Home from home: Safety in a Student Accommodation

Noor Sharif [LinkedIn]

Safety is an experience that is felt through the body but is determined by primarily the environment that surrounds us. How safe students feel in their accommodations is affected by the built environment: the infrastructure, social context, interpersonal relationships, and the boundaries between the public and private – safety as a phenomenon is not just determined by its physical markers. As a result, this essay breaks down how student accommodations elicit and challenge experiences of safety from the scope of my own student accommodation.

This essay explores what makes a space feel safe both on a public and private level, looking at communal and room spaces within my student accommodation. The Cambridge dictionary defines safety as “a state in which or a place where you are safe and not in danger or at risk” (Cambridge, 2022). While it is characterised by physical features, the bodily experience determines the level of safety one feels. This is one of the most important aspects of student accommodations where young adults, often from different parts of the world, move  to live independently in a new location. As living alone and ‘becoming an adult’ is heavily shaped by our environment (Hopworth et. al, 2011), this essay explores how individuals in a student accommodation experience safety and how it is affected by the built environment.

Safety itself is constructed by many different factors: the infrastructure of an area and its aesthetics, the ways in which individuals interact within a space, who uses the space and  what the rules are. The lack of boundary between public and private in student accommodations heightens this, making it an interesting case study. This essay will begin by focussing on the structure of my student accommodation and how that affects safety overall, including infrastructural details and the power structure within the building (see Figure 1). Then it will focus more on the communal and ‘public’ areas such as the courtyard and main lobby where individual behaviour and the built environment affects how people interact and feel. The individual flats and rooms, or the more ‘private’ spaces, will be explored last, discussing how interpersonal relationships, physical closeness and communal spaces within this private sphere makes students feel.

Accommodation

On an infrastructural level, the physical safety of a building overall is very important in determining if individuals feel safe. This is  shaped by the architectural stability, aesthetics and the management of the building (i.e. managed facilities and general service maintenance). The image of a neglected building is usually not associated with safety: chipped bricks, leaky pipes, exposed wiring and/or other negative visuals give the impression that the space is  uncared for, hence dangerous. A ‘run down’ building implies a lack of care, a concept of which is vital in establishing a safe environment. As “resemblance and affirmation cannot be dissociated” (Foucault 1983: 34), it is easier to trust that a space will be free from hazards if it looks like it. Safety is symbolised through a neat, new and modern appearance. In terms of my own student accommodation it looks like a new build - throughout the building from the exterior to the individual rooms it looks modern, new and taken care of. This, however, doesn’t necessarily translate into true physical safety as, especially in many affordable housing, contractors may fake safety - such as for example failing to complete electrical installations to the required standard. More significantly (and tragically), following the 2017 Grenfell Tower disaster where a council estate in North Kensington became engulfed in flames (due to inadequate and unsafe external cladding), it has been made clear to the general public in the UK that for those in charge, “the risk of the property failing…is the concern, not the risk to life for its inhabitants” (Schifferes 2017: 36).

Hence, in this case, aesthetics were prioritised above actual safety in order to present a semblance of a safe and aesthetically pleasing building without this being reality. In the context of my own accommodation there is limited information immediately available to student residents about when the building was made and what safety regulations it adheres to - again emphasising the importance of visual markers of safety. While it would be inappropriate to equate this space  with Grenfell, as my accommodation is privately owned and rented whereas the latter was social housing, there are important parallels between the two. Individuals, particularly “renters, … enter properties with almost no information about … the risks of living there beyond what they can assess with their own eyes” (ibid.). This creates an underlying anxiety when living in an accommodation as one can only trust what one can see. Especially considering the Western tendency to prioritise Descartes’ emphasis on sight in establishing one's own reality (Descartes, 1644), the image of safety makes individuals feel safe, however this can sometimes feel misplaced especially for students who grew up/were in London during the Grenfell tragedy.

While visual imagery is important in the general overview of place, the anthropological aspects of an accommodation (i.e. humaninfrastructure) can contribute to the feeling of safety. Therefore, a building’s management (those who govern the owned building) is vital. While the visual presence of a reception is important in establishing a ‘real’ immediate connection, there is comfort in the fact that there is ‘someone in charge’. In this sense, the management (as well as cleaners and maintenance people) become an integral part of the building itself as they ensure everything is in working order. This tackles some of the anxiety created by the lack of information and trust in contractors (as mentioned earlier), however it is also a double-edged sword. Quality of service varies widely between members of management and between different accommodations. This is because owners “do not think about and prioritise maintenance from a cultural perspective” (Hills and Worthing 2006: 203), and as a result the standard isn’t always met. That being said, contractually there is a “need to prescribe rights and responsibilities that cover both the individual ownership and collective governance” of a rented property (Roberston 2006: 38). This structure generates a sense of safety as the management must legally help you in certain cases. While the presence of a management doesn’t guarantee their quality of service, when moving in, individuals have the reassurance of a legal contract which makes them feel as though they can rely on a higher power to ensure their safety.

Visible signs of safety are diminished by the perception of newness as a proxy for trust in the building as well as trust in its management.

Public communal spaces

Student accommodation can be roughly divided into two parts - ‘public’ communal spaces and ‘private’ flat spaces. Public communal spaces include the main courtyard where there are designated spaces for people to socialise. Other places such as the laundry room and the main lobby are also communal, but for the purposes of this essay I will focus on the more social spaces.

Communal spaces typically contain structural elements such as an open patch of grass, ping-pong tables, gazebo and seating. Individuals’ behaviour can be affected by the architectural structure of the space, consequently creating a safe environment as inhabitants know what to expect. The habitus, or “socialised body” (Bourdieu 1998: 81) determines individuals’ ways of acting in these spaces. Considering student accommodation specifically, the metamorphic and malleable nature of the habitus is important as while most university students are (young) adults, embodied attitudes change depending on environment and social setting (Reay 2004). While everyone has their own “lived histories” (Bourdieu 1991: 91), the rules and setting of the communal courtyard space is important in establishing a standard of what one can expect especially in the case of students who are coming together for the first time. This creates a sense of safety as the “fear of the unknown may be a… fundamental fear” (Carleton 2016: 39) and therefore having a set of expectations or understanding of the communal space diminishes anxiety due to a normalisation of lived experience.

The above directly translates into the built environment as the courtyard is situated in a panopticon-like setting. The panopticon was a prison design made by Jeremy Bentham in the 18th Century. It worked on the premise that the inmate cells were surrounding a watchtower. This results in self-regulated behaviour as the inmates felt they were being watched all the time as they were constantly exposed (Foucault, 1995). The courtyard itself is similarly structured; the courtyard space is surrounded by the flats which tower all around it. All the windows are looking into the space, therefore creating the impression that “the gaze is alert everywhere” (Foucault 1995: 195). Here vision guarantees the function of power causing individuals to self-regulate their behaviour (ibid.) therefore establishing safety as it is less likely that someone will act (at least severely) out of line. While the impending sense of constant surveillance can generate anxiety, in a public and communal space it gives individuals the reassurance that rules are more likely to be adhered to.

However, atmosphere of a public space can transform during different points of the day, especially depending on the individual. For example, the gazebo, which may be used as a smoking space, is enclosed and is difficult to look into (see Figure 2). While during the daytime it is well lit, at night it can become a more threatening place due to lack of lighting. According to the defensible space theory, enclosed spaces should make individuals, particularly women, feel more safe in residential areas as they visualise a place of security (Newman, 1972). However, in reality these spaces have the opposite effect as they are associated with places of violence for females; social norms are   by women as they “develop mental images of where violence occurs … through … first and second hand information sources” (Valentine, 1999: 289) consequently determining their use of a social space. As a result enclosed spaces within the courtyard can become threatening particularly at night when the visibility is lower and there are less people around. The panoptic structure of the courtyard can emphasise this as if the majority of the windows are covered with blinds or lights are off, it implies that that constant alert gaze is no more. Overall atmospheres of places are “never finished, static or at rest” (Anderson, 2009: 79) therefore making a previously safe communal area into something threatening based on the time of day, and therefore visible activity. Communal spaces are thus mediated through the agency of the built environment over individuals.

Flats

Flats are the more private domain of student accommodations. They are usually accessed with a key and contain a cluster of rooms  that are either en-suite or have a shared bathroom and kitchen. Here the idea of safety is transformed as it becomes more personal - it is often determined by people’s own lives. In the context of student accommodation, interpersonal relationships between roommates as well as the infrastructure of the flat can affect how safe individuals feel in these spaces. 

In terms of the physical space, the flats are small and the rooms are close to each other. This is emphasised by the thinness of the walls meaning that you can not only hear flatmates in their rooms but also if they are in the corridor or kitchen. Loud phone conversations can be heard almost perfectly clearly. The agency of the flat and the individual impacts the perception of totally ‘personal’ space as there is an increased proximity to others (such as micro-geographies, boundaries and homemaking - Holton, 2016). This can be a cause of anxiety as when someone enters their room they are not just ‘being alone’, “one must be alone when one chooses to be” (Marshall 1972: 93). That being said, the proximity to others from other sensory perspectives other than physical embodiment (e.g. sound) can generate a sense of community even if it threatens one’s privacy. The feeling that you are never alone can be comforting as for many who are living alone for the first time, physical loneliness can be a scary experience. Similar to the Dayak Longhouse, Helliwell describes “the continual dialogue with listeners who … are always present” (Helliwell 1992: 185) constantly affirms a sense of community. However, this can create a sense of constant surveillance, similar to what is felt in the courtyard). Then again, while the idea of being surveyed in a private space “is experienced as intrusive” it can “promote the conditions for people to feel safe and exert control over their lives” (Parsell 2016: 3189). This can be particularly reassuring in terms of physical and mental safety when events like falls or other accidents can be heard (and, conversely, if there is too much silence this might also a trigger empathetic response). This, of course, depends on personal relationships with individual flatmates, but overall the sensory proximity to others can generate a sense of safety.  

The status of the private rooms as spaces solely for the individual are vital in creating a sense of safety. The “personal engagement with domestic environment” (Gullestad 1993: 49) through object-person relationships are what create a safe-feeling space. While the rooms are rented and individuals are limited in what they can do/ how they can change the space, it is still an area where one has the most amount of agency to do as they wish. This is done through individual objects including necessary items like bedding and toiletries etc., and through decorations such as posters and pictures. While object status creates different meanings within the space, the fact that they are all owned by the individual and are now inhabiting this rented room extends the sense of ownership from the objects into the space inhabited. The objects themselves are a “being of a signification” (Dufrenne 1973: 148), signing to the individual that they have agency within their own space. This creates a sense of safety as it makes individuals feel like they are in control in an environment . This is further emphasised by the almost constant state of surveillance individuals may feel as a result of the thin walls as they can reclaim any sense of lost individuality/agency through objects. Especially objects that one relates with ‘home’, such as cuddly toys, individuals can reclaim what may be a sterile and generic space and transform it into a home away from home (Holton, 2016.). As a result, material agency is vital in establishing a sense of safety and comfort in individual’s rooms.

Communal spaces in the flats differ from public communal spaces such as the courtyard as they demand a sense of casual intimacy that is affected by personal relationships between flatmates. Here, the kitchen is the space where this is experienced. In many homes across different cultural contexts the kitchen and/or living rooms are spaces of comfort. Actions such as cooking, eating and relaxing are heavily associated with home. However, the personal image of the kitchen for many as being a casual, homey space comes into conversation with the reality of the shared kitchen in a student accommodation. In Miller’s fieldwork about people’s homes a particular individual highlighted what home felt like as a child: “You were safe and secure, with no responsibilities and no experience of the hardships of life.” (Miller 2001: 126). All these things become challenging in a student accommodation especially when you don’t know the people you live with and how you then interact with a new space. As “community in public spaces is bonded with social interactions'' (Rad and Ngah, 2013:185), the kitchen provides a social opportunity to get to know your flatmates through performing activities often associated with home (i.e. a ‘norming’ of behaviours between flatmates). These communal spaces within the private realm of the accommodation help tackle any anxieties that are caused by interpersonal relationships. While one may not get on with every person, and when relationships with flatmates turn sour it can immediately threaten the safe atmosphere of the flat, the kitchen provides a space to transform relationships (ibid.). As a result, the communal, more public spaces within the private flat space (in comparison with the courtyard) can create/ change the level of safety felt by individuals as it is a designated space for flatmates to socialise and build relationships. 

Conclusion

This essay has explored multiple aspects of the concept of ‘home from home’ as a construct for the relationship between students and where they live. In doing so, it has highlighted  specific aspects of student accommodation in general, public communal spaces, and flats (hence the relationships and agency involved therein). Evidently, safety in a student accommodation is affected by many different factors such as materiality (i.e. ‘newness’ and the related perception of safety), infrastructure (i.e. panopticon and other multi agency structures as a part of the building) and interpersonal relationships (i.e. the interplay of personal/communal spaces as relationship elements between flatmates).

REFERENCES

Anderson, B. 2009. Affective atmospheres. Emotion, Space and Society: Volume 2, Issue 2.

Bourdieu, P.. 1977. Outline of a theory of practice.

Cambridge Dictionary. 2022. Available. Online. [URL]:https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/safety. Date accessed: 10 January 2022.\

Carleton, R. 2016. Into the Unknown: a review and synthesis of contemporary models involving uncertainty. In: Journal of Anxiety Disorders: 39. Pages 30-43,

Descartes, R. 1644. Renati Descartes Principia philosophiae.

Douglas Robertson (2006) Cultural Expectations of Homeownership. Explaining Changing Legal Definitions of Flat ‘Ownership’ within Britain, Housing Studies, 21:1. Pages 35-52

Foucault, M. 1995. Panopticism. In Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison, translated by A. Sheridan. Pages 195-228.

Foucault, M.. 1982. The Subject and Power, In: Critical Inquiry, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 777-795, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago: 1982 (1982).

Helliwell, C. 1992. Good Walls Make Bad Neighbours: The Dayak Longhouse as a Community of Voices. Oceania 62, no. 3. Pages 179–93.

Hills, S. and Worthing, D. 2006.  Private home, public cultural asset: the maintenance behaviour of listed building owner-occupiers. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment: 21. Pages 203-213.

Holton, M. 2016. Living Together in Student Accommodation: Performances, Boundaries and Homemaking. Area 48, no. 1. Pages 57–63.

Hopwood CJ, Donnellan MB, Blonigen DM, Krueger RF, McGue M, Iacono WG, Burt SA. 2011. Genetic and environmental influences on personality trait stability and growth during the transition to adulthood: a three-wave longitudinal study. J Pers Soc Psychology:100(3). Pages 545-56.

Newman, O. 1972. Defensible space: Crime prevention through urban design. New York: Macmillan. Pages 77-81.

Reay, D. 2004. It’s All Becoming a Habitus: Beyond the Habitual Use of Habitus in Educational Research. British Journal of Sociology of Education 25, no. 4: 431–44. 

Schifferes, J.  2017.  Grenfell: Taking Stock. RSA Journal 163, no. 2 (5570). Pages 34–37.

Valentine, G. 1999. Women’s Fear and the Design of Public Space. Built Environment 16, no. 4. Pages 288–303.