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.
10
