The analysis of these results indicated that making the public benches and pavements uncomfortable for the rough sleepers would be effective in restricting such behaviour. The findings resonated with While and Atkinson (2015) and Carey (2015) who had reported that barriers such as metal spikes on surfaces was effective in keeping out the homeless who slept on them while the addition of dividers on public benches with an aim to prevent the misuse of the infrastructure by the homeless. The findings also showed that in Glasgow, pig ears were added in the Bristo building as a move to discourage skaters from misusing the public space and causing disorder. The analysis of these findings directly indicated that the use of the architecture in the context of their environments was effective in restricting the unwanted behaviour. With regard to restricting skateboarding, the findings reiterated Németh (2006) who had previously indicated that some teenagers who skated were unruly, deviant and disorderly. The findings also resonated with Glenney and Mull (2018) who had suggested that allowing skateboarding activity within public spaces would result in disorder and disregard for the law, hence, leading to the misuse of the spaces. However, the findings on the negative aspects of skateboarding contradicted Rogers (2018) who had suggested that allowing skateboarding could be beneficial in lowering crime rates, mitigating obesity in the young population, fostering creativity, added life and activity in the public spaces and as a result, enhanced their excitement levels. 4.5.3 Benefits and disadvantages of hostile architecture in the cities The final research question investigated the benefits and disadvantages of using hostile architecture in the various cities. Based on the analysis undertaken in section 4.5.2, it was observed that the use of the hostile architecture was important as they were effective in restricting unwanted behaviour in different contexts. Findings had shown that in New York, the use of dividers on benches and lean bars reduced congregation and rough sleeping in subways (Kim, 2019). Likewise, in New Delhi, the results had shown that use of granite protrudes and sharp spikes discouraged the homeless from rough sleeping in such areas (Ruetas, 2019). In Glasgow, use of pig ears was also observed to discourage the skating within the public spaces. Such insights underscored the effectiveness of hostile architecture in restricting unwanted behaviour in the different cities and as a result, promoting the appropriate use of the infrastructure. The results aligned to previous researchers (Lo, 2017; Carey, 2018; Chellew, 2019) who had identified similar benefits in other cities. However, despite such benefits, the findings also revealed that there were some disadvantages associated with the use of hostile architecture. In New York, Kim (2019) reported that use of the hostile architecture in form of lean bars led to criticism as they were considered a war on sitting. In New Delhi, Ruetas (2019) had also reported that using sharp spikes and granite protrudes was dangerous to minors and also destroyed the aesthetic appeal of the public spaces. Finally, in Glasgow, Qreate (2018) had also reported that the use of pig ears to discourage skating in Bristo building square made the are less exciting as skaters had introduced activities that individuals could enjoy watching. The various findings aligned with previous insights which had also underscored similar benefits. For instance, with regard to using lean bars, pig ears and sharp spikes, the findings resonated with Quinn (2014) and While and Atkinson (2015)who had reported that hostile architecture made public spaces ugly and uninviting to the ordinary users. Therefore, the findings were suggestive that there was still need for more empathetic architecture that would strike a balance between restricting unwanted behaviour while also encouraging ordinary users to the public spaces.
32
