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

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.