15
Figure 6. Pig ears on public benches to avoid misuse by skateboarders (Quinn, 2014)
From figure 6 it is observed that pig ears are added to the public benches as a strategy to prevent misuse by skateboarders. Other studies also indicate that hostile architecture not only encompasses the use of architectural elements that make the public spaces unliveable such as studs on flat surfaces and sloped window sills but also changing the entire atmosphere of a given area in order to restrict a particular group from this space (Chadalavada, 2020; Quinn, 2014). The direct impact of introducing the hostile architecture on the surrounding areas is that, it discourages legitimate users from using such spaces. For example, where window sills are sloped, legitimate customers end up shying away from the amenities as the infrastructure communicates the idea of segregation. In further explanation, Quinn (2014) reported that use of sound deterrents was also considered a form of hostile architecture whereby, classical music was played in different train stations in order to prevent congregation of teenagers. The argument in this case was that, the emission of high-pitched sounds that were irritating and could only be heard by the teenagers was effective in discouraging them from misusing the spaces as they congregated and prevented other legitimate users from enjoying such spaces. While and Atkinson (2015) also highlighted that the Bournemouth Council had also used bagpipe music in order to deter the homeless sleepers. Therefore, from the analysis of the various studies (Litch, 2017; McMaken, 2019; Chadalavada, 2020), it emerges that the arguments advocating for defensive architecture are justified as they restrict or cajole unwanted behaviour while allowing legitimate users to enjoy the urban spaces as they were intentionally designed. As a result, fewer homeless people and delinquents are observed in the different public urban space environments. However, despite the increasing encouragement of using hostile architecture, other researchers argue that it is not entirely effective as it renders the amenities unusable by other well-meaning individuals. The argument was supported by Jock (2019) who reported that introduction of the architecture also made it difficult for shoppers to enjoy the public space.As such, hostile architecture has both desired and undesired consequences although there is more focus on shedding light on desired consequences. For example, designing uncomfortable benches in the public spaces may lead to benefits such as keeping out unwanted homeless individuals. However, an undesired consequence would be increased discomfort to the legitimate shoppers who use such spaces as they are unable to enjoy the same space.
