�鶹��Ѱ�����

After the Civil War, laws mandated racial segregation in public facilities across many U.S. cities, requiring separate bathrooms, schools and waiting rooms for people of color and white people. While the last of this legislation, known as the , was overturned in the 1960s, the built environment continues to impose boundaries that make certain races feel unwelcome, said Shawhin Roudbari, an associate professor in �鶹��Ѱ�����Boulder’s Program in Environmental Design.

Roudbari has been studying how design elements can perpetuate racial inequality in the U.S., hoping to shed light on systemic issues. 

Currently, he is piloting a study exploring how the space and buildings at U.S. college campuses reinforce racial inequality.

“I first became interested in this area because college campuses are a place where young people come during an identity-forming time in their lives,” Roudbari said. “It’s important to learn how they perceive the space around them in a place they have to live for multiple years.”

�鶹��Ѱ�����Boulder Today sat down with Roudbari to discuss his research on campus design, racial inequity in architecture and what inclusive design looks like. 

Shawhin Roudbari

Can buildings and spaces actually be racist? 

Many don’t think about that when considering architecture. They might think of accessibility issues, like the presence of ramps for people with disabilities, but not about race. 

But architectural design often reflects social hierarchies, and those hierarchies are frequently tied to the history of Western colonization and racism. 

For example, certain classroom setups, like the auditorium-style lecture hall where students surround a professor, portray the teacher as the center of power standing in the middle of the room. This way of learning was made mainstream by Western colonization, which eliminated enslaved or otherwise colonized Indigenous communities as part of attempts to extract wealth or advance supremacist projects like Manifest Destiny (a belief that American settlers were destined to expand across North America). In other non-Western traditions, learning tends to be more communal and decentralized, where people sit around in a circle and share their expertise.

In your , you interviewed 20 �鶹��Ѱ�����Boulder community members, including white people and people of color, about how they perceived the campus. What did you find? 

One issue that came up a lot is visibility. The campus has a lot of big, open spaces, which is great for some. But others pointed out that on a campus with a predominantly white demographic, people of color stand out more in open spaces.   

Many people of color expressed that they felt a sense of being noticed and watched on this campus, because the environment provided little refuge for them to be less visible or even hide in this predominantly white space.

The big lawn in front of the Norlin Library is one example. Students there enjoy playing games or sun tanning. When most people there are white, and my skin color is a bit different, the contrast becomes enough to make people uncomfortable.   

Green spaces like this are common across college campuses in the US. Can you elaborate more on how this landscape can be problematic? 

Manicured lawns on U.S. college campuses have roots in our imagination of what elite schools in Europe look like. We want to build a campus that looks like Oxford University or Cambridge University to convey a superior status. So, even though they seem like neutral design elements, they can make non-white students feel alienated because these spaces weren’t designed for them. The architecture of a campus can send subtle messages about who belongs there and who doesn’t.

Do you see similar issues outside of college campuses?

Absolutely. There are still many walls that were put up in the early 1900s to restrict Black people from going into white neighborhoods. In New York City, some bridges were specifically designed with low clearance so buses couldn’t go under them. They were built to prevent Black people who use public transportation from crossing under and accessing beaches protected for white leisure. Some of those walls and bridges carry the same impact today.  

There are also implicit barriers. In big cities, we often see people with the same ethnic background living in the same communities, like Little Saigon in Denver where many Vietnamese live, and there are Black neighborhoods, Iranian neighborhoods and so on. These neighborhoods don’t have physical barriers, but the underlying reason that they exist is racism. Many people feel more comfortable living with others who look like them, because outside that community, they tend to face discrimination. 

Why is it important to pay attention to this issue?

This isn’t just about tackling racial inequality. It’s also tied to other forms of oppression, like economic inequality and environmental injustice. So much of climate injustice is premised on racism. Historically, polluting industries and factories have been placed in or near communities of color, and these same communities are often the least equipped to deal with climate change. These issues are deeply intertwined. If we want to address systemic problems like climate change, we also need to address the racial inequalities embedded in the built environment. 

What can campuses specifically do to create a more inclusive environment?

I think architects can help by designing alternatives to traditional auditorium spaces, allowing faculty and learners to experiment with diverse forms.

For lawns, we could support more programming in these spaces that reflects diverse cultural values, like cookouts, dances and other activities. This means providing resources to underrepresented minority members and organizations on campus so they can be empowered to make these spaces their own.

Additionally, we could move from lawns to more indigenous landscape forms and incorporate interpretive elements, like signs, to educate users about these spaces. We could also better explore community gardens, encouraging a diversity of members of our communities to participate and engage.

What can society do? 

Individuals can call out designs that make people feel unwelcome and advocate for change. Architects and designers can engage in dialogue with people, especially people from historically marginalized communities, asking what they want in the space. They should be given more than a tokenistic presence on a design committee. Instead, they should be empowered as leaders of the process and supported with money, time and recognition.