities within the park can be extended and juxtapose into the campus public space, and redistributing them to multiple direction. (Author, 2017) ............................................................................... 72 Figure 32 – Use of the public space as an event space. (Culture360, 2011) ............... 73 Figure 33 – White Shirt Project organized by Diploma in Fashion Design, the use of the public space as exhibition space. (Thirtygalore, 2016) .......................................... 73 Figure 34 – Public mingling together with students at the centre courtyard. (RSP Architects, n.d.) ............................................................................................................ 74 Figure 35 – Various functioning of a space enables existence and participation of different user group to the space, hence enhances the rate of public presence and possibility of participatory surveillance. (Author, 2017) ............................................. 74

11

Figure 36 – Multiple level of combined symbolic and physical barrier enhances the sense of territoriality (Author, 2017) ........................................................................... 76 Figure 37 – Lane of green shrubs, planting and change of floor paving acts as symbolic barrier to soften the huge monolithic black façade which becomes the physical barrier. (Jonathan Choe,2012) ....................................................................... 77 Figure 38 – Two transitions space between the school and the adjacent streets enable a better control of potential intruders. (Author, 2017).................................................... 78 Figure 39 – The presence of greeneries along the school creates a contrast with neighbouring buildings, embracing a more welcoming and humane gesture to the street. (Google Street, 2015) ........................................................................................ 79 Figure 40 – The school incorporates a perimeter shaded walkway as the second transition space, which also creates a more pedestrian friendly response to the neighbourhood. (RSP Architects, n.d.) ........................................................................ 80 Figure 41 – Lights being fragmentized and then shined through opening distributed all over the building façade creates safer perception on the adjacent street by suggesting the presence of human nearby. (Mori Hidetaka, n.d.) ................................................. 80 Figure 42 – The two transition spaces enable a more pronounce transition and zoning from public, semi-public, semi-private to private, facilitating a better control of security and accessibility. Also, the covered walkway and internal courtyard response to the neighbouring environment in a perpetual manner of generating safer environment. (Author, 2017) ....................................................................................... 81 Figure 43 – Not limiting to the spatial layout constraint, panoptic characteristic can still be created through reflection mechanism (Author, 2017) .................................... 82 Figure 44 – Light reflection on the multifaceted façade masked the space within (President’s Design Award, 2008) ............................................................................... 83

12

Figure 45 – The combination of real and apparent images of people and activities around perform in the similar manner as a Panopticon, in which the surveillance is visible but unverifiable (Author, 2017) ....................................................................... 84 Figure 46 – Diagrammatic plan of the school showing potential natural surveillance all over the place (Authoer, 2017) ............................................................................... 85 Figure 47 – Random openings on the external façade to create views and thus facilitates surveillance. (Jonathan Choe, 2012) ........................................................... 86 Figure 48 – The randomize window openings along the external façade allow surveillance over the surrounding, while also at the same time creating the similar effect of Panopticon as the public is unknown of whether are there people watching behind the façade. (Author, 2017) ............................................................................... 86 Figure 49 – Contrasting to the ambiguity of surveillance through the external wall (left), the façade facing the internal courtyard is being opened up for transparency (right), which enables a different form of participatory surveillance (RSP Architects, n.d.) .............................................................................................................................. 87 Figure 50 – Plan with highlighted areas showing how higher traffic areas such as open space, walkway and lobbies are designed to be against the façade for better opportunities of people participating in surveillance (RSP Architects, n.d.)............... 88 Figure 51 – A zoom in one of the block in showing where enclosed rooms are being located further back in the corner, leaving the higher people flow space such as lobby and walkway adjacent to the façade. (Author, 2017)................................................... 88 Figure 52 – Turning point and multiple axes form around a few nodes within the public space enables an effective human view of within 50m. (Author, 2017)........... 89 Figure 53 – Lasalle College of the Arts’ section. (RSP Architects, n.d.) .................... 90

13

Figure 54 – By having 5 habitable spaces above ground and 2 basements, the design respects the scale and limitation of effective human interactions. (Author, 2017)...... 90 Figure 55 – The relationship between the strategies, showing that controlling interface for surveillance can acts as a regulatory body for the contradicting ideas of surveillance from within and from public to coexist for better result (Author, 2018). 94 Figure 56 – When designing for participatory surveillance, the design consideration should go both way from form to experiences and vice versa (Author, 2018) ............ 96

14

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION Chapter one will lay a foundation for the thesis by providing a brief background study, research problem, research questions, aim, objectives, method and methodology.

1.1 – BACKGROUND STUDY 1.1.1

– The Development of Surveillance in Architecture In the recent study of architecture anthropology, one particular line of

interdisciplinary relationship had become a highlight in modern society, of which concerning surveillance, control, safety and privacy. In fact, the relationship started back at the end of 1800s when Jeremy Bentham introduces the Panopticon (Goss,P et al., 2010) as an ideal prison comprises of radial perimeter cells surrounding a centre watch tower. Owing to this arrangement, the complex enables the inmates to be clearly seen from the watch tower, while hiding the presence inspector within in ambiguity. Exploiting the inmates on the fear and uncertainty of being watched, it aimed at not only bodily entrapment, but also on psychological aspect for behavioural reformation (Foucault, 1977).

Figure 1 – The drawing of Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon (Reveley, 1791)

15

It later becomes particularly well-known through Michel Foucault’s interpretation, coining the term “panopticism”. However, scholars are beginning to believe that there is a misinterpretation in between (Galic et al., 2016), while Foucault believes in continuous individual supervision, Bentham trusts that eventually Panopticon would not be needed anymore as it serves as a transition stage of moral reformation towards a utilitarian era. This is further supported by his later-devised three other Panopticons apart from his original, prison-panopticon, namely the pauper-panopticon, chrestomatic-panopticon and constitutional panopticon (BrunonErnst, 2012). Chronologically, the panopticons are seen to start evolving from an enclosed power structure, and slowly dissipated into a more transparent and open structure, with reduction in terms of solitary confinement and eventually the reversal of power, also named reversed-panopticon (Leroy, 2002), as a result of improvement in social condition and the change from disciplinary to governmentality (BrunonErnst, 2012). The idea of Panopticon is thus being adapted into other programs as well, such as the History Faculty Library of Cambridge University by architect James Stirling.

Figure 2 – The plan of History Faculty Library of Cambridge University showing a panoptic arrangement (Architectural Design, 1964)

16

The trend follows on as the power slowly dissipated from an obvious control centre to the subtle, almost unnoticeable means of surveillance as it expands from a space to urban public life (Galic et al., 2016). With technological advancement, the industry is then introduced with modern surveillance technology, particularly the close-circuit television (CCTV) system in which the ease and presumed effectiveness of such system had been taken for granted especially by architecture (Koskela and Tuominen, 1995), as seen most buildings are design without prior consideration of passive surveillance, and all it need is to then install the spatial-independence CCTV. Departing from passive system to technological active system, its wide acceptance is also as a counter to the formal or geometric constraint required by previous panoptic profile. However, the ever-increasing application of this system in modern society and architecture was then heavily argued by Hille Koskela through her article “The Gaze Without Eyes” that it changes the nature of urban space. She further supports this by devising three concepts of space that are produced under surveillance, namely “space as a container”, “power-space” and “emotional-space” (Koskela, 2000), questioning the sustainability of such environment. Other scholars had also critiqued on the overly-dependency and abusive-use of this active system as ineffective and privacy infringing (Jonescu, 2016), and even creating paranoia (Davis, 1990; Ellin, 1996; 1997).

Moving on along the timeline, surveillance theories then slowly distanced away from spatial towards social and technology (Galic et al., 2016) such as cyber surveillance and participatory surveillance, leaving the control solution in architecture space hanging on the dependency of active video surveillance.

17

Figure 3 – Tracing the development of surveillance theories against the historical timeline from left to right, mapped onto the related field from top to bottom (Author, 2017)

1.1.2

– The Persistency of Passive Surveillance Overshadowed by the demand of technological advance active surveillance

system in architectural space, passive surveillance does still persists in a less pervasive manner. Other than those buildings whereby their foremost function is to enable constant surveillance such as disciplinary spaces of prisons or penitentiaries, theories on passive surveillance in modern context shifted their focus on urban environment. Advocated by Oscar Newman through his defensible space theory introduced in 1972, the theory focuses on mainly residential area by suggesting the layout manipulation to increase the opportunities for residents to take charge and defend their living environment against crime, while concurrently removing features that attract offenders (Reynald & Elffers, 2009). Further elaboration on the theory yields three components that enable a defensible space – territoriality, natural surveillance and image/milleu (Newman, 1972). The significant of this theory stands as it becomes the base for the development of other guidelines such as the “Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)” (Jeffrey, 1999) and “Secured

by Design” (Cozens et al., 2004) which is being widely adopted in various countries.

18

While Newman’s theory suggested that control should be internalized by the residents themselves, no social aspect had taken into consideration. This gave rise to counter-arguments that surveillance should be made possible by public. For example, Jane Jacobs (1961) in her “The Death and Life of Great American Cities” prompted that public presence is a necessity for surveillance as they will be able to observe their surrounding as they move around; Emil Jonescu, in which according to him, “built ‘form’ and the intertwining urban spaces between them have inherent capacity to facilitate passive surveillance resulting from the physical presence of people and authority,”; and Jan Gehl (2010) suggested ways to increase safety and security within a cityscape, as well as analysing the limitation on human senses and scale in relevant to perception. Overall, the passive design can be understood through three concepts: surveillance from within, surveillance from public, and surveillance through interface in between. These strategies, however, seems to indicate a discontinuation in the exploration of such idea within contemporary architecture space.

While literature and study are lacking in this area, a few traces of passive surveillance or panoptic characteristic can still be found within contemporary architecture. However it is important to note that they are not presented by the architect and are not elaborated in details but are suggested by other third party experiencing the space. For example, the CCTV Headquarter in Beijing by OMA whereby it incorporates a public access loop over the building enabling visitors to look into the studio production spaces, activating a form of disciplinary surveillance in making sure the spaces are being governed properly, and that the workers are subjected to self-discipline due to potential observation (Yates, 2016). It shows the persistency and potential of passive or panoptic surveillance environment that still survived within contemporary architecture.

19

Figure 4 – Visitor circulation loop within CCTV Headquarter and views into various spaces (OMA, 2012)

20

1.2 – PROBLEM STATEMENT How do we treat security with expectations of individual privacy and protection?

(Piro, 2008) Reflecting upon this question, when the relationship between surveillance and architecture was formerly established through the introduction of Panopticon, the complex is meant as a prison, a place of coercion (Koskela, 2000) for behavioural regulation of the inmates, thus privacy is not of a concern here. However, as referred to the background studies, the evolution of panopticons and surveillance theories observed a move towards disassembling the fortified structure and slowly extended into the urban environment and city. The introduction of active technological CCTV system further expanded the limitation of surveillance space. While holding the principle of Panopticon true in terms of providing constant gaze, or the fear of constantly being watched, the target audience now had becomes the public roaming freely and voluntarily in urban space. While we cannot denied that video surveillance does provide safety assurance in certain aspects, in the cost of privacy infringement for crime prevention, it is deemed to be not effective as people in current modern context have become so desensitised to the constant surveillance in a world that are saturated with other surveillance technologies (Jonescu, 2016), thus failing to comply with Panopticon’s idea of self-regulation due to fear. This active system without a physical presence thus does not efficiently deter antisocial behaviours (Jonescu, 2016).

A passive system is needed to compliment to technology surveillance.

However, recent studies in term of surveillance and architecture shifted their focus towards urban environment rather than architecture space, although a few traces can still be found. In view of this, how does passive surveillance works in modern architecture context? Precisely, on this current environment of saturated surveillance participated by the population voluntarily enabled by technology such as camera 21

phone and social media? A participatory panopticon, according to Jamais Cascio (2005) or borrowing the term “Participatory Surveillance� from Albrechtslund, can this social condition, combined with passive surveillance theories on urban context as well as the panoptic characteristics introduced by Bentham, be implemented into architecture space as an additional measure of control enabled through people interaction to reduce dependency on CCTV?

22

1.3 – RESEARCH QUESTION It is crucial to understand that the term “participatory surveillance” is being used and explored in this paper referring to the mode of surveillance achieve through public participation and the combined interaction between public and private. It is to be understood as a form surveillance falling under “passive surveillance”, which by definition also includes those formal surveillances in prisons involving captivity and shall not be mistaken. In order to establish further understanding on how participatory surveillance operates, this study posits and responses to the research question(s) as follow: Main research question How does participatory surveillance within a contemporary architecture space provide an added possibility of passive surveillance?

Supportive research questions 1. What does the current relationship between architecture and surveillance theories with its evolution suggest on the future needs?

2. What are the existing theories on passive surveillance and how are they relevant to contemporary architecture?

23

1.4 – RESEARCH AIM AND OBJECTIVES The main intention of this paper is to explore the potential of participatory panoptic design within contemporary architecture as a mode of passive surveillance supplementing the active surveillance technologies.

The aim is supported by the following objectives: 1. To study the intersection of surveillance with architecture and its evolution along the historical timeline.

2. To discuss the attributes pertained to the idea of passive surveillance in suggesting the potential of participatory surveillance within architectural space.

3. To explore how the application of participatory surveillance within the context of a contemporary architecture could allow for a more holistic, self-governed spatial design rather than absolute fortification and carceral environment.

24

1.5 – RESEARCH DESIGN: METHOD AND METHODOLOGY This paper employs the qualitative method of combining literature review and case study as a strategy of inquiry. The research on the application of participatory surveillance in architecture requires a theoretical study on the history and evolution of the relationship between surveillance and architecture in order to justify its position within the spectrum. The research then move on by theorising the elements dictating potential passive surveillance from literature review and examining them against a case study of contemporary architecture, including and combining analytical research on the project information, documentary, videos and site visit to the project of inquiry.

It is vital that in order for a better understanding and analysis of the project, annotated diagrams together with drawings and spatial perspective are used to represent the information obtained. These methods take precedence over the others by portraying the ability to evidently study the core idea and produce easily comprehensive and straight forward explanation. It also keeps the attention on observing the building’s performances instead of merely its appearance as how a photo tends to do. According to Simon Unwin (2010), architecture cannot be understood by looking at photographs or reading words, it has to be understood through the medium of its creation – the drawings.

1.5.1

– Data Collection Methods and Analysis

The primary sources of analysis comprises of reviewing the extensive list of books, published articles, reports and academic papers on existing literatures built upon the theories of surveillance and architecture, departing from the original idea of Panopticon model by Jeremy Bentham and panopticism by Michel Foucault, and its transition later on to the technological age. The study further expands onto the use of 25

active CCTV system in modern architecture environment, as well as its critique and resistance. In an overall, the analysis will cover the range of surveillance system from passive to active, tracing their evolution and changes over the timeline to establish the background for analysing the gap between the relationship of surveillance and architecture.

To reinforce the notion of interdisciplinary relationship between architecture and security or control, studies on various passive safety theories are done, with the main reading concentrating on Oscar Newman’s Defensible Space Theory and its three characteristics: territoriality, natural surveillance and milieu/image. Other urban design theories on improving city safety and human perception from Jan Gehl in his “Cities for People”, Jane Jacobs in her “The Death and Life of Great American Cities” as well as other scholars also form an important part of the research for a more holistic understanding on the terms of passive surveillance. This could help to provide suggestion on possible design consideration in embracing passive surveillance into architecture space. From the literature, a list of theoretical framework can be drawn from those passive theories, including both the urban and the panoptic to form the basis for data analysis.

The frameworks examined are then to be used in analysing the selected case study: Lasalle College of the Arts, Singapore by RSP Architects, in studying the persistency as well as the potential of passive surveillance, particularly in the form of participation within and around the architecture space as a measure of creating selfgoverned and versatile environment. The choice of the case study on an institution is built upon the notion of schools being place of conformity and their built environment as a regulatory place becomes a response to this conformity (Piro, 2008), but criminalizing such environment through harsh active surveillance could make a 26

school looks more like a juvenile detention facilities rather than a learning environment (New York Civil Liberties Union [NYCLU] & American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU], 2007). In-line with Foucault’s (1995) idea of converting the hierarchical “vertical power structure” of a school’s regime to a more subtle “horizontal” manner, while at the same time still preserving portions of conformity and boundaries. Security and surveillance in an institutional place is still a major issue that requires ways of making it less intrusive.

In view of this, the Lasalle College of the Arts is chosen based on the characteristic of the school in promoting transparency and ease of public access from all side, adjoining a public park and rail station. While the school is a private entity, the shared common ground winding and connecting the inclined glass-cladded blocks form an interesting relationship between public and private not limited to ground plane, thus the integration and the interface in between. The three-dimensional quality of space comprising both public and private life within its compound enables a more complex study on the prevalent interest in participatory passive surveillance.

27

1.6 – DISSERTATION OVERVIEW Chapter 1 presents the introduction to the overall content of the study. It summarizes on the background study to inform a problem statement and hence the research gap, subsequently with aim and objectives. It also outlines the methodology employed in conducting the research and introduces as well as justifies Lasalle College of the Arts in Singapore as the choice of case study in analysing the strategies of incorporating passive participatory surveillance in contemporary architecture.

Chapter 2 explains the establishment of formal interdisciplinary relationship of surveillance and architecture through the introduction of Panopticon by Jeremy Bentham and the more widely known concept of panopticism by Michel Foucault, followed by the various translations and adaptations of the panoptic model into other form of architecture not limited to disciplinary buildings. The study on the progression of surveillance industry in relation to architecture carries on from the initial passive idea with close reliance on spatial arrangement to the later active technological approach breaking away the spatial limitation, alongside with its critiques and public responses. While the chapter presents the persistency of panoptic environment, it also argues about the discontinuity in study of passive surveillance within architecture premise.

Chapter 3 is a departure of study by looking into various existing passive surveillance theories, of which mostly are formed around urban scale rather than architectural space. Oscar Newman’s Defensible Space Theory with its three elements: territoriality, natural surveillance and milieu/image is being examined here alongside other theorist such as Jan Gehl’s analysis on human senses and safety and security in cities, Jane Jacobs’ public surveillance and mix-used, densification of urban life as 28

well as others. The principles are arranged in such a way that the mode of passive surveillance progressed from internalization of security, to the control from external forces of the public, and eventually interfaces between building and surrounding. This chapter aims to formulate a list of theoretical framework built upon the passive surveillance strategies to be used upon analysing the potentiality of passive participatory surveillance control in design consideration of contemporary architecture.

Chapter 4 is a case study on Lasalle College the Arts, Singapore against the frameworks established in Chapter 3, including an integrated analysis and findings supported by drawings and annotated diagrams. The chapter examines the passive form of surveillance built upon our current modern context of Participatory Panopticon, connecting the urban theories into architecture space through public presence. The “participatory surveillance� is generated through the interaction and collision between public and private realm in a building, and it therefore influences the building design.

Chapter 5 provides a discussions platform on the idea pertaining participatory surveillance, which built upon the findings obtained from Chapter 3 and Chapter 4.

It concludes the dissertation through summarizing the findings and research outcomes.

It explains the potential of incorporating passive participatory surveillance as part of design consideration in architecture as an added dimension of control complementing the active technological system.

29

Figure 5 – Research frameworks and structure (Author, 2017)

30

1.7 – JUSTIFICATION FOR THE RESEARCH This study highlights the gap in modern mode of surveillance within architectural space through the overly dependency on active system and the shifted focus of passive system to urban design. It argues for the use of passive participatory surveillance in design consideration as an additional measure complementing the downside in the application of technological video surveillance through the case study of Lasalle College of the Arts, Singapore. This paper will benefits the architecture community in which it is intended to provide and discuss about another point of view in terms of design solution for security and control through architecture spatial planning on top of reliance solely on added technological application, which enables a more versatile environment rather than feeling incarcerating under constant electronic gaze. It also modestly attempt to suggest on the possibilities on designing educational space that incorporates public presence within it rather than fortification of the school environment.

1.8 – SUMMARY This chapter established the foundation for the dissertation by introducing the background study formulating the research problem and issues. A description on the methodology to be employed in conducting the research was presented together with an outline of the paper. Following on, chapter two will examine the relationship between surveillance and architecture, as well as its development and adaptation along the history.

31

CHAPTER 2 – HISTORY OF SURVEILLANCE AND ARCHITECTURE Chapter two is a literature study on the history and development of relationship between surveillance and architecture. The chapter will first introduces the idea of Panopticon by Jeremy Bentham and panopticism by Michel Foucault in section 2.1.1, and then moving on elaborating the evolutions and adaptability of panopticon thereafter in section 2.1.2. Section 2.1.3 further explores the transition of modern surveillance down the historical timeline in relation to architecture from passive to active, and slowly from spatial reliance to spatial independence in line with the complexity of modern design.

2.1

–

HISTORY

AND

DEVELOPMENT

OF

SURVEILLANCE

IN

ARCHITECTURE 2.1.1 – Surveillance Empowered by Physical Layout The anthropological studies of the relationship between architecture and surveillance trace back to a long history, by which along the timeline surveillance has been used as a form of control or a symbol of power, slowly evolving into a mean of assurance for safety (Goss, et al., 2010). As a starting point, the formal crossroad between the literature of surveillance and architecture was highly associated with geometrical arrangement and spatial design. It was introduced through the idea of panopticon by an English social theorist, Jeremy Bentham in 1785, although no actual panopticon was built during his lifetime, not until late 1920s with the closest reference from Presidio Modelo complex in Cuba (McMullan, 2015).

32

Figure 6 – The external view of Presidio Modelo complex in Cuba (Friman, 2005)

Figure 7 – The internal view of Presidio Modelo complex in Cuba (Friman, 2005)

In fact, according to Philip Schofield, director of the Bentham Project at UCL, the original idea was actually brought up by Samuel Bentham, Jeremy’s younger brother, who devised such circular arrangement when he was working in Krichev, Russia to keep an eye on the relatively unskilled estate workforce. Bentham’s visit in the later 1780s then sparked the concept that centralised arrangement could be applied to any situations not limited to factories, and hence developed the Panopticon, forming the “ideal prison”.

33

Derived from the Greek, the word “Panopticon” means “all-seing”, and the name owed to the unique architectural spatial arrangement that enables constant visibility of the occupants from the inspector’s point of view. The structure comprises of a circular building at the periphery surrounding a central tower with empty space in between the two. The circumferential annular building is then divided into cells, each extending the full width of the building thus having two windows, one facing in and one facing out; The central tower is also pierced with wide window facing the inner windows on the ring of cells (Foucault, 1977). The whole architectural complex works by then having a subject of matter, be it a convict, a patient, a worker, or a student in the cell, and the backlighting from the window portrays the clear captive shadows to the visible eyes of the inspector from the central tower. Here, to the witness of the inspector, the cells are like many small theatres whereby each actor is being perfectly individualized and visible. The design also enables better control by power axial visibility but lateral invincibility, thus the inmates become the subject of information, not communication (Foucault, 1977).

Figure 8 – Illustration depicting the functioning of a Panopticon (Ulrich, n.d.)

34

Instead of just another different arrangement for prison, the core design feature of a Panopticon laid upon its mechanism of offering psychological confinement on top of bodily imprisonment through architecture. Working with the backlighting, the combination of perimeter cells around a central tower enables clear visual of the inmates, while contrastingly shadowing the presence of the inspector. It creates an environment of mono-directional information transition, whereby the inspector can see, but cannot be seen. As Bentham decreed, that the “power should be visible, but unverifiable”. It is visible so that the inmates are aware of the potential supervision; it is unverifiable so that the inmates never know whether or not are they being looked at in a particular moment, but they must be sure that they may be so. And although it seems impossible for the inspector to observe all the cells at the same time, the complex works by assuming the omnipotent inspector is always watching them. This creates the fear and uncertainty of constantly being watched, that hence forces behavioural self-regulation to prevent punishment (Foucault, 1977). In Bentham’s words (1791), it is a “new mode of obtaining power of mind over mind, in a quantity hitherto without example.” In further amplification, the full scope of its potential can be analysed through Bentham’s (1971) claims: “moral reformed” – referring to the capacity of altering convicts’ behaviour; “Health preserved” – referring to the therapeutic environment compared to unhealthy traditional, dungeon-like jail; “Industry invigorated” – indicating his belief that the inmates should be involved in productive activities forming part of the society’s industrial machine; “Instruction diffused” – referring to the effective capacity as medium for distributing instruction; “Public burthens lightened” – indicating his intention on running the Panopticon as private, not public enterprise (Baird, 2003).

35

In Michel Foucault’s later analysis of Panopticon in 1977, he coined the term “panopticism” and quoting “visibility is a trap”, describing that the structure of Panopticon is to be viewed as “a diagram of a mechanism of reduced to its ideal form; its functioning, abstracted from any obstacle, resistance or friction, must be represented as a pure architectural and optical system.” It is describe to be polyvalent in its uses. Through the lens of Foucault, the panopticon model is to be understood as a diagram rather than a building, and the similar concept of constant surveillance and psychological reformation is applicable to any other space. The idea of panopticism was hence intended to spread over the society by making the relationship between the practice of power and its cost more effective. Also, Foucault viewed the panoptic model as a disciplinary structure, of creating docile bodies, where the individuals are mouldable and re-mouldable (Galic et al., 2016). It becomes a laboratory, used as a machine to carry out experiment in altering behaviour and correcting people (Foucault, 1991).

2.1.2 – Adaptation of the Formal Arrangement The in depth analysis and thought given by Michel Foucault on the Panopticon in his “Discipline and Punish – The Birth of the Prison” had propelled the term to be made almost synonymous with researchers and studies within the surveillance industry (Brunon-Ernst, 2012), making it particularly famous by understanding it through the lens of Foucault and his idea of panopticism (Galic et al., 2016). However, scholars had started to advocate that there are some misinterpretation between that of Bentham’s original idea and Foucault’s analysis (Brunon-Ernst and Tusseau, 2013), arguing that Foucault’s understanding of the Panopticon model was fractional and partial. In Foucault’s definition of panopticism – “a type of power that is applied to individuals in the form of continuous individual supervision, in the form of control, 36

punishment, and compensation, and in the form of correction, that is, the modelling and transforming of individuals in terms of certain norms” (Foucault 2002), and being “panoptic” means “seeing everything, everyone, all the time”. But if one is to understand panopticism as constant supervision, control and correction, then it missed the ultimate purpose of the Panopticon, in which according to Bentham the aim was for people to internalise surveillance, so that eventually no more Panopticons is needed, and it is only to be seen as a transition stage to a non-panoptic utilitarian era (Galic et al., 2016). In supporting that, in fact Bentham had devised at least four Panopticons (Brunon-Ernst, 2013) instead of just one which is the famously discussed “Prison-Panopticon”, which studies by Foucault are made upon. The other three are the amended versions of the original, and along the timeline it reflected their adaption to new contexts and their degeneration of power. To this, Anne Brunon-Ernst coined the term “panoptic paradigm” reviewing the model as a template.

Chronologically, the second panopticon after the prison-Panopticon can be known as pauper-Panopticon, as describe in Bentham’s 1797-1798 work as a complex designed for housing indigents together with reformation and work. The main differences between this and the first is that while criminals are sent to jail by judges, the paupers come to this Panopticon voluntarily, and could leave whenever they wanted. Equipped with “earn-first principle”, however no one would be fed and not allowed to leave until the share of work is done (Schofield, 2009). Also, occasionally certain paupers are entitled for some privacy by means of the blind drawn across divisions, such as marital sex and consultation from the “Guardian Elders” (Schofield, 2009). The mode of surveillance here evolves to a more flexible and limited control.

The third, chrestomatic-Panopticon which was introduced in 1816-1817, has even fewer panoptic characteristic. It was a Panopticon-shaped school, allowing an 37

inspecting master to supervise around 600 pupils per classroom while remain unseen.

Here, the coverage of surveillance are even limited. Pupils are only monitored while they are in school and out of gaze when they are outside; they are also not assigned to a fixed class as it is changeable according to age and subjects.

The fourth, constitutional-Panopticon devised in 1830 is a complete opposite of the original. Instead of the few watches the many, here the many watches the few, for example, the citizens watching the governors. Hence, it is also known as the reverse-Panopticon (Semple, 1987; Leroy, 2002). The focus here now is on governing bodies, to be monitored in a similar panoptic manner to prevent misrule. Similarly to the third, the concept of constant surveillance is not applicable here, as the governors are only monitored during their duties (Galic et al, 2016). Also, instead of describing in sinister terms like central inspection, the act of watching is being equated with positive label such as transparency and publicity. Thus, the evolution of Panopticons witnesses dissociating of central power, from a rigid structure to a more flexible, adaptive means, from disciplinary to governmentality, and from constant gaze to selective manner.

Moving on however, traces of panoptic paradigm within contemporary architecture had been diminished, primarily with the introduction of easily applicable modern technological surveillance system, replacing the needs of people’s eyes with camera’s eyes (Koskela, 2000). Although, some buildings still carry the influence, or at least they arguably do, not by the architects themselves. For example, the History Faculty Library in Cambridge University by James Stirling employed an obvious translation from the Panopticon arrangement. The seating, the two-tiered bookshelves, and the backlighting, all aligned axially to the inspection point.

38

Figure 9 – Arrangement of the library (Architectural Design, 1964)

Figure 10 – The bookshelves arrangement with backlighting of History Faculty Library in Cambridge shows a nostalgic representation of Panopticon (Dream Idea Machine, n.d.)

2.1.3 – Breaking Apart Spatial Limitation In this post-panoptical modern context of advancing technology, the relationship between surveillance and architecture space further dismantled. The increasing complexity in architecture design and insecurity had demanded a less limited application of surveillance, and with that the industry turns to technology for solutions.

As the introduction of close-circuit television (CCTV) system had gained its popularity in contemporary cities for the reason of ease and presumed effectiveness 39

(Koskela, 2000), the structure becomes less defined, breaking apart from spatial constraint and expanded out from monitoring a space to controlling an urban environment (Galic et al., 2016). In discussing about the video surveillance, it is arguable that its proliferation over urban space had made the current living environment a huge Panopticon (Lyon, 1994; Fyfe and Bannister, 1998; Tabor, 2001).

If Bentham designed the original Panopticon as a technology of power to solve issues on surveillance, then the idea of video surveillance is basically the same. People under surveillance are to be seen without knowing when or by whom, and under control without any physical intervention (Koskela, 2002). The different here is while the previous is a passive system that can only happened within a carefully planned space, the latter is an active system that can occur literally everywhere, and thus contributes to the massively growing numbers of surveillance camera in urban space (Takala, 1998; Lyon 2002).

Figure 11 – The relationship between evolution of surveillance and spatial independent, from passive to active system (Author, 2017)

40

However as wide acceptable as it seems, there are various scholars contending the application of such active video surveillance system as ineffective and detrimental.

There is evidence that such system do not deters, but displaces crime, in which areas under surveillance become safer, areas out of coverage become more dangerous (Fyfe & Bannister, 1996; Tilley, 1993). Studies also suggested the application of surveillance cameras reduces property crime like theft and burglary (Brown, 1995; Fyfe & Bannister, 1996), but there is much less evidence on reducing violent crime (Koskela, 2000). Furthermore, the ever-increasing dependency on video surveillance can make the city less pleasant to live in contradicting its intention, which causes a vicious circle of defence: surveillance while on one hand increases security and make people feel safer, it also increases fear, paranoia and distrust (Davis, 1990; Ellin, 1996). Increasingly, it occurs to have minor correlation to crime statistics or behavioural self-regulation, implying that people in modern urban environment have moving towards becoming so desensitised with the electronic gaze in a surrounding saturated with surveillance technology, the same way as how over-stimulation of senses by the over-use of signage in cities becomes indistinct and redundant (Jonescu, 2016). The overuse of such system makes the initial concept of self-behavioural control flawed, whereby it only does little in promoting safer communities when public awareness of surveillance is fading. Thus, surveillance technologies deprived of a physical authoritarian presence do not dissuade antisocial behaviours (Jonescu, 2016). CCTV is a reversal back to the original Panopticon model that meant for disciplinary, but not continuing building on upon the later revisions of it.

According to Hille Koskela (2000) through her paper “The Gaze without Eyes�, the questionable implication of active video surveillance prompted the postulation of three concepts of space in describing the issue of such surveillance: 41

space as a container, power-space and emotional space. The “space as a container” argues that space under surveillance had been reduced to a mere container whereby the spatial separation between the camera and the object leaves its object entirely as an object: passive, without any ability to influence the situation. There is no personal contact in between. One does not even know whether anyone is looking or how far away he or she is, thus the mistrust. It also questions about the lack of personal contact, resulting in the humane side of surveillance lacking. The space becomes a passive container in which the objects exist, but it is insensitive to who comes and goes, as well as what his or her feelings or intentions might be. The “power-space” questions on the power hierarchy of watching. Who has the right to look and who will be looked at? Like an ideal panopticon, the watching can be sporadic, but the threat is always there (Hannah, 1997). This measure of ensuring discipline erodes confidence at the same time. The anonymity of such surveillance could also causes a gender dimension of insecurity instead whereby those who maintain the power of surveillance are often males such as police or guards, and the application of cameras are often in shopping malls or shopping areas, in which typically women spend more at than men (Reeves, 1996). Lastly, the “emotional-space” talks about the ambivalent quality of space under surveillance, arguing that there is a huge difference between being looked directly by someone as compare to being looked at through the lens.

There are a variety of feelings that the surveillance evokes, as those being watched may feel guilty for no reason, embarrassed or uneasy, irritated or angry, or fearful; they may also feel secure and safe. It creates vulnerability due to lack of control.

All the previous arguments on the active technological video surveillance system suggested a non-sustainable application over the time, however we cannot deny the potential it has in safety assurance. Often, it works backward by solving 42

crime than to prevent it, whereby it records and playbacks footages to be used as evidence.

Looking pass this video surveillance system, the computerisation of

surveillance is becoming even more subtle and intense, spreading across from material space to cyberspace (Koskela, 2002). The concept of architecture with surveillance is seen to be slowly distanced away from architecture and shifted towards technology, and the obvious relationship between architecture and surveillance can be said to have stopped at the stage of reliance on surveillance camera for security and control.

2.2 – SUMMARY Although the concept of surveillance in architecture begins with Panopticon as a prison by Jeremy Bentham, it has later being developed into various forms and being revised to fit into other circumstances. However, a closer look into the study of surveillance within contemporary architectural framework witnesses a transition from confined architectural space, breaking down becoming more and more subtle into urban environment – from passive architectural design into active technological application alongside modern society, with the introduction of video surveillance particularly in the form of closed-circuit television (CCTV) system. This also marked an important milestone as further development of surveillance theories had disembarked from architecture into cyberspace. The widely celebrated usage of this system is understandable as a response to the increasingly complicated architecture design compares to the straightforward spatial arrangement of Panopticon, and the ever-growing complexity of building design suggests an even higher usage of CCTV in the future. However still, the overly dependency on such active system is deemed ineffective as argue by various scholars, leaving the current architecture industry in

43

need of a passive surveillance strategy to be incorporated into design complementing the active system.

Figure 12 – The transition of surveillance system and architecture (Author, 2017)

44

CHAPTER 3 – PASSIVE SURVEILLANCE Chapter three is an attempt to study the existing theories on passive surveillance from various scholars as an alternative, mostly from the perspectives of urban design. The chapter will then presents the ideas by formulating three concepts: surveillance from within, surveillance from public, and surveillance through interface between building and street. Section 3.1 will thus focuses on the Defensible Space Theory from Oscar Newman suggesting internalized surveillance, following by section 3.2 of enhancing surveillance with public presence, and lastly to section 3.3 of creating safety environment through the relationship of street and building. On top of the panoptic design criteria in Chapter 2, analysing these theories enable the formulation of a passive design framework for participatory surveillance, serving as the base for case study in Chapter 4.

3.1 – PASSIVE SURVEILLANCE FROM WITHIN Human behaviour, interaction and activities are greatly influenced by the living environment, and thus crime as a form of action is highly regulated by the surrounding design factors (Felson, 2006). Hence, in providing another perspective of surveillance and architecture apart from the active technological system, it is crucial to look into recent theories on passive surveillance. An in depth research also noticed a recent departure of surveillance theories further away from architecture and focuses more on urban planning. Perhaps the presumed effectiveness and unlimited application of video-surveillance in architecture overshadow other existing solutions, eliminating demands for alternatives. However, as the application of such active system in architecture is deemed to be insufficient, a rethinking is crucial by looking into these passive urban strategies. The first comprehensive theory of empowering 45

surveillance through design and layout planning of the physical environment was introduced by Oscar Newman in his Defensible Space Theory in 1972, focusing primarily on residential spaces to suggest the way of facilitating supervision and control of the surrounding by the residents themselves. This theory becomes a crucial part of passive surveillance design as it becomes the basis for other widely used guidelines over the world such as the “Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)” (Jeffrey, 1999) as well as the “Secure by Design” (Cozens et al., 2004). The idea behind the theory is formulated after Newman’s researches on housing projects in New York and St. Louise, whereby through comparison between high-rise and low-rise building he noticed a higher crime rate in the high-rise while keeping other criteria such as proportion of minorities, single families, families on welfare and other socio-demographic related conditions consistent. Hence, the attribution of such difference in crime rate is to be associated with building design (Newman, 1972). In attempt to explain the concept of differing security level among the projects, three basic components were introduced under the defensible space theory, namely “territoriality”, “natural surveillance” and “image/milieu”, which then serve as the background for Newman’s further arguments on security created through passive design, internalizing control via the residents themselves.

3.1.1 – Territoriality The first concept, territoriality, is argued to be the keystone of the theory with the other two indirectly reinforcing it (Elffers & Reynald, 2009). While according to Newman (1972), the main objective of defensible space is to provide a system for the residents to take charge of their own surrounding and premises altogether with commons area, the coverage of such surveillance and effectiveness is governed by the demarcation of territoriality in which the residents claim their ownerships and 46

responsibilities toward it. Territoriality becomes “the capacity of the physical environment to create perceived zones of territorial influences� as how Newman (1972: 51) defines it. The creation of territories and boundaries between public, semiprivate and private is crucial in activating a sphere of control, communicating to the outsiders of regulated environment and facilitating the deterrence of anti-social behaviour as subjected to the norm mutually defined by the residents. These zones can be created through physical or symbolic barrier, or even incorporating both, and the aim is for it to be easily perceived by the residents and public so as to achieve its purpose, while maintaining its application to a moderate level so that it does not results in fortification which can potentially compromise the visibility of surveillance (Newman, 1972) and to prevent the creation of carceral environment. The use of physical barriers such as walls, fences and gates or symbolic barriers such as hedges, shrubs or even signage can be used to enhance a clear sense of belonging, hence territoriality, forming a community-like living environment. It also serves to clearly indicate the threshold between spaces, establishing a perception of restricted or controlled access to a space via barriers or indications to direct public flow away (Newman, 1972).

Figure 13 – Territoriality as control by barrier in between (Author, 2017)

47

3.1.2 – Natural Surveillance Asides from indication of territories, defensible space can also be achieved through introducing natural surveillance, enhancing opportunities for the residents to further govern their own surrounding and control crimes (Newman, 1972). The concept of natural surveillance is based on the logic of maximizing surveillance opportunities via proper configuration of physical environment features and its activities including people’s flow to prevent crime (Cozens, 2002). In Newman’s arguments, he suggested that properties or buildings should be designed in such a way that the windows and doors are facing each other along a street, and overlooking public space. It is also critical in ensuring the sightlines between the spaces are clear, unobstructed and well lit. This enables the residents to survey their surrounding over the course of daily routine activities, naturally within their own home without extra effort (Newman, 1972). This urban configuration and planning allows a higher chance of detecting intruders made possible through the internalize control of among the neighbours.

The concept of natural surveillance, although stands accountable on its own, further amplifies the sense of territoriality. Working almost of the similar manner like a Panopticon on psychological behavioural control, the mechanism of natural surveillance suggests potential of constant gaze from neighbouring houses. On one hand it reduces fear and increases trust among residents by the feeling that they are constantly under other residents’ observation (Newman, 1972), one the other hand it embeds fear to potential trespassers on the possibilities of getting caught. This increases the sense of security within a space, which then promotes even more frequent use of the common space by mutual residents that in turn further heightens the sense of territoriality, thus security (Elffers & Reynald, 2009).

48

Figure 14 – Layout configuration with windows facing away from one another creates a dark spot in between without surveillance that is susceptible to crime (Author, 2017)

Figure 15 – Layout configuration with windows facing one another overlooking common space enables an effective natural surveillance (Author, 2017)

3.1.3 – Image / Milieu The last concept under Newman’s defensible space theory covers the importance of image and milieu of a physical environment. Being defined as “the capacity of design to influence the perception of a project’s uniqueness, isolation, and stigma” (Newman,

49

1972: 102), the idea is best to be understood through two perspectives: the image to the residents and the image to the outsiders. While the image regarding a space tells about the lifestyles within it, and is created through its appearance, this component becomes a critical and obvious indicator of security (Reynald, 2014). A wellmaintained place communicates an image of a properly controlled environment, and that positive image exerts a fear to the offenders to conduct crimes in such a tightly governed atmosphere. From the residents’ point of view, it also reinforces the community pride thus the desire to utilize and maintain the surrounding space (Newman, 1972), which in turn boosts the sense of territoriality altogether with further leverage on security. On the other hand, if a place portrays the appearance of an abandoned and poorly-maintained space, it creates a negative image to the intruders suggesting on low-levels of care and becoming more susceptible to criminal targets. It further worsens the security and surveillance of the place when the negative image is being perceived by the residents as negative territorial cues, hence increasing fear of crime which eventually causes residents’ withdrawal from mutual responsibilities and caring of their surrounding space. Hence, natural surveillance dies with the negative image, and both of them influence the diminishing in sense of territoriality, all in all reduces the capability of surveillance control over their environment by the residents. On top of that, Newman also argues that the type of areas or its proximity to facilities in which a place is being juxtaposed at also influences the perception of the image, instead of the solely the place itself. A positive image can be carried through if it is adjacent to safe places, benefitting from the association. Likewise, a negative image can be established corresponding to the adjacent risky places.

50

Figure 16 – A poorly-maintained entrance to an apartment creates a negative image to the outsider as easily intrudes (Google Earth, 2016)

Figure 17 – A well-maintained entrance to an apartment speaks of a positive image to the outsider that the place is well-guarded and exerts fear for intrusions (Google Earth, 2016)

Through these three concepts of defensible space theory, although they can be separately perceived, they suggest a hierarchical relationship between each 51

component with the others in the formation of a passively surveyed space, illustrated by diagram below:

Figure 18 – The concept of image/milieu takes precedent in the formation of defensible space, but eventually all ties back to the purpose of enhancing territoriality (Author, 2018)

Incorporating this theory allows for the residents themselves to take role of guardian over their spaces, and to highlight the anti-social cues by intruders through increased sense of community in order to effectively deter the crime (Reynald, 2014).

3.2 – PASSIVE SURVEILLANCE FROM PUBLIC However as important the role of residents is as previously argued, the overly dependency of security by the residents themselves through increasing territoriality is arguable as contradicting in both encouraging and jeopardizing crime (Mawby, 1977).

The same concept of territoriality that serves to reduce the possibilities of outsiders in committing crime at the same time enables the increasing opportunities of crime conducted by the fellow residents. From Oscar Newman’s defensible space theory point of view, the idea pertaining passive surveillance is about controlling accessibility to a place, mitigating crime through limiting entry, either physically psychologically to reduce the opportunity of utilizing the space by outsiders, hence a 52

lower victimization chances (Reynald, 2014). Street and public interference to a space is thus deemed to be detrimental to security, which is contradict to the idea that Jane Jacobs (1961) argued in the first chapter of her “The Death and Life of Great American Cities” whereby she advocated that natural surveillance should be provided externally through public presence.

3.2.1 – Public Presence The rising concerns of internalizing surveillance sparks from the common sense of individual refusing to venture into streets where the lack of public eyes might causes an assault to be unseen, and perhaps the rescue will comes too late (Jacobs, 1961: 31).

In countering that, security and control is to be kept primarily via the intricate network of voluntary participation from general public themselves, self-enforcing almost unconsciously. Disregard the suggestion from Newman of limiting accessibility, Jacobs pointed out that the issue of insecurity cannot be solved by thinning out people. Hence, instead of complete reliance on residents for surveillance, public presence plays a crucial role too for control. The mere presence of public as strangers reinforces natural surveillance acting as a natural “police” (Hillier, 2004), and this is further supported by the conducted space syntax studies in analysing the relationship between spatial configuration and the occurrence of crime, which yield results in showing that crime incidents tend to happen clustering around less accessible, thus less busy spaces (Hillier & Shu, 2000; Shu 2000; Shu & Huang, 2003).

53

Figure 19 – A more permeable building enabling a more holistic surveillance (Author, 2017)

3.2.2 – Programs Juxtaposition and Densification Besides that, while Newman’s theory recommends segregation and zoning of space in enhancing territoriality, a mixed use of space however enables a continuous flow of people and activities throughout the day, which then provides a constant surveillance made possible by the public (Jacobs, 1961). She denounced the concept of segregation by theorizing that the isolation would in return attract more potential offenders. Also, the monotonous environment created by isolation gathers individual of almost similar lifestyle together, enabling the routine activities and surveillance of a space more predictable, thus reduces the effectiveness of natural surveillance. In general, architecture built forms, together with the intertwining urban spaces between them can be facilitated for passive surveillance by the physical presence of people as well as authority (Jonescu, 2017), and this could be further boosted by making use of the concept of densification in our current living environment to further increase the population of general “watchers” from the public. This can amplifies the physical participation and occupation of space as a mean of creating a more holistic surveillance.

54

Figure 20 – Juxtaposition of programs and mix-use space attracts more users and public, creating densification and more constant public surveillance (Author, 2017)

Hence, the theories regarding passive surveillance branches out into two directions, either by internalizing control as per Newman’s theory, or by externalizing control as per Jacobs’ argument. While these two ideas contradicting one another on various matters, it comes to a criminology debate of whether or not the involvements of outsiders in surveillance weaken or enhance security. A balanced solution integrating the both is desirable.

3.3 – PASSIVE SURVEILLANCE THROUGH INTERFACE BETWEEN BUILDING AND STREET With the previous discussion concludes on the ambiguity of whether the role of controlling security is appointed to the residents from within or the public from outside, and a combination of both should be balanced out for mutual surveillance, the extend of passive surveillance theories thus can be said to cover both polar ends of enclosure and openness within city lifestyle. A translation from the theories into physical living environment can be pictured as surveillance from the building and surveillance from the street. Hence, the interaction point between these two realms of 55

private entity and public space form an interesting study on the effect of surveillance.

By analysing the theories from Jan Gehl, the interaction on surveillance thus can be grouped into two: the human interaction and the physical environment interaction.

3.3.1 – Human Interaction Human occupies the city, and it is a vital measure to study about human mobility and senses in designing for a passive environment on emphasizing human interactions, as these characteristics tailor the occurrence of activities, behaviour and communication within a space (Gehl, 2010). A strong relationship between human senses, perceptions and distance can be drawn from the study, and it is important in determining the distance or coverage for which positive interaction occurs, within or around a space, or even along its interface. In analysing the limitation of sight, Gehl suggests that objects or humans are only visible and identifiable at a distance of between 300 m to 500 m. Visual senses can then only be useful within 100 m whereby bodily movement in a broad outline can be observed, with more details prevailing as the distant reduces, eventually to as near as 25 m for accurate reading of facial expression and emotion. Similarly for hearing, a shout for help is only audible from a distance of 50 m to 70 m, furthering down to possible one-way communication with loud voice at 35 m, short messages exchange at 20 m to 25 m, and eventually genuine conversation made possible only within 7 m. Hence, a conclusion can be drawn associating the closer interaction distance to the effectiveness of human senses, thus surveillance, with two important thresholds to be taken note: 100 m – the limit of human senses, and; 25 m – the general distance whereby emotions can be decoded (Gehl, 2010). The diameter of approximately 100 m also resonances with the size of most public plazas or squares in olden cities, enabling someone standing at a corner to experience full coverage of the activities within (Gehl, 2010). These distances thus 56

form the basis in architecture or urban planning for determining the size and sightlines in establishing possible passive surveillance.

Apart from planar surveillance, the effectiveness of human senses also depends on scale and height difference of the environment in acting as medium of permitting interactions. The flexibility of human head movement allows for a maximum extended view of 70 to 80 degrees downward and a slightly limited 50 to 55 degrees upward. With these, surveillance is thus more effective wen viewing down rather than up, further reinforcing with human anatomy in which our heads are typically bowed to 10 degrees while walking (Tilley & Henry Dreyfuss Associates, 2002).This explains the functioning mechanism of a watchtower for having higher elevation looking down onto its surrounding, on top of getting unobstructed views.

However, there is limitation to the height differences too in influencing the effectiveness of surveillance, whereby meaningful communication only happens between 5 storeys and below. Messages are feasible from three to five storeys, while excellent from two storeys and below (Gehl, 2010). This demarcates another threshold of effective passive surveillance through human interaction in suggesting a top-bottom surveillance instrument limited to not more than 5 storeys height.

57

Figure 21 – The limits of human visual senses in permitting effective surveillance over a space become a way to control the interaction between various user groups (Author, 2017)

3.3.2 – Physical Environment Interaction Notwithstanding the human dimension of interaction in manipulating the efficacy of passive surveillance, when the private realm of territoriality defended by Oscar Newman collides with the public realm of participation from general population by Jane Jacobs, the mutualism interaction between these physical design environments becomes an interesting interface of dictating surveillance as well. In this, Jan Gehl (2010) argues that both life on the street and life in the building affect the safety and security perception of the area. The presence of lives within building, even superior when equipped with mixed-used functions of around the clock activities, provide constant visibility and surveillance to the adjacent street or common space. This helps to strengthen the real and perceived safety particularly in the evening and night in such a way that even when the street is deserted, lights from the buildings provide a strong sense of credibility to the presence of people nearby, thus more comforting to

58

the users. A study on Copenhagen supported this idea however it was not for Sydney (Gehl, 2010). While the former city compromises of five to six storeys stories high building around the streets, the latter city’s streets are surrounded by high-rises. Thus, the effectiveness of such surveillance is controlled by the height of visual contact as well. Alternatively, street life also contributes to better safety and protection (Gehl, 2010) in providing natural surveillance to the surrounding. In contrary to lifeless street, with insufficient lighting, dark nooks and crannies, as well as too many bushes, any resolutions or enticement of inviting people to walk and prolonging their stay will enhance public human presence and add to sense of safety. In a whole, life in the building creates a safer street, and a safer street enables higher presence of people, which in turn creates a safer building space, whereby it will then attracts even more users, thus more life in the building and the perpetual cycle continues.

Figure 22 – The relationship between building and street in terms of surveillance and safety (Author, 2017)

It is also important to take note that ground floor building design exerts a great influence on the life and perceived safety of its environment. Soft edges on the ground 59

floor – populated with human activities, furniture or flowers, signal a friendly and welcoming gesture. Even when it comes to the night with little activities going on, these soft boundaries become a comforting witness of life and clues of proximity to other people (Gehl, 2010). This can also be achieved by façade design of enabling transparency for protection, yet allow bilateral visual connectivity and light streaming through. Vice versa, solid metal shutters and blank walls create a sense of rejection, hence insecurity. Expanding on this, the transition space between private and public also stimulates to perception of safety. By creation of semi-private and semi-public area to soften the transition in between, the likelihood and level of contact increases from one zone to another, allowing the residents opportunity to control the contacts and protect private life within (Gehl, 2010). In almost the similar manner of territoriality by Oscar Newman, transition spaces can be created by physical space such as porches and yards, or symbolic features such as landscaping, changing in pavement and levelling, furniture or even gates.

Figure 23 – The creation of soft transition space adds layers of interaction zone to control the contact and penetration (Author, 2017)

60

3.4 – SUMMARY In the search of passive surveillance strategies on top of the panoptic design to complement the widely used active technological video surveillance, current theories of passive surveillance exhibit a slow departure from architecture spatial design towards more on urban planning. Furthermore, even within urban planning itself, the theories do not emphasis on any particular direction, but cover an overall attribution of surveillance via internalization by residents, contradicting externalizing by public, as well as the moderate mode of interaction in between. These strategies can be summarized into a list of theoretical framework to be used later against analysing the case study on whether this spectrum of contrary concepts is applicable within an architectural space and how their relationships connect.

61

Figure 24 – Theoretical frameworks for analysing case study in term of passive participatory surveillance (Author, 2017)

62

A new concept of architecture surveillance can be derived by appropriating the term “participatory surveillance� against the theoretical framework describing the idea of security design utilizing the presence of people and their interactions to voluntarily engaged as both watchers and being watched within an architectural space.

63

CHAPTER 4 – CASE STUDY – LASALLE COLLEGE OF THE ARTS This chapter will examine the framework of passive participatory surveillance against a case study, which is the Lasalle College of the Arts in Singapore. While the framework suggested from previous chapter groups the criteria into panopticon, surveillance from within, surveillance from public and surveillance through the interface, the case study suggested otherwise. Supported by integrated analysis through drawings and annotated diagrams responding to personal site visitation and experience, architect’s design claims and drawings, various photographs and public responses, an in-depth findings is to be presented concerning the idea of such surveillance system.

4.1 – BACKGROUND STUDY Located at McNally Street, Rochor Area of Singapore, the Lasalle College of the Arts was designed by RSP Architects and construction completed on 2008 with total areas of 35,000 square meters. A “black box” turned inside out, as claimed on by the architect, it is part of an international competition in which the design inverts elements of a conventional institution to harvest maximum porosity between the campus and its adjacent streets. The intention is to make the design becomes part of art-making process, a building that embraces the city’s diversity and engages its fabric.

Here the students become an integral part of engagements in the continuous dialogue with public, formulating extensive interaction from all angles. In this case, the school is actually not just a building, but comprises of six organically shaped structures, each roses up to seven storeys. Breaking and connecting them together are the inroads and alleyways, much like an internal elongated internal courtyard running in between.

Altogether they formed an amalgamated architectural space of housing both public 64

and private realm under one institutional roof – liken to the extended urban streetscape over the site and the campus buildings becoming the city blocks.

Devising a case study around an institutional architecture is a rethinking response to Foucault’s (1995) view of a school as a carceral environment that carries characteristics of Panopticism. While school has to exert a regulatory force in response to its conformity nature (Piro, 2008), misconception or over surveillance could instead result in criminalizing the school environment, turning the learning space to almost like juvenile detention facilities (New York Civil Liberties Union [NYCLU] & American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU], 2008), which is unhealthy for the education process. Although school security is still a major concern, it is important to look into ways of making the implementation of surveillance less overt and intrusive, with the potential of integrating disciplinary and learning network through a much seamless security design in between (Piro, 2008). Hence, it is even more crucial to look the Lasalle College of the Arts as an example of how a more subtle passive surveillance can be part of the design consideration to embrace a balance of openness and security.

65

4.2 – ELEMENTS OF PARTICIPATORY SURVEILLANCE 4.2.1 – Ambiguous Formal Quality On first encounterment, Lasalle College of the Arts stands along the street proudly, with no means of disguising into the context. A huge rectangular box made scaleless by black stone cladding all over it, the school immediately exerts an unassuming and stoic profile to the surrounding. The strong, monolithic silhouette suggests a defensive nature to the space within, and immediately the image of well-controlled place communicates positive image which contributes fear to intruders for misconduct in such a tightly governed surrounding. This is the first line of defence, by using impression to control and limit crime thus the amount of surveillance needed.

Figure 25 – The black monolithic façade on the exterior creates a stoic, unassuming image that strongly defences the space within. (Author, 2016)

Contradicting to the external façade, the flat giant box then cracks open to internal corridors revealing 6 separate buildings connected to each other with sky bridges and common plaza in a very 3-dimensional manner. The form emulates canyon walls carved and sculpted by natural processes (President Design Award, 2008), the all66

glass, dynamic internal facade projects a lively and active internal space over the solid and passive external quality. While the external façade suggests defensiveness from the outsider point of view, the brightly-lit and vibrant internal façade reinforces the surveillance through a cheerful and populated image, hence the desire of the occupants to take pride and this give rise to the sense of territoriality, enabling them to better protect their space.

Figure 26 – The transparent, multifaceted façade on the interior creates a playful and vibrant interior, enhance the sense of belongings and being well monitored around. (Author, 2016)

In an overall, through only the form of the school itself, it creates a balance between shielding outsider off and welcoming them but with reminder that it is a wellgoverned space and any suspicious activities shall be refrained. While over defensiveness of the external profile could easily create a prison-like internal environment, the vibrant interior loosen up the rigidity without compromising the ability of control. In the architect’s description, the school is “like a volcanic rock, with its rough exterior and its crystalline interior”, the ambiguous quality of the

67

building contributes to enhance the quality of passive surveillance through impressions in the essence of Newman’s Defensible Space Theory.

Figure 27 – The ambiguous profile of the building design works to enhance defensiveness and the sense of territoriality, hence the ease of surveillance (Author, 2017)

68

4.2.2 – Spatial Porosity and Diversity One of the core design feature of the Lasalle School of the Arts is its porosity. While the school is a private entity of learning and governmentality that subjects to security and control needs, it is designed to incorporate an unprecedented high level of accessibility throughout. Instead of being understood as a singular building, the school is better describe as six blocks of spaces that sit within an urban fabric with public walkways and piazza intertwining between them. Here, the school plays more than just a role. It also serves as a mediator between the city’s public space and campus’s private space. According to RSP Architects, the location of the school itself embraces the city’s diversity rather than rejecting it, and this injection gives the school a sense of presence within the urban context.

Figure 28 – Lasalle College of the Arts located within close proximity to public transportation node, in between various tourist area such as Bugis, Little India & Orchard Road, while surrounded by various amenities. (Author, 2017)

69

In what Jane Jacob had suggested to incorporate public presence for a better overall surveillance opportunity, the design of the school utilizes this level of porosity and interaction between the public and the school environment to enable a mutual surveillance control on top formally encourages public engagement of the art activities within. From the feedback of a visitor, Kökcü (2017) commented that the school environment is “welcoming instead, which allows you to get involved with the works that is being created or the issues discussed in those places. This is fantastic.

Therefore, we could be able to discover Lasalle’s halls, corridors, classes, common areas, simply almost every corner.” The strategy of increased physical participation and occupation of space is critical for a more socially sustainable environment (Cozens, 2011, p.481). The presence of public among the school enables constant interaction and surveillance within the otherwise isolated environment. This positive attribute of attracting public are also highly associated to Jan Gehl’s suggestion of urban components which affect perception of a space, such as places to pause, vegetation and pedestrian accessibility. A combination of these components will enhance people’s engagement with one another resulting in higher and prolongs presence of people.

70

Figure 29 – Presence of various cues in inviting and prolong public participation within the space.

(Author, 2017)

While encouraging public presence within the compound is essential for a less monotonous environment which could potentially be exploited, incorporation of such public accessibility takes on a precaution too for making sure that there will be public to willingly occupy the space and the crowd is constant. In this case, In this case, Lasalle attracts public into its internal courtyard by releasing its interactive surface to the city through the sculpting form breaking through the rigid, black facade. With the school fronting a public park, the big opening connects and juxtaposes public activities into the school common ground, extending public realm naturally into the private entity.

71

Figure 30 – The largest entrance and drop off area of the Lasalle College of the Arts opens up and connects to the adjacent public park. (Muneerah Bee, 2017)

Figure 31 – By responding to the adjacent field, public activities within the park can be extended and juxtapose into the campus public space, and redistributing them to multiple direction. (Author, 2017)

Together with the field, the four alleyways surrounding to the school weaves into the campus for an all-rounded accessibility and opportunities of utilizing the common ground. The ground and lower ground level becomes a place where public activities of both the campus and the city take place. It becomes a place of various programmes, interactions and cultural exchanges. The interfaces at ground level thus establish a programmatic and visual links between the public courtyard and school spaces. Not limiting to the ground plane, the sky bridges that connect different blocks together 72

also serve as flexible spaces for performances, in what the architect proclaimed “the opportunity to utilize unusual locations as performance platforms is invaluable in an arts school environment.” Hence, the overall mixing around of both public and school activities over the campus creates a diversify environment that constantly attracts different crowd people for utilizing the space. In return, it guarantees public presence and thus fostering surveillance control through public’s participation.

Figure 32 – Use of the public space as an event space. (Culture360, 2011)

Figure 33 – White Shirt Project organized by Diploma in Fashion Design, the use of the public space as exhibition space. (Thirtygalore, 2016)

73

Figure 34 – Public mingling together with students at the centre courtyard. (RSP Architects, n.d.)

Figure 35 – Various functioning of a space enables existence and participation of different user group to the space, hence enhances the rate of public presence and possibility of participatory surveillance.

(Author, 2017)

74

4.2.3 – Layering and Transition While public presence within a space can contributes to participatory surveillance, uncontrolled public accessibility could also be detrimental to the security. In aid of this, heightening sense of territoriality can be useful as a note for the public in telling them of the ownership change. Layering is the first experience one gets when walking into Lasalle School of the Arts. To certain extent, it also forms the elementary design components, in which the campus can be seen as broken down into three main elements, which is the external black façade, furthering down to the internal dynamic glass façade and eventually the courts (President’s Design Award, 2008). Further breaking down of these components yield an even more detail layering, externally from the street, through the steps and shrubs, to the black façade, crossing a corridor, to a blank wall, and then only into the internal corridor faced with glass facade before getting to the courtyard. All these serve as form of barrier, both physical and symbolic that one must pass through before entering the campus, and they contribute to enhance the sense of territoriality. This mixture of barriers signifies that one should be warn prior getting into the campus and hence deters those with ill-intentions.

75

Figure 36 – Multiple level of combined symbolic and physical barrier enhances the sense of territoriality (Author, 2017)

76

The dominancy of physical barrier attributed to the black monolithic façade creates a strong sense of territoriality, but at the same time it overly exerts defensiveness that looks like a non-engaging building. This is countered by the lane of shrubs and plantings that surround the school externally, aimed to soften the carceral characteristic to create a more welcoming experience without compromising territoriality.

Figure 37 – Lane of green shrubs, planting and change of floor paving acts as symbolic barrier to soften the huge monolithic black façade which becomes the physical barrier. (Jonathan Choe,2012)

The symbolic barrier presented by the plantings, together with the steps also becomes a transition space to indicate a threshold, with a second one offered by the corridor sandwiched between the thick black façade wall and the internal black wall. These extended thresholds enable a slower transition between public and private space for better control of intruders and opportunity to defence the space.

77

Figure 38 – Two transitions space between the school and the adjacent streets enable a better control of potential intruders. (Author, 2017)

Besides acting as a symbolic barrier, the plantings and the corridor also serve other purposes in enabling a better participatory surveillance. Instead of acting in favour of the school building, they react with the adjacent streets, in which Jan Gehl (2010) had argues that both life on the street and in the building are equally important for the safety perception of the area. To expand on this idea, the co-relationship between the school and its neighbourhood can be understood through a perpetual process. First, the plantings along the boundary attract public by contrasting its street profile to the rest of the buildings along the street, creating a tender and welcoming gesture. As they approach, the corridor provides shade for the public in contributing a pedestrian friendly walkway to the neighbourhood. These two elements work in hand to draw public to the school surrounding. It also creates a safer perception to adjacent streets.

With a better street environment, it will attracts more public presence and hence into the school plaza enabling participatory surveillance. Concurrently, more people means more activities at the campus, which contributes to higher occupation rate, and 78

eventually the spilling out of vibrancy and internal activities to the surrounding suggests high level of human presence, hence the higher perception of environmental safety, and the cycle continues. Perhaps this is what the architect meant by “the campus’s connectivity, accessibility, orientation and scale, allow the dissipation of the students and their activities into the city and permeate into the larger community.”

The presence of the two thresholds also enhances the transition between spaces, of the street and the building, from public to private.

Figure 39 – The presence of greeneries along the school creates a contrast with neighbouring buildings, embracing a more welcoming and humane gesture to the street. (Google Street, 2015)

79

Figure 40 – The school incorporates a perimeter shaded walkway as the second transition space, which also creates a more pedestrian friendly response to the neighbourhood. (RSP Architects, n.d.)

Figure 41 – Lights being fragmentized and then shined through opening distributed all over the building façade creates safer perception on the adjacent street by suggesting the presence of human nearby. (Mori Hidetaka, n.d.)

80

Figure 42 – The two transition spaces enable a more pronounce transition and zoning from public, semi-public, semi-private to private, facilitating a better control of security and accessibility. Also, the covered walkway and internal courtyard response to the neighbouring environment in a perpetual manner of generating safer environment. (Author, 2017)

4.2.4 – Mixture of Potential Sightlines As the previous points discuss about how to facilitate and control public participation over the space, studying sightlines suggests how participatory surveillance can then be applied.

Despite the dissimilarity between the layout of Lasalle School of the Arts and a typical panoptic spatial orientation, the idea behind a Panopticon, in which “power should be visible but unverifiable” (Foucault, 1977) does persist. The multifaceted glass façade that run through the whole interior of the school compound becomes a mechanism that operates in the similar manner as a panoptic environment. Here the 81

inclined glass panels allow for a large amount of daylight to propagate and reflected upon each other before filtering into the rooms. In what the architect describes as “kaleidoscopic façade”, it reflects city life onto it as a vibrant backdrop to cater the activities within. Similarly, the reflection creates real and apparent images of the occupants and public life all over the interior spaces as if they are constantly busy, and the light blurs the actual presence of people within. This is liken to how a Panopticon works whereby the visibility of people and activities suggests potential supervision, while the unverifiable realness indicates that the users, both the occupants and public will never know whether or not they are actually being looked at, but they must be made to believe so. Here, participatory surveillance occurs as a mutual responsive control between the public and occupants through the ambiguity of multiple indirect sightlines rather than a straightforward vista.

Figure 43 – Not limiting to the spatial layout constraint, panoptic characteristic can still be created through reflection mechanism (Author, 2017)

82

Figure 44 – Light reflection on the multifaceted façade masked the space within (President’s Design Award, 2008)

83

Figure 45 – The combination of real and apparent images of people and activities around perform in the similar manner as a Panopticon, in which the surveillance is visible but unverifiable (Author, 2017)

84

While dependency on the panoptic profile itself is subjected to ambiguity, the school design also incorporates natural surveillance all over the campus, covering both surveillance to the street and surveillance to the internal courtyard.

Figure 46 – Diagrammatic plan of the school showing potential natural surveillance all over the place (Authoer, 2017)

The black external façade facing the streets is populated with 3 different modular size windows: largest being window seat or display ledge; medium as opening for viewing out, forming apertures from which to capture aspects of the city; smallest are grouped together to carry light into rooms and to create visual relief (RSP Architects, n.d.).

This large amount of randomize openings all over the exterior facilitate natural surveillance to the surrounding with trace of panoptic design in which no one is certain whether are they being watched or not, but the fear of it is there.

85

Figure 47 – Random openings on the external façade to create views and thus facilitates surveillance.

(Jonathan Choe, 2012)

Figure 48 – The randomize window openings along the external façade allow surveillance over the surrounding, while also at the same time creating the similar effect of Panopticon as the public is unknown of whether are there people watching behind the façade. (Author, 2017)

In contrary to the rigid external profile, the all-glass internal façade and spatial arrangement are also designed in such a way that natural surveillance can occur effortlessly between the interior. Its visual porosity permits the public to engage with the activities of student within (President’s Design Award, 2008) and vice versa.

86

Figure 49 – Contrasting to the ambiguity of surveillance through the external wall (left), the façade facing the internal courtyard is being opened up for transparency (right), which enables a different form of participatory surveillance (RSP Architects, n.d.)

For better participatory surveillance opportunity, the central courtyard is placed surrounded by six blocks of school internal spaces, with public walkways mingling in between them. It creates a natural focus point to the courtyard. The interface between the public space below and the private space within the blocks are also lined with spaces of higher traffic flow such as corridors or sharing spaces to further enhances people presence thus the potential of participatory surveillance.

87

Figure 50 – Plan with highlighted areas showing how higher traffic areas such as open space, walkway and lobbies are designed to be against the façade for better opportunities of people participating in surveillance (RSP Architects, n.d.)

Figure 51 – A zoom in one of the block in showing where enclosed rooms are being located further back in the corner, leaving the higher people flow space such as lobby and walkway adjacent to the façade. (Author, 2017)

To ensure the effectiveness of such natural surveillance, the school complex is designed in accordance to the limitation suggested by Jan Gehl (2010) for empowering human senses to perform, in which the scale of the school has respected 88

both the distance and height limit of effective surveillance. In this case, the diagonally measured distance from end to end is approximately 130 m, in which from any point of the open space to the other end is not more than 100 m – the limit of human senses.

The elongated courtyard with the walkways can also be separated into several nodes whereby each of them are able to cover the entire open space within the range of 25 m – the distance whereby human emotions can be decoded.

Figure 52 – Turning point and multiple axes form around a few nodes within the public space enables an effective human view of within 50m. (Author, 2017)

In terms of height limit, Gehl (2010) recommended five storeys and below for meaningful communication, while two storeys or less for excellent. This is precisely carried through the school’s design as the complex can basically be separated into two sections: five storeys above of glass façade and classrooms for internal communication; and two storeys of ground and lower ground level which is occupied by the public to have a better communication channel in between.

89

Figure 53 – Lasalle College of the Arts’ section. (RSP Architects, n.d.)

Figure 54 – By having 5 habitable spaces above ground and 2 basements, the design respects the scale and limitation of effective human interactions. (Author, 2017)

It is crucial that these limitations are taken seriously in design consideration and scaling of the building, in which bigger building should be broken down into smaller sections and nodes. Participatory surveillance will not be effective if messages or emotions cannot be decoded, and that is if the channel of communication goes beyond the limit of human senses.

90

4.3 – SUMMARY Although various theories of passive surveillance as per discussed of Chapter 3 suggested either contradictory characteristics whether or not to internalize or externalize control, and also on how such theories slowly deviated from architectural space to urbanism, a study on the Lasalle School of the Arts suggested otherwise. The concepts of passive surveillance do persist in the case study, and instead of reading the theories as individual urban criteria, the case study managed to translate these theories into a new form of architecture typology by redefining the form, accessibility, space and experience. It managed to draw relationship between them to establish coexistence within a space. The result is a more holistic passive participatory design that balances out between the needs of forming territoriality and the idea of creating openness.

91

CHAPTER 5 – DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSION This chapter will bring forward a discussion on the potentiality of incorporating participatory surveillance and how their interrelationship influences and changes the architectural design by cross referencing the findings from Chapter 3 and Chapter 4. It also serves to wrap up the dissertation by reflecting upon the relationship between various concepts within participatory surveillance and how such consideration could play a major role in design stage in providing an added dimension of control.

5.1 – DISCUSSIONS 5.1.1 – Interrelationship between Passive Surveillance Framework Analysing the literature review itself proposed several concepts of passive surveillance which tend to segregate themselves into two opposing groups: to internalize control, such as those proposed by Oscar Newman in Defensible Space Theory (1972) or to incorporate public as suggested by Jane Jacobs (1961). While they seemingly contradict each other, a further study on the Lasalle School of the Arts breaks down the grouping and suggested an otherwise possibility for uniting all the criteria when considering through architectural elements such as form, accessibility, space, and experience.

While the theoretical frameworks are viewed as independent ideas and sometimes contradictory to one another, they are actually not mutually exclusive as a relationship matrix can be drawn between them that enable the union of contradictory ideas. In such scenario, the critical point of implementing surveillance control is to establish a strong sense of territoriality (Newman, 1972), but such territorial identity should not be too overwhelming that it resulted in a carceral environment.

92

Considering the element of territoriality within the framework of internalizing surveillance is rather straightforward, as that is what Oscar Newman has proposed.

The idea of a panopticon as a diagram of power (Foucault, 1975) can be complimentary to the elements of image/milieu and natural surveillance which form part of the Defensible Space Theory, altogether eventually strengthened territoriality.

However, the overly fortification of a space could leads to unhealthy environment (Mawby, 1977), and this is where the introduction of public as form of surveillance comes into play to create a more socially sustainable environment (Cozens, 2011, p.481). Yet, the concept of openness for public not only contradicts to the establishment of territoriality, but could be detrimental to the effectiveness of surveillance and control in overall.

Hence, limitations are to be set within the frameworks in order to balance the two opposing concepts and for them to co-exist for mutual benefits. These limitations are the interface of human interactions within the space and how various spaces interacts with their environments, as mentioned by Jan Gehl (2010). These limitations control the extent to which interaction occurs, manipulating the degree of territoriality and openness. They limit the level of openness within one’s territorial control through the scale of the space while keeping the sense of territoriality at a healthy level by creating spatial interaction with the neighbourhood. An unchecked limitation could potentially leads a space to over-fortification that the environment becomes carceral, or too free-flow that it sabotages the ability to control, or even a mixture of both that is neither here nor there, and participatory surveillance fails.

93

Figure 55 – The relationship between the strategies, showing that controlling interface for surveillance can acts as a regulatory body for the contradicting ideas of surveillance from within and from public to coexist for better result (Author, 2018)

94

5.1.2 – Decoding Passive Surveillance Theory in Sequential Form Apart from viewing the participatory surveillance framework in the form of individual strategies, the enabling of such control can be choreographed in a sequential manner for a more holistic design. Although the application of surveillance is intended for the occupants within, in other words it spreads from inside out, from spatial experiences to eventually how the building form contributes to the sense of territoriality in a bigger picture, the process of enabling such surveillance rely much on the presence of public, and thus should be decoded from the opposite manner, developed through the first impression of the building form itself, and then to its accessibility as one approaches, to its spaces as one enters, and to the details or experiences as one utilizes.

The integration of participatory surveillance is thus a complex of Bentham’s panoptic model, where the occupants are the central of the concept and how the space around them is designed to correspond with, reflected upon urban theories of surveillance which centred on creation of surrounding environment to enable control. In such term, the design consideration of participatory surveillance extents over the preconceive idea of urban environment and also disciplinary space. It oscillates in between, that design thinking should go in both directions and vice versa.

For the public, the first level of interaction occur at the building form itself whereby it plays crucial role in attracting or repelling crowds: an intriguing, positive image draws favourable attentions and generates positive identity of a wellmaintained space with great occupants’ authority (Newman, 1972). This then leads to the accessibility of the design, whereby it should allow for a great degree of porosity that invites public to utilize, thus activating the space. Participatory surveillance only occurs when public are presence within the space and stay for a longer period, and

95

thus it is important to design the experiences and activities that one will encounter within.

On the other hand, for the occupants, building upon the idea of participatory panopticon, the immediate effect of participatory surveillance occurs they participate in the space itself and interact with the people around (Albrechtslund, n.d.; Cascio, 2005). The spatial quality of the space should suggest a well-regulated environment, that no corners are left unchecked in order to foster a sense of responsibility among the occupants to take of their environment (Newman, 1972), and this atmosphere can be achieved through managing the accessibility, both the movement of public and the movement of occupants within the space. The accessibility to the space is what connects the two parties together, and such action is to be regulated by the manipulation of territoriality which is greatly contributed by the building form that demarcates a boundary or threshold in between (Newman, 1972).

Figure 56 – When designing for participatory surveillance, the design consideration should go both way from form to experiences and vice versa (Author, 2018)

At the end of the sequence, both parties relate themselves to their own roles, and the interaction contributes to the formation of a controlled space. In this way, by 96

separating the roles of the users and choreographing the space individually before being put together again, both the urban theories and panoptic idea can be brought together to fill the gap of architectural study.

5.1.3 – Prepping the Architecture to Accommodate and Limit Risk The evolution of panopticon and surveillance theories to the eventual application of active CCTV system is seen as a reaction towards increasing building complexity and generalization of use. While the acceptance of CCTV is being challenged by various privacy concerning issues (Koskela, 2000) as well as its effectiveness (Jonescu, 2016), the application of such system still involves only singular party, whereby the its functioning is regulated by the authority of the space, similarly to that of a Panopticon oversight by officers operating the prison. The implementation of participatory surveillance on the other hand involves directing public flow through a space, and the result of the surveillance take place through the interaction between two parties.

Contradict to the other concepts of containing risk and taking charge of surveillance power, participatory surveillance opens up to the public. Hence, a precaution step is to be taken beforehand in risk control.

The effectiveness of such strategy is varied by analysing and controlling potential risk, and it started off as one approaches the architecture. From being looked afar to up close experiences, the image of the building (Newman, 1972) become the first contact point between the public and the occupants. As the first line of filter, it carries a primal role in not just dictating the kind of environment that the intended program is cater for and designed to be, but also suggesting the possible mood one is to expect while approaching, whether it is formal, informal, or even a mix, and to what extend each of them are to be portrayed within the mixture. In the case of 97

Lasalle School of the Arts, it carries a formidable outlook draped in black and defies the neighbouring scale through its scaleless approach. This profile itself becomes an attention grabber in attracting crowd. But when one comes near, the thick, solid envelop suggests a serious, well-mannered environment walled within, and the architecture is introverted with spaces facing in into the courtyard instead, suggesting limited interaction to the street and that the public space within is not that public after all. It sets a different tone in telling the public that shall they choose to enter, they are subjected to certain authority and are expected to a definite level of proper behaviour.

This way, it brings in public and dictates them on the proper way of utilizing the space.

Furthermore, entering the space is not made effortlessly. It is introduced with change of levelling, materials and surrounded by greeneries and walkways. All these lengthen the threshold in between, filtering crowd and embedding cautiousness. While the building envelop is intimidating, the crack of entrances invite public into the central courtyard. Here, a further step is taken to demarcate the boundary between formal and informal spaces through changes in roof profile, from the private spaces being encased within canyon-like building and public space covered by white PTFE fabric that filters light into the spaces underneath. The well-litted space makes no dark areas or nooks and crannies for the public to hide within.

While interactions between public and occupants are all over the school, they are mostly being limited to visual connectivity. As both the public and private spaces are intersecting one another, the movement of each group is well separated: public are exposed: they take the ground, winding among and in between the blocks; occupants goes private and protected within the blocks connected via hanging bridges which

98

take the sky. Here, although the interactions and participations are central, design measures are being taken in mitigating potential threats to a more manageable level.

99

5.2 – CONCLUSION 5.2.1 – A Brief Overview This dissertation brings out the issue pertaining to the development of surveillance concept within architecture and intended to provide a new perspective to the subject matter. The aim of this study was driven by the following research problems arise through existing literature on the transdisciplinary study of architecture and surveillance: •

The panopticon model of surveillance is limited to certain simplified spatial arrangement not fitting for the increasing complexity of modern architecture.

•

The widely accepted usage of active technological system is deemed detrimental for privacy erosion and ineffectiveness.

•

The modern passive surveillance strategies shifted focus to urbanism rather than architectural space.

In responding to these, this paper examines the potentiality of an alternative in surveillance strategy incorporating public participation, by bringing in the urban theories to meet architectural elements in the term called “Participatory Surveillance”.

Hence, the research question that established was “How does participatory surveillance within a contemporary architecture space provide an added possibility of passive surveillance?”

A historical progression of transdisciplinary study between surveillance and architecture was first conducted in order to foster better understanding towards the idea of surveillance space and its needs. This revolves around the Panopticon introduced by Jeremy Bentham and furthering into the analytical studies of Foucault’s 100

interpretations on the panoptic model (Chapter 2). Still within architectural context, an extended study onto the implementation of active system such as CCTV and its concerning remarks follows to grasp a complete picture of the anthropological relationship between human, space, and surveillance.

The gap concluded from the background studies connects to the need of searching for alternative passive surveillance theories. While studies within architecture context leads to a limited outcome, the exploration into urbanism opens up new possibilities (Chapter 3), and a list framework was formulated and used against an architectural case study (Chapter 4) for examining the extent of such idea being exhibited. By bringing in various panoptic and urban strategies into contemporary architecture, further discussions then analyzes the implementation and limitation of incorporating participatory surveillance (Chapter 5).

5.2.2 – Findings of the Passive Surveillance Method through Participation Based on the conducted research in line with strategies set out in Chapter 1, the findings of the study (Chapter 2, 3, & 4) established the basis for the potentiality of participatory surveillance as an alternative. Upon analysis, the findings can thus be summarised at follow: •

The alternative of passive surveillance has to address the complexity of contemporary architecture not limiting to form and spatial constraint. The free-flowing nature of space can be reflected upon the social aspect of our current living environment: the intention of public to participate, and that participation has always been part of urban surveillance theories informed the potential of relating urban idea into architectural space.

101

•

Incorporating public in architectural space for participatory surveillance opens a new breadth of possibilities which could change the profile of architecture in addressing public porosity. The various contradicting theories of urban surveillance can co-exist within a space by addressing spatial limitation to control the extent to which they perform.

•

Designing to cater for participatory surveillance can be broken down into the public perspective and occupant perspective when considering elements such as form, accessibility, space and experience, before juxtaposing them together for a holistic whole.

5.2.3 – Contribution of the Theoretical Study to Architectural Surveillance Alternative This dissertation provides a suggestion that the gap in architectural surveillance strategies and the creation of carceral environment as result of technological gaze can be filled by rethinking surveillance from urban point of view. By incorporating public presence which was presumed to be subjugating the purpose of surveillance, a new form of passive surveillance – the participatory surveillance arises. While the concept was initially used by Albrechtslund (n.d.) and Jamais Cascio (2005) in social aspect of current context, the case study conducted examined that both the presence of public and the urban surveillance theories have crossing similarities in between.

While previous approach of dealing with surveillance in architectural space settled on the use of CCTV widely which required little effort of consideration during design stage, a new canon has brought into spotlight in designing integrating surveillance concerns. This bottom up strategy is more socially sustainable in the sense that is it less intrusive to the users compare to the electronic gaze as mention by 102

Koskela (2000). In aid to the complexity of contemporary architecture, building services should not be view as added instruments but flow seamlessly together as part of the design. Here, the study discloses the potential and urgent needs to explore architecture surveillance theories beyond mere technological applications. It also shows how theories from various disciplines are actually related.

5.2.4 – Recommendation to the Discourse of Surveillance Study While the study on participatory surveillance in this paper provides suggestion on the potentiality of new method in control, the concept of participatory itself, which rely a lot on the public, is highly associated with the cultural aspect of the immediate environment. While the case study conducted is located in Singapore, which is a relatively well-controlled environment, a similar set of strategies might not work in two different sites, and therefore a detailed analysis is still subjected to a particular location. Various level of participation can be deducted based on the nature of the context and its contents, and hence differing degree of participation should be made adjustable to response for the effectiveness of such concept. Further study could build upon the comparison between contextual or typological approach in implementing participatory surveillance.

In a bigger picture, the concept of surveillance is seemingly transferable among various fields, whether it is a transdisciplinary or interdisciplinary relationship.

The idea pertaining to surveillance and control as discussed in this dissertation should not be limited to architectural studies as it could form a reflection upon current surveillance society as well as studies regarding phenomenology, psychology and even sociology. Similarly, the study of surveillance within architectural context shall not be limiting to building elements as it deals with people, moods and experiences, 103

but to acknowledge the presence of other theories within and beyond built environment which could potentially suggest added possibilities of addressing architectural issue.

104

REFERENCE Architecture and Anthropology Curiosity Collaborative (AACC) (n.d.). Surveillance. [online] Available at http://architectureanthropology.com/articles/surveillance Baird, G. (2003). The Space of Appearance. Cambridge: The MIT Press Architizer. (n.d.). La Salle College of the Arts. [online] Available at https://architizer.com/projects/la-salle-college-of-the-arts/ [accessed 29 Nov. 2017] ArchiTravel. (2013). LASALLE College of the Arts. [online] Available at http://www.architravel.com/architravel/building/lasalle-college-of-the-arts/ [accessed 28 Nov. 2017] Brunon-Ernst., A. (2012). Beyond Foucault – New Perspectives on Bentham’s Panopticon. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Choe, J. (2012). Urban Architecture Now: Lasalle College of the Arts. [online] Available at http://www.urbanarchnow.com/2012/03/lasalle-college-of-arts.html [accessed 29 Nov. 2017] Donnelly, P. G. (2010). Newman, Oscar: Defensible Space Theory. Sociology Anthropology and Social Work Faculty Publications, Paper 30.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline & Punish - The Birth of the Prison (pp 195-228). New York: Vintage Books.

Galic, M., Timan, T. & Koops, B. (2016). Bentham, Deleuze and Beyond: An Overview of Surveillance Theories from the Panopticon to Participation.

Philosophy & Technology, 30(1), 9-37, 2017, DOI: 10.1007/s13347-016-02191 Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for People. Washington: Island Press.

Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage Books.

Jonescu, E. (2016). Designing urban spaces for sustainable behaviour: Shaping communities and social conditions through surveillance – a paradox of public protection at the expense of personal privacy. International Journal of Sustainability Policy and Practice. 12 (3): pp. 1-11 Jonescu, E. (2017). Security and Density – Hyper-surveillance, public safety and social sustainability. In Bay, J.H.P & Lehmann, S. (Eds.), Growing Compact – Urban Form, Density and Sustainability. New York: Routledge.

105

Klauser, F. (2004). A Comparison of the Impact of Protective and Preservative Video Surveillance on Urban Territoriality: The Case of Switzerland. Surveillance & Society 2, 2(3), pp. 145-160.

Kokcu, A. C. (2017).

Lasalle. [online] Available at http://alperego.com/blog/2017/7/10/lasalle-singapore [accessed 28 Nov. 2017] Koskela, H. (2000). The Gaze Without Eyes – Video Surveillance and the Changing Nature of Urban Space. Progress in Human Geography, 24(2), pp. 243–265.

Koskela, H. (2003). “Cam-Era” – The Contemporary Urban Panopticon. Surveillance & Society, 1(3), pp. 292-313.

Monahan, T. (2011). Surveillance as Cultural Practice. The Sociological Quarterly, 52, pp. 495-508.

Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space: Crime Prevention Through Urban Design.

New York: Macmillan.

Piro, J.M. (2008). Foucault and the Architecture of Surveillance: Creating Regimes of Power in Schools, Shrines, and Society. Educational Studies, 44:1, 30-46, DOI: 10.1080/00131940802225036 President’s Design Award. (2008). Design of the Year 2008: Lasalle College of the Arts. [online] Available at https://www.designsingapore.org/pda/awardrecipients/2008/lasalle-college-of-the-arts [accessed 27 Nov. 2017] Reynald, D.M. & Elffers, H. (2009). The Future of Newman’s Defensible Space Theory. European Journal of Criminology, Volume 6 (1): 25-46:1477-3708, DOI: 10.1177/1477370808098103 Reynald, D.M. (2014). Environmental Design and Crime Events. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, January 2014, DOI: 10.1177/1043986214552618 RSP Architects. (n.d.). LASALLE College of the Arts: “Black Box” Turned Inside Out. [online] Available at http://www.rsp.com.sg/project/show?id=220 [accessed 27 Nov. 2017] Schutte, S. (2010). Trust and Surveillance. (Master Thesis, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay).

Retrieved from http://knowledgecommons.lakeheadu.ca/handle/2453/3970 Sheridan, C. (2016). Foucault, Power & Modern Panopticon. (Senior Thesis, Trinity College, Hartford). Retrived from http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/theses/548 Tilley, A. R. & Henry Dreyfuss Associates. (2002). The Measure of Man and Woman. Human Factors in Design. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

106

University College London (UCL) (n.d.). Bentham Project: Panopticon. [online] Available at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/bentham-project/who/panopticon [accessed 10 Oct. 2017] Yates, F. (2016). Architectural Transcendance – To What Extend have the Writings of Bentham Affected The Evolution of Surveillance in Regards to Architecture? [online] Available at https://briefsimplicity.com/blog/architecturaltranscendence [accessed 17 Sept. 2017]

107