The term hostile architecture refers to design elements in public architecture that limit or restrict certain activities. One example of these design choices are metal spikes or studs in places such as benches or pavement. Another example is strategically placing different items in streets such as bike racks or planter boxes. The intended purpose of these design strategies is to prevent crime and behavior such as loitering or sleeping. In theory, this may sound very appealing to cities wanting to reduce their crime rates and protect against acts of terror.
One argument against hostile architecture is that it targets homeless and disadvantaged people. This is because these people often have nowhere to go, and public spaces may be their only option. This is especially detrimental to cities that are dealing with increased homelessness. It is also argued that hostile architecture continues to be implemented before the crisis of homelessness is actually addressed.
Another argument against hostile architecture is that cities are beginning to design furniture that is intended to be more uncomfortable. This may include benches that are too small or too slanted to sit on comfortably or made out of uncomfortable materials. Instead of disencouraging antisocial behavior, people believe that this deters everyone from using these public spaces. In doing this, cities limit the comfort of the majority of the public because of their fear of antisocial behavior. In addition, the local authorities that implement this architecture are often not affiliated with design professionals.
I personally believe that, while it is important to protect cities from crime, the benefits of hostile architecture do not outweigh the issues it causes. In my opinion, public spaces should be open to the public and not restricted by these design choices. When public spaces are made uncomfortable and inaccessible for the sake of only preventing crime, it defeats their original purpose entirely. Imagine you have been walking for a long time without a break. You get tired or your legs start to hurt. You see a park bench nearby, but when you sit down, you realize it is incredibly uncomfortable, and it doesn't feel like it is supporting you. It's definitely annoying and inconvenient. Now imagine, that bench is your only place to sleep. I believe there are better approaches to dealing with crime and cities than hostile architecture.
Sources
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/nyregion/hostile-architecture-nyc.html
Questions
Should cities continue to implement hostile architecture?
Do you think Harlan would benefit from the implementation of hostile architecture?
What solutions do you think would help prevent crime but also keep public spaces open?
Replies
Interesting topic choice and well done! This was posted two days late.
I think that the cities should make more shelters for the homeless so they have a place to sleep other than in public, Harlan would not benefit from using hostile architecture due to the small percentage of homeless people. Once again I believe that building shelters for the homeless would allow there to be less hostile architecture since they have a place to sleep.
I agree entirely. Addressing the issue of homelessness and working harder to help homeless people is a better approach than trying to keep them out of public spaces, especially when there is a lack of shelters.
bump