Advertisement

Architecture and Value-Sensitive Design

  • Jeroen van den Hoven
Chapter
Part of the Urban and Landscape Perspectives book series (URBANLAND, volume 12)

Abstract

The philosopher of technology Langdon Winner (1980) has drawn attention to the fact that artifacts can embody values and can be said “to have politics.” The case study that he used to vividly drive this point home to the reader concerns the work of the famous New York architect and urban planner Robert Moses. In the 1920s, Moses designed large urban projects in New York. One of the projects that he was involved in was the design and construction of a series of overpasses on New York parkways. Caro’s elaborate study of the life and work of Moses gives us reason to believe, according to Winner, that Moses designed some of the overpasses intentionally low so that buses taking the poor and (mainly) colored population to the beaches near New York could not drive under them. Buses in the new design could no longer be routed to the recreational areas. Indirectly, the overpasses thus functioned as a mechanism and barrier separating black and white middle class. Although there is some controversy over whether Moses really intended his design to have the effect of racial segregation, these overpasses provide a clear-cut illustration of the political and morally relevant effects that designs, built structures, and artifacts may have. With his account of “The Politics of Artifacts,” Winner was one of the first to point systematically to the value-ladenness of artifacts. According to Winner:

Keywords

Crime Prevention Future User Urban Planner Racial Segregation Design Turn 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Caro RA (1974) The power broker: Robert Moses and the fall of New York. Knopf, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Friedman B (ed) (1997) Human values and the design of computer technology. Cambridge University Press/CSLI, Stanford University, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Friedman B, Freier NG (2005) Value sensitive design. In: Fisher KE, Erdelez S, McKechnie EF (eds) Theories of information behavior: a researcher’s guide. Information Today, Medford, pp 368–372Google Scholar
  4. Katyal NK (2002) Architecture as crime control. Yale Law J, 1039–1137Google Scholar
  5. Poyner B (1983) Design against crime, beyond defensible space. Butterworths, BostonGoogle Scholar
  6. Rykwert J (2000) The seduction of place. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Shah RC, Kesan JP (2007) How architecture regulates. J Archit Plann Res 24(4):350–359Google Scholar
  8. Van den Hoven MJ (2005) Design for values and values for design. Information age +. J Aust Comput Soc 7(2):4–7Google Scholar
  9. Van den Hoven MJ, Weckert J (2008) Information technology and moral philosophy. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Van den Hoven MJ, Lokhorst GJ, Van de Poel I (2012a) Engineering and the problem of moral overload. Sci Eng Ethics 18(1):143–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Van den Hoven MJ, Miller S, Pogge T (2012) The design turn in applied ethics. Cambridge University Press (Forthcoming)Google Scholar
  12. Winner L (1986) The whale and the reactor. A search of limits in an age of high technology. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Section Philosophy/3TU. Centre for Ethics and TechnologyDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations