Summary:

“The London Spikes Controversy: Homelessness, Urban Securitisation, and the Question of ‘Hostile Architecture’ is an article by James Petty from the University of Melbourne, Australia. Published in the International Journal for Crime, Justice, and Social Democracy in 2016, the article explores the concept of hostile architecture within the context of the spikes controversy in London in 2014. The controversy arose when anti-homeless spikes, metal studs strategically placed in public spaces to deter homeless individuals from sleeping, sparked public debate and scrutiny regarding visible methods of environmental social control.

Petty situates hostile architecture within broader socio-political and governmental shifts toward neoliberal arrangements and urban securitisation. The article discusses various forms of environmental social control, such as ultraviolet lights in public toilets and CCTV cameras, highlighting the blurred line that distinguishes hostile architecture from other forms of social control.

The article also examines the increasing securitisation of urban and public spaces, emphasizing the militarisation and privatisation of public space and the punitive turn in society. It explores the regulation of homelessness and the intentional exclusion of certain identities from urban spaces. The article questions whether the public backlash against the spikes represents resistance to urban securitisation or a broader aversion to both the homeless and the mechanisms that regulate them.

By providing a critical analysis of the spikes controversy, the article sheds light on patterns of urban securitisation, public space, and homelessness. It offers insights into the socio-political dynamics that shape the use of hostile architecture and the responses it elicits.”

Figure 1. View of T4 Main Seating Area

Building interpretation:

“The London Spikes Controversy: Homelessness, Urban Securitisation and the Question of ‘Hostile Architecture’” by James Petty and the interior of T4 boba in Eugene, Oregon offer contrasting perspectives on the relationship between design, comfort, and inclusivity in public spaces.

The interior of T4 boba incorporates elements that aim to create a welcoming and visually appealing atmosphere. The hanging lights resembling upside-down wine glasses, teal color accents, and inclusion of plants contribute to an inviting ambiance. However, it’s important to note that while these design choices may be aesthetically pleasing, they do not necessarily guarantee comfort for all individuals. 

Interestingly, this raises questions about the connection between design choices and the concept of hostile architecture discussed in Petty’s article. Hostile architecture refers to architectural features deliberately implemented to discourage certain activities or populations, often targeting homeless individuals. While T4 boba’s interior design does not explicitly align with hostile architecture, the examination of the spikes controversy prompts us to reflect on the broader implications of design choices in public spaces.

Considering the spikes controversy, it becomes crucial to explore whether design decisions, even when intended to be welcoming, inadvertently contribute to exclusionary practices or discomfort for certain groups. This is not to say that T4 boba intentionally engages in hostile architecture, but rather to encourage a critical examination of the intersection between design, comfort, and inclusivity.

Both the spikes controversy and the interior of T4 boba highlight the importance of creating public spaces that prioritize inclusivity and comfort for all individuals. They remind us to consider the potential unintended consequences of design choices and advocate for spaces that are not only visually appealing but also genuinely welcoming and accommodating to diverse needs.