Model prisons revisited

Architectural Review, The, March, 2004 by Simon Henley

SIR: In his letter (AR Nov 2003) Leslie Fair-weather questions the Model Prison (AR Oct 2003). He suggests that learning regimes can be carried out in existing prisons. While that may be the case, the morphology of nineteenth- and twentieth-century prisons requires the prisoners to move to the learning/training environments. Prisoner and staff time would be better used if movement was minimized. This is achieved by creating a series of autonomous physical units (or Houses) in which groups of prisoners may live, work and learn. Gentralized functions are kept to the minimum and specialist people move to the prisoner group. Because the specialists are entrusted to move themselves this is, in this instance, more economic. The Model seeks to simplify the prison, literally to uncomplicate it. It is important to stress that the adoption of a house model, in place of linear wings, is not radical. HMYOI & RC Feltham, which opened in 1983, was modelled on the 'New Generation' American prisons, which proposed houses in a campus layout. This was subsequently formalized in the UK Prison Design Briefing System (PDBS 1989) and the Woolf Report (1991) advocating the construction of wings for small groups of 50-70 inmates, and put into practice in triangular houses at HMP Woodhill (Milton Keynes 1991), Doncaster and Lancaster Farms. PDBS guidelines currently indicate paired rectangular house blocks accommodating 50-70 inmates. There are, however five logical developments that distinguish our House model from previous house models, which do little more than reshape and downsize the Victorian prison wing:

1. The house could be semi-autonomous, not just a dormitory, mitigating prisoner movement

2. The group size suggests an accountable prisoner group

3. Houses are integrated into a compact and efficient circulation system

4. Houses are arranged on a chequerboard (not as pavilions) so contributing to the controlled use of outside space

5. The house offers an immediate link to outside space, mitigating the time and cost associated with achieving time in the open air

The Model therefore enables the Prison Service to redeploy a significant element of their security budget (ie prison officers) for new roles in education and training. This simply is not possible with the current stock of buildings due to their complex morphology and the high level of managerial control required.

Fairweather questioned the density of the prison. The team agreed specifically to develop a model, which could be located in our towns and cities bringing the prisoner closer to family and friends to ease visiting and eventual resettlement, as well as providing a model for remand when prisoners are awaiting trial or being ferried to and from the courts people who may not be found guilty of a crime, and must not become institutionalized.

It is nevertheless important to stress that the published design is only indicative. A more detailed description of the Model including a series of strategic conceptual diagrams can be found in Learning Works; The 21st Century Prison published in 2002. While the prison appears to be liberal, the arrangement of spaces both inside and outside is strictly controlling. It is for this reason, however, that activity within clearly defined spaces is free. In this environment the prisoner is not judged by their conformity but by their varied activity and achievement. In the one-hectare prison an invisible pedagogy is at work.

The architecture fulfils both a social and psychological role, through the creation of humane, secure but not repressive environments, and an economic role, crucially by releasing staff time to conduct the new regime. The design is a blueprint for both palpable quality and managerial efficiency.

Yours etc

SIMON HENLEY

For and on behalf of Buschow Henley, London