(NexStar) – The concept of hostile architecture, sometimes referred to as hostile design or defensible architecture, is prevalent in cities and public spaces, though you might not notice it at first glance.
This kind of design manifests in various ways—perhaps you’ve spotted it in parks, outside businesses, or at bus stops. The goal, it seems, is to make certain spaces unwelcoming, usually by being quite subtle about it.
“Through design, we’re creating environments that intentionally make some people feel uncomfortable,” notes Anastasia Lukayto Sidelis, a professor of urban planning at UCLA.
Take, for example, the common bench split into sections. It might seem innocuous, but it’s effectively discouraging people from lying down or staying too long. The slatted metal bench design is slightly uncomfortable for prolonged sitting, serving as a nudge to move along.
In some transit stations, benches are entirely absent, replaced with surfaces that people must lean against instead. Other designs are more overtly designed to deter. Metal spikes can often be found on sidewalks, making it less appealing for anyone to sit or lie down.
It can be tricky, though. In San Francisco, the installation of large steel plant turbines on sidewalks was said to not only beautify the area but also create less room for people to set up tents.
Another neighborhood attempted a similar tactic with a large rock, but that initiative was ultimately removed.
In Seattle, bicycle racks were installed under elevated tracks. Critics claimed this move wasn’t to serve cyclists, but rather to deter people from setting up tents in that area. The city eventually took those racks out.
And then there are the more discreet methods—like metal bars interruptions on benches, meant to stop skateboarders.
But hostile architecture isn’t limited to physical structures. For instance, in Skid Row Park in Los Angeles, sprinklers were activated at night, preventing anyone from getting comfortable enough to sleep there. Some businesses play classical music outside their stores to discourage loitering.
The debate around hostile architecture has particularly intensified in light of homelessness. This feeds into a broader discussion about how public spaces are crafted and for whom they are intended.
On one hand, Sidelis mentions, local governments argue that if spaces are occupied by homeless individuals, it prevents others from using them. Yet, the discomfort caused by these designs isn’t exclusive to any one group; uncomfortable benches impact all users, not just those seeking a place to sleep. Similarly, if a planter occupies half the sidewalk, it affects pedestrians and parents pushing strollers.
This isn’t a new issue; examples of hostile architecture date back over a century. It’s emerged in dialogues within academia and policy discussions. What can seem like minor design choices often touch on themes of discrimination, access to public spaces, social control, and individual freedoms.
Returning to that bench, Serena Savic, co-editor of “Unpleasant Design,” elaborates in a podcast episode: the classic example is a bench with a central armrest. While it provides a spot to rest your arm, it ultimately limits the way people can use it, making it less inviting.
By focusing on preventing unwanted behavior, designers may inadvertently create something that few people want to use at all. Savic expresses a concern: “When you expect the worst from people and design with that in mind, it’s a rather sad perspective on public space.”
