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.