Edited by Gordan Savicié and Selena Savi¢ (http://www.pravi.

me)
Rotterdam/Vienna/Lausanne 2011-2012
Financial support by:
bm:uk

un:pleas-ant design: 1. discomfort, unhappiness, or revulsion; disagreeable

2. obstacles, psychological and sensual manipulation in common/public space 3....and
ways to overcome it
iii for bokito Contents
INTRODUCTION
3
ON UNPLEASANTNESS Gordan Savici¢ and Selena Savi¢
13 THE PLEASANT/UNPLEASANT DYNAMIC: EMOTIONAL FEEDBACK AS SYSTEMIC
TOPOLOGY Adam Rothstein ESSAYS 27 HAPPY CITIZENSHIP: ELEVATING SECURITY &
ELIMINATING FEAR IN THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT Francesco Morace & Heather Stewart-
Feldman 41 GREEDY CONTAINERS Vladan Jeremié 49 TECHNOLOGY ENABLED
DISCRIMINATION Selena Savi¢é and Gordan Savicié CASE STUDIES 63 MATERIAL STUDIES
Gordan Savicié and Selena Savié 95 ANTI-SITES Survival Group 105 RESISTANCE
STRATEGIES Archisuites: Sarah Ross paraSITE: Michael Rakowitz Interview with Gilles
Paté, author of Fakir's Rest 123 UNPLEASANT FOR PIGEONS Selena Savi¢é 143 PLEASANT
DESIGN Social Integration Furniture Seville: BAUM LAB Architecture 151 URBAN HACKING
Free Will: Marko Tirnani¢é INTERVIEWS 157. Interview with Dan Lockton 165 —_
Interview with Yasmine Abbas 173 Interview with Florian Riviére UNPLEASANT DESIGNS
183 AUFMERKSAMKEITSUNGEZIEFER Julian Palacz 187 PAY & SIT - THE PRIVATE BENCH
Fabian Brunsing 191 UNPLEASANT DESIGN COMPETITION
MAZE DOOR LOCK: Ankita Thaker
PUBLIC PRIVACY: Nevena BoSkovié and Jelena Boskovié GROTESQUES AND TISSUES AS
UNPLEASANT GRAPHIC DESIGNS: Maarten van der Heijden
vii We would first like to thank all our collaborators for sending their contribution, and
bearing with us the tight deadlines. We would also like to thank all who responded to our
open call for the Unpleasant Design Competition and helped us understand how much the
term ‘unpleasantness’ can be stretched. We are grateful to the jury members for this
competition, Nicolaj Kirisits and Rena R&adle, who provided their indispensable evaluation
of submitted projects. We are also grateful to all our friends with whom we intensively
discussed on the notion of unpleasantness over the past years. Our thanks go particularly
to Carole Lanoix and Jean Marc Schmidt who helped us translate some of the material from
French and offered us the best raclette experience ever. We are also grateful to the Lift
Conference crew for introducing us to a great bunch of people, some of whom we kept on
collaborating in this book as well. Last but not least we would like to mention the great
time we had in Kulturbiiro Ziirich finding out ways to
print our challenging book cover.
Acknow ledgments INTAODUSTION
On Unpleasantness
This book is an attempt to weave several threads of social control and interaction design
into a common understanding of “Unpleasant Design”. This collection of texts, photographs
and designs aims at recognising this nascent discip- line within contemporary design
taxonomies. We particularly focus on “unpleasant designs” in urban space, because human
settlements cover an ever-growing area of Earth’s land surface. When cities are developing
as rapidly as now, we face new challenges in reflecting on the use, organisa- tion and
regulation of contemporary urban space. Given the increasing importance of technology
On Unpleasant ness...
Gordan Savicicé and Selena Savicé
introduction 3 within urban environments, our practice of handling everyday-life situ-
ations becomes more and more mediated too. As pervasive technology enters urban space,
the configuration of the built environment changes. At a time where most of our
communication protocols are completely regulated, monitored and surveilled by private
companies and state offi- cials, we have to ask ourselves to what extent are those
technologies de- signed for our (dis)comfort?
Unpleasant design is an accumulation of urban phenomena in which social control and its
inherent design play a significant role in the way we perceive and engage in public, semi-
public and semi-private space. This book aims at developing a critical perspective on
design patterns that surround us in public and private spaces. It recognizes the growing
desire for controlled environments and the way citizens deal with it; it docu- ments its
extremes. We look into the “silent agents” that take care of be- haviour in (semi-) public
space, without the explicit presence of authorities (security, police, etc.). These “agents” are
materialised in ob- jects and installations which ensure that control is implemented in the
environment, through design of urban spaces, urban furniture and com-
munication strategies.
Unpleasant design has specific target groups and operates primarily at several
demographic layers. The congregation of marginal groups is often a target of unpleasant
design implementations. Young, substance
«
misusers and homeless people are frequently official reasons for “un-
pleasant” installations in public space.
What the Unpleasant Design book looks for are the qualifiers for something to act as
“unpleasant”. The numerous cases and projects dis- cussed here all emphasize what the
authors’ initial question on this jour-
ney was, “How to detect and subvert an Unpleasant Design?”.
Unpleasant Design is principally a book about the relationship of space, design and social
interaction. Its focus lies on revealing power structures beyond pure surveillance and
decoding them in order to re- read the city. Demystifying top-down-processes and their
simple func-
tionalities in many forms were points of departure for our research.
4 unpleasant design The Origins of Unpleasantness
Designing “unpleasant design” is an intricate process. It is planned in detail and its
execution is delicate. As such it can vary from subtle imple- mentations (such as blue light
against drug addicts) to more radical and broader manifestations, such as Haussmann’s
reconstruction of Paris, to name a historical example. The latter allows for a speculative
argument that the broadening of streets was intended to facilitate troop movement and
prevent easy blocking of streets with barricades. Thus, the detailed physical planning
executed a code of social conduct and can be clearly traced back to governmental interest
in social control.
In Ivo Andric’s novel “Na Drini ¢uprija” there is a mention of the illu- mination process,
conducted by the Austro-Hungarians with the inten- tion to modernize the old casbah. The
event revolves around a certain lantern, installed on the bridge where people used to
gather at night, sit- ting, talking, singing and smoking. By imposing this light, the authorities
were imposing an order of social conduct, which was at first unacceptable to the citizens, as
they kept breaking the lamp every evening. But the au- thorities were patient and little by
little, the coming generations got used to the light. This event is a symbolic starting point
for our research in
unpleasant design.
The Algorithm for Unpleasantness
Architectures of control have been thoroughly discussed by Lawrence Lessig in his book
“Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace”. His point with architectures of control
fundamentally revolves around the inquiry into whether an infrastructure could effectively
answer the question “Who did what where?”. This implies not only an exact identification
of the user within a defined system, but also eventually controls his interaction within it.
Most of the examples Lessing examined are based on software and its
intricate user-interaction. With Unpleasant Design we would like to ex-
introduction 5 pand this discourse to architecture, product design and “dark techno- logy”.
As society embraces computational tools as media of expression, large parts of our
everyday being are expressed and processed through algorithms. They presumably identify
what we need to know in our in- formation ecology. But we have to question ourselves
when it comes to the political outcomes of the ways algorithms are introduced into human
knowledge. Creators of these algorithms try to predict and precisely shape the way we are
looking at information. This anticipation could be directly transcribed to the way we “walk”
our way, not just through the
Internet, but more generally through our immediate environment.
Every design process, both from a technical and from an aesthetic perspective, is
ideological. Hence, its features, structures or methods of operation, in which a user
interacts with it, can be controlled. Unpleasant design is, first of all, critical. It pushes the
limits of our lived experience; by doing so it acts within a cultural, political, social,
psychological and technical medium.
Again, we find a similarity in our computational environment / in- formation society, when
we take algorithms as objective instances. They are supposedly unbiased and without
prejudices against any person. However, the cold mechanism which lies behind these
agents might play well on turning the problem invisible, but will blatantly fail in solving the
root of the problem.
This pattern of treating the effect rather than the cause is very often found in Unpleasant
design solutions. It applies whenever park benches are intentionally made uncomfortable
for sleeping and whenever other light or sound systems are installed to prevent
concentrations of certain social groups. Even though most of the problems derive from
social in- compatibilities, we observe a tendency towards outsourcing the problem
to the so-called “silent agents”.
The book you have in front of you shows how our society and indi- viduals, from hacktivists
to cultural scholars, perceive and respond to these algorithmic artefacts. What do they
depend on, what are those si- lent agents; i. e. the armrests on your park bench, and how
can those
codes be broken, technically, but foremost on a social level?
6 unpleasant design Un-pleasanting
Having defined unpleasantness as a design approach and its al- gorithmic application, the
question to ask is: what could an anti-state- ment to unpleasant design look like?
Participatory citizen projects are living examples of the subversion of power structure
relationships and the modification of the systematically planned landscape of social in-
equality.
A reaction to Unpleasantness would necessarily inherit a peculiar design language from its
original model. It is a risky activity, on the edge between oppressive control and civil
disobedience. Resistance strategies examined in this book range from architectural
interventions within the built environment, to electronic devices modifying and diffusing
the ef-
fects of unpleasantness.
On the Brighter Side
Not in all cases are the users at a loss when it comes to unpleasant design implementations.
Unpleasant Design is not aimed at simply harm- ing the users of public space in general. We
all want our parks and streets to be pleasant. But in order to make them more pleasant for
the majority of people, we have to make the space unpleasant for some marginal groups.
These groups do not always threaten our security, sometimes they are simply a minority or
powerless (the teenagers, the poor). Some unpleasant design solutions are employed by
the city authorities with the goal to make the public space friendlier. Others are installed by
corporate security and management systems, in order to secure the space for the ‘right’
kind of clientéle. Sometimes it is not easy to define the borderline between the public and
private interest here.
Certain groups of people always benefit from the controlled environ- ment, and we are not
necessarily talking about the ones at the top of the social ladder. Dan Lockton recognizes
the social benefit some ‘designs with intent’ can have on users’ behaviour and their
ecological awareness.
introduction 7 He argues that there is a notable tension between socially and commer-
cially-driven intents and that these two emerge quite separated from each other. Further
on, with his “Design with Intent Method”, a method- ology of design patterns for
sustainable behaviour, he pushes these thoughts further to show how users can adapt,
learn and benefit person-
ally from these systems.
Unpleasant Design research is not intended throw cold water on city engineering. We
would like to acknowledge that digital networks, proto- cols and their underlying user
interactions are no longer separated from
architecture. Urban design should embrace them as challenges.
Inside this Book
The introduction part of this book provides us with an overview of what we mean by
Unpleasant Design from a conceptual and historical view. Adam Rothstein has captured the
fundamental and complex terrain of the topic through the lens of the dynamic
Pleasant/Unpleasant. Roth- stein reveals the unfathomable relation between the Hidden
and Re- vealed. By doing so, he reminds us that first and foremost, we need to have access
to technology that produces errors, in order to understand what they mean to us and our
surroundings. Similarly, he argues that the distribution of technology is still guided by the
forces of profit extraction. In this matter, Unpleasant Design is highlighted from a market
perspect- ive.
The book is divided into four sections. Part I examines Unpleasant Design from various
perspectives in the form of essays. Francesco Morace and Heather Stewart-Feldman
discuss urban systems through the con- cepts of Happiness and Anti-Fear strategies. Along
their psychological roadmap towards achieving happiness they question the very gist of
our designed environment by stressing the renewed importance of citizen- ship. Armed
with a revamped version of marketing’s six R’s (Relevance, Resonance, Responsibility,
Respect, Recognition & Reciprocity), Morace and Stewart-Feldman explore the integral
factor of survival for citizens as
part of their civic tradition. Vladan Jeremi¢ investigates another urban
8 unpleasant design phenomenon, which systematically performs social segregation based
on design implementation. His essay “Greedy containers” focuses on the hidden politics of
garbage removal in the city of Belgrade, in which au- thorities deployed a waste container
system that strategically eliminates any third-party usage purely by its design. The result is
profit for a few companies on one side, and on the other the displacement and removal of
entire settlements of Roma people into the outskirts of the city without a proper social
welfare programme. Jeremi¢’s essay serves as an interesting example, which provides a
suitable fade into the second part of the book, where five different case studies analyse the
impact of Unpleasant Design on our urban environment; five different approaches, focusing
on hu- mans and on animals.
Our first case study is a field research in unpleasant applications, called Material Studies. It
lists different examples of unpleasant designs found in several European cities we visited
during this research. We also present a similar research by the Survival Collectie who
focuses on ap- plications that prevent people from sleeping or occupying certain spots,
particularly designed to deter the homeless.
Further on, we are looking at Resistance Strategies for subverting and playing with
unpleasant designs. Examples found in Vienna and Belgrade that make urban furniture
more comfortable, as well as artistic interven- tions by Sarah Ross and Michael Rakowitz
are used here to demonstrate possible approaches to reclaiming public space. A
conversation with Gilles Pates, where he elaborates on one of his performances “Le repos
du fakir” done in Paris, is the second part of this case study. His attempt to sleep, sit and
rest on anti-homeless benches around France is a cynical response to the city’s policies but
at the same time a street performance; a one-minute sculpture in the sense of Erwin
Wurm’s performances, so to
speak.
In the fourth case study, Selena Savié takes the rise and fall of the re- lationship between
humans and the rock dove as a case study for Un- pleasantness from an architectural point
of view. How did this bird become a major thorn in city authorities’ flesh and cause the
invention of such a diversity of repellent systems? What psychological and physical
measures are deployed against it? This report illuminates strategies of
introduction 9 segregation by Unpleasantness in which we can observe a pattern. First, a
problem is identified; i. e. pigeons quickly overpopulate the urban envir- onment and
contaminate buildings and facades. As a response, new profit-driven markets emerge
which actively try to fight the problem, but not by addressing the cause, necessarily.
Physical structures such as nets and spikes to prevent pigeons from roosting on ledges are
installed on public and private buildings but they ignore the gist of the problem.
The following two case studies, Pleasant Design and Urban Hacking, are derived from the
two winning projects of the Unpleasant Design Competitions. Their responses demonstrate
two extreme approaches to subverting urban unpleasantness. The work of Baum Lab
Architectura addresses the working conditions of street sellers in the city of Seville,
offering an adaptable solution for their comfort. Free Will on the other hand, plays with
ubiquitous CCTV systems, demonstrating a way to use public space without being seen by
the cameras.
Following the case studies, the book continues in an interview series with several experts,
scholars and artists who share their take on Un- pleasantness. Dan Lockton, a scholar
researching application of persuas- ive design for social and environmental benefit,
explains possible use of unpleasant design solutions for a behavioural change.Yasmine
Abbas, an active neo-nomad herself, elaborates on the challenges neo-nomads have to face
and to what extent they can contribute to places with their par- ticular life-style. Her
research shows us what makes a space a place and vice versa. How can we claim space?
Why isn’t mobility always comfort- able, but sometimes a source of stress, discomfort,
unpleasantness? Her insight is especially interesting when looking at recent events
triggered
by the OccupyNow movement.
Florian Riviere tackles the emergence of semi-public/private space on another level by
applying quick “hacks” to our urban experience. His in- terventions are quirky and playful
comments on our regulated environ- ment, and he calls himself an urban hacktivist. While
faced with natural or imposed constraints, Riviere states that, “... a human being is capable
of thinking in creative ways to circumvent them, without the need for significant material
or financial means”. Like the French Oulipo move-
ment, he constrains himself by working only with cheap and found ma-
10 unpleasant design terials. Almost poetically, he re-arranges common things into new
set- tings and reveals another perspective of them.
The last section of the book is dedicated to Unpleasant Designs by artists Julian Palacz and
Fabian Bruising. Finally, this chapter documents the results of the Unpleasant Design
Competition, which was launched in the first part of 2012. Several projects followed the call
looking for dan- gerous ideas and unpleasant design solutions to encourage critical think-
ing about our interaction in urban environments.
As a note to the reader: architects, designers and general readers who wish to become
more aware of challenges and opportunities out there on the streets should enjoy reading
this book. Futurists may see it as a his- torical reference to the way people interact with
their environment. After all, this book should not only highlight unfair urban situations, but
also
propose a visionary challenge for participatory futures!
introduction 11 ES2VYS
Introduction
Surveillance and security systems have been a subject of research and criticism in
numerous so- cial, cultural, political and technical studies since the first city-wide video
surveillance was installed in cities like London and New York. In the last ten years, the
presence of systems that supposedly increase safety and order in public space has sub-
stantially grown. Nonetheless, their nature has significantly changed.
We will examine the use of various tracking and prevention systems in public space,
reflecting on their social and spatial implications. We focus on digital, wireless, usually
hardly noticeable or imperceptible systems. These systems are often seamlessly integrated
into the existing architec- ture, acting in a persuasive way on its users. While preventing
unwanted interactions between the authorities and residents, these systems leave
no space for discussion or disobedience.
Technology
Enabled Discrimi nation:
Selena Savicé and
Gordan Savicic
essays
49 Surveillance Systems: From the Street to the Internet
Images captured with video surveillance cameras are complex in- formation. To distinguish
between noise and relevant information, this flat footage has to be analysed. This was
mostly done by human operators in the past. The trend amongst producers and consumers
of surveillance industry products, is a growing demand for advanced information-sort- ing,
as is evident in recent developments in video and data surveillance
technology. CCTV
The installation of surveillance systems is usually justified by the feeling of safety they
engender. Video surveillance systems today are of- ten equipped with facial recognition
and motion tracking. CCTV can thus determine moving parts of the image, allowing it to
track people moving across a scene. Cameras can also read licence plate numbers on
highways. Facial recognition can be used to determine whether the front passenger is a
person, but also to match faces to a database of known offenders. With the excuse of the
war on terrorism or security for the Olympics, en- hanced video surveillance systems have
been massively deployed in all areas of public and private life - at airports, sport events, on
the street, in public transport, shopping, housing, etc.
It is not only security that prompts the application of smart video surveillance systems.
There are examples of cameras with facial recogni- tion software built into outdoor
billboards, aimed at determining the gender and age of passers-by so it can customise the
advertisement on display to target a particular type of customer (Russell, 2011).
Internet Packet Inspection
In December 2011, Hillary Clinton gave a speech at the Ministerial Conference on Internet
Freedom in The Hague (Clinton, 2011), calling for an awareness of the dangers
authoritarian Middle East regimes present for democracy, when using "tools of oppression"
provided by certain In- ternet companies to crush democratic protests (the Arab Spring).
Around
50 unpleasant design the same time, the US parliament was voting on the Stop Online
Privacy Act (Stop Online Piracy Act), considered by many to be the "Internet cen- sorship
bill".
The point where censoring on the Internet happens is where Internet access is provided to
its users. The Internet Service Provider can apply different kinds of restrictions and
filtering, depending on their legal framework. Deep packet inspection allows providers of
Internet services and other intermediaries to collect and analyse Internet traffic the end
user is receiving. Its design and implementation allows not only extensive filtering, but also
altering of packets, in order to modify the message without the recipient becoming aware
of the "corrections" (Parry, 2007).
Deep packet inspection is seen by Internet intermediaries both as an inevitability and a
technical problem, to be overcome through faster computers and better algorithms. At the
same time, increases in traffic and demand for speed provide opportunities to companies
like Cisco to re-organise packet flow on the Internet, creating a priority hierarchy (Graham
and Marvin, 2001, p.4).
Repellent systems: From Sound to Light
Repellent systems are designed to target specific groups, producing unpleasant sensations
for particular social or physiological characterist- ics of this group. They range from low-
tech solutions to sophisticated technologies. For example, classical music at train stations
or in shopping areas is often not there for the pleasure of shoppers or passengers, but to
drive off street bummers and loitering teenagers. In Hamburg, classical music is deployed
for this purpose at numerous locations at the time of writing. Bjorn Hellstrém explains that
this music (especially Mozart) is perceived as "uncool" by youngsters and drug addicts
(Hellstréml, 2005).
Mosquito device
Mosquito device was patented in 2005 by Howard Stapleton in South Wales. A high
frequency buzz (17,4KHz) is designed to keep teenagers from gathering in publicly
accessible spaces where they might disturb
essays 51 other users (shopping malls, courtyards, street corners). Mosquito device aims
primarily to prevent loitering and anti-social behaviour. Given the fact that hearing ability
decreases with age, it is supposed to target the population under the age of 25. Unlike their
older cohabitants, they should be annoyed by the sound of buzzing at 17.8KHz and 5 dB
above
background noise levels.
Mosquitoes were installed by shop owners and private individuals in Britain, France, The
Netherlands and the US. Legislation on its use in Europe is still under way, because of a
possible violation of the European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child. According to a policy advisor from Rotterdam, The
Netherlands, "the experiments with Mosquitoes were suspended after a few years because
the youth simply moved to other places.”! The same source states that the experiments
with classical music were more suc-
cessful, as it tended to calm down the atmosphere. Iumination
The first street lights were installed to secure suitable behavioural conduct on the streets.
As a historical example described in the book “The Bridge on the Drina” demonstrates, it
was used on the streets and in parks for centuries to ensure proper use of illuminated
spots? (Andric, 2006). Even today strong lightning is used to deter crime and increase the
feeling of security. The use of blue and pink lights has given urban light- ing another
meaning.
Blue light
Blue neon lights were installed in public toilets and underground pas- sages, with the aim
to make it difficult for drug users to hit their veins. Because the veins are harder to see, it is
expected that drug users will stop using these places for the aforementioned purpose.
Hospitals, nightclubs, bars, service stations are using blue lights in toilets and ser- vice
areas, with positive results (BBC News, 2003). This simple invention can have a powerful
effects on targeted behaviour. On the other side, it is considered potentially life hazardous,
in cases where drug users ignore or
bypass these measures of control (Lockton, 2006).
52 unpleasant design In Japan, blue LED lights were installed in metro stations during a de-
velopment phase, to calm passengers down. Blue lighting supposedly up- lifts the mood of
suicidal individuals. Nonetheless, blue light installations
at stations are complemented with physical suicide barriers. Pink light
Pink lights have recently appeared as a measure against teenage loitering, used in much the
same way as the mosquito device. Their working principle is in emphasizing blemishes on
teenage skin, which most teenagers are not proud of (BBC News, 2006). They were first in-
stalled by a residents’ association in Mansfield, UK in 2006 (Robinson, 2011). The National
Youth Agency has protested against it, many articles were written expressing sarcastic
views; but to some Mansfield residents it seemed like a cheap and feasible solution.
The Driving Forces Behind Security Policies
Surveillance and security technologies are often used to facilitate activities of the favoured
minority. Anna Minton talks about recent de- velopments in Britain, the Canary Wharf
Estate and Broadgate Centre, which, being private property, set the rules and code of
conduct accord- ing to their likes or economic interests (Minton, 2009). What character-
ises the majority of these privately owned spaces is the increase in security systems
installed. Shopping malls are equipped with surveillance systems together with security
personnel and sometimes also physical objects that act as "silent agents" of unpleasant
design.
Security and safety tend to produce artificial spaces with an artificial atmosphere that is
clearly unsustainable without a large organisation constantly engaged in its maintenance.
In his book Total Landscape, Mi- odrag MitraSinovi¢ describes the artificiality of the
atmosphere at the Schiphol airport, as a typical instance of PROPASt (“privately-owned
publicly accessible space in a themed mode”) (MitraSinovic, 2006). Every deviance in route
or behaviour is instantly taken care of and the feeling of surveillance overruns the feeling of
safety.
essays 53 The coupling of private investors with security companies has a lot to do with the
way they are charged for insurance. Insurance companies give lower rates to their clients
when they lower the risk of accidents. This very logic leads to the application of large and
complex security sys- tems, designed not according to real crime expectations, but to the
in-
surance company’s risk estimation.
The Splintering Effect
Given the fact that city centres are increasingly becoming spaces for commerce and
consumption; the use of public CCTV here is 'coloured' by the interests of the corporate
elite. They tend to discriminate against homeless and poor people, removing
‘inappropriate’ behaviours and in- dividuals from retail areas.
Studies of the way CCTV operators identify potential threat or prob- lems have shown that
they actively discriminate against races and sexes, targeting and scrutinizing young black
men or particular subcultural groups. With the development of computer vision, this
discriminatory practice was integrated in enhanced CCTV systems to target and track
individuals (Graham and Marvin, 2001, p.266). Using facial recognition and motion
tracking, the system can identify and track individuals wear- ing hoodies or moving in
particular manners, as well as compare the in- dividuals with known offenders in
databases. The official success rate of facial recognition systems is 80%, meaning 1 out of 5
'recognised' persons is actually a mistake (BBC News, 1998). According to Anna Minton,
sur- veilled places tend to create the opposite effect on the general feeling of safety (2009).
Crime expectancy is higher, because people tend to assume there must be a reason for
surveillance. Security thus brings more insec-
urity.
The character of public space changes with surveillance. Combined with the change in the
ownership structure, its transformation becomes even more significant. These privately
owned or privately managed spaces legalize discrimination of certain dress codes,
behaviours, or social
groups.
54 unpleasant design The tendency today is to fragment urban tissues into highly secured
and filtered wealthy enclaves on one side, and poor, unsafe and unmain- tained areas on
the other (Graham and Marvin, 2001). Since the popular- isation of "trickle down"
economics by Margaret Thatcher, governments often chose to invest in infrastructure for
the rich, with the hope that this investment will gradually 'trickle down' to everyone. But
usually the op- posite happens (Minton, 2009).
Conclusions
Unlike the old surveillance systems that targeted all people on the street equally, new
systems have the ability to target specific age or con- sumer groups. In this way, they
contribute to a growing social segregation in cities. In most cases, the targeted problems
are not solved, but moved elsewhere. And when the problem is moved, it usually
concentrates in places where these policies are not applied, making them even less safe and
comfortable. The application of policies of exclusion and concentra- tion lowers the chances
of "naturally occurring good behaviour" (Minton, 2009).
Technology employed to preserve and increase safety in contempor- ary public space is
often intrusive, blurring the boundary between pro- tection and 'unpleasantness'. Systems
for filtering information are more and more developed and directed towards particular
social groups. This
makes security and surveillance technology increasingly discriminative.
But we are not going to simply dismantle all this technology. We have to try to use it
differently, regulated with the interest of the public. When security becomes a threat to
society and the design of security systems become coercive, criticism and awareness are
needed to limit their effect on the public.
essays 55 1. From a private conversation with Mr. Henk Wolfert, European Policy Advisor
at the Centre for Environmental Expertises, DCMR Milieudienst Rijnmond, The Netherlands
2. Ivo Andric tells about the illumination of a bridge in Visegrad, where people used to
gather peacefully in darkness. Numerous other examples support the idea that adding
lights to public space makes it more secure.
Bibliography
Andric, I., 2006. Na Drini cuprija. Zrenjanin: Sezam Book.
BBC News, 2003. Blue light to stop drugs-users. [online] BBC NEWS. Available at:
[Accessed 6 Jan. 2012].
BBC News, 2006. Pink lights show up spotty youths. [on- line] BBC NEWS. Available at:
[Accessed 8 Jan. 2012].
Clinton, H., 2011. Conference on Internet Freedom. [online] Available at:
<http://www.state.gov/secret- ary/rm/2011/12/178511.htm> [Accessed 24 Dec. 2012].
Graham, S. and Marvin, S., 2001. Splintering urbanism: Networked Infrastructures,
Technological Mobilities, and the Urban Condition. Routledge.
Hellstréml, B., 2005. Theories and Methods Adaptable to Acoustic and Architectural Design
of Railway Stations. In: 12th Internationals Congress on Sound and Vibration.
Lockton, D., 2006. A vein attempt? [online] Design with In- tent. Available at: =
<http://architectures.danlock- ton.co.uk/2006/10/28/a-vein-attempt/> [Accessed 23 Dec.
2011].
Minton, A., 2009. Ground control: fear and happiness in the twenty-first-century city.
London; New York: Penguin Books.
MitraSinovi¢, M., 2006. Total landscape, theme parks, pub- lic space. Aldershot, England;
Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Parry, D., 2007. Ubiquitous Surveillance. [online] Available at:
http://tcs.sagepub.com/content/24/7-8/349.short.
Robinson, O., 2011. Mansfield residents tackling gangs of youths with pink lights that show
up spots | This is Not- tingham. [online] This is Nottingham. Available at: [Accessed 22 Dec.
2011].
Russell, M., 2011. Look customers in the eyes to lock them in the aisles. [online] Available
at: [Accessed 8 Jan. 2012].
56 unpleasant design Unpleasant for Pigeons
Selena Savicé
With the pigeon case, we offer an insight into the principles of ‘unpleasant design’ through
a study of its application in pigeon deterrent sys- tems. As a rule, unpleasant design is
directed against a specific behaviour, group, or part of a population. We decided to focus
here on pigeons as a population unrelated to any particular social group, avoiding in this
way any racial or cultural connotation or preference. Unpleasant design for pigeons is a
relatively new phenomenon in European and American cities. Its viral spreading follows
the logic 'if my neighbours have it, I must have it too’.
Unpleasant design for pigeons raises many questions about our tolerance and abilities to
co- exist, but also about its impact on architecture. What are the consequences of pigeon
deterrents for the way our cities look and feel?
case studies 123 Introduction
Pigeons have lived around humans since people started building solid homes. Because
buildings resemble their natural habitat, pigeons could easily adapt to this new
environment, which offered more safety from falcons and an abundance of food
(Humphries, 2008). Pigeons were first domesticated in ancient cultures and bred on big
farms with a large number of livestock. Over the course of history, pigeon breeders crossed
breeds to improve or emphasize some of their genetic characteristics. They used their
pigeons as messengers, racers or simply as food.
Feral pigeons found in cities today are ancestors of the Rock Dove or Rock Pigeon (Columba
livia) that used to inhabit high sea-cliffs and mountains in Europe, Africa and Asia. Due to
an increase in the size of their flocks, or simply a change in our hygienic standards for
public space, feral pigeons have in recent years become particularly undesired in cities.
They are considered dirty, contagious and simply unwelcome as any other pest.
Different techniques are used to control the roosting and general presence of pigeons in
cities. These include deterrents in form of small metal sticks, usually found on window
seals, the upper side of pipes and unattended walls, commercial signs, even public art;
(electric) wire on the edges of roofs and garlands; fake pigeons hanging in front of windows
or sitting on fences; recently also netting screened over (parts of) historical facades. For a
more extensive list of examples, see Appendix 1. Other strategies include poisoning,
falconry or birth control. Deterrent strategies are employed both by individual citizens
(sticks, netting but also sometimes poison) and by the city authorities (in cases where
pigeon
control is applied on a large-scale).
Is there really something wrong with having pigeons around? Can and should their
numbers be controlled? What are the possible solutions to this mutual intolerance that
harm each side the least?
124 unpleasant design What are pigeons doing in the city?
In the wilderness, Rock Dove (lat. Columba livia) or Rock Pigeon inhab- its sea-cliffs and
mountains - hence the name. With the construction of the first human settlements from
solid material like stone or wood, the rock dove started migrating to these new
environments, which were much more friendly and safe. The proximity of people offered
pigeons an abund- ance of food, and at the same time safety from the birds of prey.
Gradually, the rock doves abandoned the rock for buildings and started nesting on top
of houses and temples. Origins and domestication
Rock doves were originally found wild in Europe, North Africa, and western Asia. According
to Darwin, the earliest known record of the do- mestication of pigeons dates from around
3000 B.C, during the fifth Egyp- tian dynasty (Darwin, 1995). This is where large pigeon-
farms were found to provide sacrificial animals for gods. They were also raised in Ancient
Rome, Persia, and India.
Home-grown pigeons were commonly eaten and their dung was used as a land fertiliser.
Due to their outstanding navigation abilities, domesticated pigeons were long used as
messengers. According to Roy S. Freedman, au- thor of the Introduction to Financial
Technology, they were particularly beneficial for the success of the multinational business
the Rothschild family set up in the 1800s across five European cities, using pigeons as a
secure communication network (Freedman, 2006). Messenger pigeons con- tinued to be
prominent until the Second World War, as long as the man- made communication systems
were still crude and unreliable. Pigeons de- livered messages from battle fields or were
fitted with cameras to take
pictures of enemy positions.
Today, pigeons do not have a useful purpose as messengers, but their navigation abilities
are studied in science, because of their extraordinary ability to orient based on visual
landmarks on the way back home (Vyssot- ski et al., 2009).
case studies 125 Dangerous or Lovely?
Feral pigeons are wild animals that live in cities. Although they are not in the wilderness,
they do have to find food, water and shelter just like other wild animals. They are easily
tamed and adapt well to new con- ditions. However one feels about pigeons in the city, we
could agree on one thing: feral pigeons are not beautiful. However, their presence does
have some charm and for some people feeding them is a relaxing and
charitable activity. A change in perception
Courtney Humphries reminds us how even as city birds, pigeon flocks were once
considered romantic, as they appear on old photographs of urban scenes (2008). Flocks of
pigeons were a common feature of most European city squares for a long time, and people
developed a habit of feeding them.
Some years ago, selling bread crumbs and corn to tourists was still a profitable business in
London, Venice, New York. Today it is banned by law, incurring a financial penalty. The
common view on pigeons began to change in the 19th century, but it was in Woody Allen's
"Stardust Memories" from 1980 that the opinion solidified in the famous phrase "rats with
wings". Humphries concludes in her book that, "When something is everywhere, it
paradoxically becomes invisible and its value diminishes in our minds." (2008). She notes
that the fanatical hatred of pigeons is actually a relatively new phenomenon, an opinion
formed only
about a few decades ago. Health risks
Pigeons and their droppings can cause damage to buildings and ma- chinery, carry insect
pests and disease. Although they can carry human pathogens, experts say pigeons can only
pose a threat to people with a weakened immune system or people who are frequently
exposed to pi- geons (breeders, fanciers, racers) (Techletter, 2012). According to PICAS (a
UK based Pigeon Control Advisory Service), the main source of the myth that pigeons pose
a risk to human health actually comes from companies
of the pest control industry, whose commercial success depends on
126 unpleasant design selling different pigeon control products and services (PiCAS,
2012a). Nu- merous websites and blogs for pigeon protection or control repeatedly quote
seven to ten different sources to correct this misunderstanding (New York Bird Club, 2007;
Pigeon Protection, 2011; Save The Trafalgar Square Pigeons, 2006; Urban Wildlife Society,
2004; PiCAS, 2012a), stating that pigeons are no more dangerous than any other animal or
human in transmitting diseases.
It is true, however, that pigeons in our environment can cause health hazards. The problem
mainly lies in the accumulation of their excrement (Blechman, 2006). The risk arises from
fungi organisms that grow in the nutrient-rich accumulations of bird droppings, feathers
and debris under a roost (Casadevall, 2005). Cleaning or in any way disturbing dried
pigeon excrement causes the spores to spread in the air and thus expose the person to the
possibility of contracting one of the diseases linked with the fungi.
Least Concern
The legal status of pigeons is not very enviable. Their conservation status in nature is ‘least
concerned' (International Union for Conserva- tion of Nature and Natural Resources,
2012), as they are found in abund- ance all around the world. Local governments consider
pigeons a nuisance, a pest species, or even a threat to environmental health. Killing or
poisoning pigeons is seen as a legitimate act of pest control, though the Humane Society
will object if they find the method cruel (Humphries, 2008).
Lovers vs Haters
In the meantime, pigeon flocks in our cities have grown, and this is considered essentially
connected to the availability of food (PCRC, 2009a). Next to scavenging for food in parks
and on the streets, pigeons often get fed by people who feel compassionate for this
disregarded creature. It is usually remarked that this additional feeding of pigeons causes
them breed more throughout the year (with a large availability of food, they can breed up
to six times instead of once a year), thus increasing their number exponentially. People's
feeding not only influences their number,
but also their digestion system. While pigeons in nature would eat seeds
case studies 127 and grain, people tend to give them breadcrumbs, which makes their
dung more aggressive and more difficult to remove (Blechman, 2006).
The first step some city councils took in pigeon control is the prohibi- tion of pigeon
feeding. The most famous case of this happening is Trafal- gar Square in London, where
Mayor Ken Livingston introduced a ban on
pigeon-feeding and took away the licences from licensed corn sellers.
While pigeons are today considered a "nuisance bird" by many, they can also find
defenders all around the world. These people are usually called "pigeon people", and they
are organised and devoted to make pi- geons' lives a little easier. "Pigeon people" range
from feeders who pas- sionately prepare bags of old bread or cooked rice to feed the
animals in a park; to organisation leaders who act as advocates for pigeons’ interests and
fight the dominant prejudices. Some "pigeon people" believe that protecting pigeons equals
"fighting for nothing less than the soul of soci- ety" (Humphries, 2008).
All "pigeon people" share their love for pigeons, but they do not ne- cessarily agree on what
is best for them. Some believe pigeons need bet- ter defined rules for tolerance, others are
more inclined towards leaving things up to nature. These groups do not agree on the basics
of pigeon control - should there or shouldn't there be any. Even if one is fond of them, they
can feel responsible for controlling their numbers. But some "pigeon people" insist on the
fact that we have no right to interfere with their natural breeding. Others believe that if we
would reduce their num- bers by controlling their birth rate, they would not be seen as a
nuisance
any more. The choice of a method here can raise endless discussions.
Pigeon Control
Pigeon control is a form of bird control aimed at deterring pigeons from landing, roosting
and nesting, or at eliminating them completely. It refers to all the measures taken with the
intention of controlling their numbers and distribution. Pigeon control practices range
from visual and tactile deterrents (which we refer to as "unpleasant design"), through
128 unpleasant design population growth control, to lethal bird control or culling. These
three distinctive approaches differ in the level of humaneness and efficiency. While
deterring pigeons from nesting has obviously no effect on the bird population size, the
culling and birth control are opposite approaches to specifically reduce their numbers.
Lethal Control
The Culling of pigeons is usually done by licensed companies for pest control, who provide
the service of shooting or poisoning birds to prop- erty owners or other clients
experiencing a bird-related problem.
Falconry became a popular way to remove pigeons too, because it is considered more
natural than poisoning or trapping. Although the main purpose of falcons is to scare
pigeons away, there is no way to ensure the raptors will not kill the birds straight on the
street, or that the raptors themselves have been through any kind of training. (PCRC,
2009b)
Not only are the aforementioned methods cruel and questionably ethical, but lethal pigeon
control techniques are actually thought to have the opposite effect on the flock number
(Blechman, 2006; PiCAS, 2012a). The UK based Pigeon Control Advisory Service insists that
culling actually increases the number of birds, because the amount of available food in-
creases for the surviving ones, thus leading them to breed more. PiCAS explains how
treating the effect (large number of pigeons) rather than the cause (abundance of food) will
result in the number of birds increas- ing by approximately 15% after culling (poisoning,
trapping or shooting the birds) (PiCAS, 2012a).
Deterrent measures
What people resort to are different deterrent systems, sometimes combined with a one-
time lethal control measure. Property owners and city councils both hire companies to
install deterrent systems on facades,
advertising constructions, and other possible landing spots for pigeons. Anti-Roosting
Spikes and Wires
The simplest and most pervasive method is certainly wiring. Porcu- pine wires are used on
flat, horizontal surfaces of (ornamental) facades,
on window sills, and even cables. A myriad of spring-tempered nickel
case studies 129 stainless steel prongs with sharp points pointing outward in all directions
are used as a repellent that discourages the birds from landing on protec- ted surfaces. The
spikes are considered one of the most cost-effective and long-term anti-perching products
on the market (PiCAS, 2012a) We can easily notice their main maintenance drawback,
namely that they tend to collect dirt, particularly feathers, and are quite impossible to
clean. This should significantly raise the cost of the product in the long run, as it has
to be replaced often in order to keep up with hygienic standards.
The post and wire system is used as a similar mechanical repellent. Usually installed on
ledges, parallel strands of wire are stretched on strings between two posts. The stretched
wire moves in contact with a pigeon attempting to land, rendering the ledge an unsafe
landing ground. Wires like this are sometimes under electrical charge, to make the contact
with pigeons even more unpleasant. According to PiCAS, it is the most ineffective pigeon
control product, which is not only expensive, but also has the potential to cause extensive
damage to the fabric of the buildings upon which it is installed (PiCAS, 2012a)
Netting
The most overall solution is netting screened over facades, usually applied on historical
buildings with ornamented facades. After the facade has been renovated or cleaned, netting
is installed around protruding facade elements, windows or even whole buildings and
courtyards. The nets are made of polypropylene UV-stabilized wires and are resistant to
corrosion, rusting or rotting. Netting seems like a solution that needs al- most no
maintenance. However, it is quite the opposite, as it has to be checked regularly to ensure
that birds are not caught in the mesh. At the same time, objects fall into nets from inside of
the protected area (see Appendix 1.1.5), which decreases the aesthetic properties of the
facade and complicates maintenance. Its cost-effectiveness is similar to the post- and-wire
system described above (PiCAS, 2012a), as its installation is in-
vasive to the fabric of the building and its lifespan less than five years. Frightening devices
Alternatively, frightening devices like fake pigeons or CDs to deter birds are often installed
on terraces, balconies and window sills. These are
130 unpleasant design usually the least expensive and most spontaneous solution to bird-
re- lated problems, as it involves the industry the least. We could still argue that it does
have some effect on the pest control industry, because it ex- tends the area demanding the
installation of repellents, which we will discuss further in this text.
If my neighbour has it, I must have it too
It is quite obvious that the installation of bird deterrent systems has become a fashion and
a standard in commercial districts. As an outcome of our observations, we can conclude
that once the system is installed on a building, it propels further installation on
neighbouring facades. This is because surrounding buildings quickly become more prone to
pigeon problems. As a chain reaction, all the buildings around will also apply pi- geon
deterrent measures, in order to avoid being their more concentrated target. At the end of
this process, we have the majority of facades protec- ted, and the ones without protection
completely covered with dung.
This process raises an important ecological question. A small number of pigeons does not
usually cause a nuisance, it is their large number that calls for attention and creates a
spatial conflict between people and pi- geons. But pigeon deterrent applications actually
exacerbate this, rather than reducing it. Instead of addressing the problem where it
appears, pi- geon deterrents try to create a problem-proof zone, making all other space
more vulnerable. They increase pigeon concentration on particular spots, move the
problem elsewhere and make it more difficult to deal with.
Alternative measures
Both lethal and deterrent control measures have become profitable industries. Their clients
range from individual home owners to city councils. Industries have emerged to help
people repel and kill pigeons. (Humphries, 2008) Spikes and nets reduce the accumulation
of droppings on and around a particular building location. But they do not have a long term
effect on the pigeon population or their habits - once the spikes are
removed, pigeons happily roost there again.
case studies 131 The method Pigeon Control Advisory Service advises is the control of
population growth, which is achieved by removing fertilised eggs from nests and replacing
them with fake ones. For this purpose, built struc- tures are erected in public space that
serve as pigeon lofts, suitable and comfortable places for the pigeons to nest. Because the
eggs are replaced with plastic ones, pigeons don’t lay more eggs, and in this way their pop-
ulation is reduced without the need for killing.
It is thought on one side that overfeeding leads to an overpopulation, of which one
consequence is, in turn, the reduction of the likelihood that the young birds will survive
(see Appendix 1.3.1). On the other side, ac- cording to Johanna Clearfield, not feeding them
actually raises their number as a part of a survival strategy. In this case they only live
shorter and, according to Clearfield, miserably (2005).
Conclusions
Our relationship to pigeons has been changing throughout history, and it continues to do
so. Contrary to what we tend to experience today, pigeons were once welcome in people’s
environments for different reas- ons. However hard it is for some to imagine that these
dirty, messy birds whose flocks infest city centres were once useful, there are still people
who care for them and go out to feed them daily. The conflict between these two views tells
about our conflicting ideas about individual rights and sharing, coexistence and tolerance,
safety and protection. Different groups will always have conflicting ideas about how our
public space should be arranged and managed, and some groups will always have more
power than others. What the case of pigeons demonstrates especially well is that even such
an unrepresented population can spur conflicts that bring conflicting interests
(public/private, commercial/non-commercial, nature/culture, efficiency/preservation) to
the surface. We are experien- cing an anti-pigeon trend in our cities, raised by property
owners, driven
by the repellent industry, and advocated by local governments.
The problems this anti-pigeon trend raises are many. In the first place, the question is how
do we forge a relationship with other species that in-
132 unpleasant design habit our cities? How much control do we expect to have over our
co- habitants, be it our pets, wild birds or insects? Who and what do we wel- come, and
what do we tolerate?
We could speak of certain kind of "purification" of our environment, which is reflected not
only in the increasing demand for control over, but also a lack of tolerance for different
lifestyles and behaviours. The privat- isation of public and semi-public spaces brings with it
regulations in the interest of commerce, which in turn leads to less and less diversity in the
ways space can be used. This applies to the diversity of species too. Pi- geons count here as
a nomadic population that adapts to anything and claims space by occupying it. But we
tend to believe that space has to dis- tributed more systematically. Pigeons should be, in the
best case, assigned a territory where they can roost, lay eggs, be fed, or defecate. Colin
Jerol- mack suggests this trend is a typical modernist conception of proper, morally
appropriate, spatial relations between animals and society (Jer- olmack, 2008).
As our cities replaced most of natural animal habitats, wildlife had to be confined to natural
resorts and dedicated parks. As public space within our cities is replaced by commerce,
there is less and less room for oppor- tunistic creatures like pigeons or homeless people.
They too have to withdraw into dedicated zones. This is secured by so-called architectures
of control or "silent agents" which render unwanted use impossible. Anti- roosting spikes
and nets serve this purpose, just like the benches with
central armrests prevent people from sleeping on them.
Knowing that an entire architecture of dovecotes and lofts developed around the breeding
of pigeons, we can assume that anti-roosting devices will have a similarly strong impact on
architectural design. Already now, PiCAS is offering consultancy services to architects and
their clients on potential bird-related problems and long-term solutions for them (PiCAS,
2012b). Considering that repellents added to facades compromise the aesthetics of a
building and can additionally become ineffective, there is already a growing design thought
on how to design buildings with built- in systems for roosting prevention. How this will
influence architecture we are only about to see, but it will certainly result in the use of
particu-
lar materials and shapes whose sole purpose will be to be pigeon-proof.
case studies 133 By outlawing the act of feeding the pigeons, and installing various re-
pellents, local governments and property owners are working towards improving the level
of ‘hygiene’ in the city. In many cases, we can see that this actually leads to more dirt
concentration in single spots where the rules haven’t been applied yet. Discriminating
against one group only displaces them, achieving larger concentrations of the unwanted
effects in other available locations. It does not target the problem - it simply ad- dresses the
consequence. Most of the solutions currently applied in bird control do not really help
resolve this conflict, nor do they allow us to
forge a sustainable relationship with the animals.
Can we imagine a sustainable relationship with pigeons? In an art- work by Tuur van
Ballen, the "Pigeon d'or" appears as a transformed species when feed with a synthetically
designed bacteria that can modify its metabolism and turn it into a biological device that
produces window- soap (Tuur van Balen, 2012). This work surely offers a perspective of a
possible symbiotic relationship between pigeons and humans, but it im- mediately raises
the classical question: do we still today only tolerate
species that are useful to us?
If a sustainable relationship is necessarily a symbiotic one, this means pigeons need to have
a role in our society that would in turn motivate people to feed them. In this respect,
pigeons already have a long tradition as messengers. The current research in pigeon
navigation goes even fur- ther than observing their orientation by visual landmarks.
Looking at neuronal responses in pigeons brains, scientists have analysed pigeons’ internal
navigation model, which makes use of the Earth's magnetic field (Wu and Dickman, 2012).
Perhaps in this area pigeons will once again be-
come useful to people.
Bibliography
Blechman, A.D., 2006. Pigeons: the fascinating saga of the world’s most revered and re-
viled bird. New York: Grove Press.
Casadevall, A., 2005. Fungal virulence, vertebrate endothermy, and dinosaur extinc- tion: is
there a connection? Fungal Genetics and Biology, [online] 42(2), pp.98-106. Available at:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1087184504001938 [Ac- cessed 9 Dec.
2012].
134 unpleasant design Clearfield, J., 2005. Helping NYC’s Urban Wildlife. [online] Satya.
Available at: [Accessed 27 Oct. 2012].
Darwin, C., 1995. The origin of species. New York: Gramercy Books.
Freedman, R.S., 2006. Introduction to financial technology. Amsterdam; Boston, MA:
Elsevier/Academic Press.
Humphries, C., 2008. Superdove: how the pigeon took Manhattan-- and the world. New
York: Smithsonian Books: Collins.
International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 2012. Columba
livia. [online] The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Available at: [Accessed 8 Dec.
2012].
Jerolmack, C., 2008. How Pigeons Became Rats: The Cultural-Spatial Logic of Problem
Animals. Social Problems, [online] 55(1), pp.72-94. Available at: [Accessed 17 Dec. 2012].
New York Bird Club, 2007. People for the Preservation of Pigeons. [online] Available at:
http://peopleforpigeons.blogspot.ch/ [Accessed 8 Dec. 2012].
PCRC, 2009a. Pigeon Control Resource Centre. [online] Available at: <http://www.pi-
geoncontrolresourcecentre.org/> [Accessed 9 Dec. 2012].
PCRC, 2009b. Remove Pigeons with Birds of Prey. [online] Pigeon Control Resource Centre.
Available at: <http://www.pigeoncontrolresourcecentre.org/html/reviews/re- move-
pigeons-birds-of-prey.html> [Accessed 9 Dec. 2012].
PiCAS, 2012a. Pigeon Control Advisory Service. [online] PiCAS: Humane Non Lethal
Methods of Bird Pest Control Pest Control Industry. Available at: <http://www.picas-
uk.com/> [Accessed 8 Dec. 2012].
PiCAS, 2012b. Pigeon Control Advisory Service: Architect Services. [online] PiCAS: Hu-
mane Non Lethal Methods of Bird Pest Control Pest Control Industry. Available at:
[Accessed 17 Dec. 2012].
Pigeon Protection, 2011. Pigeon Protection. [online] Available at: <http://www.pigeon-
protectionandrescue.com/> [Accessed 8 Dec. 2012].
Save The Trafalgar Square Pigeons, 2006. Save The Trafalgar Square Pigeons. [online]
Available at: http://www.savethepigeons.org/ [Accessed 8 Dec. 2012].
Techletter, 2012. Pigeons and Disease. [online] Available at: <http://www.techlet-
ter.com/Archive/Safety%20articles/pigeonsdisease.html> [Accessed 7 Dec. 2012].
Tuur van Balen, 2012. PIGEON D’OR - COHEN VAN BALEN. [online] Available at: [Accessed
17 Dec. 2012].
Urban Wildlife Society, 2004. Pigeons and Public Health - The TRUE Facts. [online]
Available at: <http://www.urbanwildlifesociety.org/zoonoses/ExprtsRePijZo- onos.html>
[Accessed 8 Dec. 2012].
Vyssotski, A.L. et al., 2009. EEG Responses to Visual Landmarks in Flying Pigeons. Cur- rent
Biology, [online] 19(14), pp.1159-1166. Available at: <http://linkinghub.elsevi-
er.com/retrieve/pii/S0960982209012500> [Accessed 27 Oct. 2012].
Wu, L.-Q. and Dickman, J.D., 2012. Neural Correlates of a Magnetic Sense. Science, [on- line]
336(6084), pp.1054-1057. Available at: <http://www.sci-
encemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.1216567> [Accessed 17 Dec. 2012].
case studies 135 Appendix 1: Direct Observation evidence
1.1. Pigeon deterrent applications 1.1.1 Mechanical systems
Wire sticks used on horizontal surfaces, even on cables; BCV, Lausanne, Switzerland; April,
2012
Netting over a balustrade; BCV, Lausanne, Switzerland; April, 2012
Post and wire system applied on a windowsill in a residential building, Lausanne,
Switzerland; December, 2012
case studies 137 1.1.3 Deceiving and scaring
Wooden pigoen hanging over a balcony; Rue du Maupas, Lausanne, Switzerland; April 2012
Glittering decoration of a boat is | possibly more useful as a pigeon deterrent; The little
flags sway in the wind and scare the pigeons (and other birds) away; Ouchy harbour,
Lausanne, Switzerland; April 2012
138 unpleasant design 1.1. The Effects
1.2.1 The scale
1.2.2 Failures
The current trend in protecting buildings from pigeons has also spread to large scale public
art. Wire sticks on a large fork in front of the Alimentarium in Vevey, Switzerland;
September 2011
Roosting is prevented everywhere; but pigoens still manage to find some spot to land;
Lausanne, Switzerland
Overall bird barrier netting applied on a historic facade of a building in the centre of
Lausanne, Switzerland. The netting is of the same colour as the paint, so it should go
unnoticed. However, because of its overall coverage, all litter falling out of windows stays
caught inside the net.
case studies 139 1.2.3 If my neighbour has it...
When the majority of buildings in a street or area apply pigeon deterrent measures, a single
unprotected facade becomes the sole target for a high concentration of birds. It gets all the
dirt and its maintenance becomes exponentially more difficult. This is the logic that causes
a uniform and overall application of pigeon deterrents; La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland,
October 2012
140 unpleasant design 1.3. City policy, recommendations and instructions
1.3.1. Why not feed the pigeons?
A table found on the border of the lake Leman, explaining how feeding pigeons in an
disorganised way causes them to reproduce more often, which in turn makes new birds
weaker so they are more likely to die before reaching adulthood; Lausanne, May 2012
case studies 141 un-pleas-ant de:sign:
Copyright (c) 2012 Gordan Saviti¢é and
Selena Savi¢, 216 pages
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version
1.3 or any later version published by
the Free Software Foundation; with no
Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
Edited by: Gordan Savicié and Selena Savié
Case studies by:
Gordan Saviti¢é
Selena Savié
Survival Collective Gilles Paté
BAUM LAB Architecture Marko Tirnanié
with contributions by: Adam Rothstein Francesco Morace Heather Stewart Feldman Vladan
Jeremié
Dan Lockton
Yasmine Abbas
Forian Riviére
Julian Palacz
Fabian Brunsing
Sarah Ross
Michael Rakowitz
• competition entries by Ankita Thaker
Nevena BoSkovié
Jelena Boskovié
Maarten van der Heijden
Supported by:
CBK Rotterdam - Centrum Beeldende Kunst Rotterdam
BMUKK - Bundesministerium fiir Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur
Typesetting and graphics made with Scribus1.5.0svn
Fonts licenced with GPL2 and SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE Version 1.1
'Le patin helvete' designed by OSP - Harrisson, Ludi, Sebastien Sanfilippo 'Gentium' -
designed by Victor Gaultney
Proof-Reading: Aileen Derieg
Pictures by Gordan Savici¢ and Selena Savi¢ unless otherwise noted
Design and prepress: Gordan Savicic, Selena Savi¢é
Illustrations by Nikola Koraé
CIP - Katalogizacija u publikaciji Narodna biblioteka Srbije, Beograd
7.05:159.9.019(082) 711.4:316.6/.7(082)
UNPLEASANT Design / [edited by Gordan Savitié and Selena Savi¢]. - Belgrade : G.L.O.R.I.A.,
2013 (Belgrade : Akademija). - 216 str. : ilustr. ; 23 cm Edition: 500
ISBN 978-86-910911-1-8
http://unpleasant.pravi.me