Urban Design as Technology of (Counter?) Democratic Security Politics

How does architecture operate as a security technology? This contribution sets out how reflexive research and urban studies approach built environments political inclusion exclusion instruments. It first presents this role is understood to in the respective scholarly fields, then illustrates its ambivalent operation with two mini-case centering on Bogotá Zürich. In doing so, seeks familiarize readers architecture-oriented analysis, draw main lines of further investigation. Wie funktioniert Architektur als Sicherheitstechnologie? Dieser Beitrag umreisst, wie Sicherheits- und Stadtforschung die gebaute Umgebung Mittel der politischen In- Exklusion konzipiert. Er erklärt erst, diese Rolle den beiden Fachgebieten verstanden wird, um dann ihre ambivalente Funktionsweise anhand von zwei Mini-Fallstudien zu Bogota Zürich empirisch illustrieren. Damit ist das Ziel des Beitrags, Leser architekturorientierte Politikforschung einzuführen weiterfolgende Forschungsrichtungen skizzieren. Comment l’architecture fonctionne-t-elle en tant que technologie de sécurité? Cet article décrit comment les et conçoivent l’environnement bâti comme un moyen d’inclusion d’exclusion politique. Il explique d’abord ce rôle est conçu par deux spécialisations, puis illustre empiriquement son fonctionnement avec observations faites à Zurich. Le but l’article familiariser lecteurs approches réflexives aux processus politiques études orientées vers architecture, décrire perspectives recherche qui découlent. Urban design increasingly used for city-oriented production – not just internationally (UN Habitat 2020; Agenda EU 2020), also Switzerland (Basel-Stadt 2019; Schweizerischer Städteverband 2013) –, it thus becomes included into latter’s politics in- exclusion. brief contribution, we showcase consciously mobilized technology (in broad sense, see introduction debate), perspective use offers productive avenues. because focus allows asking new ways whether ‘more better’, technological interventions are appropriated, they reconfigure social ordering. Security drawing IR well placed endeavor, proposes integrative dialectical analyses may be empowering/disempowering inclusive/exclusive. Our specificities ontology, design’s politics, said link line purpose an SPSR debate, no exaggeration say that scholars have particular interest security’s tense relations democratic rule. science classics, concern often dates back World War II. Total, global nuclear warfare pushed lasting agenda expand control agencies, civilize destructive logics nationalist (Wolfers 1952). Since then, keeps keen eye accountability mechanisms, such work parliamentary committees or intelligence oversight bodies (Mello Peters 2018). Yet, while formal important, invites scientists adopt wider, more dialogical material views implications. perspective, inclusive character shows procedural questions who defines threats beneficiaries protection behalf society, socio-technical acts populations everyday settings (Huysmans 2014; Loader Walker 2007). These avenues imply extended understanding endorse comprehensive rule relate. approach, since permits analyze asynchronous developments between practices when expands absence broader societal debates about what threatens nation, truly citizen-oriented policing (Zedner 2009). Reflexive investigates these complexities advances useful frameworks their analysis. One prominent case securitization theory, which interested elite-driven constructions threat narratives restriction deliberative space (Buzan al. 1998). Another notion dispositives, addresses arrangements identify, observe discipline unwarranted behavior, i.e., produce by conceptualizing acting (safe) (dangerous) out-group (Bigo 2008; Haggerty Ericson 2000). At higher level abstraction, entails conceptual redefinition about. view, merely refers means violence (Walt 1991) largely defined (Aradau 2004), process operation. Important strands within quarters embrace socio-material ontologies processes variegated manifestations wider (whereas socio-linguistic parsing policies speeches prevailed earlier). Today, considerable focuses unarticulated habitual enacting (Hagmann 2018; Pouliot 2008), demonstrated other contributions debate ‘things’, cameras, databases, drones fences (Schouten 2014) politics. When there ambition eschew deterministic universalizing claims. Security’s relation seen continuous negotiation rather than being constant, traditional equations national survival suggest. By same token, discourses technologies do impose themselves populations, actively accepted, resisted, appropriated reconfigured 2013). The actual evolves from local realities: operates security, example, globally uniform. depends ideas insecurity, regime culture, state-society relations, market powers, architectural heritages media civil society vibrancy, among others. co-constituted forces agency together, stabilizes across time space. short take contextualized, dialectical, genealogical comparative methods 2019a). orientation converge themes previously seemed unlikely bedfellows, cities, (Coward timely insofar city re-emerges powerful policymaker (e.g., UN 2020). 9/11 attacks one factor strengthened idea prime site international insecurity (Home Office 20142014). However, cities gained political, social, economic cultural value past decades, acquired additional relevance so-called ‘referent objects’ (this is, objects protection; Beall, Goodfellow Rodgers Age epoch majority humankind resides settlements so (re-)discovered key sites practitioners (Rodrigues 2017). They become enlisted contributors acted upon places where integrated management resilience programming required Some argue ‘new battlespace’ tout court, central terrain altogether (Graham With this, enters field hitherto ignored dimension. To address varied security-gating Latin America’s (Jütersonke 2008) counter-terror fortifications Western capitals (Nemeth Hollander 2010) sectarian compartmentalization cities-in-conflict (Fawaz 2012) above-described ontology widely International Political Sociology, Geography, Studies, Critical Criminology Anthropology. close question very construction residential areas, commercial public spaces, streets squares instruct save incapacitate threatening activities encourage safe choices, gauge inclusive/exclusive nature process. ‘democratic interest’ at heart links up Studies’ urban/public manifestation arena democracy. design, intimately intertwined stakeholder and/or negotiation. appeal classic Greek Agora echoes today’s uses during Arab Spring, Hong Kong protesters, Black Lives Matter movement, looking steers behavior both intent result appropriation hence brings quality full circle: Design mere aesthetics. Concrete matter norms normalizes shapes dwellers participate co-negotiating life (Coaffee 2004). empowers types rich empirical (e.g. Hagmann 2017; Samara 2010), consequently reengage theories. Particularly prominently, helps implied assumptions environmental criminology theories (routine activity, rational choice defensive cf. Cohen Felson 1979; Cornish Clarke 1986), popular approaches study crime spatial organization. simplified, misappropriated universalized natural surveillance mixed-use development popularized (Raymen 2016). points place-based theory relies too narrowly models insensitive understandings (in-)security. Similarly, testing applied programs, Crime Prevention Through Environmental (CPTED) approach. CPTED promoted major alliances, banks governments today. claims appropriate building strategic physical re-arrangement effectively reduce asocial, criminal terrorist activities. analysis can identify programs counterproductive, attempt regulate through arrangement creates spaces without interaction, insecure non-spaces (Cozens 2011; Raymen Taking things distinctive policy, environment made complicit senses managerial security-minded interacts aspirations connections vary cityscape (Roy Ong 2011), pursued concepts causation, thoroughly localized data collection. following our fieldwork illustrate utility perspective. centers gating Colombian Bogotá, second architecture’s Swiss Violence conflict shaped decades. riots ignited now drastic North/South divide segregated city, persistent war created shaken fear, fully engaged talk (Caldeira 2000), pervasive fear express reproduce insecurity. A discourse over 3’500 Gated Communities (GCs) fences, walls occasional gates (Dehaene Cauter 2008, figure 1). GCs make almost 40% Bogotá’s households (calculation based DANE 2017) represent prevailing form housing (De la Carrera 2015). erection upgrading devices cameras barbed wire extreme adaptation defensible concept target hardening - measures improve resistance, riskier expensive (Newman 1972). intend create high secure within, homogenous community controls own environment, intentionally discourage specific users, especially non-resident pedestrians 2000) outside gates, projecting abroad strong messages exclusion, inequality hostility (Marcuse 1997). Indeed, interaction insiders outsiders decrease beyond GC (Becerril-Sanchez And enhance residents, non-places insufficient without, causing users (figure 2). Even guards patrolling adjacent streets), strictly serves needs residents. Non-resident aware meant them, feel uncomfortable presence patrols (interviews, Kostenwein, 2018-2019). symptom catalyst government’s retreat providing services. policymakers them privatize parks (Samper 1989). shifted private management. Typically, administration deploys regulations has residents (Hurtado regulative power recurrently spills surrounding sometimes quite literally, contract install patrol GC. cases, entire neighborhoods locked off controlled administration. Sometimes happens subtly, agents interfere unwanted (or users) perimeter, systematically notifying police. situation, participatory under ways. Firstly, privatization amenities reduces possibility cooperation conception planning. institutions entrusted transparent planning replaced decisions real estate developers serving clients interests. Secondly, threatened extraterritorial way, expression. agents, comes displacement function core 2003). stark socio-spatial inequality, decades armed recent peace deal aiming kind development, general access guaranteed constitution. future physically many them. need live gated ‘secure’ life, enabling infrastructure, exclusionary antidemocratic GCs, remains Colombia’s capital American generally develop future. constitution, functioning legacy design-assisted essential component reproduction segregation. different socio-political contexts, be. interesting regard, test design-oriented Switzerland. been city’s station’s latest expansion, called Bahnhof Löwenstrasse (SBB 2019, figures 3, 4). Built 2015, third subterranean station primary throughway East-West transport corridor. Its drew directly imported security-by-design thinking, mainly principles: platforms designed highly Following advice police officers, sight unobstructed throughout allow collective self-control. Extraordinarily bright colors were ceilings, dazzling light systems installed. Wear-proof fabrics selected, sharp edges reduced, overall waste disposal system streamlined. Design-oriented parts larger complex. transition older station, walkways refurbished brighter lights installed, again view enhancing security. ATMs ticket machines repositioned diminish risk theft, stores ordered let merchandise impede sight, stop shining windows. Lastly, benches redesigned loitering. complex travel hub handling 450’000 passengers per day, workplace 2’000 shopping ensemble 180 services open 365 days year was sought direct strategically materiality. choices endeavor (natural surveillance), minimize uniformed presence, ‘static’ lingering. As technology, adapts multiple yet distinctively functions found mobility context pronounced commercialization. keep mass-movement fluid, benefit transit compromise requirements paradigm point potentially technology. On hand, seek straightforward little-to-discuss Possibilities action concrete, nudging outright forcing individuals preferred modes action. unlike techno-determinist situation would Newman 2009), around authoritative ‘authoritarian’. Different large zones established downtown New York City train still shot circuits dialogue contestation. local) production, sizable feedback loops remain 2019b). company Securitas, operator SBB personnel interlocutors publics, disagreement tools plans forcefully articulated via hotlines, organized groups legislatures. All while, continue purposes, refuse enact push constant circulation. Overall, strategy guide visitors’ subtle ways, makes difficult spot discuss. shut down all agency, however, only defining which, Zürich, conditioned tradition intersect ever strongly, understand, situate compare processes, recognizing situatedness, evolution, effects studies’ apprehension offer constructive governance. inspiring science, think roles layouts, concrete processes. time, opens substantial Relations scholarship. highlight ambivalence commonly expected, (such CPTED) ‘work out’ differently municipal, regional contexts. Combining insight conducted Maghreb, Southern Africa Central Asia, others clear necessity contextualized studies, engage theory-building. Without effort, increasing mobilization diverse (counter-) poorly understood. Jonas Senior Researcher University Geneva, Visiting Lecturer IHEID Geneva Scientific Advisor Fondation Botnar’s Safe Environments Program. His governmentality, sociology experimentalism David Kostenwein Doctoral Institute Science, Technology Policy ETH sociospatial segregation interplay policies, Email: [email protected]. support findings available request corresponding author. publicly due privacy ethical restrictions.