The American Institute of Architects’ New York chapter (AIANY) issued a landmark statement in 2020 calling on architects to stop designing spaces of incarceration that perpetuate harm within the United States justice system. This directive, which applies to prisons, jails, detention centers, and police stations, signals a significant shift in how the architectural profession views its ethical responsibilities. The stance aligns with broader conversations about the role of architects in public building design and the ethical frameworks that guide professional practice. Understanding what this call means, why it matters, and how building professionals can respond is essential for anyone working in architecture and construction today.
The AIANY Statement on Incarceration Design
The AIANY board of directors released a formal statement urging members to no longer design what it called “unjust, cruel, or harmful spaces of incarceration.” The statement directly addressed facilities such as prisons, jails, detention centers, and police stations, arguing that good design alone cannot overcome the systemic racism embedded in the criminal justice system.
Key Provisions of the Statement
The AIANY resolution included several actionable commitments that reshape how the chapter approaches criminal justice design. These provisions set a precedent for architectural organizations nationwide.
- Programming and exhibitions: Starting in late 2020, AIANY committed to examining architecture’s role in the criminal justice system through public discussions and interdisciplinary dialogue, highlighting voices of people who have suffered within the system.
- Government advocacy: The chapter pledged to push for limiting the construction of new criminal justice facilities at the policy level, working with elected officials to redirect funding toward alternatives.
- Political action: Using the AIANY Political Action Fund, the chapter committed to supporting candidates who advocate for reducing criminal justice facility construction and advancing reform.
- Committee restructuring: The Architecture for Justice Committee was reconstituted to shift focus from designing facilities toward addressing large-scale justice issues.
- National advocacy: AIANY committed to urging AIA National, AIA New York State, and fellow chapters to adopt similar positions.
- Design awards: Projects in the criminal justice typology may still be submitted to AIANY Design Awards, but jury instructions will prioritize those demonstrating excellence in prison reform, restorative justice, and community investment.
Why the Statement Matters for Professional Practice
The statement represents more than a chapter-level policy. It reflects a growing recognition that architects hold professional power over the built environment and bear responsibility for how that power affects communities. The AIA has historically engaged with government-directed building design mandates, but this statement goes further by questioning whether certain building typologies should exist at all.
The Historical Role of Architects in Incarceration Design
Architects have been designing correctional facilities for centuries. From the panopticon prisons of the 18th century to modern supermax facilities, design has shaped how incarceration is experienced. Understanding this history is critical to understanding why AIANY took its stance.
The Evolution of Prison Architecture
| Era | Design Philosophy | Key Characteristics |
|---|---|---|
| 18th Century | Panopticon surveillance model | Central observation tower, radial cell blocks, constant visibility |
| 19th Century | Separation and penitence | Individual cells, silent system, chapel-centric layouts |
| Early 20th Century | Rehabilitation and reform | Campus-style layouts, workshops, recreational spaces |
| Late 20th Century | Supermax and control | Remote-operated doors, concrete construction, limited natural light |
| 21st Century | Alternatives and restorative justice | Community-based facilities, therapeutic environments, non-carceral approaches |
Each era’s design philosophy reflected prevailing attitudes about crime, punishment, and human dignity. The AIANY statement challenges the profession to move beyond the control-and-containment model entirely.
Why Design Alone Is Not Enough
The AIANY statement explicitly acknowledges that good design cannot fix a broken system. This is a significant departure from the architectural profession’s traditional problem-solving ethos. Several factors underpin this position:
- Systemic injustice: The criminal justice system disproportionately affects Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities. Design interventions that make facilities more humane do not address this fundamental inequity.
- Normalization of harm: Well-designed prisons and jails can make incarceration seem acceptable. By creating more pleasant environments, architects risk legitimizing a system that should be reformed.
- Professional ethics: The AIA Code of Ethics requires members to uphold human rights and the public good. The statement argues that designing facilities within an unjust system violates these principles.
- Resource allocation: Money spent on improving prison design is money not spent on alternatives to incarceration, such as housing, healthcare, and community investment.
Alternative Approaches to Spaces of Incarceration
Rather than simply refusing to design prisons, the AIANY statement urges architects to redirect their efforts toward creating alternative systems and typologies. This proactive approach opens up new areas of professional practice.
Restorative Justice Facilities
Restorative justice focuses on repairing harm rather than punishing offenders. Architects can design spaces that support this philosophy, including community conferencing centers, mediation rooms, and support facilities for victims and offenders. These spaces prioritize transparency, accessibility, and community integration over isolation and control. Design principles for restorative justice spaces include welcoming entries, flexible meeting rooms, natural light, and connections to outdoor space.
Alternatives to Incarceration Infrastructure
The AIANY statement specifically calls for architects to support alternatives to imprisonment. This opens the door for designing facilities that address root causes of crime rather than punishing its consequences. Examples include:
- Community-based mental health facilities that divert people with mental illness from the criminal justice system
- Drug treatment centers designed as healthcare facilities rather than correctional institutions
- Transitional housing and reentry programs that support formerly incarcerated people in rebuilding their lives
- Youth development centers that provide education, counseling, and recreation instead of detention
Retrofitting Existing Facilities
For existing correctional facilities that cannot be immediately replaced, architects can focus on retrofitting to reduce harm. This approach is a pragmatic middle ground between outright refusal and business-as-usual. Retrofitting strategies include improving natural light and ventilation, creating spaces for education and therapy, reducing isolation through modified cell layouts, and adding program space for visitation and community connection. These interventions do not solve systemic problems, but they can reduce immediate harm to incarcerated people.
The profession’s ability to shift toward these alternatives depends in part on how architectural education and professional pathways evolve to include perspectives from affected communities.
Implications for Building Professionals and Construction
The AIANY statement has practical implications for architects, specifiers, contractors, and building owners who work on criminal justice projects. Understanding these implications helps professionals make informed decisions about their own practice.
Market and Economic Considerations
The criminal justice construction market is substantial. According to industry data, correctional facility construction in the United States represents billions of dollars in annual spending. Firms that choose to follow the AIANY guidance may need to replace this revenue stream with alternative project types. This economic reality is one reason the statement generated debate within the profession. Firms can pivot toward designing community facilities, educational buildings, and healthcare projects that serve the same communities disproportionately affected by incarceration.
Legal and Contractual Questions
Architects who refuse to design correctional facilities may face questions about professional liability, contract termination, and scope of services. Key considerations include:
- Whether design contracts for correctional facilities include ethical opt-out clauses
- How professional liability insurance treats refusal to perform contracted services
- Whether public sector clients can require architects to certify that facilities meet certain ethical standards
- How subcontractors and consultants are affected when the lead architect declines work
Specification and Material Selection Implications
For building professionals who continue to work on criminal justice projects or who focus on alternative facility types, material and system specifications take on new importance. The same best practices for construction specifications management apply, but with added emphasis on health, safety, and human dignity. Architects prioritizing humane design should specify materials that support occupant well-being, including acoustically absorptive finishes for noise reduction, antimicrobial surfaces for hygiene, and natural materials for psychological comfort.
Applying Ethical Design Principles Across Typologies
The broader lesson from the AIANY statement is that architects must consider the ethical implications of all building typologies, not just prisons and jails. The same architectural design principles that guide award-winning cultural institutions can be applied to public facilities to ensure they serve communities with dignity and respect. This includes prioritizing transparency in public buildings, designing for accessibility and inclusion, engaging community stakeholders in the design process, and evaluating projects based on their social and environmental impact.
What Comes Next for the Profession
The AIANY statement is unlikely to be the last word on architecture’s relationship with the criminal justice system. Several developments are already shaping the conversation:
- AIA National engagement: Other chapters are considering similar resolutions, and AIA National has been urged to adopt a nationwide policy.
- Client responses: Some public-sector clients are rethinking their approach to correctional facility procurement, with an increasing interest in community-based alternatives.
- Educational curriculum changes: Architecture schools are incorporating justice-oriented design into their curricula, preparing the next generation of architects to think critically about carceral design.
- Research and evidence: Studies on the relationship between built environment quality and outcomes in correctional settings continue to inform the debate.
For building professionals, the message is clear. The design of spaces of incarceration is no longer a purely technical question. It is an ethical question that demands thoughtful engagement with issues of justice, race, and professional responsibility. Whether architects choose to follow the AIANY guidance or not, the conversation has begun, and the profession will be shaped by how it responds.