The Dangers of Anti-Homeless Architecture
Anti-homeless architecture can be found in cities of all sizes. In a variety of places, from restaurants to airports, public spaces are transformed into “defensive architecture.”
These “defensive architecture” designs are a threat towards the homeless community, who use public areas to sleep and rest. In America’s most populated city, New York City, bicycle racks were built in homeless camps, even though bikes are not the main sources of transportation in the targeted area. These bicycle racks took up space and prevented homeless people from being able to rest in those locations. In addition, plastic planters were placed right below a highway in Portland. The overpass above the area had provided a shield against the rain, making it a popular resting place for homeless people. However, the planters closed the space to homeless people.
According to the New York Times, people affected by homelessness would rather stay in a public area in a busy city than in a shelter, but these invasive designs take that option away from them. Even Public services and rights are not available to them. Cities continue to enforce harmful laws which prevent the homeless population from settling or resting, building hostile designs on empty land.
California is home to 12% of the homeless population and, consequently, is also a leader in the creation of hostile architecture. San Francisco, located in the heart of California, removed countless benches in public recreation areas, harming both tourists and homeless people. When access to public restrooms is also denied and urine-proof paints are used, homeless people are faced with an even greater challenge, since they are deprived of the ability to relieve themselves..
The effort put into anti-homeless architecture affects the general public, too. Removing public benches and areas creates a more awkward experience for shoppers and downtown residents. Instead of addressing the issue of why people affected by homelessness must sleep in parks, corrupt governors choose to enforce harmful stereotypes and architecture to eliminate homeless people’s dignity. Homeless people are deprived of the basic privileges and decency that other citizens are guaranteed every day.
The actions of placing benches with armrests separating seats or adding spikes on steps show a selfish attempt to force out the homeless population. Those responsible describe them as “defensive” structures, only concealing the saddening truth: hostile architecture exists to prevent the homeless from taking up space in public, denying them the right to even live in public spaces. These public spaces lose all meaning when trying to protect one group from another, making it rather private. An individual might see a bench as an opportunity to send a simple text but to others these staple pieces provide a place of res. The architecture’s intent was never to defend but rather eliminate.