Prison architecture reflects society's changing attitudes toward crime and punishment.

Prisons have evolved from simple places for incarceration (where protection of the public is paramount) to instruments of punishment (where deprivation of liberty is the penalty for breaking the law), to settings for reform (where attempts are made to mould the guilty to conform to society's norms). KEYWORDS Architecture RELATED RESOURCES Gallery Arts - Architecture Interactive Canadian Architecture Resources

No aboriginal records refer to the concept of long-term incarceration as a form of punishment. Those who deliberately departed from tribal norms or traditions faced sanctions such as temporary or permanent banishment or death. Prisons for Short-term Detention Throughout the French rgime and in the early decades of British rule, imprisonment was a means of detaining debtors to ensure payment, the accused before trial, or the guilty before punishment. Courts, following English and French practice, imposed sentences including fines, personal mutilation such as flogging or branding, or death. In 18th-century England transportation to penal settlements in the Thirteen Colonies (and, after independence, Australia) became an increasingly popular penalty because it removed the guilty from local society; length of sentence and destination reflected the severity with which the court viewed the offence.

Strong-box Typical early 19th century strongbox plan (courtesy Dana Johnson).

Plan

Before 1800, prisons in the North American colonies, like those in the motherlands, were used for short-term detention. Often placed in existing facilities such as military works, which offered appropriate levels of security, pre-1800 prisons usually consisted of large open rooms where inmates lived communally in unsupervised and unsanitary conditions. Strong-box jails, whose purpose was primarily the secure holding of the individual, were designed into the 19th century, mainly to serve municipalities. An early example, at Burton, New Brunswick (1820), is a national historic site whose domestic appearance and layout is belied by the iron bars on the windows which announce its function.

The Penitentiary After the passing of Britain's 1779 Penitentiary Act, which made imprisonment an alternative to traditional sentences, a new type of prison emerged - the penitentiary. Buildings were designed to be supervised by paid staff. They had to accommodate labour programs (which taught work habits and helped to maintain the institution), the classification of inmates by sex, age and the level of criminality, and the principle of individual cellular confinement (one inmate per cell). It was expected that penitentiaries would act as deterrents to crime.

West Lodge West lodge, tower and west wall from Portsmouth, 1870, from "Canadian Illustrated News", Vol. 2, 31 December 1870, p. 436 (courtesy National Archives of Canada/C-50562). The principles behind penitentiaries, promoted by late 18th-century English prison reformers under the leadership of the sheriff of Bedfordshire, John Howard, affected British prison architecture for 150 years and began to affect Canadian design early in the 19th century. Franois Baillairg's (see BAILLAIRG FAMILY) plan for the prison at Qubec City (opened 1809) was dominated by congregate living spaces but offered some individual cells and a measure of classification by sex and type of crime. The city prison in Montral, planned in 1825 by George Blaiklock and erected along more modern lines in 1832-36 (John WELLS, architect), was a transitional structure which contained 82 single and 97 double cells along with 6 congregate day rooms, chapels and dining halls. The only classification was between male and female inmates. Effects of Reformers on Prison Design Howard-inspired prison reformers sought to add reform to punishment and deterrence as a principle of prison design. Believing that criminality was caused by a lack of moral values and social structure in the individual's life, advocates of reformatory prisons argued that a regimen of silence, isolation, religious training and hard labour could force the inmate to selfexamination, an awareness of the cost of criminality, and the importance of approved social values and work habits. In the early decades of the 19th century, American social commentators in New York and Pennsylvania devised 2 architectural formulas to support the reform principle. The Auburn approach employed cellblocks consisting of rows of very small cells placed back-to-back in the centre of the building and separate large workshops where inmates laboured together. The Pennsylvania system advocated cellblocks laid out in a radial pattern from a principal supervisory station, each block consisting of a central corridor flanked by rows of comparatively large cells where the inmate lived and worked for his entire sentence. The effectiveness of the Auburn approach depended on a regime of brutal punishments for breaches of regulations, especially the rule of silence, and therefore required a large staff. Its communal labour programs permitted a broad range of potentially profitable industrial activities. The method and form of Pennsylvania-styled prisons led to smaller staffs but a very narrow range of labour programs. Kingston Penitentiary and the Auburn Approach

The belief that prison design could reform inmates influenced the planning and design of the provincial penitentiary in Kingston (opened to its first 35 inmates, including, unexpectedly, 5 females, on 1 June 1835). Designed by the former deputy warden of the New York state prison at Auburn, William Powers, and built under that institution's master builder, John Mills, Kingston Penitentiary was an exceptionally faithful illustration of the Auburn correctional philosophy. Planned to house 880 prisoners (and therefore ranking among the institutions with the greatest capacity in the world; the largest, England's Millbank prison, housed 1000), it consists of a grand entry gateway, in the form of a triumphal arch, leading to an enormous cross-shaped main cellblock (reportedly the largest nonmilitary structure in Canada at the time) and an equally huge cross-shaped workshop behind, all placed within a 10-acre walled enclosure. The cellblock housed administrative facilities (offices, a staff room, a library, and housing for the warden and deputy warden) in the front wing and inmate accommodations in the other 3. An impressive domed rotunda linked the 4 pavilions. Inmates at Kingston spent their nonworking hours in tiny cells, each measuring 2 m by 0.6 m (6 feet by 2 feet) in size, separated from the neighbouring unit by 2-foot-thick stone walls which effectively prevented inmate communications which might lead to further moral contamination. These cells, fronted by thick wooden doors, pierced by small barred openings for ventilation and supervision, were laid out in long rows stacked 5 cells high in the middle of the cellblock. This plan was designed to permit continuous staff supervision of each cell from both the front and rear. Religious instruction (which originally took place with the inmate locked in his cell) and the regime of total silence ensured that the prisoner's mind would be focused on the consequences of evil. Labour programs, designed to reform the inmate and to support the institution financially, were carried out in large open workshops that were easily supervised. Inmate labour was "sold" to entrepreneurs who transformed the prison workshops into factories which produced furniture, metal goods and shoes and other leather products. Work was to inculcate socially acceptable habits and attitudes which, combined with moral instruction supported by extraordinarily harsh discipline, would ensure that criminals had every possible incentive to reform themselves.

Kingston Penitentiary, 1895 Kingston Penitentiary, bird's-eye view of the institution in 1895 (courtesy Queen's University Archives, Kingston Architectural Plans, no. 29)

Main Cell Block, Kingston Main cell building, Kingston Penitentiary (courtesy Queen's University Archives, Kingston Architectural Drawings #29). Auburn Model Questioned

The high number of repeat offenders and an 1846 inquiry into the operation of Kingston Penitentiary suggested that the Auburn system had proven ineffective in reforming inmates. The 1846 inquiry had also raised a serious issue, the imprisonment of juvenile offenders some as young as 10 years of age - in institutions designed for adults. The first attempt to resolve the issue was the design of a reform school, initially located in the fort at le-auxNoix, Qubec (opened 1857). This institution inspired a series of correctional facilities for young delinquents including industrial schools, which the government of Qubec authorized as early as 1869. Providing for the distinctive needs of young offenders led authorities to abandon their traditional dependence on labour and the cell and develop an approach which blended the design of contemporary public schools and orphanages. Despite questions about its effectiveness, the Auburn model used at Kingston Penitentiary prevailed as the norm until the 1930s. Its cellblock layout - cells laid out in long rows stacked in the centre of wings placed behind an administrative pavilion, the whole surrounded by imposing stone walls - was copied for penal institutions at all levels. Most fully developed at provincial institutions such as the one at Kingston or, on a smaller scale, at Halifax (185455), the Auburn model was gradually adopted in the planning of municipal jails. A pioneer in this regard was the jail built by the city of Saint John, NB, in 1839, which used the Auburn layout of cells and inspection corridors in its single cellblock but provided no religious training or labour programs. By the 1850s and 1860s, the Kingston layout of a central administration building with wings of Auburn-styled cells was used in the planning of city jails in centres such as St John's (1859), Toronto (the Don Jail of 1858-64, William THOMAS), Ottawa (1960-62, Horsey and Sheard) and Qubec City (1862-65, Charles Baillairg). When provincial authorities ordered new jails constructed in the county capitals throughout Upper and Lower Canada in the 1850s and 1860s, they were also invariably simplified versions of the Kingston model - fronting administration pavilions (sometimes joined to courthouses) leading to one or more cellblock wings consisting of ranges of cells placed back-to-back in the centre of the building. Designed for short-term incarceration (inmates were being held for trial or had been sentenced to terms of less than 2 years), these new jails often utilized more complicated internal plans than those employed in congregate institutions. Institutions constructed to serve municipalities during the first half of the 19th century had been criticised as schools of criminality. Since inmates were housed together with limited supervision and nothing to do, experienced hardened criminals took on leadership roles, passing the time by training younger inmates in the ways of wrongdoing. The new jails separated inmates by gender, age and level of criminality. The plan of the Ontario County jail at Whitby, built in 1852-53, illustrates the solution used by the architects, the Toronto firm of Cumberland and Storm. Levels, doors, corridors and individual cellular confinement separated males from females, adults from youths, prostitutes from other inmates, and minor offenders from longer-term inmates (felons).

New Central Prison New Central Prison, Toronto, from "Canadian Illustrated News", Vol. 10, 19 September, 1874 (courtesy National Archives of Canada/C-61431).

Don Don Jail, Toronto (courtesy Archives of Ontario/5.15356).

Jail

Jail Plan, Whitby Plan of Ontario County jail, Whitby, built 1855, showing architecture of classification (courtesy of the author). Federal and Provincial Jurisdiction Under the British North America Act (1867), corrections became mainly a federal responsibility. Thereafter, sentences of 2 years or longer were served at institutions funded by the central government, while provincial prisons housed inmates sentenced to shorter penal terms. A facility expansion was required to accommodate the legislation. Several provinces erected new prisons. Ontario, for example, erected a new institution at Toronto in 1870-72 (James Smith, architect) to replace Kingston Penitentiary, which became federal property. Between 1872 and 1878, the central government also began to build new long-term-care institutions. These were located at Saint-Vincent-de-Paul (opened in 1873), Stoney Mountain, Manitoba (1877), New Westminster, BC (1878) and Dorchester, NB (1880). Whether sponsored by the dominion or provincial governments, these new institutions also used an Auburn-style layout modelled on Kingston Penitentiary. Work programmes assumed a greater role in prison reform programs as the benefits of silent self-examination came to be challenged. The smaller institutions usually provided less sophisticated types of labour, though the Toronto institution originally included a railway car assembly plant which proved a financial failure. Using untrained inmates tended to be inefficient; the industries rarely yielded significant profits to the institution and many of the undertakings were short-lived. All prison-based industries faced opposition from manufacturers and labour groups, who felt that the use of cheap prison labour interfered with the open market. In 1886 the Dominion Government ended prison industries, a move which crippled efforts to train inmates for employment after release. Thereafter labour programs in both federal and provincial institutions were largely limited to work such as cooking, farm operations and building maintenance and repair. These jobs supported the prison's operation and offered minimal vocational training. The vicious form of discipline advocated at Auburn was gradually moderated in its severity. Outside the federal system discipline was rarely as strict as it was at Kingston and silence, the rule in the federal system until 1932, was rarely implemented.

Saint-Vincent-de-Paul Prison Centre psychiatrique au "Maximum de Laval", vue d'un corridor cellulaire, Saint-Vincent-dePaul, Quebec, 1975 (courtesy National Archives of Canada/PA-166410).

Kingston Penitentiary, c 1920 Northwest Tower, Kingston Penitentiary, c 1920 (courtesy National Archives of Canada/PA48106). Departures From Auburn Layout Some departures from the Auburn prison layout came in the early 20th century, when a few municipal and provincial governments sought alternative architectural approaches to correctional design. When the city of Montral decided to replace its vastly outdated 1820s prison, a decidedly modern, technologically sophisticated complex was constructed in suburban Bordeaux (1908-13, J.-O. Marchand and R. A. Brossard). This consisted of a central 12-sided domed hub from which sprang 6 cellblock wings which featured large outside cells ranged along the exterior walls. Whereas most earlier short-term institutions had offered very elementary work programs on the argument that only long-term prisons could actually affect work habits and offer satisfactory job training, Bordeaux jail included state-ofthe-art workshops. These were symbolically placed at the heart of the prison, in front of the cellblock and on either side of the administration building. The whole complex was placed within a 5-sided compound surrounded by a double wall. Ontario's Guelph Reformatory (1909-10, John LYLE) was planned to cater particularly to the needs of young offenders, those under the age of 30 who, correctional authorities believed, were most susceptible to reformation. It adopted a different, but equally innovative, design approach. Staff and inmate facilities were concentrated in a front-facing administration block which was linked by a long corridor to inmate accommodation wings. The resulting complex was in the shape of an "E." Individual cellular confinement and dormitory living were both available at the Guelph Reformatory as were inmate kitchens and dining halls. Within the institution's 830-acre site, professionally designed spaces were set aside for a remarkable range of vocational programs, including a complete agricultural operation, shops for construction, metal, wood and enamel work, a fish farm, a quarry, construction, and the manufacture of shoes and cloth. The complex, which was serviced by its own railroad with access to (and a station on) the CPR mainline, also included a chapel, bathhouse, recreation hall, and school. In a decided departure from earlier designs, the complex was not walled. The provincial institutions at Guelph and Bordeaux were departures from the Auburn system - in program and design. The federal Department of Justice, on the other hand, only

introduced new design approaches in the 1930s when planning its first medium-security prisons for young offenders at Collins Bay, Ontario, and Saint-Vincent-de-Paul, Qubec (the latter was unbuilt). Like the Guelph Reformatory, these institutions aimed to separate inmates under 30 who were not defined as incorrigible from the vast majority of prisoners who were repeat offenders. Both employed the "telephone pole" layout - a fronting administration building linked by a long corridor behind it to wings of specialised inmate and staff facilities. Inmates were housed in a mix of standard Auburn "inside" cells, unconnected with the cellblock's exterior walls, and outside cells with barred windows. Unlike Guelph, Collin's Bay placed the institution's main buildings within impregnable, enclosing walls. Persistence of the Auburn Approach

Women's Prison for Women, main cell block viewed facing east.

Prison

In spite of these attempts to introduce change, the Auburn model persisted in the planning of both federal and provincial prisons. A notable example of the stranglehold it exerted on prison thinking was the federal government's Prison for Women at Kingston (1926-34), where the architectural staff of the Department of Justice produced plans for a T-shaped structure very similar in layout to men's prisons of the 1870s. Extraordinary levels of security including formidably thick outside walls, inside cells and heavy division walls were provided to hold a small group of inmates whose records, a 1936 royal commission on the correctional system suggested, did not require such a rigid approach. Canadian Prisons Need a New Model Two world wars, depression and reconstruction delayed long-overdue design reforms between 1914 and 1960. With few exceptions, governments at all levels simply continued to utilise outdated facilities, often built to accommodate long-discredited correctional philosophies. The 1960s, however, initiated a wholesale reform of Canada's penal system. In 1960 a federal government departmental committee chaired by Allen J. MacLeod issued a pathfinding report on correctional planning which set the agenda for a transformation in the federal system. In 1977 the MacLeod report was updated and expanded by a parliamentary committee chaired by Mark MacGuigan. Influenced by international trends represented by organizations such as the United Nations and informed by academic disciplines such as psychology, sociology and criminology, the department proposed phasing out virtually all its existing prisons, buildings of the Kingston type which dated to the pre-1914 period. These would be replaced by new institutions embodying contemporary correctional thinking. The former dependence upon the Auburn-inspired model was to be replaced by a multiple-model system with a broad range of institutional alternatives including reformatories, halfway houses, juvenile detention centres and isolated workcamps. What characterises contemporary correctional complexes is the variety of designs - each one a response to tailored program requirements. Security levels vary and are often achieved electronically. There has been a move to reduce the size of institutions for their former 500 to 1500 down to approximately 200. Inmate living arrangements more closely resemble those

outside prison. Prisons often include up-to-date educational and vocational training facilities and allow for pre-release programmes in socialization. Correction's current emphasis on socialisation (preparation of the inmate for a safe return to the community) is delivered through the concept of unit management, in which staff of various types are assigned to a group of inmates in an attempt to work co-operatively towards reformation and reintegration into society. The replacement of the linear cellblock layout by clusters of inmate living units (bedrooms around a common room) is an attempt to respond to this new emphasis in correctional philosophy. The cluster approach has been applied to the design of 5 new women's centres intended to replace the 1934 Prison for Women in Kingston. Individual living units arranged like cottages in a village attempt to replicate non-institutional life. According to this model, the prison is a miniature community where inmates and staff live and work together in quasi-family situations. Placed in the midst of small cities, these institutions are designed to be integral parts of the surrounding neighbourhood and substitute electronic surveillance for the traditional reliance on staff supervision and walls. One of the 5 women's centres functions as an Aboriginal healing lodge, its design informed by Native input. Special Handling Units, designed to accommodate Canada's most dangerous inmates, are at the other end of the security scale - the new maximum security institutions. After experiments in the late 1970s at Millhaven (Ontario) and Laval (Qubec), the federal government erected purpose-built institutions at Laval and at Prince Albert, Sask, both opened in 1986. These low-population, high-security units require, for reasons of protection, a minimum of direct contact between staff and inmate and are highly dependent on surveillance by technology. Implementing the MacLeod report has led to a remarkable expansion in the federal correctional system: the 8 institutions of 1958, 6 of which predated World War I, increased to 56 by 1978. Since 1960 most provincial and municipal prisons and jails, the majority of them predating WWI, have been replaced by new institutions. As with their federal counterparts, Auburnstyled rows of inside cells were abandoned for less institutional living quarters. Electronic and building technologies (video and audio surveillance, automated entry systems and tempered steel and other high-strength materials) provide the security once guaranteed by walls and high staffing ratios. Many new municipal jails offer vocational, recreational, psychological and socialisation programs modelled on those offered by federal and provincial institutions. In Toronto a new municipal correctional facility (1977) sits immediately east of William Thomas's 1864 Don Jail, the two buildings reflecting their respective society's views as to why prisons exist and what functions they serve. Author DANA JOHNSON
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/prison-architecture