PC: Unsplash; An unhoused person rests on a park bench
In the heart of a bustling city, where skyscrapers tower over crowded sidewalks and public spaces are constantly occupied, a bench should offer a moment of relief from the endless walking. Yet, looking closer, that bench tells a different story. Divided by metal armrests or uneven surfaces, it leaves no room to stretch out. It not only serves a purpose beyond providing somewhere to sit, but it’s designed to drive “certain” people away from staying for too long.
Known as “hostile architecture,” or “anti-homeless architecture,” this growing urban phenomenon involves designing public spaces to intentionally discourage unwanted behavior such as loitering and lingering around for extended periods of time. If you live in a fast-paced city or have ever visited one, you might have encountered these firsthand. Cement spikes beneath bridges, sloped ledges or leaning bars in public train stations are just some examples of structures that are becoming increasingly common in cities to maintain shared spaces.
Although hostile architecture may be effective for its intended purposes, its consequences extend beyond the inconveniences it aims to address. It directly impacts those who live on the streets and are experiencing homelessness, as it restricts their access to places where they can find temporary relief from the conditions of their living situation. A bench that prevents someone from lying down may seem insignificant to a passerby with a warm bed waiting at home. However, for individuals without homes, these public spaces are not simply places to pass through; they are essential spaces for them to rest, take shelter and survive. When these spaces are modified to prevent people from laying down or seeking shelter, their options are limited. The physical and mental discomfort is already intensified due to unpredictable weather and the lack of access to basic necessities. Hostile architecture just adds another barrier to these daily struggles, that forces the unhoused to constantly search for places where they can safely pause without being moved along.
In urban environments, where efficiency and commercial decisions often dictate the design of buildings and streets, hostile architecture reflects a troubling shift in priorities. Instead of addressing the underlying causes of homelessness, cities can end up making those in poverty less comfortable and less visible, making an already difficult situation even more challenging. Here, the problem is not solved; it is merely pushed out of sight.
The consequences are as social as they are physical. Hostile architecture sends a powerful message about who belongs in public spaces and who does not. It reinforces the stigma surrounding homelessness by allowing society to view those in poverty as nuisances, rather than human beings facing complex circumstances. Over time, these small yet deliberate obstacles normalize indifference, making the exclusion of vulnerable people seem like an ordinary part of city life.
Ultimately, hostile architecture reveals a contradiction in modern urban development. Cities strive to appear progressive, organized and welcoming. Meanwhile, some of their design choices actively exclude vulnerable populations. While maintaining safe and accessible areas are important, discouraging unhoused individuals through physical barriers does little to address the circumstances that have left them without shelter in the first place. A truly progressive city should be measured not by how clean and orderly it may appear, but rather how it accommodates its marginalized residents.