As Emma walked through her city’s park, she noticed something peculiar. The sleek benches that once welcomed her during her lunchtime breaks had undergone a subtle but significant transformation. Metal bars now divided the once-inviting seats, making it nearly impossible to lie down or rest comfortably for long periods. Intrigued, she began to notice these same bars at bus stops, in public squares, and even outside stores. It was then she realized she had stumbled upon a phenomenon spreading across urban environments globally: hostile architecture.
Hostile architecture examples, also known as defensive or exclusionary design, is a strategy used to control human behavior by subtly reshaping the built environment. The purpose is often to discourage certain uses of public spaces, such as loitering, skateboarding, or sleeping. While many view it as a way to maintain order and prevent vandalism, critics argue it disproportionately targets the homeless and the marginalized, raising ethical concerns about the purpose of public spaces.
Examples of Hostile Architecture
Hostile architecture takes many forms and appears in various public spaces. Below are some of the most striking examples seen around the world.
1. Anti-Homeless Benches
Perhaps the most notorious example, anti-homeless benches, have become common in cities like New York, London, and Tokyo. These benches are fitted with armrests, bars, or dividers to prevent people from lying down, effectively discouraging the homeless from using them as temporary beds.
- New York City has employed these benches in several parks, including Central Park and Bryant Park, where the need for “clean and functional” public spaces is often prioritized over inclusivity.
- In London, a study conducted by the University College London found that these benches, often designed with cold metal, not only deter homeless individuals but also make the seating uncomfortable for everyone.
2. Spike-Embedded Pavements
Another jarring form of hostile architecture is the use of metal or concrete spikes embedded into flat surfaces. These are placed in doorways, under bridges, and in corners where people might seek shelter. The spikes make sitting or lying down impossible.
For example, Toronto has seen the installation of such spikes in various public and semi-public areas, leading to outcry from activists and social organizations. In Paris, where homelessness is an ongoing crisis, these spikes were found outside of apartment buildings and storefronts, stirring public debates about human rights.
3. Sloped or Angled Surfaces
Some cities use sloped or angled surfaces to prevent activities such as skateboarding or loitering. These designs are more discreet than spikes but equally effective in controlling behavior. Sloped seating areas and ledges discourage people from lingering too long or using these surfaces for unintended purposes, like sleeping or congregating.
In San Francisco, known for its progressive stance on social issues, certain public spaces like the Embarcadero have employed sloped designs to keep skateboarders at bay, while cities like Berlin and Los Angeles use similar designs to prevent large groups from gathering.
4. Restricted Access to Public Restrooms
Another tactic in hostile architecture is restricting access to public restrooms, often seen in transportation hubs, parks, or shopping areas. Many of these facilities now require patrons to enter codes or make purchases to use the restroom, creating significant barriers for those without money or access.
In London, public restrooms in high-traffic areas, such as King’s Cross Station, are pay-per-use, which critics argue disproportionately impacts the homeless population. San Francisco has introduced high-tech restrooms that lock automatically after a certain period, effectively preventing anyone from sleeping or staying in them for too long.
The Stats Behind Hostile Architecture
The rise of hostile architecture can be traced through various studies and data that reveal how cities are increasingly adopting these measures to control public spaces.
- A 2018 survey by VICE News found that over 50% of major urban areas in the United States had some form of exclusionary design in place. The most common forms were anti-homeless benches and spiked surfaces.
- In London, a 2017 report by the charity Crisis found that hostile architecture was present in nearly all boroughs, with anti-homeless benches and restricted public restrooms being the most widespread forms. The report also highlighted that 77% of surveyed homeless individuals felt directly impacted by these measures.
- New York City experienced a 20% rise in hostile architecture elements in public parks between 2016 and 2020, according to a study by the NYU Urban Design Institute. Most of these changes involved modifications to benches and the addition of barriers to sleeping areas.
- Toronto, despite its progressive image, has also faced backlash for installing hostile design elements, with over 15% of the city’s new public infrastructure from 2019 to 2023 incorporating some form of defensive architecture, according to the Canadian Urban Design Network.
The Impact on Vulnerable Populations
Critics argue that hostile architecture exacerbates inequality, as it primarily targets homeless people and low-income individuals. A 2019 report from the National Coalition for the Homeless argued that the rise of exclusionary design is an alarming trend that reflects the lack of affordable housing and support for vulnerable populations. The same report found that cities with high levels of defensive architecture also tend to have inadequate shelters and social services, making it harder for homeless individuals to access basic needs.
For instance, Los Angeles, which has one of the largest homeless populations in the United States, has been criticized for its use of hostile design in public spaces, especially around Skid Row. Advocacy groups claim that these measures create a more hostile environment, making it harder for homeless individuals to survive.
Hostile Architecture and the Law
The legal landscape surrounding hostile architecture is complex. In many cities, local governments argue that these designs are necessary to maintain public order, prevent vandalism, and ensure that public spaces are functional for all. However, human rights organizations, like Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), have raised concerns that these measures violate basic human rights, particularly the right to shelter.
In 2019, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Housing criticized the growing use of hostile architecture in major cities, stating that these designs contribute to the criminalization of homelessness and infringe upon the dignity of vulnerable individuals.
The Debate: Design for All or Control for Few?
The debate surrounding hostile architecture is not just about design; it is about the kind of society we wish to create. Proponents argue that these measures are necessary to maintain order in increasingly crowded urban spaces. They point to the need to prevent vandalism, property damage, and crime. However, opponents argue that hostile architecture serves as a band-aid solution for deeper social issues like homelessness and poverty, essentially sweeping the problem under the rug without addressing its root causes.
Conclusion: A Call for Inclusive Design
The rise of hostile architecture has sparked a much-needed conversation about the purpose and accessibility of public spaces. While cities have the right to maintain order and protect property, they must also consider the broader social implications of their design choices. As Emma realized during her walk through the park, hostile architecture may control behavior, but it also excludes, marginalizes, and deepens the divide between the housed and the homeless. To create truly inclusive cities, urban planners and policymakers must balance design innovation with empathy, ensuring that public spaces are, indeed, for the public.
