For an architecture seminar at the University of Innsbruck, Austria, architect Armin Blasbichler presented  his student with an unusual assignment. Students “had been assigned to pick up a bank in the city, study it, identify its Achilles’ heel and plan a bank robbery, the architect explains.

Although Blasbichler’s interview is worth reading, my own interest in his course is less in the idea that, as Blasbichler suggests, bank robberies are a way to foreground “the continuing marginalization of the role of the architect.” What interests me more is the idea that bank robbers have a very specific, albeit highly illegal, understanding of architectural space—indeed, we might even say that bank robbers understand the city better than architects do, and, in the event of a successful heist, better even than the police meant to patrol it.

Of course, I am using the phrase bank robbery to refer to a specific type of heist, a uniquely ambitious form of breaking-and-entering: tunneling into a vault, dodging security cameras, picking locks, exploding whole walls or doorways, not merely handing a note to the teller and walking out with sacks of money.

But in this sense, the bank robbery becomes a very specific kind of spatial operation, one that cuts through architecture along unprecedented obliques and diagonals. It is counter-space: an illicit misuse of plan and section. In the process, the bank robbery produces and exploits perforations in the built environment; it operates by way of gaps, sudden accelerations and pauses unplanned for by the bank’s own protective administrators. In one sense, the bank robbery proceeds by asking a simple question: how do we move through this building as if the building is not really there?