Hostile Architecture by edenhawkins10

THE RISE IN HOSTILE ARCHITECTURE Eden Hawkins - 18009878 BSc (Hons) Architecture University of the West of England, Bristol February 2021

Source: New York Times (2019a)

Has there been an increase in hostile architecture directed at ‘undesirable’ groups, such as the homeless, since the 1960s? If so, what are the key drivers of this? A case study of New York.

Statement of work This dissertation was completed as part of the BSc (Hons) Architecture course at the University of the West of England (UWE), Bristol. I declare that this work is my own and where the work of others was used or drawn on, it is attributed to the relevant source. Signature:

Signed by: Eden Hawkins Date 26 January 2021 Word Count: 5452 Name of Tutor: David Littlefield

Copyright statement This dissertation is protected by copyright. Do not copy any part of it for any purpose other than personal academic study without the permission of the author.

Acknowledgements I would like to express my thanks and gratitude to my supervisor David Littlefield, whose guidance was invaluable.

Abstract This study aims to explore hostile architecture, understanding how it is used and why it is on the rise. This dissertation investigates the key drivers for the phenomenon, using New York City as a case study.

In order to progress this dissertation, a desk-based, qualitative method has been used. This paper uses a literature review-based methodology to focus on several driving factors for the increase in hostile architecture. After analysing its emergence in the 1960s and 1970s, the themes of crime rates, public perception, governmental policy, and consumerism are explored, to create a composed conclusion.

The research reveals that the rise in hostile architecture could be influenced, and facilitated, by many factors. Although hostile architecture was initially developed as a response to rising crime rates, it seems that the use of hostile architecture has become less focused on crime prevention, and more focused on financial gain. As New York City has seen a rise in Privately-Owned Public Spaces since the 1960s, it seems that site owners are more frequently attempting to â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;codeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; their spaces to maximise profit, by discouraging those who do not contribute to the net gain of their private space.

Contents List of Figures

p. 6

Definitions

p. 8

Introduction

p. 10

Methodology

p. 12

Chapter 1: Exploring a rise in hostile architecture, and how it is used to code a space How does hostile architecture work to control a space?

p. 14

Has There been a rise in hostile architecture?

p. 16

Chapter 2: Hostile architecture and crime prevention The emergence of environmental design, as a way of providing safety, or removing ‘threat’

p. 22

Rising crime rates and the introduction of symbolic design

p. 26

Public perception and stereotypes

p. 28

Failure to differentiate

p. 30

Chapter 3: Policy changes and Privately Owned Public Spaces The 1961 zoning resolution, and privatisation:

p. 32

Public vs private spaces

p. 34

Chapter 4: Consumerism and changing societal perceptions of those who do not ‘contribute’

The rise in consumerism

p. 36

‘Flawed consumers’ and societal values

p. 38

Conclusion

p. 40

References

p. 42

List of Figures

Figure 1. Uncomfortable armrests, acting physically, but also symbolically to control the space.

p. 11

Figure 2: Spikes to prevent sitting or laying down.

p. 15

Figure 3: The Camden Bench

p. 16

Figure 4: Spikes to prevent sitting on fire hydrants.

p. 18

Figure 5: Spikes to prevent sitting on bollards.

p. 21

Figure 6: A diagrammatic representation of natural surveillance.

p. 22

Figure 7: A film still taken from Whyte’s 1988 study of the Seagram Plaza

p. 23

Figure 8: The entrance to Bryant Park, before its redesign in 1983

p. 24

Figure 9: Bryant Park, diagram of criminal activity

p. 25

Figure 10: A graph showing the street crime rates in New York City

p. 27

Figure 11: A graph showing the homelessness rates in New York City

p. 27

Figure 12: A man busking in London, restricted to a small area, for an allotted time

p. 28

Figure 13: Diagrams showing how the Camden bench is designed.

p. 30

Figure 14: News headlines which create fear, as described by Davis (1990)

p. 31

Figure 15: A diagram showing how the ‘FAR bonus’ works

p. 33

Figure 16: A graph showing an increase in the number of POPS in New York

p. 33

Figure 17: The ‘bum-proof bench’, as described by Davis (1990)

p. 34

Figure 18: An image showing the ‘blurred’ threshold between different spaces

p. 35

Figure 19: An image of Times Square in New York

p. 37

Figure 20: A homeless encampment, which arguably ‘ruins’ the brand image of the shop behind

p. 38

Definitions Camden Bench – Implemented by Camden Borough Council in 2012, the Camden bench is a piece of hostile architecture which is designed to prevent as many ‘unwanted’ behaviours as possible, such as skateboarding, drug dealing, and sleeping. Coding – When concerned with hostile architecture, coding may be defined as the act of using objects to control a space, in place of other forms of communication, to create a system which communicates an idea without stating it explicitly. Consumerism – “The belief that it is good to buy and use a lot of goods” (Collins Dictionary) Hostile architecture - “The design of buildings and public spaces in a way which discourages people from touching, climbing, or sitting on them, to avoid damage or their use for a different purpose” (Collins Dictionary, 2015). Natural surveillance – Identified by Jacobs (2011), natural surveillance is when a space is overlooked by the general public, who will act when necessary, making the space safer. POPS – ‘Privately Owned Public Space’, a space which is publicly accessible, but privately managed and owned. First introduced in New York City in the 1961 zoning resolution, POPS was a requirement if new developments wished to exceed a certain building height. Silent Agent – As described by Savic and Savicic (2012), a silent agent is an object which controls the behaviour in a space, without the explicit presence of site owners or authorities. Symbolic/symbolism – Symbolism relates to the hidden meaning of an object; hostile architecture often acts as a symbol, or manifestation, of the site owners’ views as to who should, and who should not, be using the space. Territoriality – Identified by Newman (1973), territoriality relates to ideas of ownership and occupancy, where users or owners use non-verbal communication, such as barriers and signs, to code a space. Undesirables – The term ‘undesirable’, as described by Whyte (2012, p. 19), relates to a specific type of person, whose behaviours are unwanted by the broader public. Examples include: homeless people, drug addicts, and skateboarders. 8

Introduction Hostile architecture, such as anti-homeless spikes or skate-stoppers, is often used to control how an exterior public space is used. It achieves this by acting both physically and symbolically to reduce the types of activities which occur. Through the use of these designs, ‘undesirable groups’, such as homeless people, skateboarders, and youths, feel unwelcome. Subsequently, they remove themselves from these spaces. Hostile architecture can be seen in most major towns and cities across the globe, and, as Starolis (2020), and Hu (2019) suggest, it is on the rise. With the phenomenon increasing, despite a change in crime rates and city dynamics, it is worth asking why this is the case, and what are the key drivers for this increase. The use of hostile architecture in public spaces seems to have first emerged in New York City in the 1970s, after Jacobs’ 1961 theories of natural surveillance were developed by Newman’s defensible space theory (1973) and Jeffery’s crime prevention through environmental design theory (1973). These theories identified how the built environment can contribute to crime prevention; they highlight how the ‘image’ of a space, alongside the use of physical and symbolic ‘barriers’, can increase a sense of territoriality and control the types of behaviours which are allowed. Although the theories work as expected, to remove certain ‘undesirable’ groups and behaviours from a public space, there has been an ongoing debate as to how hostile architecture may negatively affect those who are marginalised because of it, and, why the use of hostile architecture is on the rise, when more inclusive strategies have been identified (Jacobs, 2011). Though some authors argue the use of hostile architecture is reasonable as it may help to improve public safety (Newman, 1973), critics, such as Borden (2019), Davis (1990), and Whyte (1988), argue that perhaps this is a false sense of security, as those who are marginalised are often not the problem. It may instead be the public perceptions of the ‘undesirables’ that causes the use of hostile architecture, as a response to perceived threat. In New York, critics (Nemeth and Schmidt, 2011; Davis, 1990; Whyte, 1988) argue that the increase in hostile architecture, and the use of design as a way of ‘filtering’ out a space, has been facilitated by a growing number of Privately Owned Public Spaces (POPS). In addition, to understand its continued existence, some authors (Borden, 2019; Thorpe, 2012; Davis, 1990) have turned to a focus on rising consumerist values to explain the use of hostile architecture, which is aimed at particular groups, despite these people no longer mirroring the stereotypical behaviours that they have been associated with. This dissertation will explore a range of drivers thought to influence the rise in hostile architecture. The paper will highlight how the literature seems to have moved from a focus on governmental policy and crime rates in the 1960s and 1970s, to a more in-depth analysis of consumerism and POPS from the 1980s onwards.

Figure 1: Uncomfortable armrests, acting physically, but also symbolically to control the space. Source: Nix (2019)

Methodology To form a general overview of the subject, a qualitative, desk-based study of research into the hostile architecture of New York City was conducted. A review of authoritative literature revealed potential links between the rise of hostile architecture, and a number of socio-economic influences. After focusing on hostile architecture based literature, which provided a general overview of the subject, the study then became more focused on New York City. In becoming more focused, city-specific influences for the phenomenon were identified, making the study more in-depth. This methodology allowed for the relevance of texts to be evaluated, which led to comparisons between possible influences, and how they have driven a rise in hostile architecture. In addition, similarities and differences were identified, which helped to create a conclusion. Much of this research was undertaken using peer-reviewed journal articles, alongside several well-cited, published books, to ensure that the information is reliable and accurate. For this study, New York City was selected for several reasons. Firstly, the research conducted on hostile architecture points to the US as the country where the phenomenon was first identified and critiqued. Thus, it makes sense to focus on a city in the US, as it may be possible to learn more from the country which first identified how hostile architecture can be used to control a space. New York City was chosen specifically as it is the city where many of the initial ‘crime prevention’ theories, which led to the introduction of hostile architecture, were developed. In addition, much of the literature reviewed on hostile architecture looked at New York City as an example. Consequently, with the literature-review based methodology that was employed, a focus New York City seemed appropriate. Where quantitative data was useful, graphs and findings from US government archives were compared with relevant literature. Any possible ‘cause and effect’ was investigated before subjects were further analysed. An example of this can be found in the graphs, and analysis, related to crime rates and homelessness in chapter 2. Crime based data was accessed through ‘Disaster Center’, an independent organisation which have compiled information from the FBI UCS Annual Crime Reports. Homelessnessbased data was taken from ‘Coalition for the homeless’, a charity which have graphically represented findings from the New York City Department of Homeless Services. This data can be considered reliable as it has been taken from official government archives, and represented by well-known organisations.

Chapter 1: Exploring a rise in hostile architecture, and how it is used to code a space How does hostile architecture work to control a space? For this discussion, focus will be on hostile architecture, such as uncomfortable benches (figures 1 and 3) or the use of spikes (figures 2, 4, and 5), as a passive control technique. These designs can be described as ‘passive’ because they are static, and act without conscious thought. Nemeth and Schmidt (2007, p. 285, citing Loukaitou-Sideris & Banerjee, 1998, pp. 183–185) identify these design techniques as “soft controls”, as they symbolically control a space. They suggest “design, an example of soft control, can be used both literally and symbolically to control behaviour and [the] use of publicly accessible space” (Nemeth, J. Schmidt, S, 2007, p. 286). This is different to “hard controls”, such as security or surveillance, which are more overt and rely on reactive decisions by those in charge of the space, based on the behaviours which are taking place. ‘Soft controls’ are often used by site owners to filter the users of their spaces to those who are deemed ‘acceptable’, by reducing the number of activities which can take place there. The idea of hostile architecture acting on behalf of those in charge is supported by Nemeth and Schmidt (2011) who suggest that design techniques help site owners to achieve spatial control by ‘coding’, or ‘programming’, a space. They state that “spatial control … [is achieved] through the use of surveillance and policing techniques as well as design measures that ‘code’ spaces as private.” (Nemeth and Schmidt, 2011, p. 5). Thus, space can be ‘coded’ to restrict or allow certain behaviours. The use of the word ‘code’ suggests that if a place can be programmed in a particular way, it can also be ‘decoded’. In this analogy, hostile architecture could be viewed in a similar way to a computer ‘virus’. In the way that a ‘virus’ may harm the computer and its software, hostile architecture may be viewed as a social ‘virus’ which can have negative effects on our society and the way our communities work; as ‘undesirables’ are removed from society, our negative perceptions of this group may increase, leading to further societal division based on income and status.

Figure 2: Spikes to prevent sitting or laying down. Source: New York Times (2019b)

Has there been a rise in hostile architecture? To begin to understand possible influences on the increase in hostile architecture, it is first important to ask if there has been an increase in hostile architecture. Though difficult to measure, the increase in hostile architecture, or at least the acknowledgement of its existence, can arguably be identified through a growing number of articles related to the subject; a Google Scholar search of ‘hostile architecture’ finds 345 related articles (as of the 8th January 2020), 85% of which were published after 2016. Though this shows an increased awareness of the subject, it may also be argued that the increasing amount of literature based on the subject correlates with an increase in the hostile architecture itself. This is supported by Starolis (2020) who states, “in recent years something very key has started disappearing … comfortable places to sit.” (Starolis, 2020, p. 54) where the writer argues that a recent increase in hostile architecture is directly responsible for the decrease in suitable public seating. Starolis identifies how many parks across the US, such as Rittenhouse Square in Philadelphia, have recently installed hostile architecture, such as uncomfortable benches, which reduce the spatial opportunities that the space provides for its users. In New York, Hu argues “hostile architecture has flourished … even as the city has significantly added more public space in the last decade” (Hu, 2019), as she emphasises an increase in the use of spikes (figures 2, 4, and 5) throughout the New York landscape. Within her article, Hu is suggesting that the increase in public space over the past 10 years, and the increase in hostile architecture, may be linked, something that will be explored later in this document. In addition to its growing presence in our cities, relevance of hostile architecture is rising as public acknowledgement of its existence increases. This was seen in the UK after the Camden Bench (figure 3), a piece of hostile architecture which was designed to restrict a large number ‘unwanted’ behaviours, drew media attention in 2012. Widespread controversy drew further attention to the subject, meaning that pressure began to mount on-site owners, councils, and designers, to find more appropriate solutions.

Figure 3: The Camden Bench Source: Coggins (2021)

Following on from this, a survey on homeless people, conducted by Crisis UK in 2016, found 60% of those surveyed reported an increase in hostile architecture over the previous 12 months (Crisis UK, 2016). These findings emphasise a rise in hostile architecture, and shows that homeless people are negatively affected by this. Though hostile architecture may have a place in particular situations, such as to prevent drug dealing or skateboarding in highly used areas, it is important to consider how safety can be preserved alongside inclusivity, as many of the ‘undesirables’ pose little, or no, threat to the general public. Jacobs (2011) argues that alternative solutions should be found as “The problem of insecurity cannot be solved by spreading people out more thinly” (Jacobs, 2011, p.41), where she identifies that using environmental design as a form of control will move problems associated with these groups elsewhere, not solve them. De Fine Licht (2017, p. 7) supports this hypothesis when he suggests homeless people may be more inclined to trespass if they cannot find a place to sleep, and skateboarders may develop tricks to avoid skate stoppers. This is different to inclusive design which, as identified by Whyte (2012, p. 19) in his 1988 study of the Seagram plaza, has the potential to solve problems and reduce ‘undesirable’ behaviours. In effect, designers and site owners must begin to search for alternatives, which allow for a diverse range of people to share a space, without feeling insecure or ‘on edge’. Bader (2020, p. 51) emphasises how architects and designers are service providers, and ethical architecture must find a way to address both the clients brief and the wider communities’ needs. He suggests “There is no single formula for ethical architecture, but it should not include hostile architecture… it is the job of the architect to find a better solution.” Thus, by understanding hostile architecture, we may be better equipped to create more ethical solutions.

Figure 4: Spikes to prevent sitting on fire hydrants. Source: New York Times (2019a)

Figure 5: Spikes to prevent sitting on bollards. Source: New York Times (2019b)

Chapter 2: Hostile architecture and crime prevention The emergence of environmental design, as a way of providing safety, or removing ‘threat’ Though there are many historical examples of how the physical environment has been adapted to control a space, such as Haussmann’s reconstruction of Paris in the late 1800s (Savic and Savicic, 2012, p. 10), Jane Jacobs’ 1961 book: ‘The Death and Life of Great American Cities’ became the earliest documented acknowledgement of how the built environment can be used for crime prevention. Jacobs argues that space can be designed for crime reduction by increasing natural surveillance; she suggests “there must be eyes upon the street” (Jacobs, 2011, p. 45). Here, Jacobs argues that if a space is designed to be overlooked, people will notice when things are happening, and consequently, they will react when necessary (figure 6). She suggests that “they [those who watch over the streets] observe everything going on. If they need to take action, whether to direct a stranger … or to call the police, they do so” (Jacobs, 2011, p. 48).

Figure 6: A diagrammatic representation of natural surveillance. Source: Minneapolis 2040

This is supported by Whyte (2012, p. 19) who suggests “good places are largely self-policing”. He identifies the Seagram plaza (figure 7) as a model space for inclusive design. Whyte emphasises how the Seagram’s relaxed management, and well-placed seating, allows for many different types of people to feel secure in the space. Consequently, these people look after the space, and often intervene with ‘unacceptable’ activities before the management are required to do so. This contrasts with spaces such as Bryant Park (figures 8 and 9) which, at the time, was well known for criminal activity. Whyte (2012, p. 19) 22

argues that this is because of the ‘defensive’ walls which surrounded the park until its renovation in 1983. He states how spaces which are “designed in distrust get what was anticipated and it is in them, ironically, that you will most likely find a wino” (Whyte, 2012, p. 19). Here, Whyte is suggesting that hostile architecture may increase ‘undesirable activities’, as opposed to prevent them, and Bryant Park was an example of this. This is because in its attempt to remove ‘undesirables’, hostile architecture also tends to force the ‘desirables’ out of the space. Consequently, a quieter space emerges, something that is often favourable to the ‘undesirables’ in our society. Within this analysis, it may be argued that spaces which have been designed in such a way as to encourage self-policing and natural surveillance often perform better than their ‘hostile’ counterparts. Thus, it is important to understand why this is the case, and why hostile architecture is still enacted, when research suggests it may even make a space more dangerous. As the next chapter will highlight, perhaps the reason for the increase in hostile, or defensive, architecture may be due to rising crime rates, and the public fear which is associated with this.

Figure 7: A film still taken from Whyte’s 1988 study of the Seagram Plaza, showing how the plaza is inviting to all and works well to provide public space. Source: Whyte (1988)

Figure 8: The entrance to Bryant Park, before its redesign in 1983. Source: OLIN (1981a)

Figure 9: Bryant Park, diagram of criminal activity â&#x20AC;&#x201C; arguably caused by its large walls which were erected to prevent the behaviours. Source: OLIN (1981b)

Rising crime rates and the introduction of symbolic design The theme of crime reduction is often cited as a reason for the increase in hostile architecture. Marcus (1992) identifies how crime rates in New York City remained low from the 1930s until the 1950s, but this was followed by a steady rise from the 1960s until the 1980s (see figure 10). This rise in crime led to Dr C. Ray Jeffery introducing the idea of ‘Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design’ (1973), and Oscar Newman’s theory on Defensible space (1973). These theories gained traction in the 1980s after the NYPD identified 1980 as the “worst year of crime in city history” (New York Times, 1981). Newman and Jeffery used Jacobs’ ideas of natural surveillance as a basis for their investigations into how the built environment can increase social control. Newman, for example, reported that housing projects in New York City with defensible space characteristics, such as “the capacity of the physical environment to create perceived zones of territorial influence” (Newman, 1973, p. 332), suffered less criminal victimisation than those without. In a similar way to Nemeth and Schmidt (2007), Newman (1972, cited by Reynald, 2009) identifies how “zones of control are created through the use of barriers – both real and symbolic”. With symbolic objects, a space can be ‘coded’ to convey a message of ‘territoriality’ to potential ‘undesirable’ users, which, in turn, prevents them from using the space. In the same way that a symbol is defined as “a sign, shape, or object that is used to represent something else” (Cambridge Dictionary), hostile architecture can be used to represent the site owners views of who can, and who cannot use the space. It could be argued that Newman identified a new direction in crime prevention; a direction which focuses more on objects and symbolism within a space, as opposed to overall good design and natural surveillance as initially described by Jacobs in 1961. Thus, it may be reasonable to suggest that the type of hostile architecture we see today is an evolved version of these initial ‘anti-crime’ strategies.

Crime rates per 100,000 residents

Year

Number of Homeless people in New York City

Figure 10: A graph showing the street crime rates in New York City per 100,000 residents, from 1965 until 2019. Source: Disaster Center (2019)

Year Figure 11: A graph showing the homelessness rates in New York City, from 1980 until 2019. Source: Coalition for the Homeless (2020)

Public perception and stereotypes Though the increase in hostile architecture may be linked to the rise in crime rates, hostile architecture as we know it today does not always seem to focus on those breaking the law. This is arguably evidenced in figures 10 and 11, where crime rates are decreasing in New York City despite a rise in homelessness. Bader (2020, p. 48) ponders the question of “who decided that skateboarding is not allowed” where he argues that hostile architecture is being used for alternative, underlying reasons. Perhaps it is the stereotype of the ‘undesirables’ which causes the hostile architecture against them, as opposed to their actual dayto-day behaviours. Whyte (2012, p. 19) supports this idea when he suggests, “out of an almost obsessive fear of their presence, civic leaders worry that if a place is made attractive to people it will be attractive to undesirable people. So it is made defensive … So it is that benches are made too short to sleep on, that spikes are put on ledges, that many needed spaces are not provided”. This is arguably evidenced by Stringer (2017) who identifies that 182 of the 333 privately owned public spaces audited in New York City “failed to provide required public amenities”. Savic and Savicic (2012) suggest it is the negative stereotypes which influence the use of hostile architecture, and those with power can code a space to communicate these stereotypical views. They identify hostile architecture as a ‘silent agent’, and highlight how stereotypes of the ‘undesirables’ have been “materialised into objects and installations, which ensure that control is implemented in the environment” (Savic and Savicic, 2012, p. 9). However, some landowners recognise that not all stereotypes are true. They try to embrace these ‘undesirable’ groups, by providing busking areas or spaces for street sellers. But, conflicting ideas on their worth to the space, alongside the stereotypes which are ingrained within our society, often means that these people are still only allowed within a space for a specified amount of time and are restricted to a specific location (figure 12).

Figure 12: A man busking in London, restricted to a small area, for an allotted time. Source: INDEPENDENT (2015)

Failure to differentiate Whyte (1988) identifies that one of the problems with hostile architecture is “failure to differentiate”. He states that ‘winos’ and ‘muggers’ are often placed under the same broad category, as an ‘undesirable’, which consequently means designs are implemented against a broad range of very different types of people. He argues that this is due to stereotypes and public perception, as opposed to actual criminal activity. This can be seen in the design of the Camden Bench (figure 12), which, although is designed to prevent drug dealing, something that is morally acceptable, it also prevents sleeping or sitting for long periods, which arguably marginalises the homeless, and makes it impractical for the rest of society.

paint-repellent coating to prevent graffiti

ridged top to prevent sleeping

recesses at the base to prevent bag theft

no crevices to prevent drug dealing

no flat surfaces to prevent litter piling up

undulating edges to prevent skating

Figure 13: Diagrams showing how the Camden bench is designed. Source: Tvarijonas (2020)

Whyte’s conclusions are reinforced by Davis (1990, p.147), who argues it may be that “it is the public perception of threat which forces the securitisation of public space, not crime rates”. He states that perceived danger of certain groups is due to media focus on the minority of criminals within them; headlines such as “killer youth gangs high on crack … foment the moral panics that reinforce and justify urban apartheid” (Davis, 1990, p. 147) - see figure 13. In suggesting this, Davis, in a similar way to Bader (2020), is arguing that there are underlying reasons for the rise in hostile architecture; fear is generated through media-led stereotypes, which in turn, leads to this rise. Jacobs (2011) supports this where she identifies how, in New York City, “some of the safest sidewalks … are those along which poor people or minority groups live” (Jacobs, 2011, p. 41). Here, Jacobs is claiming that safety and wealth are not necessarily linked, it is design of the space, not the people who use it, that makes spaces ‘safe’ or ‘unsafe’. 30

Figure 14: News headlines which create fear, as described by Davis (1990) Source: Daily News (1989)

Chapter 3: Policy changes and an increase in Privately Owned Public Spaces The 1961 zoning resolution, and Privatisation: In 1961, at the same time as Jacobs providing her theory on natural surveillance, New York City introduced the 1961 zoning resolution (New York City Planning Commission, 1961), which included the ‘FAR bonus’; an incentive which allowed companies to build higher if they left some floor space for public use (figure 15), such as a plaza. Consequently, this gave rise to an increase of Privately-Owned Public Spaces (POPS) in New York City (figure 16). Although the zoning resolution had good intentions, to increase the amount of publicly accessible space, private owners are often more particular about who can use their space and the types of activities that may take place there. Thus, hostile architecture is frequently used to remove certain groups, by ‘coding’ the space. Nemeth and Schmidt (2011, p. 21) develop this point where they argue that the reason for the increase in hostile architecture in New York is because of lack of government input on the design of POPS. Stringer (2017) highlights this when, in his audit of New York City’s ‘POPS’, he identifies that 83% of the 333 locations audited had not been inspected by the New York City Department of Buildings for at least 4 years. This audit emphasises how easy it can be for private enterprises to design and adapt their spaces with the focus on ‘security’, over inclusion and ‘publicness’, as they are seldom investigated. Consequently, although more ‘public’ spaces are available, particular types of people are often ‘filtered out’. Whyte (1988) identifies how the use of hostile architecture in many privately owned plazas across New York City focus on the homeless population; he recognises that “people will sit where there are places to sit”, and concludes that the reason for hostile interventions, such as awkward benches (figures 1, 3, 13 and 17), or spikes (figures 2, 4 and 5), are to prevent homeless people from resting in these privately-owned spaces. This conclusion again highlights how stereotypes may influence decisions made by civic leaders, which consequently leads to hostile architecture, as seen with the addition of the walls in Bryant park as mentioned previously, or the anti-homeless spikes which caused controversy in the UK in 2012 after they were installed in an alcove of a luxury apartment building in South London (Petty, 2016).

Figure 15: A diagram showing how the ‘FAR bonus’ works Source: NYC Planning (2021a)

Figure 16: A graph showing an increase in the number of POPS in New York Source: NYC Planning (2021a)

Public vs Private spaces: Although a rise in POPS may have contributed to a rise in hostile architecture, it is also important to consider the publicly owned domain. As evidenced with the Camden bench, hostile architecture can appear in both types of spaces. Davis (1990, p. 153), for example, locates the ‘bum-proof’ bench (figure 17), which is located in the publicly-owned domain, as a key part of the “fortification of LA”. This gives rise to the question as to whether private spaces are the problem, or are both public and private spaces equally to blame. Nemeth and Schmidt (2011) go some way in elaborating on this. After researching several spaces in New York City, they concluded that although both types of spaces equally encourage use, privately owned spaces are more likely to discourage use. Through their research, Nemeth and Schmidt also identify differences in how these spaces discourage use. For example, publicly owned spaces tend to utilise rules and signs to control behaviour. Whereas privately owned spaces use a combination of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ controls; they tend to use more symbolic design techniques, surveillance, and security guards. This key difference conveys that privately owned spaces are somewhat ‘more hostile’ than their public counterparts. Consequently, although hostile architecture can appear in both types of space, it is arguably more important to focus on POPS, as it is within these plazas and parks where design techniques, which discourage use or behaviours, are seen much more frequently.

Figure 17: The ‘bum-proof bench’, as described by Davis (1990) Source: Davis (1990)

Banerjee (2001, p. 18) suggests the problem with privatisation is not necessarily differing dynamics of the space, but instead, it is that these spaces try to ‘blend in’ with one another, confusing those who are using the space. He states, “the distinction between the public and the private will continue to blur” (Banerjee, 2001, p. 18), which is supported by Borden (2019), Davis (2006), and Hu (2019) where the writers argue that privatisation is the end of public space as we know it. These writers suggest that the ongoing transformation of all public spaces will give rise to more hostile architecture in the future, as the spatial qualities of our public spaces are becoming ever more focused on those who ‘contribute’ to society. This current ‘blurring’ of public space contrasts with Jacobs’ theories, where she identifies that for a space to work effectively, “there must be a clear demarcation between what is public space and what is private space” (Jacobs, 2011, p. 44). This contrast shows how the cities’ dynamic’ has changed over time. Additionally, as Jacobs argues, the ‘blurring’ of our public and private spaces means they are not so well equipped to suit the needs of their users. This is because of the confusion associated with changing rules, and, in a privately managed space, perhaps fewer people tend to “watch over the street” (Jacobs, 2011, p. 44). Borden (2019) and Bauman (2007) suggest the reason for the difference in control techniques, and the ‘blurring’ of public and private spaces, is because of the way that our lives are being ever focused on consumerism. This is further developed by Thorpe (2012, p. 8) who states the ‘blurring’ of space is because of “pressure to increase sales by exploiting public places for private gain”.

Figure 18: An image showing the ‘blurred’ threshold between a publicly owned (left) and a privately owned (right) space. Source: NYC Planning (2021b)

Chapter 4: Consumerism and changing societal perceptions of those who do not ‘contribute’ The rise in consumerism Consumerism is often referenced as another key turning point in the debate of hostile architecture. Stearns (2001, p. 21) identifies how the introduction of consumer cosmopolitanism and television advertisements in the 1980s has led to the consumer lifestyle being integrated within our everyday lives. Miles (1998, p. 7) takes this one step further when he suggests “consumerism is arguably the religion of the late 20th century”. Both Borden (2019) and Davis (2006) have linked hostile architecture to the ‘mallification’ of public space, where they suggest that public space is being transformed to focus on consumer spending. Whilst on consumerism and its effect on society, Borden (2019) identifies key writings by Henri Lefebvre. Lefebvre argues that everyone deserves the ‘right to the city’, he claims that what we see is not ‘authentic’, but a manifestation of ideas imposed by capitalism (Leary-Owhin. McCarthy, 2019). Consequently, considering the space within these terms, the increase of hostile architecture within our societies may be because of our capitalist ideologies, and the idea that the economy has importance over ethics and community values. Thorpe (2012, p. 8) links consumerism and the increase in hostile architecture with the introduction of POPS when she states: “Increasingly, structures, objects, and spaces of every kind are being viewed as surfaces for advertising” (figure 19), which suggests that private businesses may wish to remove the ‘undesirables’, to ensure they can maintain their image as a reputable company (figure 20). Thus, it could be our consumerist lifestyles which have further developed our initial ‘crime-based’ perceptions of the ‘undesirables’.

Figure 19: An image of Times Square in New York, showing advertising on every available surface. Source: Gauchat (2017)

‘Flawed consumers’ and societal values In his research into the sociology behind consumerism, Zygmunt Bauman takes the previous points a step further to argue that ‘flawed consumers’, the people who do not contribute, are deemed worthless by the general public, and, more importantly, by the management of our ‘public’ spaces. Bauman states the mentality behind many of us is that “they [the poor] need to be removed from the streets and other public places used by us, the legitimate residents of the brave consumerist world” (Bauman, 2007, p. 34). In suggesting this, Bauman makes links to the public perception of ‘flawed consumers’ and argues perhaps it is due to our consumer-based society that many believe in money over inclusiveness, and stereotypes are formed upon this basis of contribution and value. He suggests “the poor of a consumer society are socially defined… as blemished, defective, faulty and deficient” (Bauman, 2005, p. 38). This is supported within an interview conducted by Marcus Fairs, where, in his interview of the homeless men who own the tents pictured in figure 20, the interviewees emphasise how they are further discriminated against due to their appearance. Respondent A (2018) suggests that “they [the general public] dismiss us ... But I guarantee if I had a suit on ... [they would] say have a good evening back”. To summarise this argument, Smith and Walters (2018, p. 4) suggest that the introduction of hostile architecture has moved away from crime prevention, as initially described in 1961 by Jacobs (2011), and in 1973 by Newman (1973), it has instead become more responsive to consumer-based stereotypes, and the commercial interests of the site owner, than the needs of the community.

Figure 20: A homeless encampment, which arguably ‘ruins’ the brand image of the shop behind Source: Huffington post (2018)

Conclusion Embarking on the topic of hostile architecture, this paper has explored several themes to understand the key driving factors for the rise in hostile architecture in New York City. After exploring the increase in hostile architecture, and the emergence of theories on how the built environment may contribute to crime reduction, this paper first analysed the increase in crime rates through the late 20th century. It was found that early crime reduction theories (Jacobs, 2011) were developed in the 1970s (Newman, 1973. Jeffrey, 1973) to emphasise the use of symbolic barriers, or ‘soft controls’, as a way of creating safer spaces through territoriality. However, rising crime rates also fuelled negative perceptions of already marginalised groups, such as homeless people, which, as described by Davis (1990) and Whyte (1988), arguably led the use of hostile architecture becoming focused on the negative perception of the ‘undesirables’, as opposed to actual safety. The second theme covered was on ‘policy and POPS’. Although the provision of more public space may benefit our society as a whole, many site owners seek to remove those who ‘don’t fit’ with their views of who should use the space. This study analysed the findings by Nemeth and Schmidt (2007), who found that POPS are far more likely to use design techniques as a way of filtering its users when compared to their publicly owned counterparts. Thus, though POPS may not be a direct influence for the increase in hostile architecture, it can be argued that their development and increasing quantity has facilitated the rise of hostile architecture within the ‘public’ domain. The final theme covered was ‘consumerism’. As crime rates have decreased, it seems that the rise in consumerism, alongside a change in societal values, has become a key driver for the rise in hostile architecture. The study explored how spaces are becoming ever more ‘consumer-centric’, meaning that they are viewed as a space to advertise or to make money. Thus, hostile architecture is used to create an uncomfortable space for the poorest in our society, who are marginalised due to their lack of contribution, or their ‘blemished’ appearance. As Bauman (2007) suggests, the idea of the ‘flawed consumer’ has created a new, consumer-based stereotype, which may be fuelling the current increase in hostile architecture. Taking into consideration the factors discussed, it has become clear that there is no single reason as to why hostile architecture has developed. But instead, there are multiple factors which all contribute in varying amounts. Through this analysis, it may be concluded that although the origins of hostile architecture may have had good intentions, to make public spaces safer, as our society has changed, so have the influences for the use of these ‘hostile’ designs. It may be argued that although crime rates generated our initial stereotypes, current increasing homeless rates, alongside a rise in consumer culture and ideologies, have fuelled our negative perceptions of the poorest in our societies. The increasing number of POPS have facilitated private enterprises to ‘code’ spaces for self-benefit through the use of ‘silent agents’, which 40

manifest these stereotypes into symbolic objects to communicate ideas of territoriality and control. Finally, it may be concluded that no single person, or group of people, is responsible for an increase in hostile architecture. Instead, those who have the power to place these hostile objects have simply been driven by the factors discussed in this study, such as societal perceptions of certain groups and a desire to create a safe space for people to use. Therefore, it may be that the rise in hostile architecture, though influenced by many factors, is partly down to a lack of awareness of alternative solutions, such as natural surveillance, or even a lack of governmental policy to help the root cause of the problem. I believe that these points may be key areas for further study. Perhaps if alternative solutions were found and hostile architecture was replaced by more inclusive measures, it may eventually become obsolete.

References: Bader, A. (2020) hostile architecture: Our Past, Present, & Future?. Crit [online]. 86, pp. 48-51. [Accessed 28 June 2020].

Bauman, Z. (2005) Work, Consumerism and the New Poor. 2nd ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Bauman, Z. (2007) Collateral Casualties of Consumerism. Journal of Consumer Culture. 7 (1), pp.25-56.

Borden, I (2019) Skateboarding and the City: A Complete History. 2nd ed. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Cambridge Dictionary (No date) Symbol. Available from: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/ english/symbol [Accessed 08 January 2020].

Collins Dictionary (2015) Hostile architecture. Available from: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/ submission/15672/hostile+Architecture [Accessed 05 November 2020].

Collins Dictionary (No date) Consumerism. Available from: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/ english/consumerism [Accessed 08 January 2020].

Crisis UK (2016) Research: Homeless people increasingly forced out of public spaces by hostile measures. Available from: https://www.crisis.org.uk/about-us/media-centre/research-homeless-people-increasinglyforced-out-of-public-spaces-by-hostile-measures/ [Accessed 08 January 2020].

Davis, M. (1990) City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles. No place: Verso.

De Fine Licht, K. P. (2017) hostile urban architecture: A critical discussion of the seemingly offensive art of keeping people away. Etikk I Praksis - Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics [Online]. Volume (11/2), pages 27-44 [Accessed 03 March 2020].

Hu, W. (2019) ‘hostile architecture’: How Public Spaces Keep the Public Out. The New York Times [Online]. 8 November. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/nyregion/hostile-architecturenyc.html [Accessed 20 October 2020].

Jacobs, J. (2011) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. 50th anniversary, 2011 Modern Library ed. New York: Modern Library.

Jeffery, C. R. (1973) Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Criminology (Beverly Hills). 10 (4)

Leary-Owhin, M E. McCarthy, J P (2019) The Routledge Handbook of Henri Lefebvre, the City and Urban Society. New York: Routledge.

Loukaitou-Sideris, A. Banerjee, T. (1998) Urban design downtown: Poetics and politics of form. Berkeley: University of California Press

Marcus, N. (1992) New York City zoning - 1961-1991: turning back the clock - but with an up-to-theminute social agenda. The Fordham Urban Law Journal [online]. 19 (3), p. 707.

Miles, S. (1998) Consumerism: As a Way of Life. London: Sage.

Németh, J. Schmidt, S. (2007) Toward a Methodology for Measuring the Security of Publicly Accessible Spaces. Journal of the American Planning Association. 73 (3), pp.283-297

Németh, J. and Schmidt, S. (2011) The Privatization of Public Space: Modeling and Measuring Publicness. Environment and Planning.B, Planning & Design. 38 (1), pp.5-23.

Newman, O (1973) Defensible space: Crime prevention through urban design. Ekistics [online]. 36 (216), pp.325-332.

New York City Planning Commission (1961) Zoning Maps and Resolution. New York: City Planning Commission.

Petty, J. (2016) The London Spikes Controversy: Homelessness, Urban Securitisation and the Question of ‘hostile architecture’. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 5(1), pp. 67-81.

Respondent A (2018) The homeless outside Habitat and Heals. Interviewed by Marcus Fairs. Homeless people outside Habitat and Heal’s. 18 December [Online]. Available from: https://www.dezeen. com/2018/12/18/homelessness-london-movie-tottenham-court-road/ [Accessed 18 January 2021]

Stringer, S (2017) Audit report on the city’s oversight over Privately Owned Public Spaces. New York: Office of the Comptroller.

Reynald, D. Elffers, H. (2009) The Future of Newman’s Defensible Space Theory: Linking Defensible Space and the Routine Activities of Place. European Journal of Criminology. 6 (1), pp.25-46.

Savic, S. Savicic, G (2012) Unpleasant Design. Belgrade: G.L.O.R.I.A

Smith, N. and Walters, P. (2018) Desire lines and defensive architecture in modern urban environments. Urban Studies (Edinburgh, Scotland). 55 (13), pp.2980-2995.

Starolis, H. (2020) hostile architecture: The Death of Urban Spaces. Crit (Washington). (86), pp.53-57. 44

Stearns, P.N. (2001) Consumerism in World History: The Global Transformation of Desire. London: Routledge.

Thorpe, A. (2012) Architecture & Design Versus Consumerism: How Design Activism Confronts Growth. New York: Earthscan.

Whyte, W.H. (2012). City: Rediscovering the Center. [ebook] No place: University of Pennsylvania Press. [Accessed 12 November 2020]

Whyte, W. H. (1988) The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces: A Film by William H. Whyte, [DVD]. Santa Monica: Insight Media.

List of Figures: Cover Page: Figure 3: New York Times (2019a) How We Searched for Hostile Architecture in New York. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/reader-center/how-we-searched-for-hostilearchitecture-in-new-york.html [Accessed 09 January 2021]. Figure 1: Nix, T (2019) A homeless man tries to sleep on a hostile design bench in downtown LA. Available from: https://www.realchangenews.org/news/2019/07/17/world-has-hostile-architectureproblem-public-space-becoming-private [Accessed 05 February 2021] Figure 2: New York Times (2019b) Strips of sharp metal teeth run alongside a low garden wall on East 96th Street. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/nyregion/hostile-architecture-nyc.html [Accessed 02 January 2021]. Figure 3: Coggins, T (2021) Robert Moses, Pig-Ears and the Camden Bench: How Architectural Hostility Became Transparent. Available from: https://failedarchitecture.com/robert-moses-pig-ears-and-thecamden-bench-how-architectural-hostility-became-transparent/ [Accessed 05 February 2021] Figure 4: New York Times (2019b) Sharp metal spikes to prevent sitting on the fire hydrant. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/nyregion/hostile-architecture-nyc.html [Accessed 02 January 2021]. Figure 5: New York Times (2019a) At Lexington Avenue and 48th Street, an inviting place to sit is blocked by metal teeth. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/reader-center/how-we-searched-forhostile-architecture-in-new-york.html [Accessed 09 January 2021]. Figure 6: Minneapolis 2040 (no date) Public Safety Through Environmental Design. Available from: https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/public-safety-through-environmental-design/ [Accessed 22 December 2020]. Figure 7: Whyte, W. H. (1988) The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces: A Film by William H. Whyte, [DVD]. Santa Monica: Insight Media. Figure 8: OLIN (1981a) Bryant park before the redesign: difficult access, overgrown, dark and foreboding. Available from: https://www.asla.org/2010awards/403.html [Accessed 22 December 2020]. 46

Figure 9: OLIN (1981b) A portion of the field study documenting social problems in Bryant Park in 1981. Available from: https://www.asla.org/2010awards/403.html [Accessed 22 December 2020]. Figure 10: Disaster center (2019) New York Crime Rates 1960 - 2019 [online]. Available from: http:// www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm [Accessed 10 December 2020]. Figure 11: Coalition for the homeless (2020) Why are so many people homeless. Available from: https:// www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/why-are-so-many-people-homeless/ [Accessed 06 January 2021]. Figure 12: INDEPENDENT (2015) Official busking guidelines have been released to prevent confusion over performing on the capital’s streets. Available from: https://www.independent.co.uk/artsentertainment/music/news/boris-johnson-announces-busking-code-conduct-cut-down-renditions-stairwayheaven-10128509.html [Accessed 09 January 2021]. Figure 13: Tvarijonas, T. (2020) Camden Bench: Segregation by Design. Available from: https://tvarijonas. com/blog/camden-bench-segregation-by-design [Accessed 09 January 2021]. Figure 14: Daily News. (1989) Park marauders call it wilding… and its street slang for going berserk. Available from: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/central-park-five_n_5774264?ri18n=true&guccoun ter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9jb25zZW50LnlhaG9vLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAC7lG_ LOzSsqVNzHzonn0MLYP_BvyfrmDm6bU2La6QEcXE9dJWVjV32h4GDewwNb5jPcysAR4zcaoqGFN z7UBxZU4FwTiXNqkyTSg-i6nvouz8z_XR1EnIV16NGzojUb7iPSrIO1V9Vngadqc4dSTMnfh2XhKYRsj 5a5-oBUi88Z [Accessed 09 January 2021]. Figures 15 and 16: NYC Planning. (2021) New York City’s Privately Owned Public Spaces History. Available from: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/plans/pops/pops-history.page [Accessed 09 January 2021]. Figure 17: Davis, M. (1990) Bum-Proof Bench [Photograph]. In: Davis, M. (1990) City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles. No Place: Verso. Figure 18: NYC Planning. (2021b) 1095 Sixth Avenue. Available from: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/ planning/plans/pops/pops.page [Accessed 09 January 2021].

Figure 19: Gauchat, S. (2017)Â Times Square. Available from: https://www.bravotv.com/sites/bravo/files/ styles/blog-post-embedded--computer/public/field_blog_image/2017/07/the-feast-time-square-oliviegarden.jpg?itok=y7ZZK7nZ [Accessed 09 January 2021]. Figure 20: Huffington Post. (2018) three homeless men pitch tents outside Habitat furniture shop in Tottenham Court Road. Available from: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ homeless-tent-cities-habitat_uk_5b8fb202e4b0cf7b003b4447?guccounter=1&guce_ referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAGyZXGR36M0eeI X65xH9P7GUp92CFh2Fam8zIXRmvU73gpt1Kl-G76dy2rETe_C3hiYt9_iMJBgjiA_3w4pyid4auS_ ZJ3adrnFDrqTBLKEOKOsCNDWDK83lWKcEqouq4RAiU35cuGv1Obd0IBE4r_ XtARJSCrgtd1dnpmEcacyY [Accessed 09 January 2021].