Landscape of
Power/Exclusion – Hostile Architecture
Hostile
architecture in public areas can take on a variety of appearances, and can have
a wide range of purposes and intentions. For the most part though, the main
goal of hostile architecture is to guide the public’s behavior and use of the
space.
One of the most
common forms of hostile architecture takes on an anti-homeless sentiment. This
can include floor spikes and benches with features making them difficult to lay
on. These are some of the more apparent forms of hostile and anti-homeless
architecture, though some can take on more subtle forms. For example, the city
of Seattle implemented bike racks under an overpass, though there was little to
no need for a bike rack in this area. The goal of these bike racks was actually
to dissuade the homeless from sheltering under the overpass, though they were disguised
as a useful commodity. Another popular example is the Camden Bench, a strangely
shaped and somewhat formless bench that allows for nothing but very temporary
sitting. Hostile architecture in this way creates a landscape of exclusion
against homeless individuals; cities implement these structures in order to
have some control over the homeless population, especially where they are able
to camp and sleep. This control and forcing of the homeless out of public
spaces not only harms them in that they have more of a struggle to live and
sleep day to day, but also effectively hides them from the public eye. When
they are not visible to the public, the illusion is given that there is no real
problem, and less attention is given to the situation. The discomfort felt by
the public towards the idea of poverty and homeless people is only reinforced by
these structures’ implementation. The funds that go towards construction of
this hostile architecture could instead be redirected towards aid for the
plight of homelessness in so many cities.
Hostile
architecture not only impacts the homeless population, but the general public
in these areas as well. Depending on the specific style of architecture, there is
an encouragement of antisocial behavior in these spaces. While some structures may
be designed hostilely to discourage criminal behavior, such as drug use, many
are designed in such a way that deters innocent activity that people simply
deem annoying. Structures in place to stop skateboarders from utilizing the
area are quite common. Though stopping people from skateboarding could be
considered promotion of antisocial behavior, there are valid arguments for these
hostile structures in certain places, as the owners of the property are the
ones who have to pay for the eventual damage caused by frequent skating
activities. However, hostile architecture can impact non-damaging social
behaviors as well. Simply hanging out with friends is made more difficult by
the lack of places to comfortably sit, discouraging social interaction in many
places. Some structures go as far as to impact natural elements of the area,
one extreme example being pigeon spikes implemented on a real tree in Bristol,
England. While the intentions of stopping people’s cars from being pooped on
may be positive, the notion of making a tree an anti-bird space is simply
absurd. Exclusive landscapes created by the implementation of hostile
architecture produce not only a harmful environment towards the homeless
population, but a generally unwelcoming and antisocial environment for all the
public surrounding these areas.
https://www.theurbanist.org/2023/12/11/urbanism-101-hostile-architecture/
2 comments:
I honestly never looked at these intentional environmental designs and realized they are actually intentional. Things like putting structures to stop skateboarders made me think about Kutztown. We have those waterfall holes in the middle of a walkway, with benches on the side. I never realized but those can be too stop skateboarders from actively using that space. Yet they also have very smooth pathways, so I'm not sure if they are actively trying to stop skateboarders, or they just want to have a cool art exhibit.
Hostile architecture is such a difficult case. The harm they can do to certain people is unfortunate, and as you mentioned with the bike racks, a fair amount of it can be done with plausible deniability in a lot of ways. However, to play devil's advocate, I can see reasons developers might want to do these things. Helping or dealing with the groups hostile architecture tends to target is both incredibly challenging and expensive, so simply rejecting them would, sadly, be the path of least resistance.
Post a Comment