While and Atkinson (2015) also revealed that there was significant backlash against use of defensive architecture with numerous petitions being signed against their use due to the discomfort they introduced, particularly, adoption of bagpipe music to deter homeless sleepers in Bournemouth and addition of studs on Manchester pavements. Many of the suggested arguments against defensive architecture emphasize on the rising social inequalities as well as reliance on inhumane approaches to exclude different types of individuals. A different view by Robert Park, an urban sociologist, also revealed that when urban designers focused too much on making architecture that is hostile, ugly and uninviting, this had an unprecedented consequence of transforming the urban centers into ugly and uninviting places (Adler-Gillies, 2018). The sociologist highlighted the Camden bench as an example of a hostile architecture that was blatant and which hindered any form of interaction. Figure 7 illustrates the Camden bench.
Figure 7. Camden bench in London city (Adler-Gillies, 2018) The review of the different arguments against hostile architecture is indicative that there is no consistent discussion on how their principles apply to one another as well as acts that are morally acceptable and forbidden. The assertion arises from the fact that the installation of the different types of architecture has either resulted in backlash from the public (While and Atkinson, 2015) or harsh criticism on their consequence of turning cities into ugly and uninviting places (Adler-Gillies, 2018). The present research aims to correct this view by clearly outlining the principles of hostile architecture and also recommending various alternatives to some of the proposed forms.
16
