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)