The global inflation crisis and pandemic have led to a significant increase in the number of homeless individuals, with the US having an average 12% annual increase since 2019. In response, governments have implemented various measures, including the use of anti-homeless architecture, to restrict physical behaviours from people without homes.
What is ‘anti-homeless architecture’?
Anti-homeless architecture - often associated with hostile architecture - is an urban planning strategy that utilises the built environment to deter and restrict certain behaviours, often targeting homeless individuals from populating public spaces. This defensive design approach is commonly used in densely populated urban areas to regulate and maintain public space.
Examples of anti-homeless architecture
For example, in downtown Toronto alone, there have been over 120 anti-homeless architectural structures designed in urban spaces - from unusually-shaped benches, spikes on the ground - to prevent the homeless from seeking refuge on the streets. The primary function of most hostile architectural elements is to disrupt homeless encampments and prevent sleeping - as is evident in the addition of metal bars on benches, bike racks and spiked window ledges.
Watch THIS video to see more examples.
What are the effects of implementing such measures?
The implementation of this type of urban planning has brought on much controversy, due to its representation of inequality and social injustice. This form of hostile architecture in public spaces is seen as marginalising homeless communities, causing systemic segregation within society. Anti-homeless or hostile architecture causes an unhealthy and inhospitable environment, which is often ‘invisible’ to those that are able to enjoy the comfort of their own homes. This also causes displacement of homeless camps, because these are the main groups the government seems to be tackling. In 2018, the City of Seattle installed bike racks under an old viaduct to disrupt a homeless encampment, driving the homeless away. On the other hand, some may argue that these measures are necessary to regulate and maintain order in urban areas.
Legislation and its challenges
In 2018, the US Court of Appeals ruled in the Martin v. Boise case that ‘cities cannot enforce anti-camping ordinances against homeless individuals if they do not have sufficient available shelter space to accommodate them’. This meant that governments must ensure there is sufficient shelter capacity before penalising homeless individuals for sleeping or camping in public spaces. However, the ruling does not explicitly protect homeless individuals from the intentional nature of anti-homeless architecture - some cities and governments continue to implement the deliberate design to deter homeless individuals in public spaces.
Then, in 2019, the City of Boise appealed to the court again, stating that the decision ‘inhibited their ability to maintain the health and safety of their community’. This was then rejected by the Supreme Court, but it can be perceived as though governments are perpetuating inequality and social injustice by marginalising and excluding homeless individuals from public spaces.
In sum, anti-homeless architecture quietly segregates those in need without providing an alternative option for the homeless to seek shelter. This systemic problem is compounded by government negligence, causing physical and psychological problems for the homeless population.
Do you think anti-homeless architecture benefits or hinders the community?
Works Cited
Andreou, A. (2015). Defensive architecture: keeping poverty unseen and deflecting our guilt. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/18/defensive-architecture-keeps-poverty-undeen-and-makes-us-more-hostile.
Barr, K. (2019). Supreme Court Lets Martin v. Boise Stand. [online] National Homelessness Law Center. Available at: https://homelesslaw.org/supreme-court-martin-v-boise/.
Bocchialini, M. (2019). The growth of hostile architecture: how developments in urban design are exacerbating social injustice. [online] A-id. Available at: https://a-id.org/the-growth-of-hostile-architecture-how-developments-in-urban-design-are-exacerbating-social-injustice/.
Chadalavada, K. (2020). (PDF) Defensive architecture -A design against humanity. [online] ResearchGate. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339676322_Defensive_architecture_-A_design_against_humanity.
Chellew, C. (2019). Defending Suburbia: Exploring the Use of Defensive Urban Design Outside of the City Centre. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, [online] 28(1), pp.19–33. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26757401?seq=5 [Accessed 1 Feb. 2024].
Perez, E. (2021). The Forbidden Existence: Anti-Homeless Architecture and the Regulation of Public Spaces. [online] Apollon Undergraduate Journal. Available at: https://www.apollonejournal.org/apollon-journal//the-forbidden-existence-anti-homeless-architecture-and-the-regulation-of-public-spaces.
Suleiman, M. (2022). Hostile Architecture meets COVID-19: Why Anti-Homelessness Laws Must be Re-evaluated. [online] Columbia Undergraduate Law Review. Available at: https://www.culawreview.org/journal/hostile-architecture-meets-covid-19-why-anti-homelessness-laws-must-be-re-evaluated.
Comments