How Hostile Architecture is Ruining Cities

If you’ve visited a big city recently, you may have noticed some changes. Benches look different, curbs and walls have been restructured, and the number of public amenities has decreased. Welcome to the world of “hostile architecture.”

This urban design strategy installs unusually shaped, and often uncomfortable, structures and surfaces under the facade of being decorative. In reality, these installations intend to modify people’s behaviors and prevent certain activities withoutexplicitly setting rules. This could be something like a decorative bench that makes it uncomfortable to lie down or a grooved curb that prevents people from sitting down.

If you really look, these elements are all around us. Sometimes, hostile architecture is harmless, but members of society who rely on public infrastructure often find the concept inconvenient. As more structures are installed, it’s clear certain demographics are being targeted by “hostile designs,” but the people who are impacted most may not be the intended targets.

Hostile beginnings

Hostile architecture has been a part of urban design as long as cities have been built. Many design concepts predate the term, like street molding that discouraged public urination in the 1800s, and have been labeled as “hostile” in retrospect. On the surface, it doesn’t seem like a bad concept. After all, cities want people to be moving — not spending all day “waiting for the bus” on the bench.

In the US, hostile designs became increasingly common in the 1980s as homelessness started to impact cities more heavily. Urban planners worried the sight of unhoused people loitering would discourage tourism, so they wanted to make infrastructure intentionally uncomfortable.

Cities would install tables with grated surfaces or benches with predefined seats and armrests. To some degree, this did help. People couldn’t loiter on the uncomfortable park tables or lie down on bus benches. So what did they do? They just moved somewhere else.

Modern hostile architecture often serves the purpose of hiding a problem, not solving it. The targeted population may be out of site, but they still exist — and the problems that lead to their struggles are only being further neglected.

Who gets targeted?

It shouldn’t come as a shock that hostile architecture is most often intended to discourage homeless people from loitering or consuming public amenities. Sometimes this goal is clear, like benches that would be painful to lie on or ledges with “decorative” spikes and bumps. Other times, it’s a bit less obvious.

If you see a rocky median replace a small patch of grass, it’s likely to prevent people from congregating in the space. Planners even position trees, plant pots, and trash cans in close proximity on sidewalks so people can’t set up tents or sleeping bags in those areas.

You could argue that loitering people aren’t using city property like benches or sidewalks as intended — but hostile architecture doesn’t just target homeless people. It targets all low-income people.

Think of someone who relies on buses to get to work. Now, they’re forced to stand or sit on an uncomfortable bench. Or, their parks lack usable amenities, and that’s their only outdoor space because they live in an apartment.

Historically, hostile architecture has posed greater challenges for people of color. Even in the 2020s, POC populationsface above-average poverty rates. So, as urban amenities are altered, these groups of people are left to deal with the discomfort, while wealthier people are more likely to (begrudgingly) spend a little more for a more comfortable commute or outdoor experience.

Why hostile architecture is making more noise

It’s no surprise that the cost of living in the US is climbing by the year, but Americans are also facing a housing shortage. This means people are relying on public amenities to navigate daily life. They need parks, public transportation, and walkable cities.

Over the same time, the US has seen a significant increase in its homeless population — especially in states with highly populated cities. While many big cities are working to find solutions, they’re also relying on tourism as a source of income. So, they don’t want the homeless population to leave the wrong impression.

This means more amenities are becoming hostile so cities can try to shove their homeless problem out of sight — which solves nothing, but it might make visitors a little more comfortable.

Hostile architecture and barely usable amenities might be okay for someone visiting a city, but locals need comfortable spots to relax while navigating their commute. Sure, a leaning bench will prevent an unhoused person from napping in the subway station, but it also makes life harder for commuters who need that surface to sit while waiting for the train.

In the US, public transit isn’t the best. Many cities are working to improve their transportation options, but car-free commuting isn’t just about trains and buses. People need usable sidewalks, places to sit, and ways to avoid harsh weather. Hostile architecture doesn’t just push the homeless population away, it also encourages people to avoid public transportation.

Will things get less hostile?

Hostile architecture is nothing new, and there are merits to creating structures that discourage disruptive or destructive behaviors. But, as cities use the design strategy as a Band-Aid for other problems, it starts to create more issues. This effort may benefit some people, specifically tourists, but it can quickly transform from a hostile design strategy and become a hostile city.

The problem with hostile architecture: It’s not just designed to keep some people away, it will keep everyone away. As cities continue to implement new initiatives, they’re encountering a more modern concern: Hostile design could hinder cities from making the progress they want to make.

Over the past few years, cities have increased their spending on hostile structures, but in that same time frame, homelessness has also increased. If hostile architecture aims to control the homeless presence, the money would be better spent tackling the issue head-on, though that’s a much bigger financial investment.

Fortunately, many cities are making strides to transform their urban spaces, and this will bring public amenities that welcome community gatherings and the use of public services. While this has many benefits, it could also ostracize underserved populations if they’re neglected during the transformation.

By nature, hostile architecture is exclusionary, and it often thrives in areas where populations have been historically neglected. Continuing the neglect is the easy route, but it may lead to cities becoming places where people rely on public amenities for more than their intended purposes. Instead, cities need to provide real efforts that help their growth, and those solutions aren’t jagged fences or wavy benches.