America’s sprawling cities and state capitals are full of fascinating architecture that reveals lots about our history. In Chicago, signature Greystone buildings contrast with the late modernism of the Willis Tower. In Los Angeles, the art deco aesthetic of the Griffith Observatory clashes with the quintessentially Californian mission revival style. Across the country, architecture has the power to unite and teach us something about our history.
There are, however, genres of architecture better left on drawing boards and kept out of public space.
Hostile architecture is that which seeks to influence the behavior of passers-by. Some hostile architecture is relatively benign, such as anti-skate installations. Most hostile architecture, however, comes from a much more sinister place.
Some forms of hostile architecture are expressly designed to prevent the comfort of homeless people in public areas. This “anti-homeless” design commonly features spikes, railings in the middle of benches, and concrete geometric shapes which impair one’s ability to lay down or rest comfortably. This makes it impossible for people without homes to lay down or rest comfortably.
.jpg)
The picture above is an example of such architecture. Metal studs attached to the concrete prevent anyone from sitting or laying down, as any individual might be inclined to do. They serve no aesthetic or functional purpose. New renovations in cities across the country include these features, but as a style, hostile architecture is nothing new.
In fact, it dates all the way back to the 19th century when designers created safeguards against public urination. In the mid-20th century, more architects began to adopt the principles of hostility in a bid to improve quality of life and public safety. In other words, if architects could make it impossible for homeless people to loiter in public areas, residents may feel their neighborhood is safe and prosperous.
Out of sight, out of mind.
“Ignorance is bliss,” goes the age-old saying. We often feel better about an issue if we’re hardly aware of its existence. Is that really the benchmark we should set for ourselves? Over 560,000 Americans experience chronic homelessness. This significant population deserves an all-out legislative effort to provide affordable housing or universal basic income.
After all, we have access to resources that can provide these reforms. In Philadelphia, leaders spent $26 million renovating Love Park in 2018. Part of the improvements were dividers on benches, like those pictured above. City officials spouted some lines about inclusion and mutual use, but activists remain upset about the “improvements” in the City of Brotherly Love.
Part of that $26 million could’ve been spent on affordable housing for homeless individuals. Our legislators go so far out of their way to avoid this issue rather than fixing it for roughly the same cost.
This problem also disproportionately impacts marginalized communities. Despite constituting less than 13% of America’s population, Black people comprise nearly 40% of all homeless individuals. Similarly, Latinx residents make up around 17% of all Americans but over 20% of homeless people. To foster architectural styles that negatively impact the lives of homeless individuals is to attack people of color.
A number of lawsuits have challenged the legality of anti-homeless architecture to mixed results. It would be a whole lot easier if public designers simply don’t pursue cruel styles, no matter the pressure from lawmakers. If our leaders want to keep homeless individuals out of sight for middle- and upper-class families, how about they move money around to build them homes? Sometimes the simplest solution is the best one.
