Lo, Andrea.

“The debate: Is hostile architecture designing people – and nature – out of cities?” CNN

December 21st, 2017

This article features a debate discussion between two people, James Furzer, an architect that creates designs that try and combat hostile architecture, and Dean Harvey, a cofounder of Factory Furniture, a company known for producing hostile benches. Hostile architecture is a controversial type of architectural design mainly found in urban areas with the intention of restricting certain behaviors. It has existed for over hundreds of years, going as far back as the Georgian-era. (1700s)

Dean Harvey defends hostile architecture as his company Factory Furniture was employed by the Camden city council to create a new piece of public furniture. Requirements needed for the finished product was that the piece would be able to deter people from skating, sleeping and stashing drugs in/on it. He created a piece accordingly but was faced with public backlash. Harvey and Furzer unanimously agree that the general public can enjoy spaces with hostile architecture as long as they do not loiter around for long periods, and that a bench is not space for someone to sleep on. Furzer continues to go on to state that urban areas need to have inclusive areas to not create an hostile city environment for the homeless, “But if we’re excluding (the homeless) from sleeping on benches, then we need to include them somewhere else. We need to start designing our cityscapes with some sort of inclusive, secure areas.” Although James Furzer and Dean Harvey both agree that metal spikes on tree branches can cause damage to nature, they have opposing opinions on whether the spikes are considered hostile architecture or not. Furzer is stern on his opinion, “The landscapes we design can also be manipulated to deter all sorts of acts. It shows the selfish nature of society and its thoughts on the environment,” claiming that the metal spikes are a prime example of hostile architecture which affects humans and nature. Dean Harvey, on the other hand, states that metal spikes on trees are not considered hostile architecture but more of “an extension to pest control.” “I think the issue here is the damage of the ecosystem of the tree and the aesthetic problem it poses.” Furzer agrees to Harvey’s definition of hostile architecture: “hostile architecture is where architectural elements and the public realm are used to control human behavior.” Dean Harvey notes some positive outcomes of hostile architecture: “prevents drug drops, minimize the amount of time people spend in an area. With a perched or sloped surface, people can’t loiter for too long.” James Furzer then brings up antisocial behavior, actions that lack consideration and may cause harm to others. Whether hostile architecture has positive or negative influences, it comes down to what is perceived as antisocial behavior he says. “Drug use is a different kind of antisocial behavior to skateboarding. It’s a criminal activity that has a negative impact. Sleeping rough and hanging out with a group of friends isn’t particularly criminal. Is it really a bad thing that you’re encouraging people to hang around those spaces?”

I agree with the given definition of hostile architecture and James Furzer’s comments on antisocial behavior provides a broader insight to why hostile architecture faces backlash and to why it is accepted. While “sleeping rough and hanging out” isn’t “particularly criminal,” it may be an eye-sore for some which is why one’s perception of antisocial behavior matters. I find it understandable why Dean Harvey considers metal spikes on tree branches an extension of pest control instead of hostile architecture, as it is used to prevent defecation on property such cars, but it seems unreasonable to call birds pests, since they do play a vital part in an environment and ecosystem. Harvey was paid and employed by the city council to create new furniture with certain requirements, which means the city is enforcing hostile architecture to deter certain groups. His company Factory Furniture successfully created a piece that satisfied his client’s needs and I think any company asked by the city to start a large project would most likely agree, for the exposure and income it would bring.

James Furzer’s words precisely reflect my opinion on hostile architecture/anti-homeless architecture. “A bench isn’t somewhere to sleep. But if we’re excluding (the homeless) from sleeping on benches, then we need to include them somewhere else. We need to start designing our cityscapes with some sort of inclusive, secure areas. We just need somewhere they can get the security — somewhere they can take themselves away from the prying eyes of the public. That must be so condemning, being stared at all day. Architecture isn’t going to solve the issue, but it can provide some sort of temporary solution just to give them some sense of well-being.” Inclusive architecture along with increased funding for the homeless from the government may provide steps in combating homelessness which will then possibly decrease the need for hostile architecture. The homeless population is a part of the city we live in and we need to be considerate of them. This document emphasizes the fact that hostile architecture is no solution to the problems cities have with loiters, drug users, and the homeless population as it only treats the symptom, not the problem at hand.

 

 

“Architecture isn’t going to solve the issue, but it can provide some sort of temporary solution just to give them some sense of well-being.”

“While use of design to block homeless people from finding a place to sleep or young people from skating in public angers many people, others feel it’s a necessary measure to secure public safety.”

“Is it really a bad thing that you’re encouraging people to hang around those spaces? Is that not what architecture and design are about? If we designed a building where people didn’t want to stay for too long, because it’s hostile and uncomfortable, have we succeeded in our jobs as architects? I don’t think so.”

“They were taking out benches because of antisocial behavior. There was a lot of pressure from local residents to not install anymore benches, because public areas can become hangouts. It’s a problem — you either put in no seats, at the request of the residents, or you come up with a design that prevents long stays and day drinking.”