We are now in the days where we can find more irregularly shaped benches that are uncomfortable to sit on than normal benches in our city, armrests that are not to provide you comfort while sitting, and decorative elements that are not solely for decoration. For decades, pigeon spikes have been installed on windows and walls to deter unwanted birds, but in recent times, more and more spikes are installed on the ground level, deterring unwanted people. But why are we treating people like pigeons?
Hostile architecture, defensive architecture or unpleasant design is the element of the built environment that is designed to guide or restrict certain behaviours such as loitering, skateboarding, and drug usage, to prevent specific social outcomes, or to keep certain groups of people such as homeless people or teenagers out of the area. The names, despite all referring to the same type of architecture, reflect different perspectives on the matter. The word “defensive” is passive, while “hostile” is active. This could be seen as the distinction of intention: an element or environment can be defined as hostile if it is produced with explicit or implicit hostile intent, [1] but it can be defined as defensive if it is produced with the intention to defend or protect against attack or harm. It is understandable that the party implementing these elements would want to call it “defensive architecture” to push the role of the villain to whom the architecture is used against, and that other party would want to call it “hostile architecture” to call out the hostility of the one who implements it. Therefore it depends on who is given the role of the villain in this picture. However, it can also be the question of perception. A design element can still be perceived as hostile even if that was not the original intention, but its by-product. Whereas, “unpleasant design” does not refer to a design that fails to be pleasant but rather the successful one in making it unpleasant, in order to deter certain activities, by design.
It seems to be a clever solution to certain problems for one group of people but it discriminates against the other, creating an unequal, exclusive society. Because the authority fails to solve the problem at the root cause, they use architecture as a tool to prevent it in that specific area. Architecture has been used for defensive purposes dating back to the 19th century, from a small element such as urine deflectors which were commonly used to prevent public urination in the streets of London[2] as the sloping surface deflects the stream of urine back to the perpetrator, to an urban planning scale, as an aftermath of the 1848 French Revolution. The proletariats built barricades with various furniture and supplies on the street which made the navigation of the French military more difficult. When streets were later redesigned, preventing this is believed to be part of the reasons behind many wide boulevards in Paris.[3]
In 1971, C. Ray Jeffery coined the term ‘Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED)’ which is an approach to reducing crime by strategically manipulating the physical environment to eliminate criminal opportunities. The CPTED principles focus on creating environments that encourage natural surveillance and access control, reinforce territories and ownership, and enhance the perception of safety. However, the concept is prone to misuse and the abuse of the guidelines has largely transformed it into the currently prevalent hostile architecture.[4] Over the years, it has gravitated towards the more hostile than defensive end of the spectrum. Architecture has become a silent regulator of the city, one that controls the behaviour of the masses. It is intended to keep public spaces in order, which should also help save policing costs, and reduce maintenance and vandalism, but in reality that might not be the case.
Hostile architecture is used against many undesired demographics such as skateboarders, teenagers and even people in general, but the most prominent and controversial use nowadays is against the homeless, the people who rely on public spaces most as they are those without private spaces of their own, but also the least wanted by property owners. The homelessness issue has been on the rise. The number of rough sleepers in London more than tripled between 2009 and 2021.[5] In 2023, at least 10,053 people are homeless in London, and at least 271,000 in England, including 123,000 children.[6] There are numerous reasons for homelessness, including poverty, systematic inequality and discrimination, unemployment as well as domestic abuse and family breakdown. Yet the majority of homeless people end up on the street simply because they can no longer afford to pay rent. The number of social houses declined by a quarter in the last 40 years.[7] The drop occurs when houses are sold through the Right to Buy scheme or moved into a higher rent category, and not enough new houses are built to balance those being removed from the social housing stock. This results in an insufficient provision of housing for those in need. Incomes are disproportionate to the rising rents and cost of living, and that gap is still widening. With the lack of affordable housing and a welfare system to support them when they struggle financially, they are inevitably evicted from privately rented homes.
Homelessness is largely stigmatized by the society. This stigma could possibly be rooted in the nearly 200-year-old Vagrancy Act which made it a crime to sleep rough in England and Wales. Despite many attempts to repeal, the law is still in effect today. The public perception of the homeless population tends to be unpleasant and detrimental. Research shows that the common beliefs about the homeless are associated with crime, drugs, anti-social behaviour and poor hygiene.[8] Although this surely does not apply to all people experiencing homelessness, some studies found a relationship between homelessness, mental disorder and non-violent crime.[9] These concerns often make the presence of a homeless person at someone’s doorstep or shopfront unwelcome.
Meanwhile, the shifted role of architecture forms the concept of architecture as a commodity. Fundamentally all architecture is shelter, which is something that provides cover and protection. Whereas commodities are basic goods that are interchangeable with other commodities of the same type.[10] After the welfare state’s withdrawal and the prevalence of privatization, necessities for life that used to be provided by the state are now left to the market, and buildings are provided by private companies. Due to its high costs, construction and within it, architecture, inevitably works for and within the monetary system.[11] Architecture has become more than just shelter. It has market values and is exchangeable. Residential architecture is no longer just for living in, but it can be an investment, a property. Therefore, in this capitalist world where the motive is to make profits, anything that could make the values of commodities go down is undesirable. Arguably, this concept, together with the authority’s failure to solve the increasing homelessness, has contributed to the ubiquity of hostile architecture in modern cities.
When investigating hostile architecture in the architectural aspect, it can be found in various forms. Some are designed from the moment they were built which is reflected in their forms, sizes and materials, and others are unplanned or arranged later on, examples being plant pots or freestanding decorations. From an empirical survey in London areas, most of the hostile architecture found falls into at least one of these categories: the benches, the studs, the obstacles and the spikes. Some are more implicit than others, which often come in disguise as decorative elements or elements that serve other purposes, as an attempt to make the hostile intent unremarkable.
The forms are also determined by the purpose or the target group. Most hostile architecture used against homeless people comes in the form of benches divided with armrests so you can only sit and not lie down, or alternative forms of benches that at first glance seem like a design aesthetics decision. They are uncomfortable to lie on, or even just to sit on which serves an extra purpose of preventing a person from sitting there for too long. Many public benches also have studs or ‘pig-ears’ that will throw any attempted skateboarding off balance. Other surfaces that could be used by skateboarders as ramps are also segmented and depressed in some parts for the same purpose. The Camden Bench, commissioned by Camden London Borough Council and produced by Factory Furniture, is a prime example that perfectly integrates all the principles. It is deliberately designed to deter all of what the creator called “criminal and anti-social behaviour”, and to only allow one function which is sitting, not so comfortably. The ridged and inclined top makes it difficult to skateboard on and uncomfortable to lie on, discouraging both skateboarding and rough sleeping. The bench has no gaps leaving drug dealers with no place to hide their drugs. But shallow recesses allow people to put their bags behind their legs for added security. The reduction in flat surfaces minimizes litter accumulation and allows easy drainage of water and dirt, reducing the need for cleaning and maintenance. It is also coated with a waterproof anti-graffiti coating. The design has received many awards as well as a great deal of criticism, which reflects the divided opinions on this subject. While these elements are not inherently hostile, they have hostile intent embedded within the design. In contrast, spikes clearly and openly present themselves as hostile. They are installed in potential rough sleeping areas, often in areas under cover such as building corners or recessed doorways. An alternative to the spikes therefore comes in the form of decorations. They are seemingly less hostile but they still do the exact same thing. Spikes are also found on the top of fences and barriers as an extra step of security. At the same time, however, they further emphasise the social boundary and reduce diversity and uses of space. Sometimes, they can even cause serious injuries or aggravate injuries from incidents. There are also elements that are not physically hostile, but their visuals have some psychological effects that make the space feel unwelcoming, and some are not necessarily pushing people away but can be used to define territory and ownership which indirectly leads to the same result. All of these simply say to everybody else that they do not belong here.
For the homeless, this excludes them out to nowhere. It only pushes the poor and vulnerable out to other areas of the city without getting the help they need, which possibly leads them into even more precarious situations.[12] Governments are usually more concerned with burying the image of poverty than solving it. People are still poor and homeless but just in different parts of the city. While money is still being put into hostile architecture trying to get the homeless out of sight, it is far from being an effective measure. It is not solving anything, but only displacing the problem. This supposedly creates a better experience for the upper class living in wealthy areas, but in fact it makes the city less welcoming for them as well. What is hostile for its target group is also hostile for the others. These elements interact directly with our bodies, whether that is to make us uncomfortable or block certain areas so we cannot be in there. It therefore affects how people experience the city in general. Despite all the criticisms, hostile architecture which harms more people than it benefits, still increases in prevalence,[13] raising the question of whom exactly we designed the city for.
Public spaces are spaces that are available and accessible to the general public. As they are collectively owned, everyone should have equal rights to freely perform or take part in any activities that are permitted by law. In theory, they should be free and open for those from all backgrounds to coexist. Yet, when the coexistence of some groups of people is undesired, hostile architecture, as a physical form of discrimination, diverts the actual public space from its intended purpose. This intrinsically privileges one group of people over another. There has also been an increasing number of pseudo-public spaces, or privately owned public spaces, in London and many other cities, as public land continues to be privatized due to budgetary pressure on local authorities.[14] Landowners can create their own rules for “acceptable behaviour” on their sites and they are not required to make the rules public.[15] This means the rules can be arbitrary and can be used to exclude some members of the public, and hence the right to free use of public space is taken away, diminishing the democratic value of the city. Although they are technically private land, they are still part of the wider city context which contributes to the urban experience in general.
The existence of such people as the homeless can cause the feeling of insecurity, due to the reasons discussed earlier. Ultimately, the embedded hostility is often rooted in fear: the fear of insecurity, the fear of nuisance and the fear of losing one’s own benefits. Some people would rather have hostile architecture than have a homeless person in front of their house or in public spaces. Needless to say, the surroundings can tremendously shape the inhabitants’ emotions and behaviour. When the urban environment is designed with a lack of empathy, it also discourages empathy of people in the city and reduces tolerance within the community. Despite the undesirable behaviours of some and the law of which appropriateness is still in question, people experiencing homelessness are extremely vulnerable and need help. They are already being segregated from the society by how they are being treated. Yet the architecture is also used as an extra form of urban exclusion. The only sensible way to avoid troubles for the homeless as well as other city dwellers is to implement effective solutions to end homelessness, not blindly criminalising or ostracizing them. At the end of the day, how hostile architecture came to be reflects many underlying problems within our society and urban environment from the housing crisis to discrimination and many more, but one thing we can be certain of is that they will not be solved with hostile architecture.
[1] Karl de Fine Licht, “‘Hostile Architecture’ and Its Confederates: A Conceptual Framework for How We Should Perceive Our Cities and the Objects in Them,” Canadian Journal of Urban Research, February 2021.
[2] “On Human Exuvia and Soil-Holes,” The Farmer’s Magazine, December 1809.
[3] Alister Chapman, “Why Are the Streets so Wide in Paris?,” The Rest of the Iceberg, December 18, 2017, https://restoftheiceberg.org/posts/2017/12/18/why-are-the-streets-so-wide-in-paris#:~:text=Maybe%20this%20was,1832%2C%20and%201848.
[4] Matthew M. Carr, “Urban Hostility: CPTED, Hostile Architecture, and the Erasure of Democratic Public Space ” (thesis, University Honors Theses, 2020).
[5] “People Sleeping Rough,” Trust for London, 2023, https://trustforlondon.org.uk/data/rough-sleeping-london/#:~:text=The%20number%20of%20people%20sleeping,in%202022%2F23%20to%2010%2C053.
[6] “At Least 271,000 People Are Homeless in England Today,” Shelter England, January 11, 2023, https://england.shelter.org.uk/media/press_release/at_least_271000_people_are_homeless_in_england_today#:~:text=Posted%2011%20Jan%202023&text=New%20research%20from%20Shelter%20shows,England%20are%20without%20a%20home.
[7] Wendy Wilson and Cassie Barton, “Social Rented Housing (England): Past Trends and Prospects,” UK Parliament, August 13, 2022, https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8963/.
[8] Romeo Vitelli, “Why Is Homelessness so Stigmatized? - Psychology Today,” Psychology Today, June 5, 2021, https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/media-spotlight/202106/why-is-homelessness-so-stigmatized.
[9] Philip Joseph, “Homelessness and Criminality.,” essay, in Homelessness and Mental Health (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 78–96. See also Sean N. Fischer et al., “Homelessness, Mental Illness, and Criminal Activity: Examining Patterns over Time,”American Journal of Community Psychology 42, no. 3–4 (2008): 251–65, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9210-z.
[10] Jason Fernando, “What Is a Commodity and Understanding Its Role in the Stock Market,” Investopedia, July 26, 2023, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/commodity.asp.
[11] Peggy Deamer, “Introduction,” in Architecture and Capitalism: 1845 to the Present (London: Routledge, 2014), 1.
[12] “Understanding Hostile Architecture and Its Impact on Homelessness in Cities,” Single Homeless Project, accessed January 3, 2024, https://www.shp.org.uk/understanding-hostile-architecture-and-its-impact-on-homelessness-in-cities#:~:text=It%20fails%20to%20address%20the%20root%20causes%20of%20homelessness.%20Instead%2C%20it%20pushes%20people%20away%20from%20city%20centres%20and%20support%20services%2C%20often%20leading%20them%20into%20even%20more%20precarious%20situations.
[13] Joseph T F Roberts, “The Value of Public Space: What Is Hostile Architecture?,” The Collector, September 17, 2023, https://www.thecollector.com/public-space-hostile-architecture/.
[14] Brett Christophers, “If This Public Land Sell-off Continues, There Could Be None Left by 2050 | Brett Christophers,”The Guardian, March 5, 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/mar/05/public-land-sell-off-none-left-2050.
[15] Jack Shenker, “Revealed: The Insidious Creep of Pseudo-Public Space in London,” The Guardian, July 24, 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jul/24/revealed-pseudo-public-space-pops-london-investigation-map.
