One day, at the height of a new semester in Boston, every neighborhood was filled with incoming students from all over the world. One student said that they had never seen as many homeless people in one city before. Someone asked where the student was from, and the new student responded, Philly. Shockingly, someone could live in Philly, one of the most poverty-stricken “big cities” in the U.S., and yet be surprised by the number of homeless individuals in Boston.
Hostile architecture, an exclusionary urban design strategy intended to restrict public access and disrupt one’s human freedoms, plays a direct role in the negative impacts on the homeless community. It encourages an “out of sight and out of mind” mentality for many U.S. citizens and countries worldwide. Hostile architecture also creates a ripple effect of issues that impact other communities in addition to the homeless population.
The History
The start of Hostile Architecture can be dated back to 1809 when The Farmer’s Magazine included a statement on how ridiculous the invention of urine deflectors in London seemed. Urine deflectors were meant to deter public urination, and a slanted surface was added to buildings, allowing urine to make its way back towards the individual. Below is a direct quote from The Farmers Magazine:
“… in London a man may sometimes walk a mile before he can meet with a suitable corner; for so unaccommodating are the owners of door-ways; passages and angles, that they seem to have exhausted invention in the ridiculous barricadoes and shelves, grooved, and one fixed above another, to conduct the stream into the shoes of the luckless wight who shall dare to profane the entrenchments.”
This kind of reaction almost seems comedic. A public urine prevention plan for homes and businesses seems quite reasonable. Especially in a modern context, 200 years later, where hostile architecture has created a new level of depreciation of public resources, necessities, and human decency.
The Who & How
Homeless individuals are already faced with limited resources, increasing affordable housing shortages, and decreasing shelter capacities. They are now also subject to limited secondary shelters, sleeping places, and potential safe spaces. However, a common misconception is that hostile architecture only impacts the homeless community. It also has a profound effect on the elderly, people with physical limitations or disabilities, people with mental health concerns, and even children.
In the United States, many cities use benches with bars and curves and label them “Anti-skateboarding” seating. Many cities around the world are also adding benches that are folded and chained overnight. Or adding chained fencing and barricades around and over public tables and seating areas. In Japan, some cities have begun using excessive bike racks on sidewalks and underpasses to prevent people from “camping out”. In Spain, some banks have built bollards around ATMS or placed in corners of buildings frequented by homeless individuals.
Imagine being elderly or having mobility limitations, and when you try to access a building, you are met with a raised or spike entrance or cannot reach an ATM or public amenity because bollards block your walker, crutches, or wheelchair. An unspoken reality is that hostile architecture can also be difficult for individuals with accessibility needs. In addition, many public spaces, including public transit, have begun removing seating altogether, replacing it with sloped benches or leaning bars. This is made to prevent people from staying in transit for an extended period.
However, the real harm is this again causes limitations to accessibility amongst the elderly and disabled community. Removing seating is an example of the exclusionary practices of hostile architecture. It discourages, limits the ability of, and prevents a large part of our society from doing basic tasks like getting to medical appointments, shopping, working, and more. Aside from the impact this has on the elderly and those with mobility or physical limitations or disabilities, the removal of seating also makes traveling with children, or as an adult with height limitations, a greater struggle.
Most of these leaning bars are set to a minimum height of 86.36 to 91.44 centimeters and would be incredibly difficult or impossible for some people to reach and ensure a safe means of transit. In the case of children, 105 countries, approximately 53.8% of the world have laws requiring seatbelts or car seats in private vehicles. Yet many public transportation systems can get away with no longer having seats.
Another major problem with Hostile Architecture is the impact it has on people with mental health concerns. Many businesses, malls, and transit stations now blare loud music over speakers to prevent loitering and sleeping around these areas. This is something that occurs, day in and day out, endlessly. Similarly to the impact on the elderly and disabled, this excessively loud and long-lasting music also discourages and limits access to individuals who have mental health concerns. Someone who may struggle with noise sensitivities, sensory processing, PTSD, and other special needs may be unable to utilize these public and private amenities. It is one thing to play music inside your business, it’s a separate issue to do this with the intention of disturbing the public.
The Bigger Picture
With so much Hostile Architecture occurring on a global scale, more people should be made aware of the bigger picture surrounding this topic. Hostile Architecture impacts people from all walks of life and contributes to urban dead zones, Gentrification, and even Food insecurity.
Urban Dead Zones occur when parts of a city are meant to be developed, activated, and become lively places, but the project is neglected or abandoned altogether. When you implement Hostile architecture there is a chain of events that occurs:
Exclusion of Marginalized Groups
As described previously, Hostile Architecture is an exclusionary practice for various groups of people. Hostile Architecture is known mostly for its impact on the homeless. However, in many large “westernized” cities, the homeless population makes up the smallest percentage of those affected. For example, in Boston, Massachusetts, 20% of the city’s population struggles with mental illness , 17.1% of Bostonians are Elderly, 12% are disabled, and 21% are living within the Poverty Line.
Poverty includes any individuals or families who lack basic necessities to survive, not only those who are homeless. In the city of Boston only 1.8% of the city’s population are homeless. Although the homeless population is as serious as any group mentioned here, they make up the smallest percentage of people impacted by Hostile Architecture. Which leads one to ask the question, is homelessness really the reason Hostile Architecture is growing? Or is this a societal issue, about the basics of human decency?
Public interest is reduced.
As Hostile Architecture increases the public interest will decrease. Public interest not only includes the occupants of a neighborhood, but also tourism. People are typically motivated to visit and occupy a space that are occupied by others.
Disruption of public spaces
When the public interest reduces and community spaces become inaccessible (in the case of Boston, inaccessible to around 50% of its occupants) public spaces begin to break down, become fragmented. People will naturally stop visiting these spaces, and Hostile Architecture’s intent will become amplified beyond anticipation.
Neglect
When municipalities see that certain areas have lost public interest, local governments will as well. The care to once popular cities and developments, will deplete to nothing. Eventually being abandoned or left to its own devices. Public spaces deteriorate, sidewalks and roads crack, buildings collapse, planting is overgrown and eventually the Urban Dead Zone finds its place.
Gentrification occurs when people from wealthier socio-economic backgrounds move into a lower-income neighborhood with the prospect of community betterment. Amongst other factors gentrification can be offset by something like Urban Dead Zones caused by hostile architecture. Developers see a neglected neighborhood and see an opportunity for revitalization, and eventually gentrification takes its course in the form of “renewal”.
Often displacing its original occupants. These displaced families and groups may end up getting pushed further and further to more affordable but distant places, some of which are known as food deserts. Regions where affordable and healthy food is not available or inaccessible due to the lack of convenient or reasonable means of travel.
Food deserts are not the only struggle with food disparities surrounding gentrification. Occupants who do not get displaced can still feel these disparities’ effect. A few key aspects of gentrification include new infrastructure that only meets the needs of the wealthier occupants, economic segregation, and the concentration of wealth into certain areas. These aspects combined can eventually lead to “food mirages.” These food mirages create the illusion that there are new grocery stores and markets that meet the demand of a booming neighborhood or city. In reality, the original occupants, from lower-income backgrounds, cannot afford to take advantage of the new infrastructure.
Hostile Architecture is cavern far below what we see at the surface of society. And it has an impact that goes beyond public disruption or inconvenience. The increase of Urban Dead Zones, Gentrification, and food disparities are all intertwined with Hostile Architecture. It is an issue that is hard to see and even harder to break. Hostile Architecture does not address a need or solve a problem. It only increases the exclusion of several communities. Until we can bring these topics and correlations to light, we may always be stuck in the shadows of what is the dark side of design.
