LANDSCAPE 05–10–25 The placement of prisons is neither accidental nor independent of cultural and political contexts. Their location constitutes a meaning-producing act that reflects the power structure of the state and its notions of “order” and “correction.” In this context, the landscape becomes a deliberate instrument of the aesthetics of punishment, comparable to concrete, metal, barbed wire, CAMERAS, and other elements of the prison’s ORNAMENTAL VOCABULARY. 1 Since the second half of the 20th century, the landscape has also become part of prison ideology, where the experience of being “in nature” is presented as an effective means of rehabilitation. 2 However, carceral geographies point to the actual motivations behind these geographical strategies and concur that building prisons in the landscape offers no solution to crime or recidivism.
The tendency to relocate prison facilities from cities to rural areas is described in scholarly literature as a process of incapacitation. Its aim is the removal of “undesirable” individuals from urban centers and their transfer to peripheral, often sparsely populated, locations. Abolition geographer Ruth W. Gilmore describes this carceral strategy as a “geographic solution to social, economic, and political problems,” where the causes of incarceration are not addressed, but problematic groups are displaced. 3 The landscape is thus colonized by a form of state power through the prison-industrial complex.
The distribution of prison facilities is further linked by Gilmore to the processes of deindustrialization and economic restructuring, where new functional models are sought for sites of current or former mineral extraction – models that generate profit. 4 Prisons are concentrated in areas historically (and often still) marked by the exploitation of human labor and land; socio-economically disadvantaged populations are considered advantageous for economic growth. 5
This process can be traced in the Czech Republic (formerly Czechoslovakia) in the construction of prisons since 1950. From that time to the present, a total of 20 from 35 facilities have been opened, seven of which were put into operation between 1955 and 1959. The list below comments on the location of each facility, along with the year of its opening. 6
1955 Prison Vinařice
originally a POW camp (1945–1947), labor included coal mining and heavy industry 1956 Remand Prison Brno
located on the outskirts of Brno; a new building designed for prison use 1957 Prison Kuřim
originally a branch of the Brno Remand Prison, located near the Prefa company; inmates participated in the production of concrete prefabricates 1958 Prison Bělušice
originated as a correctional labor camp; inmates employed in agriculture and industry 1958 Prison Nové Sedlo initially a branch of the Vykmanov labor camp; inmates involved in the cultivation of grains, hops, and beets 1958 Prison Všehrdy
formerly a farm with a duck facility; inmates employed in nearby factories (production plants established around the prison: MIVEX, Elektro-Kovářská, PAL, Preciosa) 1959 Prison Heřmanice originally a labor camp, founded based on the need for workforce in mining enterprises 1961 Prison Příbram
established as a correctional labor camp; inmates worked in deep uranium mining 1963 Prison Horní Slavkov
located in a former prison camp; inmates first engaged in uranium extraction, later in housing and investment construction 1963 Prison Oráčov
location chosen due to a shortage of agricultural labor 1968 Prison Rýnovice
tied to the development of the automotive industry, particularly the LIAZ company 1973 Prison Stráž pod Ralskem
established in former accommodations for uranium mine workers 1989 Prison Ostrov
located in a former POW camp where inmates worked in uranium mines (Vykmanov) 1993 Prison Odolov
built on the site of former coal mines, in a repurposed miners’ complex 1994 Prison Jiřice
reconstruction of barracks (formerly the command headquarters of Soviet military forces) 1997 Prison Břeclav
originally a district court building (functioned as a prison from 1850 to 1953); reopened in 1997 as a remand facility, located in the city 1999 Prison Kynšperk nad Ohří
established in military barracks 2000 Prison Světlá nad Sázavou
originally a facility for outdoor schools 2001 Remand Prison Teplice
located in close proximity to the Teplice District Court 2009 Prison Rapotice
originally military premises of an anti-aircraft missile group
1Judah Schept, (Un)seeing like a Prison: Counter-Visual Ethnography of the Carceral State, Theoretical Criminology XVIII, 2014, no. 2, pp. 198–223.
3 Ruth Wilson Gilmore, Golden Gulag: Prisons, Surplus, Crisis, and Opposition in Globalizing California, Berkeley 2007, p. 16.
4 See note 3, pp. 60–62.
5 Dominique Moran, Carceral Geography: Spaces and Practices of Incarceration, London 2018, p. 46.
6 The information can be found on the www.vscr.cz website in the history section under the tab for the specific prison.
IMAGES ARE BIG, IT TAKES A WHILE TO UPLOAD THEM
The images document the labour–industrial networks of four prisons located in different regions of the Czech Republic (Heřmanice, Kuřim, Oráčov, Ostrov). Each map depicts the premises of the respective facility, its industrial factories, and the entities which, according to the REGISTER OF CONTRACTS, have entered into agreements with the prison for the employment of convicted persons. The nature of the work specified in each contract is provided in parentheses (in red). All maps also highlight the historical layer of the selected prison site and its intended connections (in white).
Image description above A similar development is described by carceral scholar Judah Schept, who studies prison construction in the United States. He argues that prisons were considered an economically advantageous solution for extractive or deindustrialized landscapes. As a mode of operation, he cites the case of the Appalachian region. 7
The architectural expression of prison complexes within the landscape is often deliberately unobtrusive. Whether new constructions or conversions, the buildings are inconspicuous, located on the periphery of small towns and villages. The terrain itself becomes part of their aesthetic, evoking the impression that prison is safely excluded to the edge. 8 This illusion of separation conceals the fact that prisons are tightly connected to society (e.g., through infrastructure); their physical detachment, however, serves to minimize public oversight and remove the possibility of protest. 9 Special regulations (restrictions or outright bans) often apply to photographic documentation of these sites. 10
Schept and Wilson agree that a comprehensive critical analysis of carceral capitalism’s layers is an effective tool against it. One of these layers is the set of geographic strategies that expose and reinterpret the meanings embedded in the landscape. They focus on what existed on prison sites before their construction and propose ways in which these spaces might be returned to communities and to ecological systems. 11 Wilson notes the reframing of the “Not in My Backyard” (NIMBY) position toward a broader demand: “Not in Anyone’s Backyard.” (NIABY) 12 The visual material accompanying this text draws directly from that perspective.
7See note 1.
8 Nick Gill, et al, Carceral Circuitry: New Directions in Carceral Geography, Progress in Human Geography XLII, 2018, no. 2, pp. 183–204.
9 Bree Carlton – Emma K. Russell, Counter-Carceral Acoustemologies: Sound, Permeability and Feminist Protest at the Prison Boundary, Theoretical Criminology XXIV, 2020, no. 2, pp. 296–313.
10 See note 1.
11 See note 1.
12 Ruth Wilson Gilmoer, Abolition Geography: Essays Toward Liberation, New York 2022, pp. 25–27.
THEORETICAL TEXT The online archive NOTES ON PRISON forms part of a diploma project undertaken at the Academy of Arts, Architecture and Design in Prague, within Studio Architecture I. The overarching aim of the archive is to present and describe the practices, strategies, and associated architectural matter through which power is exercised within the prison system. These practices and spatial elements are subsequently revealed within different contexts and typologies.
The project’s political dimension contributes to the discourse on prison abolition, while also serving as a professional appeal to the architectural community: to learn to recognise spaces designed for oppression and violence, and to refuse further participation in their production. Instead, it calls for the use of imagination as a design tool, encouraging the creation of a society grounded in care and social equality.
At the top of the webpage, readers will find (1) a list of frequently asked questions related to prison abolition, (2) a glossary of terms, and (3) a manual explaining the structure of the online archive, including its categories, tags, and entries.