Illustrations by Délice Williams
Collateral Damage in Anti-Homeless Design
Every night there are roughly 580,000 homeless people in the United States, as estimated by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD’s 2020 report on homelessness further estimates that of that population, 39% spent the night without shelter entirely or in places not suitable for human habitation” (Office of Community Planning and Development 1). Thus, on any given night, roughly 220,000 people may need to seek shelter and often do so in public spaces. Property owners, private and public alike, have long sought to prevent this unwanted use. Their efforts have come to include a range of architectural choices intended to discourage unwanted use and control user behavior, which are broadly termed hostile architecture”. Hostile architecture is often defended as seeking improved public safety or to better the quality of public spaces impacted by changing who uses it. From the perspective of property owners, they are thus doing something beneficial for most people. These efforts to displace the homeless, however, are not without unintended consequences. A deliberately uncomfortable bench or a row of spikes do more than what they are meant to at times. Rather than precisely singling out the homeless, hostile design targeting the unhoused impacts more than those intended, posing distinct challenges to all citizens. These unintended consequences on the general public can exceed the planned displacement of so-called ‘undesirables’ through their implementation. The fallout is less immediately obvious than this simple displacement. For example, the removal or modification of a sheltered bench certainly denies a homeless person a relatively safe place to sleep, achieving its intended goal and forcing them to move on. However, this also denies all other members of the public seating protected from excessive weather, particularly affecting groups like the elderly and people with disabilities. Equally important but less obvious are the consequences of reducing public spaces into exclusionary, tightly controlled spaces. Blatant measures like spikes might inspire outrage, but less obvious measures to make unwanted users feel unwelcome in a space are not necessarily without impact on the likelihood of more desired users taking advantage of a space (Petty 77).
Hostile design is a primary means by which the owners of ostensibly public spaces attempt to limit the use of spaces by unwanted users or prevent unwanted types of use of spaces. Common groups of unwanted users include the homeless, skateboarders, and teenagers. This essay will focus on hostile design as it relates to the homeless, as the changes made to public spaces to prevent their usage of the space are among the most disruptive both for the unhoused and for all other users. Author Cara Chellew notes in Defending Suburbia: Exploring the Use of Defensive Urban Design Outside of the City Centre”, that hostile design often targets people who use or rely on public space more than others, like people who are homeless and youth, by restricting the behaviors they engage in” (19). She further characterizes hostile design as an intentional design strategy that uses elements of the built environment to guide or restrict behavior in urban space as a form of crime prevention, protection of property, or order maintenance” (21). This description is in line with those of other authors, such as James Petty, who emphasizes how hostile architecture installed in spaces can render them unusable in certain ways or by certain groups” (68). I will define hostile architecture as architectural or design elements which share a purpose concisely described by author James Petty as the environmental corralling of certain groups out of certain spaces by rendering them uninhabitable, often selectively” and which are purpose built to influence the behavior of users for various reasons as noted by Chellew (Petty 74; Chellew 21).
Every day, countless parts of our environment influence our behavior. The built environment subtly controls what those in it do, discouraging and encouraging different choices. It is for this reason that hostile design comprises a diverse grouping of choices. It includes both relatively innocuous-appearing measures, such as a bench with an armrest marketed as improving user comfort but which in realty serves to deter sleeping, as well as visually striking, more explicit measures such as spikes on open areas, ledges, or doorways intended to keep the unhoused or loiterers away (Chellew 23). In his account of a controversy resulting from the visible installation of anti-homeless spikes, Petty states that the spikes seek neither to resolve the problem of homelessness nor to punish it?”, but rather seek to remove it from sight”, characterizing hostile architecture as a means to express” that public homelessness is unwelcome (73).
Just because public homelessness may be unwelcome does not mean that property owners wish to be seen as explicitly hostile towards homeless people. This impulse might cause them to adopt measures much like the bench armrest, which grants a sort of plausible deniability to their exclusionary efforts. In his categorization of street furniture by role, Johan Wirdel?v identifies hostile design amongst other examples of what he denotes Behaviourist Street Furniture”, and presents strong examples of both more covert means by which behavior can be discouraged, and the role of design features that do not physically prevent behavior, but rather indirectly influence behavior. He notes that decorative objects such as big flower pots can be used to occupy places that otherwise would have been used for begging”. As an example of the inverse strategy, he describes how in the debate between covert and overt CCTV the semi-covert camera is sometimes said to be the better crime preventer as the impression of all-round vision seems more inescapable and cannot be sidestepped”, suggesting how the feeling of being watched itself can discourage unwanted behaviors just as physical barriers can (Wirdel?v 124). Despite their different forms and functions, each prevents unwanted behavior. One is purpose-built to be noticed, while the other innocuously blends in with its surroundings. Both, however, represent efforts to restrict the users and their chosen uses of a space. Hostile design researcher Robert Rosenberger concurs, noting that they are, of course, an odd entry as a form of hostile design because they do not physically obstruct the use of particular spaces in particular ways, as do the other examples” (On Hostile Design 886). He further goes on to note that There are at least two different ways that cameras are, at times, put forward agendas of controlling how, and by whom, spaces may be used” distinguishing their role as a means to extend the perceptual reach of human actors (say, security guards)” and as a reminder to people that they may be under surveillance at any time” which thus pressures them to follow the rules” (On Hostile Design 886). He summarizes this phenomenon by remarking that The conspicuous security camera incites you to police yourself” (On Hostile Design 886). From the insight of these authors it can be concluded that hostile design can manifest in a wide range of everyday objects, it may be intentionally inconspicuous or just as likely deliberately impossible to ignore. All of these forms share the same general purpose, to control who occupies a space and what they do there.
Before delving into the unintended harms of hostile design implementations, it is important to understand the nature of their intended effects. Anti-homeless hostile design seeks to force the unhoused out of spaces where they are unwanted, to deny them the use of such spaces whether they seek shelter, rest, or attempt to beg for money from passersby. Exemplifying the ubiquity of this rest denial function, Robert Rosenberger writes, It is not uncommon to find public-space benches fitted with design features that discourage or prohibit their use as beds” (Callous Objects 19). The purpose of this instance of hostile architecture is to deny the homeless a place to sleep that is even slightly better than the ground in a given area. He remarks that bench manufacturers rarely advertise the fact that these designs are specifically intended to discourage sleeping”, noting that on occasion such partitions and armrests” have been euphemistically referred to as ‘antiloitering’ features” (Callous Objects 19). This choice of words is an admission of the purpose of such designs which they share with less inconspicuous methods such as spikes. This purpose is to contribute to what Rosenberger calls a larger effort to flush the unhoused out of public space” (Callous Objects 25).
Exemplified by anti-homeless spikes and anti-sleep benches, encouraging the homeless to move on from the space in question is a primary function of anti-homeless hostile design. Physical displacement is, however, not the sole effect of the diverse family of anti-homeless modifications made to public spaces. Garbage cans, Rosenberger notes, hold a number of roles in the lives of many homeless people: scavenged recyclables might be a source of income, while discarded food might be a means of survival (Callous Objects 25). Thus the addition of a ‘rain hood’” or other padlocked covering does more than make an area undesirable to be in for homeless people, because it achieves this effect by attempting to limit their access to resources that they may depend upon to survive (Rosenberger, Callous Objects 28). Both the direct displacement of modified benches or fields of spikes, and the resource denial strategy of locked or covered garbage cans fulfill the same core purpose: to push unhoused populations elsewhere. These installations further demonstrate a willingness to make the lives of the homeless more difficult in the name of keeping them out of sight, denying them food, shelter and other necessities of survival.
The myriad efforts to exclude members of the public such as the homeless demonstrate that in practice, public space is complicated, much more so than such a seemingly straightforward term might suggest. While ostensibly open to all, the exact nature of public spaces, the identity of who can use them, and the constraints on how they can use them are constantly in question. In his essay Locating Public Space”, author Zachary Neal surmises this nebulous quality, writing that public space is by its very nature contested, ambiguous, and uncertain. It is continuously being redefined in terms of what it is, where it is, who may use it, and how” (2). There is a continuous struggle between different groups, including both governmental and private property owners, as well as numerous user populations. Hostile architecture of all kinds, and targeting the homeless in particular, is a physical manifestation of this struggle. Hostile architecture constitutes structures which constantly alter the space in which they are present. James Petty describes this effect saying that in hostile architecture, the coercive edge is not conditionally emergent but instead is always palpably present” (74).
In order to understand the full significance of this changing of spaces by hostile elements, the importance of public space itself needs to be made clear. In Locating Public Space” Neal explores a number of key considerations about the role of public space and its benefits and uses. On a societal level Neal recognizes public space generally as the ?’where’ of democracy” and as a a facilitator of civil order” (4). Public spaces are important for the sharing of ideas, but also for the sharing of company. As the locations where many of our daily interactions with other people take place, public spaces are where our communities are built and maintained. In a less abstract sense, public spaces are a venue for countless different uses, often filling many roles at once. They can be sites of commerce and recreation, hosting events ranging from a spontaneous basketball game to a concert or large festival. The combined influence of these functions according to Neal, serve to reveal the richness of such places in our social lives” (5). The full extent of this influence on everyday life becomes clear when considering just how much time is spent daily in places which, regardless of ownership, are ostensibly public. Outside of places which fill this role as a facilitator of social interaction, recreation and even simple transportation, most of what remains is the home and the workplace. Thus, without public spaces our lives are left somewhat incomplete, we are cut off from other people, save for our families, coworkers, and close friends. For all of these reasons, access to public spaces which are welcoming and which people want to be in is beneficial to all members of the public, both on a personal level and on the level of broader societal health.
The loss of the larger societal benefits of public spaces is a possible consequence of the introduction of hostile design into public spaces; it however is not alone, as it is accompanied by a series of more immediate, more personal effects on housed members of the public. Chief among these effects are the consequences of a much simpler, but also much more drastic measure against loitering or homelessness, removal of amenities and enclosing of spaces. Rosenberger remarks that Of course, a common design strategy for ensuring that unhoused people do not spend time in an area is simply to make it the case that nobody can spend time there at all” a goal which is often achieved by putting up a fence, cage, or wall.” (30). The fencing off of smaller spaces like the small green spaces, hillsides, or church steps” given by Rosenberger as examples does effectively push the unhoused elsewhere, as is the goal of all anti-homeless hostile design (30). The detrimental effects of such practices however do not stop with the homeless. While perhaps less noticeable or offensive than the closing of a large public park, the loss of smaller spaces such as these carries with it all the same consequences suggested by Neal in Finding Public Space: the loss of the ‘where’ of democracy and civic engagement”, and of a community building resource (4). The closing off of previously public spaces denies citizens the venue for interactions we have with friends in public spaces like neighborhood streets and local restaurants?” of which Neal goes on to say are the foundation of our social networks [that provide] a sense of belonging and security” (5). All the benefits of having access to well utilized public spaces may become casualties of the struggle over control of those same spaces. The benefits of public spaces for all members of the public are tossed away in order to avoid even the possibility of ‘the wrong people’ benefiting in some way from a given space.
Similar to the total removal of areas of public space, the outright removal of public amenities is not selective in who it affects. Rosenberger writes, “It is not uncommon for cities to eliminate or relocate benches to deter unhoused sleepers”, further recalling how Suburban neighborhoods sometimes enter fierce debates over whether they should have sidewalks, because their absence could discourage unwanted visitors to the area from walking through” (Callous Objects 33). This ‘risk’ avoidant thought process Rosenberger says explains what he calls the sometimes baffling experience of spending time in a public space that has been built without expected amenities” (Callous Objects 33). This is to say that efforts to expel the homeless alter the character of public spaces for all users, potentially reducing their quality and inconveniencing even the users that property owners seek to attract by expelling the homeless. As an example of how this can be harmful to other users, consider a park that is suspiciously devoid of sitting areas”, or which lacks water fountains (Rosenberger, Callous Objects 33). Would a lack of water not discourage any user from visiting the park during the heat of summer? Would a lack of seating go beyond impacting all users to have an especially great impact on users such as those with disabilities, those who are elderly, or those who are pregnant? For such users, even a bench meant to prevent sleep or encourage traffic flow through the park” via intentional discomfort would be an improvement (Rosenberger, Callous Objects 19). These changes have the potential to degrade public spaces such that even if they may physically remain, in practice their benefits hardly exist for some or even most prospective users. Efforts to create a park where homeless people do not want to be has the potential to create one where no people at all want to be. Taken together, the benefits of public space identified by Neal and the potential for loss of it identified by Rosenberger, as well as the possibility of creating new problems at the same time constitute the harms of overzealous use of hostile design to all members of the public. These changes even have the potential to drive away those it ostensibly meant to attract.
Hostile design elements intended to combat the unwanted presence of the homeless exceed the bounds of this self-admittedly malicious agenda, creating new challenges for housed members of the public just as they do for the homeless. Modifications meant to deny a space to the homeless have the potential to do so for other user groups as well, introducing problems of accessibility where none previously existed. Changes meant to inconvenience, such as the removal of amenities, are not selective in nature, making many spaces less desirable to all users. This has the consequence of discouraging use of a given space, which itself is detrimental to all members of the public by potentially denying them the personal, social, and societal benefits of free access to public spaces.While the existence of this exclusionary effect of some forms of hostile architecture on housed members of the public is clear, there is a need for further empirical research to quantify the extent and significance of this effect. The continuing spread of hostile design practices creates the opportunity for future researchers to directly compare the effectiveness, utilization, and perceived quality of public spaces before and after installation of hostile elements. Depending on the conclusions of such research, a new question must be asked. If the proliferation of hostile architecture continues as it has, how will the progressive loss of public spaces as they exist currently lead to changes in how we engage in public life? What adaptations will occur in order to fill the potential vacancy of this important role in supporting day to day life
Author: Jonathan Tobin, Class of 2026
To conclude my ENGL110 course this past Fall, Professor Potluri posed to us a pretty open question. We were free to write about essentially any topic of our choosing, with at least some connection to our course topic, public space. This sort of open prompt can be really daunting, but at the same time gave me a lot of freedom to find a specific topic that I really cared about and wanted to explore in depth. The topic of hostile architecture came to mind pretty easily because it’s something I was already somewhat familiar with. I’d read of and seen examples, even in person and found it disturbing as I think many people do. What I hadn’t done though was consider the wider effects of hostile architecture outside of literal exclusion.
When I began to question what the less obvious effects of hostile architecture would actually be, my final topic began to take shape. I asked what the impact on the unhoused would be, but then also wondered if there might be unintended consequences. To start exploring these possibilities, I looked back to many of the readings we had used throughout the prior half of the semester.
From this starting point I began to develop the ideas that appear in my paper, about the importance of public space to free expression, democracy and even simple social interaction and community building. By comparing the goals of hostile architecture and its effects, I was able to show both how hostile architecture often achieves its desired ends through cruelty, but also how the practice is not highly selective at all. My goal in pursuing my thesis was to show that even if you don’t care about the plight of the unhoused, hostile architecture does more harm than good. After all, what use is a public park if all the measures to keep certain people out make it unpleasant or even inaccessible for everyone else
I found writing this paper to be really rewarding. I was given the freedom to pursue a topic I really care about, one which is fairly often visible in my own life and to really delve into the existing literature and be able to thoroughly justify why I feel the way I do about hostile architecture beyond just drawing from my own experience.
Instructor: Keerthi Potluri
Our section of English 110 focused on public space. During the first half of the course, we explored the public spaces in which people live, work, and play and how these spaces define our identities and reflect our desires or anxieties. To focus our explorations, we discussed writing by scholars, activists, journalists, artists, and urban planners and students wrote their own reflections and essays. With honed rhetorical and writing skills, students then determined a research topic that approached the public space theme from any specific direction of their interest, as long as the topic was researchable, arguable and significant. The research project unfolded over the second half of the semester, beginning with practice developing research arguments. From there, students submitted research proposals, followed by annotated bibliographies built with the UD Library’s resources. These bibliographies were then reorganized into maps tracking the relationships between various sources, showing sites of convergence, conflict, and silence. Further project stages included thesis revision, outlining, and drafting. The central aims of the research project were twofold ? to meaningfully engage with the work of other writers and to contribute new insight to the conversation on one’s topic ? and Jack’s winning paper is a wonderful example of both.
Works Cited
Chellew, Cara. “Defending Suburbia: Exploring the Use of Defensive Urban Design Outside of the City Centre.” Canadian Journal of Urban Research, vol. 28, no. 1, Summer 2019, pp. 19-33., www.jstor.org/stable/26757401,
Neal, Zachary P. Locating Public Space.” Common Ground?: Readings and Reflections on Public Space edited by Anthony M. Orum, and Zachary P. Neal, Routledge, 2010 pp. 1-10.
Petty, James. The London Spikes Controversy: Homelessness, Urban Securitisation and the Question of ‘Hostile Architecture.’” International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, vol. 5, no. 1, March 2016, pp. 67?81., doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.v5i1.286.
Rosenberger, Robert. Callous Objects: Designs Against the Homeless. University of Minnesota Press, 2017.
. On Hostile Design: Theoretical and Empirical Prospects.” Urban Studies, vol. 57, no. 4, August 2019, pp. 883?93., doi.org/10.1177/0042098019853778.
US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development. The 2020 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress”, March 2021, www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2020-AHAR-Part-1.pdf Accessed 20 Nov. 2022.
Wirdel?v, Johan. “The Trash Bin on Stage: On the Sociomaterial Roles of Street Furniture.” Urban Planning, vol. 5, no. 4, November 2020, pp. 121-31., doi.org/10.17645/up.v5i4.3310