Affect Architecture on Behavior of the Society - Literature review Example

Architecture and Power Student’s Name Subject Professor University/Institution Location Date Introduction In an examination of how scholars have argued and expressed understanding on architecture, it is possible to develop coherent argument on how power control affects behavior and people (Lockton, 2011). The diverse set of concepts and methods in some of journals helps in understanding the ways in which architecture regulates the social, economic and political phenomena. To develop relevant discussion, various approaches such as pull and push factors, demographic and economic, negotiations and differences are implicated on architecture. Expressions of Architecture Power can be proactively used to influence specified behavior, like enhancing or reducing social interaction. Sometimes power determines the place, designs, planning, geography, and social factors applied in architecture. There are categorizations that provide clear and practical perspectives on outcomes of power related architecture. In some cases architectural aspects are seen in ways they develop special patters of interaction, communication and biases. As argued by (Kesan, 2007) architecture can be used as a means by which symbolic meaning and cultural expressions are communicated, determine and affect people interactions and promote biases by favoring some values and social groups. According to Moore & Barbara, (2009) building codes are expressed through planning, construction, zoning, manufacturing, ordinances and policies and health laws used to regulate the built environments. Power has been used to control and determine architecture, and through power, architectural planning decisions are mostly employed to meet political and strategic agendas. In turn architecture is then used as a regulatory force. Through power, architecture has been used to revitalize impoverished regions. Government and authority has also used massive development programs and settlements to colonies and occupy territories. The architecture policies enacted and enforced on certain areas, shopping centers and central business districts can serve to change the demographic as well as economic make-up of an area. This is seen from how architecture has been used in controlling and influencing the public behaviors when power is embodied in many ways. However, the surface purposes of such development mostly seem to follow the aspects of economic sustainability, efficient services and ecology. Power and law recognizes the communicative function of particular architecture. Expressions of cultural and symbolic values can be done through the choice of materials, sizes, forms, colors landscaping and furnishings for a certain building. Some buildings design, express values of security, reliability and trust. The techniques used enhance a certain feeling for instance reliability and continuity. It is possible then to argue that, when certain features are conventionally understood, they function as a control system between people. They also serve to attract or repulse other activities, and interactions. The built environment therefore, determines how architecture communicates. Aspects of power such as prestige and privacy are applied and therefore buildings reproduce and symbolize elements of specific cultural life. Power can serves a commercial end through manipulation of the communicative properties of architectures. Products prices, services and features can change between different buildings, locations and times. Most of the times, architecture communicate this in an obvious and pervasive manner. Architecture and Interactions In his discussion Carmona, et al (2010) argues that design is a process meant to solve a certain problem. Decisions by political forces in most cases dominate over communal policies .We can therefore argue that, those who are in positions of making policies determine how the problem will be solved. Designs have more than the visual and physical appearance. The idea behind a design is to create places for people. Since people actively participate in making choices and plans, their lifestyles and values will be embedded on architectural designs where they work, live and get services. Urban design action has the global, local, regulatory and market contexts. In all these aspects, power will favor their best scenario between the alternatives. It is therefore, important and as we can see that most architectural designs has significant attachment to global relations, manifested in politics, business and culture. There are dimensions in design such as morphological, social, visual, perceptual, temporal and functional. Depending on who is in power and significant relations around them, the architectural designs are procured, communicated and controlled for implementation and to ensure delivery mechanisms. Municipalities policies regulate built environment appearance (Tappendorf, 2002). Architectural design regulations put in place inhibit unfettered rights of property owners and architects in design of homes. Limited power on some groups of people will therefore affect their choices and powerful determining forces will therefore control their decisions and actions. In these regions they also enforce a ban on sign sizes, content, colors of houses, protection of historical buildings and apply design review for buildings to meet societal preferences. There is always a force behind, invested in power and this determines when things are done, who does them and how on these localities. There are many purposes of regulations but mostly they serve the regulation purpose of significant powerful figures and such can be deduced from how a certain building communicates. Through power architecture can be structured in a way to encourage or discourage the social interactions. Power determines the people who are offered healthy, beautiful, spacious, clean and well-balanced architecture. The standards, needs and expectations of such places measures the capability of people to meet them, improve and continuous provision of required services. These are incorporated when power bargain with developers. Functions are also separated through movement and zoning. Created cities and neighborhoods therefore, determine social interaction and resulting communities relationships (Talen, 2002). Compact neighborhoods with many buildings have mixture of activities. Architecture designs can facilitate or prevent such interaction. While hallways discourage interaction, circular rooms, common stairwells, water coolers, and porches encourage it. Places with plenty sitting spaces and other features like fountains, activities to watch and food stand successfully encourage social interactions. In US there is current rationale supporting New Urbanists ideas to be implemented to bring changes in land use ordinances and create better communities. According to Burnett, (2008) power applied to architecture determines the elements of territoriality, personal and disciplining spaces. This is consciously planned to affect people’s freedom. Specific buildings control the spatial ability between actors and define set of rules that govern this interaction. This is by the way they define the locations, visual paths and paths of movement. They also program encounters, and limits chance encounters. Architectural plans and powerful actors determines the person who does what, with whom, when, where, and observed by whom. Such analysis is largely applied to prisons, schools, shopping malls, hospitals, casinos and theme parks. Personal, organization and political power permeates in the layout of architectural structures. The location and layout carry elements of privacy, control style and bureaucracy. Architecture and Biases Power can continue embedded biases through architecture. The biases manifest by characteristics of architecture which favor particular people and certain values over others (Sheth et al., 2010). Architecture therefore, may not be neutral, but through power it expresses social and political elements. In addition, architecture can maintain or reproduce classifications and social values through segregation and exclusion. We can therefore see how an emphasis on social differences may determine the architectural developments. Gieryn, (2002) argues that buildings functions to stabilize social life. They are used as objects of interpretation, representation and narration. Through power some buildings are destroyed while others are continuously renovated to something unique. They then produce behavior patterns, durable social networks and structure the social institutions. This has been manifesting through religious, racial and class difference nearly every place. Examples are created disability movement and gendered spaces (Franck, 2002). There are other embedded values related to biases from age, class, race and ethnicity. Specific architecture can be build to embed values of safety, reliability or efficiency. The nature of gendered spaces is well manifest in public toilets designs. The outgoing nature of men for conventions and sporting activities is favored I many places by building more toilet spaces. Recent changes have tried to equalize both gender spaces. Modernism in architecture has been seen as too good for underclass or workers and the affluent have been left to play with it (Hatherley, 2008). Postmodernism aesthetic has caused an increase in demolition, resettlement and movement. Society choices based on leisure, aesthetic and recreation and wanting of something special has clouded people’s judgment. Architectural creation creates cases adapted to specific stakeholders and audiences according to their capacity, capability, operation cost, and production. Inclusion of the people’s capacity to adopt new initiative in selection criteria dominate in architecture. This is seen by refined focus on those buildings and activities which present the most value while stopping activities with less value. Significant and powerful members in business are involved in deployment process, decisions making on timing, resources, articulating requirements, and to actively influence implementation teams to succeed. Conclusion Architecture has been and continues to change behavior of the society. Perceptions and intentions of specific group of people purport architectural conventions. Interpretation of these values underlies the resulting relationships, activities and goals of a place and space. Power has been employed therefore to restructure, regulate or maintain the social, economic and political aspects of architecture. References Burnett, A., 2008. Enterprise Architecture for Enterprise Planning. In O E, eds.Enterprise Architecture Conference Europe. o.P., p. o.S. Carmona, M., et al (2010). Public places, urban spaces: the dimensions of urban design. Amsterdam Boston: Architectural Press/Elsevier. Franck, K. (2002, Women and the Environment. In R. B. Bechtel & A. Churchman (Eds.), Gieryn, T., 2002, What Buildings Do. Theory & Society, 31, 35-74. Hatherley, O. 2008, Militant modernism. Winchester, England Washington, D.C: O Books.  Lawyer, 34, 961-969. Lockton, D. (2011, September 12). Architecture, urbanism, design and behavior: a brief review. Retrieved September 28, 2012, from Design with Intent Blog: http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk Moore, S. & Barbara, W., 2009, Contested Construction of Green Building Codes in North America: The Case of the Alley Flat Initiative, Urban studies, 46(12) 2617–2641 Shah, R. & Kesan, Manipulating the Governance Characteristics of Code. Info, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 3-9.  Sheth, S. et al., 2010. weHelp : A Reference Architecture for Social Recommender Systems. Architecture, p.46-47. Talen, E. 2002. The Social Goals of New Urbanism. Housing Policy Debate, 13(1), 165-188. Tappendorf, J. A. (2002). Architectural Design Regulations: What Can a Municipality Do To Protect Against Unattractive, Inappropriate, and Just Plain Ugly Structures. Urban Handbook of Environmental Psychology (pp. 347-362). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Read More