THE’hostile architecture, in English Hostile architecture or UngleSant Designincludes a set of design solutions designed to discourage behaviors deemed unwanted or improper in public spaces, such as sleeping on a bench or bivouac under a porch. Studs, spikes, bollards, dividers, inclined surfaces And other precautions, increasingly widespread in urban design, are part of a language that, in the declared attempt to protect the common space, ends up denying it and making it inhospitable to those who have no other dwelling than the road. Many, including urban planners, sociologists, architects and citizens, denounce the “anti-clochard benches” and other similar tricks, believing that they do nothing but move the problem elsewhere, dehumanizing the cities and contributing to the marginalization of those who already live on the margins of society, especially the Homeless.
How hostile architecture was born
The phenomenon has its roots in a relatively recent past, starting from birth of industrial cities. In the nineteenth century, the first architectures for social control began to appear in England: fences with metallic tips around private properties e anti-urine devices placed at the corners of the buildings to prevent urination on the street. Today’s forms of Defensive Design however, they develop from the 70s in the wake of studies conducted by designers and criminologists, including Oscar Newman. Architect and author of the book Defensible Space (1972), Newman claims that the design, management and control of public urban space can be functional to discourage criminal behaviors, especially if citizens mature a sense of ownership and responsibility towards their neighborhood. Later, the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (Cpted), theory developed by the criminologist C. Ray Jefferywill propose an approach based on four concepts already illustrated by Newman: natural surveillance, access control, territorial strengthening, image and environment.
In the 90s, with the progress of urbanization and the increase in social inequalities, prevention strategies have extended from the fight against crime to compliance with urban decorationoften according to real estate enhancement. In this scenario, and also in the wake of the doctrine of “zero tolerance”, the growing presence of homeless people in urban centers has pushed more and more institutions and private to introduce physical barriers to discourage their stay in public places. A form of discrimination Space to visually eliminate the problem (often not a real danger) instead of dealing with its causes (poverty, marginalization, lack of services) which opposes the concept of “right to the city”, theorized by the sociologist Henri Lefebvreaccording to which all citizens, regardless of the economic or housing condition, must be able to use the urban space.
Impossible benches and spikes: examples from the world
Hostile architecture has spread globally, often camouflaging itself in the urban furniture: Not all passersby realize that a bench divided in the middle is not the result of an aesthetic choice, but an expedient designed to prevent someone from sleeping on it. Some urban furnishings and space configurations are therefore designed ad hoc to exercise a certain social control, keep clochard and other unwanted distant. Among the most common solutions we find: central armrests and inclinations on public benches, single -seater benches or without seat (to stand up); Borchie or spikes in correspondence with thresholdsshowcases, arcades or sheltered corners; Games of volumes and disconnected surfaces that make it impossible to sit on walls or steps; And still also automatic water sprayers, active at night in some areas to discourage parking.
Among the most emblematic cases of UngleSant Design stands out among all Londonse Camden Benchdesigned in 2012 by the British company UK Company Furniture Furniture. It is a large concrete bench designed in detail to prevent any unwanted use: its surface, irregular and inclined, makes it practically impossible to lie or even just sitting comfortably (among the intent there was also to prevent skateboarders from performing acrobatics, but in this case the design proved to be ineffective); It is free of cracks where to hide objects (to discourage drug dealing or abandonment of cans and waste); It is heavy and difficult to remove, but it can be useful to block the road or prevent terrorist attacks.
Finally, the Camden Bench is equipped with a Antigraffiti waterproof coating and safety gangs to better control your bags. Another much discussed case, this time in Italy, concerns the public sessions of Ghiaia square in Parmamodified with the addition of metal structures that transform them into planters and effectively prevent their use. The decision, motivated by the need to prevent “bivouacs and degradation”, has aroused large controversies for the dubious aesthetic and for the elusive approach to the problem. In other cities, for the same reasons, the benches were directly removed or replaced with bicycle racksresorting to the promotion of cycle mobility to legitimize the intervention.
But hostile architecture can also be intangible. In Cardiff, some stores have experienced the use of High frequency sounds to discourage the stationing of drug dealers near the entrances. In England, in Mansfield, they have been installed pink lights In some residential areas: think to create a relaxing atmosphere, they actually highlight the imperfections of the skin and dissuade teenagers from gathering. In L’Aia, in public bathrooms, it was opted for blue lightswhich make it more difficult for drug addicts to identify the veins. More ingenious, not to mention ironic, it is the solution adopted in Hamburg, in the St. Pauli district and in some German railway stations: one hydrophobic paint who bounce the pee on the feet of those who urine against the walls.
Because it is a very criticized practice
Hostile architecture raises strong ethical and social criticism. Firstly, a cruel solution is considered, which targeted the most fragile people. In this sense, the cities that adopt this type of urban furnishings are accused of wanting to hide poverty under the carpet, deluding themselves to solve the problem simply by removing it from the gaze. But of course, removing a bench or putting metal balls on the sidewalk does not reduce the number of homeless: at most it forces them to move elsewhere. These are therefore interventions of pure facade that feed the “criminalization of poverty“And, according to studies of psychologists and sociologists, a dangerous lack of collective empathy as a social effect. By equating sleeping on the street to antisocial behavior to be repressed, these design solutions blend the boundaries between urban decor and human rights.
There sensitivity For the theme, it is growing parallel to its diffusion and many urban planners point out the basic irony: cities proclaimed “smart” and modern, full of innovations, then tolerate these brutal urban scenography and with questionable aesthetics that make them in reality less livable and inclusive for everyone. An uncomfortable bench does not limit the use of public space only to homeless people, but ends up penalizing anyone, from the elderly people looking for a session to those who simply want to enjoy a moment of outdoor relaxation.
Possible alternatives and inclusive design
Petitions, campaigns on social media collected under specific hashtags and special Online maps They document the presence of “anti-saven” benches and other hostile furnishings scattered all over the world. Groups of citizens and activists have also undertaken demonstration actionsfor example by covering the anti-clochard spikes with mattresses. These forms of symbolic protest, or of “tactical urbanism”, aim not only to temporarily sabotage the hostile structures but a raise public awareness On the topic by denouncing the policy put in place: investing money to remove the poor instead of helping them.
An investigation conducted in Vancouver noted that, after the installation of anti-Bivacco furnishings, the visible presence of homeless in the city center fell by over 70%, but the same people have simply moved to the surrounding areas. In other words, hostile architecture can remove the problem, but it certainly does not solve it or reduce the number of homeless people. Indeed, forcing them to move can expose them to major risksin more isolated areas far from assistance services, less enlightened and safe. Not surprisingly, several NGOs report an increase in requests for help in the suburbs after interventions of this type.
Different realities are moving against hostile design, proposing aninclusive, empathetic and supportive architecturethat I aim to welcome instead of rejecting, to design with people and not against them. Among the most interesting pilot projects: versatile sessions, equipped with reclining backs and armrests that can be repositioned if necessary; benches with limited roofs and transformable into night shelters; Protected and supervised parking areas where the homeless can stop temporarily. More generally, in addition to a necessary change of mentality, the inclusive design invites to Equip the city of basic infrastructures – such as public bathrooms, fountains, shaded areas and shelter from the rain – to reduce conflicts of use, and to invest in popular housing, public dormitories and reintegration programs for those who live on the street.
A concrete example comes from Finland, where the approach Housing First has drastically reduced the number of homeless by providing Provisional accommodations and assistance. On the regulatory front, there is some signal of change: the Law Father Júlio Lancellottiapproved in 2023 by the city of San Paolo in Brazil and entitled to the priest activist for the rights of the homeless, explicitly prohibits the use of hostile architecture in public spaces; While in Washington DC in 2022 an integration to the human rights code was approved which inserts the “Status of homelessness” among the categories protected by discrimination.
