This episode of the Stuff You Should Know podcast explores hostile or defensive architecture — design elements in public spaces intended to discourage activities like loitering or sleeping, often targeting those experiencing homelessness. From spiked benches to unsittable surfaces, the hosts provide an overview of the history, ethics, and social implications of these exclusionary structures.
The blurb highlights how hostile architecture emerged from a desire to address perceived nuisances, but critics argue it disproportionately impacts vulnerable groups without addressing root causes of homelessness. Through case studies and analysis, the hosts facilitate a nuanced discussion around public access, inclusion, and compassionate approaches to complex societal challenges.
Sign up for Shortform to access the whole episode summary along with additional materials like counterarguments and context.
Hostile or defensive architecture describes features in public spaces that deter unwanted activities like loitering or sleeping, often targeting the homeless. As Josh Clark explains, examples include:
Such designs are often subtle, disguising their exclusionary intent as safety or aesthetic elements.
One early form of hostile architecture dates back to 19th-century Venice, where urine deflectors were installed to discourage public urination. The approach spread in the 1990s as a tool to manage perceived issues like homelessness in cities.
While framed as enhancing safety and cleanliness, critics argue hostile architecture disproportionately targets vulnerable groups without addressing root social issues.
Opponents voice concerns that hostile architecture restricts access to public spaces and unfairly targets marginalized groups like the homeless, disabled, and elderly. They argue it's an ineffective, dehumanizing way to address complex issues like homelessness.
Hostile architecture projects a mentality that public spaces are only for those working or consuming, excluding those who don't fit that mold. Instead, critics advocate creating inclusive spaces and addressing societal challenges like homelessness with compassion.
1-Page Summary
Hostile architecture, also known as defensive or exclusionary design, describes the implementation of features in public spaces to deter activities such as lying down, loitering, or other uses deemed undesirable, often targeting groups like the homeless.
Hostile architecture utilizes a range of deterrent features, such as barriers, dividers, spikes, and slants on benches, sidewalks, and public fixtures to prevent extended use. Such designs are often overlooked by the general public and can be disguised as benign features for safety or erosion control.
Josh Clark provides an example of "pay-and-sit" benches which require a coin deposit to lower spikes for sitting. Once the time expires, the spikes rise to discourage extended use. Additionally, benches may have armrests in the middle to prevent someone from lying across, and large rocks may be placed under overpasses to stop the homeless from setting up shelter.
The podcast highlights subtle design elements that are often invisible to most, such as armrests on benches, concrete slabs with metal to deter skaters, and bright lights in subway alcoves. These are typically perceived as aesthetic or safety features rather than preventative measures against the homeless or loitering.
In terms of preventing specific behaviors, blue lights are installed in public bathrooms to deter IV drug use by making veins harder to find. The Camden Bench is a partic ...
Defining and providing examples of hostile/defensive architecture
Hostile architecture is a controversial aspect of urban design that has evolved over time to address various issues such as public urination, homelessness, and loitering.
One of the earliest forms of hostile architecture dates back to the 19th century in Venice, Italy. There, urine deflectors were implemented on public buildings. These sloped surfaces were designed to deflect urine back towards the individual who attempted to urinate on the building, acting as a deterrent against public urination.
As the need to regulate public spaces grew, the use of hostile architecture became more widespread in urban planning, particularly in the 1990s. In this era, it was utilized as a tool to address the perceived problems associated with homelessness and loitering in public spaces.
The history and evolution of hostile architecture over time
Hostile architecture, also known as anti-homeless architecture, refers to the design of public spaces in a way that discourages their use for purposes other than those intended, often targeting marginalized groups in society. This controversial form of urban design raises significant ethical concerns and sparks debates about the kind of society we are shaping through our built environment.
Critics are voicing their concerns regarding the ethical implications of hostile architecture. They argue that such designs, which can include spikes on flat surfaces, armrests on benches to prevent lying down, and sloped or ridged surfaces, serve to exclude already vulnerable populations from public spaces. Homeless individuals, who may seek refuge in these areas, are the most visibly targeted group. However, hostile architecture does not only affect the homeless. It can also pose accessibility issues for the elderly and disabled persons, limiting their freedom and mobility within public spaces.
Opponents of hostile architecture argue that it is a superficial response to the deeper issue of homelessness and fails to provide any meaningful solutions. By making public spaces uncomfortable and unwelcoming, hostile architecture simply pushes the problem out of sight, often further marginalizing those it affects. Moreover, such design choices can dehumanize individuals who are in need of support, reinforcing a perception that they are a problem to be managed rather than members of the community deserving of dignity and assistance.
Critics also suggest that hostile architecture reflects and perpetuates a societal mentality that values public spaces on ...
The ethics and social implications of hostile architecture
Urban spaces are often designed to serve various functions, and sometimes this includes discouraging certain behaviors through architectural design. Here are examples from different cities around the world where the built environment is altered to deter unwanted activities such as sleeping or loitering.
In New York City, a form of hostile architecture can be seen with the implementation of "leaning bars." These bars are supports that people can lean against, but they are not designed for sitting or sleeping. Typically, these leaning bars are installed against subway walls or on sidewalks to give pedestrians a place to rest briefly while still preventing long-term occupation that might be associated with sleeping or loitering in subway areas.
In London, the Camden Bench is a striking example of hostile architecture. This 2-ton concrete slab has been crafted with an intentional design to make it uncomfortable for extended use. It features an uneven, sloped surface, and none of its parts are flat, which discourages people from sitting too long or sleeping on it. The Camden Bench is a direct physical response to the need to control how public spaces are utilized and to prevent them from becoming makeshift beds or spots for extended loitering.
Specific case studies of hostile architecture in different cities
Download the Shortform Chrome extension for your browser