Author: Cindy (Page 6 of 10)

Lo, Andrea.

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

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 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.”

Why does anti-homeless architecture pose as a problem for the homeless globally?

As the global population continues to grow and cities become more urbanized, homelessness tends to follow and increase in numbers. It is estimated that there are about 150 million people homeless globally. (This number does not include people who do not have adequate housing though, which has been estimated to be at 1.6 billion in 2015.)

I am interested in this topic because I think everyone is entitled to shelter, having a roof over their head. It is proven that living with a roof over one’s head can affect one’s decisions and the outcome of their life. The homeless population are people who get overlooked in society. Most people try to stay as far as possible, limit contact with one if seen and tend to not bat their eye. As the rest of the world continues to isolate the homeless population, it creates a more hostile environment for them. Anti-homeless architecture creates unsafe surfaces for the homeless population and causes inconveniences to the general population and nature. The anti-homeless architecture emphasizes the negative stigmas of the homeless, and shines light upon the government’s downfalls on how they are combating homelessness.

I expect to find reasons of both why people support and do not support anti-homeless architecture. I do think I will find many comments of people stating that they have overlooked anti-homeless architecture. More research will provide me insight on how this kind of architecture may or may not have benefited one’s life. I also expect to find many comments relating anti-homeless architecture to the state/city government and federal government, such as how/why the government is or is not doing enough to help.

Information that is found to go against what I had expected will be carefully considered and most likely be used in the essay to showcase both sides of the argument. Despite having my own opinion regarding anti-homeless architecture, I think it would be best to stay open-minded and consider a neutral standing when researching.

Genres that I am considering to be good potential sources are articles, global statistics from renowned global organizations and hopefully video interviews of people expressing their thoughts on anti-homeless architecture. Interviews with people affected by anti-homeless architecture can provide a firsthand account, which can help myself and the reader understand their view(s). Global statistics reports provide information such as measuring increases/decreases in homeless population and how one can help the homeless population.

Why does anti-homeless architecture pose as a problem for the homeless globally?

K-KNOW

Anti-homeless architecture is used to prevent homeless people from idling in one area/community.

Cities globally have made changes such as adding spikes to the ground, sloped benches or benches without flat surfaces to prevent homeless people from sleeping or resting.

Anti-homeless architecture emphasizes ongoing issues affecting the homeless population. As a cities’ homeless population continues to grow, it reflects on the government not being able to provide substantial shelters and benefits to help. Although cities like NYC do provide government shelters for the homeless, many still prefer to find shelter outside on the streets, or in public areas, such as the parks or bridges.

W-WANT

Why is anti-homeless architecture widely accepted?

What can be done for the homeless people who decide to take shelter outdoors?

Who allows/funds anti-homeless architecture in public spaces?

Does anti-homeless architecture affect other groups of people?

Does anti-homeless architecture work to prevent homelessness or does it increase the hardships of one who is homeless?

L-LEARNED

Anti-homeless architecture is also known as Hostile Architecture, or Defensive Architecture.

Hostile architecture is used to prevent skateboarding and public urination.

Hostile architecture can be considered harmful to nature and the general population. Some people put spikes on trees to prevent birds from perching on branches in hopes of preventing their cars from being defecated on. Benches that are sloped or do not have any flat surfaces can cause inconveniences for the disabled community, pregnant women and the elderly when in need of rest in public areas.

Anti-homeless architecture can furthermore ostracize the homeless population, making them feel unwelcomed wherever they go.

Sprinklers that do not water any plants but are put in place on a property and “ostensibly decorative rocks” (boulders) are considered anti-homeless architecture as well.

+-STILL WANT TO KNOW

If city governments are placing anti-homeless architecture around the city, what are they doing to help the homeless population? How can cities support the homeless population without forcing them into inadequate shelters?

Does hostile architecture harm the environment more than it does “good?”