Architecture influences behavior; it does not determine it.

Como sempre, o blog Architectures of Control continua do melhor. Desta vez Dan Lockton faz uma recensão do artigo "Architecture as Crime Control", de Neal Katyal, publicado há uns anos no Yale Law Journal. Deixo aqui o resumo do artigo, embora o texto de Dan Lockton valha, ele todo, a pena.

Building on work in architectural theory, Professor Katyal demonstrates how attention to cities, neighborhoods, and individual buildings can reduce criminal activity. The field of cyberlaw has been transformed by the insight that architecture can regulate behavior in cyberspace; Professor Katyal applies this insight to the regulation of behavior in real space. The instinct of many attorneys is to focus on criminal law as the dominant method of social control without recognizing physical constraints--constraints that are sometimes even shaped by civil law. Ironically, even an architectural problem in crime control--broken windows--has prompted legal, not architectural, solutions. The Article considers four architectural concepts: increasing an area's natural surveillance, introducing territoriality, reducing social isolation, and protecting potential targets. These mechanisms work in subtle, often invisible, ways to deter criminal activity and, if employed properly, could stymie the need for architectural self-help solutions that are often counterproductive because they increase overall crime rates.
Professor Katyal then illustrates specific legal mechanisms that harness the power of architecture to prevent crime. Distinguishing situations where the government acts as a builder, as a civil regulator, and as a criminal enforcer, the Article suggests solutions in a variety of legal fields, drawing on property, torts, taxation, contracts, and criminal law. Procurement and taxation strategies can promote effective public architecture; crime impact statements, zoning, tort suits, and contractual regulation may engender private architectural solutions as well. Criminal law, particularly through forfeiture, may also play a role. Several problems with architectural regulation are considered, such as the extension of social control and potential losses in privacy. Professor Katyal concludes by suggesting that local jurisdictions devote more attention to architecture as a constraint on crime instead of putting additional resources toward conventional law enforcement.

E destaco esta deliciosa sugestão de Katyal de como a simples adição de um arco a uma zona residencial pode mudar os comportamentos de quem não lá reside. Isto é, dos indesejados. Porque a arquitectura, embora não determine, influencia os comportamentos. Não o esqueçamos.