Author: Cindy (Page 4 of 10)

A pet peeve I have when reading online is when a popup occurs and the X button to close the popup is not clearly visible. A clutter of words and misalignment make’s a website’s layout and design look messy. Thinking about clean design in writing will help intrigue my readers and find it the piece more understandable. A few things I can do is align my photos properly with the text, that way it’s not a large image taking up most of the page.

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.”

“Who is welcome in public space? 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.”

Lo, Andrea.

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

CNN.COM

December 21^st, 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 problem’s 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.”

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.

*Definition of prima facie rights – Rainbolt, George (2006). The Concept of Rights. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 161. ISBN 140203976X.

Thomas, Rory

Architecture and Homelessness: A Misguided Relationship

TEDxUniversityofManchester (TEDxTalks)

Youtube.com

June 11, 2019

The bus stop; Rory Thomas names a common place that is used and passed by the UK public daily. He shows three photos of different city bus stops and identifies the different type of architecture. One has a long bench separated by armrests, another a “bench” or leaning post, and the third photo, a bus stop with two metal poles. Thomas asks the question, “What is the implication of these designs?” prompting the audience to ponder. “When I think of bus stops, I don’t think of comfort. It’s not a very comfortable place to sit, so imagine trying to sleep there.” “Imagine if the city you lived in was designed to make your day to day life more uncomfortable. That’s the aim.” And that is hostile architecture simply put. Architecture and homelessness both coincide, with one affecting the other. The increase of “Hostile architecture is somewhat of a plague on the design of our modern cities.” From the words of a principal of BDP, an architectural firm based in the UK, “Both housing and supports are required to solve the issue of homelessness.” Thomas concurs with so emphasizing, “At it’s core, homelessness is a socio-political issue, and it requires more than material things to solve. The word homelessness is misleading because it suggests that the only issue there to solve is lack of a home.” Jamil, a local community advocate in the UK believes that “perhaps, homeless people really just need a place where they can feel a part of something again. And that may take form in a place to shower, a place to meet up, a reference point for meeting other people.” ParaSITE, Tower of Buckets and Are You Aware are three projects aimed at helping the homeless that take the words of Jamil and conveys them into the design principle as a core belief. You may think that these projects are “Not necessarily structural and aren’t necessarily homes,” but they have positively impacted the homeless community.

ParaSITE – This architectural design created by Michael Rakowitz has benefited the homeless community from Cambridge, Massachusetts to New York City for over 20 years. The attached tube is connected to air and heating units of an existing building, which then provides warmth. Each paraSITE shelter tent cost about $5 to create. “On a technical level, it works extremely well, but the genius of this comes from a personal level” exclaims Thomas. Rakowitz works personally with each person to figure out what is needed. They collaborate to customize the shelter tents. “He takes these homeless client’s stories and experiences of the streets and he translates them into physical objects.” Some tents are asked to be made within regulations to reduce the chance of them being taken away, and “some request their tents have ribs with holes in the side to show the bare bones of living homeless.” “(Rakowitz) Isn’t so much the core designer in this as he is a translator.” Not only is Rakowtiz able to help the person have a safer experience on the streets, but also helps give a form of much needed expression.

Tower of Buckets – A piece of art located in the UK that became a reference point for the homeless, “A point of commune for the homeless community.” Thomas explains, “This is probably architecture at its most core values, it’s the creation of a place. It’s important to remind you that architecture doesn’t need four walls and a roof.” Thomas continues on explaining that such a place allows for the creation of a micro community. This is essential and meaningful for the homeless community. This provided a place for people to congregate, talk to make sure one is doing well, and space to give each other support. “It can be as simple as this (Tower of Buckets). It’s just a project that’s more than the sum of its part.”

Are You Aware? – A project created by Thomas and his peers is a project that maps the city of Manchester with available services that can benefit the homeless. “We sent the troops out,” sending people across the city asking if they have any initiatives in place to help the homeless. Places that offered pay ahead coffee programs, free dental care, and distribution of food at night were gathered and then mapped. There are two goals of Are You Aware, one is to provide the homeless community with a physical document of places that can offer help. “They could have the potential at all times know where to go and where to accept help.” The second goal in mind is to help educate the public. The map shows places that offer initiatives where anyone can help the homeless. “Maybe you’d rather go buy a coffee at these places (Pay ahead coffee) rather than Starbucks.” The map also includes places to volunteer for anyone interested. “It’s these 3 projects that really prove there is potential in architecture for a positive relationship, but the relationship needs to be reevaluated because at the moment its wholly negative. If anything, these projects prove that architecture is simple at its core. The truth about architecture is half of it is about buildings but the other half is about people, and in the modern era, that’s lost. Go out and ask yourself the question, are you aware?”

Rory Thomas starts off talking about a common day in life, and then draws people in by subtly introducing architecture into the conversation. The way he transitions to help people understand a simple architectural design of benches to how it is hostile architecture is brilliant. When he says “the more time I spent in the same environment in London, the more blind and desensitized I became to the local issue of homelessness,” it really shows that homeless is easily overlooked even though it is very apparent. Informing people about homelessness and how it is a socio-political issue shows how big in actuality the issue is. Along with the words of Jamil and BDP principal, there is an emphasis on the need to not show hostility and ostracize the homeless as what they need most is support. The three projects are great examples of why the homeless community need a form of expression, whether it reflect in where they sleep or where they decide to meet with others. Having a personalized shelter provides safety with additional needed benefits, and the being a part of a micro-community in a world they feel excluded to, provides a sense of home, importance, and safety. This video provides an excellent insight into why architecture and homelessness go hand in hand, and how they affect each other, it is an “misguided relationship.” The project Are You Aware’s dual purpose informs people of ways to help the community. The idea of creating a map with listed beneficial locations can help one give back to the community, even if it is just buying a cup of coffee, as proceeds can go to helping the homeless. Thomas encourages people to ask themselves if they are aware of their current surroundings, and what is currently happening around the world. And I think as more people continue to educate themselves, things such as hostile architecture may be eye-opening and lead into more critical thinking. This video source verifies that homelessness is a global issue. With organizations such as WOAH (Without a Home) and other architects helping, the path to raise awareness and help find solutions to benefit the homeless community may seem brighter and bigger than it’s ever been.

Thomas states in his video that it is a shame that paraSITE tents cannot be mass produced. Why is that? It costs approximately $5 to make, which is relatively low.

“Good design should be invisible”

“the more time I spent in the same environment in London, the more blind and desensitized I became to the local issue of homelessness.”

“The word homelessness is misleading because it suggests that the only issue there to solve is lack of a home.”

“This is probably architecture at its most core values, it’s the creation of a place. It’s important to remind you that architecture doesn’t need four walls and a roof.”

Reviewer’s Memo

Hostile architecture is found across the world globally, and it seems to be that most people understand the concept behind it and why it is done. Compromises have to be made for certain groups to ensure their feelings of safety because they find behaviors such as sleeping outdoors, skateboarding, and loitering to be of a nuisance. It’s an eye sore for some to say the least, and denial of it stresses the overall problem even more. What’s especially intriguing is the relationship architecture and homelessness have, one affects another. Architecture is not simply creating a space with four walls and a roof, but it’s the creation of a place that can provide a sense of safety and comfort. It changes the misconception that architecture cannot be used to help support and improve the lives of the homeless population and skateboarders. The idea that hostile architecture is used to get rid of pests whether that be loiters or animals like birds is no way to refer to them, as they are a part of a community. Though I can understand and reason with why noise disturbances at night and loiters around private businesses may call for implementation of defensive architecture, hostility towards the homeless community is of greater importance, especially in the long run. Hostile architecture treats a mere symptom of the cities’ problems. What is a bit surprising to learn is that, there are mainly community organizations trying to change for the better, without the governments input because they realize the extent of the issue and how it’s up to the community to start a change. It’s important to know that there are plenty of ways a common person can advocate and help out their community, because what is needed most is support, a sense of relief knowing that they are not excluded which can lessen the feelings of hostility that they may feel. With increased support, not only from the community and government, spaces can become more inclusive with anti-social behaviors becoming less frowned upon. All members of a community should inform themselves of why and how hostile architecture may affect one’s life, especially for the homeless population. Change can start at the lowest level and taking steps to help organizations dedicated to such problems is always appreciated. As more people take the initiative to help and support the homeless, hopefully city councils and government officials realize that more needs to be done and take an active role in trying to support the homeless community.

Hostile architecture is found across the world globally, and it seems to be that most people understand the concept behind it and why it is done. Compromises have to be made for certain groups to ensure their feelings of safety because they find behaviors such as sleeping outdoors, skateboarding, and loitering to be of a nuisance. It’s an eye sore for some to say the least, and denial of it stresses the overall problem even more. What I found intriguing was the relationship architecture and homelessness have. It’s not simply creating a space with four walls and a roof, but it’s the creation of a place that can provide a sense of safety and comfort. It changes the misconception that architecture cannot be used to help support and improve the lives of the homeless population and skateboarders. The idea that hostile architecture is used to get rid of pests whether that be loiters or animals like birds is no way to refer to them, as they are a part of a community. Though I can understand and reason with why noise disturbances at night and loiters around private businesses may call for implementation of defensive architecture, hostility towards the homeless community is of greater importance, especially in the long run. Hostile architecture treats a mere symptom of the cities’ problems. What is a bit surprising to learn is that, there are mainly community organizations trying to change for the better, without the governments input because they realize the extent of the issue and how it’s up to the community to start a change. It’s important to know that there are plenty of ways a common person can advocate and help out their community, because what is needed most is support, a sense of relief knowing that they are not excluded which can lessen the feelings of hostility that they may feel. With increased support, not only from the community and government, spaces can become more inclusive with anti-social behaviors becoming less frowned upon. All members of a community should inform themselves of why and how hostile architecture may affect one’s life, especially for the homeless population. Change can start at the lowest level and taking steps to help organizations dedicated to such problems is always appreciated. It’s also important for city councils and government officials to realize that more needs to be done to prevent such behaviors that are frowned upon in society.