Space is accepting various pervasive technologies as an architectural feature inherent to design. As such, architecture is developing various links to video surveillance, where the latter is introducing to the former, a new use and a new user of space. Consequently, a new type and layer of interaction is taking place in architectural space. As a different mode of space, we extend the experimental nature of 3D Virtual Environments to encompass our surveillance studies. This paper utilises virtual environments to study and explore the Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) technology’s impact on architectural space. CCTV surveillance, or video surveillance is a functionality that has been introduced into space, in the first instance as a method of communicating events in space, but developed into becoming an informative element of space design and function.

Surveillance featured first as a symptom partially appearing in the architectural analysis of space use; however, the discussion evolved and the focus shifted to the growing sophistication of surveillance largely aided by developments in technology, subsequently, leaving architecture behind. Architectural space continues to incorporate surveillance technology without paying any consideration to its deeper implications.

The argument considers Michel Foucault’s deconstruction of surveillance[1], and William Bogard’s analysis of surveillance simulation[2], among some others tread of thoughts this paper attempts to picture the links of architecture and surveillance.

CCTV surveillance is practiced in and from buildings mostly, and like many other technologies it is attached to old buildings, or in few cases, for new edifications surveillance is considered from the design studio.  Nowadays most of the procedures of architectural design are done with the help of software and computers, so we decided conduct the studies on a real scenario and a virtual one whit the aim to explore the metaphor of surveillance as a language for space.

Two series of trials were set up for designers to work with surveillance and produced qualitative data generating insights into designing for surveillance arrangements. We argue that the debate on surveillance should not only be related to technology, privacy, data gathering, buying practices, but also to be recalled from architecture standpoint. We advocate for an integrative design that considers all the elements in play, traditional and constant evolving technology elements, among them surveillance technology. We recall the role of the architect in relation to society’s major ethical concerns, which, in many cases, goes unacknowledged.

The researchers prepared for the experiment by identifying a physical space, then building up a 3D virtual environment that realistically represents the physical space using MAYA software. The design of the experiment starts with two groups of designers instructed to develop two layouts of cameras and screens in the space. Each group consisted of ten designers, and each designer completed the task individually. First each designer is asked to: a) arrange a set of cameras in order to maximise the surveillance of the room; and then b) arrange them to enhance the experience in the room (any experience). The objective of the first step is twofold: firstly, to help designers acquire first-hand experience of space design while taking surveillance needs into consideration, and secondly, to instigate the reflective process of deep reasoning which in turn would aid in critically reviewing design options, and subsequently, enriching their experience, and therefore, their accounts which will be explored.

The choice of the physical space for the experiment is based on the potential for design outcome. The space can be described as a multiple use room featuring an interesting wooden roof structure (figure1). The structure has proven most inspirational, particularly, in the second phase of the first task, when the designers are tasked with enhancing user experience of the room.

Figure 1: Real space and 3D model

The difference between the first and second group of designers is the mode of the environment (space). The first group is given the printed drawings presenting the plans and elevations of the physical environment. They are also provided with real cameras and cables and asked to experiment inside the physical space. By contrast, the second group is offered the 3D virtual representation of the environment to work in.

Designers in the first group are also given three cameras, three monitors/laptops, one projector, cables and a selection of tools that might be needed to build up each installation in 30 minutes. The first group’s guidelines included the recommendation of sketching any extra cameras if needed, and sketching anything they are unable to build, in order to account for potential inaccessibility of the roofing structure– some points were more than 8 meters high.

The second group of designers, using the digital model, replaced the real room, cameras and displays by simulated ones inside the virtual environment of the room. For this group most of the participants required a small tutorial to use the electronic platform, and were provided with charts and information that facilitated their task.

The subjects selected for the experiment came from various design backgrounds with training related to spatial disciplines: Architecture, Music, Sculpture and Conservation. In addition, length and type of experience among them, varied considerably, from academics to professionals and from no experience to twenty years of practical experience.

To ensure that accounts are fresh, interviews are scheduled to follow the task immediately. The questionnaires were designed to get semi-structured interviews[3]: starting with general open questions; then further questions are added in response to detected themes. The questionnaire for the virtual format also included points about the ease of using the 3D medium compared with doing the arrangements in the real room.  Designers are requested to describe their arrangements, the reasons of their decisions, and to label them with a series of adjectives. Also they are asked to reflect on their previous design work and the way it could have been related to surveillance.

The experiments explored the notion of surveillance in association with space design. Some subjects experienced difficulties in interacting with the 3D virtual environment in terms of navigation. By contrast, subjects in the physical environment faced almost no difficulties at all. The subjects in the virtual environment made better use of time. Moreover, it triggered their imagination which resulted in creative layouts. This was noticeably lower for the other group in the physical environment. In both environments, researchers found that the task intrigued the subjects and their imagination, which lent itself to the notion of surveillance and how it can be contextualised in architecture.

Various themes developed out of the interviews which reflected a set of focussed issues. Designers can utilise the concepts to help them break the nature of surveillance as a passive activity embedded in space. Architects are encouraged to stop considering themselves merely as simple users of space while designing, or objects of observation and manipulation, and regain the consciousness and intentionality of to set themselves as the actors that they are in the continuing drama of surveillance.

This study contribute to the thinking of the architect positioning herself as the user of space while designing, replacing her as an empowered orchestrator of all the technologies attached to buildings including CCTV surveillance.

The experiment produced three main threads of data to analyse; the first is the comparative study of the use of the virtual and physical space as a medium to explore design; the second stream of data contributes to the discussion surrounding the meanings embedded in space, and the way architecture, by accepting technology, is communicating new messages to its users, in particular, the message behind surveillance; the third data stream focuses on the nature of user experience and how it can be looked at as an alternative to Surveillance through exploring other uses that surveillance equipment can have, and the ways it could become a medium of communication, or expression, art, or even as an academic tool.