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?

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.