3.3 Adoption of hostile architecture and its consequences

A third form of misuse of the public spaces regards vandalism and theft of the public property(Bostani, Sadeghi and Aghai, 2017). In the study, Bostani, Sadeghi and Aghai (2017) reported that vandalism was a social phenomenon whereby, individuals intentionally destroyed public facilities and equipment. In another research, Miller (2015)reported similar insights and added that vandalism and graffiti in different public spaces was expensive as it cost taxpayer money to repair such spaces. Furthermore, adding graffiti to the public infrastructure is also argued to destroy the aesthetics and further promote crime and drug-taking activity (Bostani, Sadeghi and Aghai, 2017). Therefore, the comparison of the different studies (Miller, 2015; Bostani, Sadeghi and Aghai, 2017) suggests that enforcement of policies to prevent the misuse of the public infrastructure by preventing such activities has been highly encouraged.

3.3 Adoption of hostile architecture and its consequences

From the review of the different studies (Miller, 2015; Bostani, Sadeghi and Aghai, 2017;Bonds and Martin, 2016; Moss and Moss, 2019), it emerged that anti-social behaviour such as vandalism, rough sleeping from homelessness and disorderly skateboarding had a negative impact on the aesthetic appeal of the public spaces. In addition, the undertaking of the different activities also promoted disorder and various forms of criminal and drug-taking offenses. However, to mitigate such effects, several strategies were advocated which range from the small-scale interventions such as CCTV and surveillance to the large-scale use of policies against the behaviour and incorporation of barriers in the built environment. The main response strategy, which is the focus of this research, regards the adoption of hostile or defensive architecture, whereby, the built environment is used to restrict behaviour which would be regarded as anti-social (Carey, 2018). Similar insights were also highlighted by While and Atkinson (2015) who revealed that hostile architecture advocated for restructuring the built environment, for instance, barriers such as metal spikes on surfaces in order to keep out the homeless who sleep on themand the addition of dividers on public benches with an aim to prevent the misuse of the infrastructure by the homeless. Further study by Chellew (2019) also highlighted similar views with regard to the use of “pig ears” on pavements to deter skateboarding activity. From an analytical perspective and side-by-side comparison of Chellew (2019) and While and Atkinson (2015), it emerges that the use of the forms of architecture is argued to be effective in keeping out the anti-social behaviour as the targeted groups find it uncomfortable to conduct their activities, for instance, skateboarders finding it difficult to skate on the surfaces with protruding “pig ears” whereas the homeless being uncomfortable and unable to sleep on pavement surfaces with spikes.

However, over the years, different arguments have arisen both in support of and against the use of hostile architecture. Lo (2017), for instance, highlights that hostile architecture can provide a solution to prevent anti-social behaviour and minimize the amount of time that different groups can spend in a given area. A case in point being sloped benches where they can’t sit for too long (Lo, 2017). As a result, since the hostile architecture prevents the congregation of different groups of people, the general public can perceive the public spaces as being safer and where they can freely undertake different social activities. Rosenberger (2019) highlights similar benefits by citing a further advantage whereby, the various forms of defensive architecture encourage self-policing and self-security within the urban centers. A similar view was also identified by While and Atkinson (2015) who highlighted the Camden bench as an example and a type of architecture that promotes self-security as the anti-social behaviour of congregating would be reduced in the public spaces. The suggestion from these studies (While and Atkinson, 2015; Lo, 2017; Rosenberger, 2019)is that hostile architecture is beneficial in promoting perceptions of security by keeping out anti-social behaviour.