de Fine Licht, K. P. (2017).

Hostile urban architecture: A critical discussion of the seemingly offensive art of keeping people away.

Etikk I Praksis – Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics, 11(2), 27-44.

“Defensive planning,” “defensive urban architecture,” “excluding architecture”, “disciplinary architecture”, “hostile architecture,” and even “evil architecture,” just one of the many few ways to describe “the desire to exclude “unwanted” behaviors. An outdated, exclusionary fort architecture…all of these are small things that, for most of us, pass unnoticed. But for those who are so vulnerable as to not have a bed to sleep in, they are another slap in the face—very clear signals that they are not welcome in the social community. “

“The strongest possible consequentialist argument” regarding hostile architecture would be the devastating psychological effect it has on people, specifically the worst off. Whether hostile architecture has a positive impact or not, its positive impact “is much smaller than that of the negative effects, thus practically negating the positive effects.” Skateboarders are a group that is commonly targeted by hostile architecture and their demographic is not considered “among the worst off,” as they are mainly middle-class white males. “If we do not want to give absolute priority to the worst-off, we have to weigh the negative impact on one group against the positive impact on the other. Take into account the extent to which defensive architecture negatively or positively affects individuals in different groups, and how many individuals belong to these groups that are affected. Put another way, it is easy to see that in many instances there may be good reason to favor the utilization of defensive architecture, or the case against its use may not be clear cut.” Defensive architecture at public transportation locations such as bus stops are used by people among the worst off. People may feel unsafe when seeing people sleeping on benches or panhandling out in the open as criminal activity is found to be increased in such areas. More people tend to use the bus stops for means of transportation only, instead of using it to find shelter or to sell goods. Defensive architecture can prevent people from sleeping on bus stops and panhandling, thus “the largest of the less fortunate groups would be better off, providing a consequentialist reason in favor of utilizing defensive measures, all else being equal. Of course, this would be at the expense of other groups that are poorly off.” This type of architecture may be beneficial against those it is designed for. Skateboarders who decide to ride in skate parks are less likely to get injured compared to ones deciding to ride on city sidewalks. Benches unfit for sleeping, such as the ones at bus stops may deter people to find a safer place to sleep like in a shelter. “Although we have a duty not to shun the poor, the noisy, or other disagreeable group, we do not have a duty to allow them to be everywhere.” Shelters are common in Western welfare states and they provide a safer space for people to sleep at night compared to sleeping outdoors where there is a greater risk of being robbed, sexually assaulted, or suffering from poor health. Though, all can happen in shelters as well “but the risk is less pronounced.” Preventing a person from installing defensive architectural designs on private property can be considered a violation of their rights. If a store owner decides to install something on “the strip just outside her store”, controversy surrounding designs on private property is invalidated since they legally own the property. “A business owner may reluctantly place a large flower pot outside her small neighborhood store; although she may think that people should be able to stand there, her customers may not share this belief and will thus not step inside her store when panhandlers are outside. Since the owner cannot afford to lose business, she is forced to take certain defensive measures,” which shows that defensive architecture may not be necessarily malicious. According to libertarianism, people should be able to do as they like, as long as their actions do not hurt others, and “defensive designs are often not a violation of anyone’s rights because we do not violate people’s natural, absolute rights by not helping everyone equally.”

People object to hostile architecture because “we have a duty to treat people with respect.” That cannot be done when using “hostile measures as means to exclude.” “However, the question is how the notion of “respect” should be spelled out and whether a reasonable definition of respect really implies that we necessarily treat targeted individuals with disrespect.” “Defensive designs do not, however, necessarily express contempt toward the less fortunate.” Some defensive architectural designs are used to prevent specific behaviors in specific locations. It is not used to discriminate all groups. “If we believe that people sleeping in a certain spot are problematic, regardless of whether they are homeless, then we are concerned with the behavior, not a group.” Most people believe that the right to public space is applied to everyone, “that they are allowed to be there on equal terms. However, in absolute terms, defensive architecture does not breach this right. All people have an equal and absolute right to feel welcome in public spaces. “[A]mbient power works … through the experience of space itself, through its ambient qualities.… Accessible yet closed, inclusive yet controlled, the very openness of this commercialized public space is precisely what allows consumers to be constructed through a logic of seduction.” To say that a small community of people should have “absolute weight, for an example, such as skateboarders would be ludicrous. Their rights must be weighed against other people’s prima facie rights (right that can be outweighed by other considerations. It stands in contrast with absolute rights, which cannot be outweighed by anything.) It is also common knowledge that people do not have an absolute right to do whatever they please in public spaces. Noise disturbances, such as playing music loud at night or threatening people are unacceptable, and groups have the right to complain against “social justices, and to wander, enjoying the environment.” Referring back to skateboarding, if a majority of the community people want to forbid skateboarding due to disturbances and destruction of property, defensive architectural designs may be implemented. This displays that people do not have absolute right to public spaces, “it is prima facie and must be weighed against other people’s rights.” The consequences of defensive architecture must be considered, but it does not mean that there is no need to implement it. “One’s “right to public space” will have to be cashed out in terms of the consequences of defensive architecture and respect.”

Although prima facie rights do have to be considered when implementing hostile architecture/defensive architectural designs, the negative consequences for the “worst off” may actually outweigh it. Skateboarders are not part of a group labelled as the worst off, they have parks dedicated for their sport. The homeless population on the other hand, while shelters can provide safety, will not keep them off the streets and public spaces. Deterring a group of skateboarders is considerably different from deterring someone who is homeless and cannot afford food and safety daily. The effects of constant isolation and hostility from others worsen their situation. While majority of people might be uncomfortable with people sleeping on benches or panhandling, it has to be remembered that they’re doing it for a reason. The “worst off” are not able to get back on their feet due to a lack of support. I do not agree with the statement that defensive architecture may benefit the targeted groups. I can understand why it may cause less injuries to skateboarders, but in my opinion, defensive architecture does not cause as much hostility to them as to “the worst off” population which consists of the homeless. “Defensive designs do not, however, necessarily express contempt toward the less fortunate. First of all, some defensive measures aim to prevent specific behaviors in specific locations, not discriminate against entire groups. If we believe that people sleeping in a certain spot are problematic, regardless of whether they are homeless, then we are concerned with the behavior, not a group.” Because people find it unsafe and fear people who sleep outdoors, it is found to be problematic behavior, but it is also a negative stigma associated with the homeless population. Constant installations of defensive architecture will only push the targeted groups to other areas, where then they will be forced to move around due to their unwanted presence. It may provide a sense of temporary relief for majority of people when seeing their community public areas clear from loiterers, but the issue is still at hand. In a sense, defensive architecture may be able to provide a sense of relief and comfort to one side only. Due to the different social levels, opinions will vary, and it is most likely that one will only consider the option that benefits them. I think the author has made compelling points for the majority people to why defensive architecture may not be as hostile as it may seem, but when it comes down to everything, it’s a façade for the city and its people. “… Ironically, it doesn’t even achieve its basic goal of making us feel safer. There is no way of locking others out that doesn’t also lock us in. The narrower the arrow-slit, the larger outside dangers appear. Making our urban environment hostile breeds hardness and isolation. It makes life a little uglier for all of us.”

“Kantian perspective, which states that we should not perceive people as instruments or objects (the “mere means principle”), but as people who can be reasoned with.