Jock, Kaitlin

You are not welcome here: Anti-homeless architecture crops up nationwide

Streetroots.org

June 7, 2019

“The most harmful examples have come in the way of targeting the homeless community, an already marginalized group, many of whom look for a place to sleep or rest during the day.” Hostile architecture, also known as anti-homeless architecture and defensive architecture exists globally in forms varying from benches with armrests, installations of sprinklers, urine proof paint, “bicycle racks in an area where people do not frequently ride bicycles,” to noise alarms. Tony Bernal who is the senior director of public policy and funding for Transition Projects, an organization based in Portland that works to help transition the homeless into housing, states “The emergence of hostile architecture (in Portland) has compounded the moral crisis of our housing shortage. Too often we are leaving people experiencing homelessness with no place – indoors or outdoors – to rest or to be safe.” The homeless population often prefer to sleep outside in public areas than in shelters. “Daytime services as well are not always easily accessible for everyone facing homelessness, and yet cities continue to take away access to areas where those experiencing homelessness seek refuge throughout all hours of the day, when designing public areas to be “more accessible and inclusive.” The question that rises is “Who can access and be included?” Anti-homeless architecture usually goes unnoticed by the people who are unaffected by it.

The state of California is known to be an “aggressive offender in the game of hostile architecture.” The state itself contains over 12% of the United States’ homeless population, and removal of benches at the Civic Central Plaza in the 1990s, and the United Nations Plaza in 2001, left no place for people to seek refuge during the night and left daily visitors with no place to sit and rest. “Erecting fencing to keep people out of alcoves, turning off all the water faucets, turning on sprinklers odd hours at parks,” are other implemented forms of anti-homeless architecture found in California. The city Philadelphia also known as the “City of Brotherly Love” spent $26 million in renovations for Love Park, a park located right in the middle of the city. Renovations included installing curved and slotted benches, with metal bars with the claims of it being “more accessible and inclusive.” 8 Penn Center’s walls are filled with spikes and it contains a renowned curved “bench.”

Philadelphia city spokesperson Kelly Confrancisco stresses, “Really, the bigger issue is why people are sleeping in parks in the first place and what we as a community are doing to address that,” Here in Philadelphia, we’re proud to say that there isn’t an ‘us versus them’ mentality. Instead, we work together to ensure that people experiencing homelessness receive access to services as well as dignity and respect and that residents, workers, businesspeople and visitors can enjoy Philadelphia as one of the best, most welcoming cities in the nation.” The executive director of Nashville’s paper, The Contributor says “I think (hostile architecture) sends the message that people who sleep outside are not part of the community, are not our neighbors, and that it is all right to ostracize them. This type of attitude hurts any community.” Questions: “Who is welcome in public space?” and “Who can access and be included?” once again need to be asked and addressed. When the city builds an armrest in the middle of a park bench, it says to someone who needed to sleep there, “You are not welcome here.” When the city adds spikes to the cement of an already hard and uncomfortable sidewalk, it says to the person who needed to sit there, “You are not welcome here.” It makes the message rather clear. It does not need words on a sign, only metal and concrete.

Public outcry of anti-homeless architecture has successfully brought about change in cities. In Montreal, anti-homeless spikes installed were swiftly removed after and Iowa city locals rallied to remove armrests from benches, which would allow one to lie down and rest if needed.

Street Roots is a nonprofit organization based in Portland Oregon that focuses on writing about economic, environmental, and social justice issues. The company was founded in 1999 and publishes newspapers which are then sold by the homeless community as a way of earning income. Writer Kaitlin Jock provides prime examples of hostile architecture/anti-homeless architecture found across America and raises a question that may cause one to stop and evaluate the architecture they are surrounded by, “Who is welcome in public space? The architecture speaks for itself and shows hostility. “When the city adds spikes to the cement of an already hard and uncomfortable sidewalk, it says to the person who needed to sit there, “You are not welcome here.” It makes the message rather clear. It does not need words on a sign, only metal and concrete.” Anti-homeless architecture is commonly found in urban areas, it is not surprising that it is overlooked. Even if one were to walk past a certain area every day, they would likely fail to realize that the surrounding architecture may not be inclusive to all groups. I agree with executive director of The Contributor, Cathy Jennings that this type of architecture provides a sense of unwantedness, “that it is all right to ostracize them”, and that “this type of attitude hurts any community.” “There are people who need this public space more most people may desire it. There is someone who needs a place to spend their day, as other options for homeless people are limited during the daytime hours. Instead, those people are made to feel excluded, like they are not members of the deserving public at all.” As the homeless community often find it difficult to keep themselves occupied due to their hardships, they are left with little to no options with what can be done throughout their day. Homeless people need a safe place and I presume any community group would not want to feel excluded from the area they live in.

Featured quotes from Tony Bernal, Paula Lomazzi, Kelly Cofrancisco along with Jock’s opinion showcases that anti-homeless architecture is only a part of a larger predicament, “Really, the bigger issue is why people are sleeping in parks in the first place and what we as a community are doing to address that. We should be asking that question of American society, too, more than anything else.” Since some homeless people do prefer to find shelter outdoors instead of in shelters, there needs to be public spaces that can accommodate them. All groups, including the homeless should have “access to services.” “It is not an “us versus them” situation. Protests and rallies that draw attention to anti-homeless architecture is one step to help inform the public of issues that might have never been noticed.

 

“To call much of this design work “defensive” architecture rather than “hostile” is inherently hostile in nature. The word implies that people need defending from the sights and experiences of homelessness when they walk along the sidewalk or through a park for lunch or walk home at night past someone sleeping under a store’s awning to get away from the rain. It implies that public space needs to be defended from the presence of other members of the public. They just might not be the “public” that a city wants on display.”