With information from around the world slipping by our fingertips, it is normal for national and international debates to take flares on social media platforms. A recent post by a Reddit account, shed light on a potentially harmful curb in Mumbai’s Bandra area. Specifically designed for people to refrain from sitting and resting aside for a while, the curb was studded with spikes, raising questions about the safety of individuals. Along with this, it highlighted the matter of responsibility towards children, the handicapped, and the elderly. Such architecture that draws a line between societal classes, encouraging the invisibility of specific individuals, is termed hostile architecture.
Cherrysons building, Bandra. Spikes on curb_©r/mumbai on Reddit.com
Understanding Hostile Architecture
Also referred to as defensive architecture, hostile architecture births from the societal prejudices and division of classes. The elements used in this particular form of architecture are designed to create exclusion in public areas. For example, the pointed studs that carpet underneath a subway in China, aim at making the place inaccessible to poor people without homes, forcing them to ward off to other places. With a regulative intent, this form of urban architecture corresponds to an attempt to repel the socially disturbed, instead of making an initiative to uplift them.
Hostile architecture is particularly categorized by anti-homeless spikes, unnecessary armrest division in benches, paid seating with spike locks, blue light in restrooms, unusual use of uncomfortable materials, textures, landscape or architectural elements; the list goes on. It is also a globally used urban strategy to control social interactions in public spaces.
Under-road spikes, Guangzhou, China_©China Hush via Arch 20
History of Hostile Architecture
Found as early as the 19th century, European countries and cities like Venice, Italy, and Norwich, England, saw the use of urine deflectors to discourage public urination. However, the concept of hostile architecture as we know it today can be traced back to the mid-20th century with figures like Robert Moses, a powerful New York City urban planner. Moses's bridges designed with low clearances specifically aimed to keep out buses carrying low-income residents from using parkways leading to Long Island. Such a glaring example of racist urban design serves as a clear reminder of the deep-seated social inequalities that hostile architecture breeds.
Yet another significant example from the 20th century is the Berlin Wall, built in 1961. It divided a city and served as a tangible proof of the segregation between Black and white neighborhoods.
Examples of Defensive Urban Design
1. Slippery Uncomfortable Benches
Constructed in several ways in public and private spaces, defensive urban design can also be implemented by modifying the existing infrastructure to a point where it becomes difficult to use it with comfort. Examples are, “anti-hobo benches,” “bum-proof benches,” and “Camden benches,” designed so that they are impossible, or at least very challenging, to sleep on.
These seats are purposely made wavy, separated by armrests, or designed with slopes that are impossible to lie on. They are further combined with slippery materials like stainless steel, making them difficult to rest on. The backrests of these deliberately crafted benches are cut off at low heights. Variants of these seating arrangements are seen worldwide in urban areas that encourage social divisiveness.
A Camden bench_©failedarchitecture.com
2. Anti-Homeless Spikes
Counted as one of the most hurtful elements in hostile architecture, anti-homeless spikes can be easily installed on the ground, windowsills, retaining walls, or curbs to prevent people from standing or sitting there. Considering a country with a population like India, where people loiter recklessly, and stray animals seek shelter under big and small structures, the use of metal/ concrete spikes turns heads out of concern. An example of this was the disturbing metal spikes laid at the entrance of HDFC Bank’s Fort branch, which were removed after raised objections.
The metal spikes installed at HDFC Bank's Fort branch in downtown Mumbai_©Simonmundy via X.com
3. Removal of Existing Features/ Furniture
A less discussed aspect of hostile architecture is the removal of objects and furniture from public places, which can often lead to a disruption in circulation patterns and negatively impact a space's usability. An example can be, removing benches from a buzzy urban space where people sit and drink alcohol, or make it a smoking spot.
While this might address immediate concerns about disorderly behavior, it fails to address the root causes and can alienate certain user groups. In a lot of cases, it is much easier to remove a feature than to alter it or construct a new architectural element. However, this approach should be a last resort, and alternative solutions that promote inclusivity should be explored first.
Arguments For and Against Hostile Architecture
While the ethical and social implications of anti-homeless architecture are undeniable, there are arguments used by advocates to justify its use. Here's a balanced perspective:
Arguments In Favor:
Public Safety and Order: Individuals argue that hostile architecture deters loitering, vandalism, and public intoxication, thereby enhancing public safety and maintaining order in busy areas.
Property Protection: Businesses might install hostile elements to discourage people from sleeping in doorways or lingering near entrances, which could be perceived as intimidating to customers.
Maintenance Costs: Hostile design elements like slanted benches or single-person seating can be seen as a way to reduce wear and tear on public furniture, ultimately lowering maintenance costs.
Arguments Against:
Heightens Social Inequality: Hostile architecture unfairly affects vulnerable populations like the homeless, youth, and people with disabilities. It criminalizes basic human needs and reinforces social exclusion.
Creates Unwelcoming Spaces: The use of hostile elements can make public spaces feel cold, uninviting, and devoid of a sense of community. This, in turn, discourages people from using these spaces altogether, defeating the purpose of public design.
Safety Hazards: Some injurious design elements, like uneven surfaces or protruding spikes, can pose safety risks for children, the elderly, and people with disabilities.
Ineffectiveness: Research suggests that hostile architecture tends to be ineffective in influencing the targeted behavior. It will possibly displace the activity to another location.
Metal vent covers on Cambie, in Vancouver, are an art installation in the form of hostile architecture element_©www.vancouverisawesome.com
Designs That Don’t Differentiate
With the rising population and money-fueled capitalist economy of the 21st century, our societies are encouraging the development of hostile architecture. The poverty engulfed citizens of developed and developing countries stay targeted in the public eye, helpless. As architects, it is our goal to create spaces that uplift.
Instead of gatekeeping public spaces, definitive strategies can be planned to provide resources to the poor, underprivileged, and neglected minorities of society. Smart implementation of inclusive and accessible design in public infrastructure can help to engage with all individuals of the society without putting them through divisive barriers.
Conclusion
Contemporary urban design faces a complex challenge when it comes to defensive architecture. Supporters of this strategy claim that it upholds public order and reduces undesired behavior. Architects play an important role in creating inviting and inclusive public areas. By deliberately emphasizing community involvement, applying universal design principles, and investigating social design techniques, architects can create urban settings that instill a sense of community for all. Ultimately, it is on us to take steps to create an accessible and equity-driven built environment for everyone, starting with developing a greater knowledge of the hurtful effects of hostile architecture and investigating alternative design strategies.
References-
1. De Fine Licht, K.P. (2017). Hostile urban architecture: A critical discussion of the seemingly offensive art of keeping people away. Etikk i praksis - Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics, 11(2), pp.27–44. doi:https://doi.org/10.5324/eip.v11i2.2052.
2. Izzo, V.N. (2022). Law and hostile design in the city: Imposing decorum and visibility regimes in the urban environment. Oñati Socio-Legal Series, [online] 12(3), pp.522–539. Available at: https://opo.iisj.net/index.php/osls/article/view/1369/version/2050 [Accessed 10 Jul. 2024].
3. Tuesday, N.D. |, May 16 and 2023 (2024). Voices of Youth: Detroit teen dives into the history of hostile architecture. [online] Model D. Available at: https://www.modeldmedia.com/features/VOYNyla.aspx#:~:text=Hostile%20architecture%20can%20be%20found.
Like what you read? Follow our social media platforms for engaging architectural content. Visit the Kaarwan website for more insights!
