Architecture, interaction, and social control: The case of a large-scale housing project.

Abstract

While it is clear that social and economic factors, particularly the level and stability of income, are major determinants of social and economic life-styles (Kahl, 1957), there is also evidence that the architectural design of the homes in which families live has an effect on the manner in which they live (Festinger, Schacter, & Back, 1950; Gans, 1963; Schorr, 1963;Wilner, Walkley, Pinkerton, & Tayback, 1962). Yet, it cannot be assumed that a particular architectural design will have the same effect, both in its character and significance, on all social groups. The presence or absence of a particular design should have a variant effect on the total social life of a population, depending upon the interdependence of the architecturally related behavior to other dimensions of a group's life-style.Social life may be influenced by physical factors within the dwelling unit or by spatial relationships between units. The focus of the current study is on factors external to dwelling units and on the social relationships that develop between families. Guttman (1970) warns of the difficulties in locating the boundaries of the physical setting whose social effects we wish to study when we extend housing beyond the physical dwelling. However, restricting investigations to the dwelling alone does not permit the development of guidelines for architecture and facilities that are external to the dwelling unit.There is considerable research, such as that done by Festinger et al. (1950), Gans (1963), Suttles (1968), and Whyte (1956, which indicates William L. Yancey received his PhD in sociology from Washington University, St. Louis, in 1967. He is currently an Associate Professor of Sociology and Director of the Urban and Regional Development Center at Vanderbilt University. His major research interests center around cultural and social-economic variations in urban life styles.

Fertile Ground for Community: Inner‐City Neighborhood Common Spaces

“…Some readers may be familiar with the concept of person-environment fit (e.g., French, Rodgers, & Cobb, 1974); we suggest that the concept of community-environment fit may be useful as well, and that poor inner-city neighborhoods may represent an extreme case of community-environment misfit (see Yancey, 1971).…”

“…In poverty, one important survival strategy is to share resources through family and friendship networks (Belle, 1982;Stack, 1974). Because poor families tend to be limited in mobility and have limited access to more distant family and friends, they have few options other than nearby neighbors for resource-sharing (Gerson et al, 1977;Riger & Lavrakas, 1981;Tognoli, 1987;Yancey, 1971;Wellman & Leighton, 1979). Thus, in low-income inner-city communities NSTs may provide an irreplaceable safety net that middle-class or upper-income communities have little need for.…”

“…Yancey (1971) has argued that the architectural design of high-rise buildings can make it difficult for residents to form ties to neighbors, and crowding, noise, and high rates of crime have each been shown to inhibit social integration (e.g., Baum, Davis, & Aiello, 1978;S. Cohen & Lezak, 1977;Mathews & Cannon, 1975;McCarthy & Saegert, 1978;G.…”

The relationship between tree canopy and crime rates across an urban–rural gradient in the greater Baltimore region

“…The presence of more people in public places means that it is harder for criminals to go unnoticed. It also can result in an informal system of surveillance (Kuo & Sullivan, 2001), furthered by the fact that increased outdoor encounters foster social networks and relationships (Yancey, 1971). Having stronger social networks also means less likelihood of crime from within the community, for instance in the case of a public housing development (Sullivan & Kuo, 1996).…”

The relationship between residential yard management and neighborhood crime: An analysis from Baltimore City and County

“…More "eyes" in public spaces deter criminals by making it harder for them to go unnoticed and by leading to informal surveillance networks (Kuo & Sullivan, 2001a;Kuo & Sullivan, 2001b). Additionally, these outdoor encounters foster social networks and cohesion among neighbors (Yancey, 1971), further fueling this virtuous cycle. Sullivan and Kuo's research suggests that stronger social networks can mean a reduced likelihood of crime from within the community in the case of public housing (Sullivan & Kuo, 1996).…”