Towards an Architecture of Peace

By Lucas Redekop

In the December edition of the The Walrus, Charles Montgomery asks the question “Can the shape of a city really change the psychology of its inhabitants?” The question is asked in an article entitled “The Archipelago of Fear: Are fortification and foreign aid making Kabul more dangerous?” where Montgomery hypothesizes that fortification architecture is hindering any hope of lasting peace in Kabul.

I found the Montgomery article fascinating because it brings up a question I find interesting and that I continually ask myself; “Is there such a thing as an architecture of peace?” Or more practically, “Can we design buildings and plan cities in a way that fosters peace?

To answer my own question, I do not believe there is a specific structure or formula for peaceful cities, but I am beginning to believe that cities and buildings that work towards encouraging social interaction, rather than separating people, are more open to breakthroughs of peace.

Jane Jacobs, the late urban thinker, commented that areas of the city that have a constant daily pedestrian traffic are more safer than areas of the city that have sporadic and limited pedestrian traffic. Simply put, very seldom are crimes committed in large crowds of people because of the constant surveillance of the observant masses.

That one small example shows how architecture, knowingly or unknowingly, can create places of public safety simply by putting people together. However, architecture is not developed out of thin air, but is more often than not developed from philosophical preconceptions. And I want to argue that many people, like the aid agencies and military outfits in Kabul, choose a fortress mentality to their and our own detriment. I believe that, whether we know it or not, when we choose separation we are choosing the illusion of safety rather than leaving ourselves open to a peace that results from social interaction.

For example, many people avoid living in certain areas of the city because those areas are perceived as “dangerous” and thus prefer to drive to and from work. However, statistically you are more likely to get killed in car crash than be a victim of a random act of violence, and furthermore the benefits of walking more make you less likely to suffer life-threatening ailments in the future. Malcolm Gladwell has an excellent article in which he shows the illusion of safety is often more dangerous than the perceived danger itself.

Which begs the question, “By making ourselves more vulnerable are we actually making ourselves safer and our architecture more peaceful?”

Further Reading:

Gladwell – http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html

Montgomery -  http://walrusmagazine.com/articles/2008.12-international-affairs-the-archipelago-of-fear/

1 Comment(s)

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI