The topic of vandalism of public buildings and community recreation facilities is as large, complex and diverse as topics come. The only true and fully understood fact we have regarding vandalism of buildings, is that millions of dollars of public and private funds are wasted each year in Canada to try to cope with this unpleasant and growing problem.
As western societies grow ever more violent and complex, vandalism of buildings, forced entry, theft and destruction of public and private property appears to grow with it. Even though the forces behind vandalism seem large, overpowering and often not related to architecture and community recreation planning, it is important not to give up and capitulate, but rise to the challenge by using our available knowledge.
To me the answer is definitely not to design facilities like a prison compound, this only serves to provoke and dare a further challenge to vandals. It is important to remember that the enemy, for the most part, consists of a few young "punks" armed only with spray cans or sticks and stones looking for an unsupervised area to apply their trade.
In designing numerous BC Public Buildings and community recreation facilities, I am often frustrated by design limitations dictated by vandalism and public aggressive behavior by a few individuals. It often seems that making recreation facilities people friendly, open and humanistic is the very element that invites the vandals to destroy public property. However, this is part of today's design challenge when it comes to community recreation facilities. The challenge must be met.
This long term concern, combined with our general design curiosity, has long ago led our firm to explore the mystery of vandalism through consultations with police authorities, public and private security people, and maintenance staff, in hope of finding some answers to this costly problem.
The first question to ourselves was simply: Is there anything we, as architects, can do in the design and planning process of public buildings, specifically in terms of the physical planning and detailing of the design and construction specifications? The answer is a delightful, yes. There are a number of things architects, engineers and landscape architects can do to better vandal proof public buildings and associated park facilities.
Our firm has been fortunate over the years in being selected as the architect for several community schools and community recreation facilities in BC Native Indian Communities. In some of these locations we were challenged and warned by evidence of heavy vandalism to existing school and community recreation facilities.
Rather than attempting to fortify the new facilities we elected to talk directly to the youth population and the community at large and involve them as much as possible in the preplanning and design presentations. The intent was to try to communicate to potential trouble makers and the community at large what was being built, why it was being built and for whom. This was done to instill a sense of pride and ownership, by the youth, in the facilities from the start of the project. Special community meetings were held after the completion of the facilities. These meetings were one on one with the youth, no adults from the community, authority figures etc. were in attendance. First we thanked them for their involvement, and then basically conveyed to them that this building has been designed for your benefit. Everything it was, or could become was largely up to them. We shared how programs and extra dollars for equipment and other perks could be made available to them if vandalism didn't exist. Youth involvement in running some facilities or having some input in decision making made them part of the process, which in turn gave some a sense of pride in the building, and therefore encourage them to look out for its best interest.
Of course it is not always possible to reach all the youth or general users in any given community, so one must also implement "vandal proofing design patterns". The following suggestions are some of the many "design patterns" used by our firm in designing public buildings to minimize vandalism.
1. Place all walkways, plazas and paved areas away from building exterior surfaces wherever possible. This to prevent unnecessary people contact directly with the building exterior surfaces. This can be effectively achieved by use of landscaping or surfaces not suitable for walking separating walkways or paved area from exterior walls.
2. Plan building forms and layouts to facilitate maximum overview by operators and the general public. Areas overlooked by the general public and operators of the facilities seem intimidating for most vandals.
3. Review the use of proper exterior building perimeter and interior lighting. This will ensure the best possible overview of floor areas, prominent entry levels and other high target areas around the building during hours of darkness.
4. Wherever possible use building surface materials at ground level that are durable and will permit easy removal of graffiti and physical damage, if necessary.
5. Wherever possible provide and facilitate a driving surface or perimeter road for the facility complex. This permits police and security personnel driving access to the largest possible area of the building perimeter. Note that police and security personnel prefer not to leave the comfort of their vehicle on evening and night patrols.
6. Design the landscaped areas to provide maximum overview for the general public and security personnel alike. This feature can easily be achieved by the correct combination and use of shrubs, trees and low earth beams, without having to sacrifice the esthetic effectiveness of good solid landscaping.
Ib Hansen is the Principal of IB G. Hansen Architect Ltd. This article was re-printed with the permission of the BCRPA.
7. Be aware that the most secluded and hidden parts of the building complex are most likely areas for vandalism, break and entry and similar problems.
8. Wherever possible select heavy textured building surfaces in proximity to vandal prone areas. Spray paint "artists" apparently do not appreciate rough and heavily textured walls, making their "lyrics" hard to read.
9. If vandalism does take place, be sure to remove it as soon as possible. this will discourage additional vandalism and send a message of the owners concern and action to combat vandalism.
10. Avoid exposed fixtures, fittings, pipes etc. in public areas prone to vandalism wherever possible.
11. Avoid use of cheap non durable finishes. So called "low cost" cheap building finishes often end up being the most expensive when replaced several times.
12. Involve local area police, experienced local security people and local maintenance staff in early planing reviews and discussions of proposed new facilities.
In closing we would also encourage managers and operators of community recreation facilities to remember that community recreation facilities are not designed for the few sad vandals in the community, but for the general large well behaving population. We all just need to adjust our thinking to include a difficult challenge.
Ib Hanson is the Principal of IB G. Hansen Architect Ltd. This article was re-printed with the permission of BCRPA