“The London Spikes Controversy: Homelessness, Urban Securitisation and the Question of ‘Hostile Architecture'” by James Petty explores the contentious issue of hostile architecture in London and its impact on homelessness. The article highlights the growing concern over the use of design features such as metal spikes, sloping benches, and anti-homeless barriers that aim to deter individuals from resting or sleeping in public spaces. Petty explores the social and political implications of this architectural approach, arguing that it contributes to the marginalization and exclusion of homeless individuals. He emphasizes the need to challenge the underlying assumptions of urban securitization, which prioritize the aesthetics of public spaces over the well-being and rights of vulnerable populations. The article cites several case studies, including the controversy surrounding the metal spikes installed outside a luxury apartment block in Southwark. This sparked public outrage and ignited a wider debate on the ethical dimensions of urban design. Petty examines the various responses to hostile architecture, ranging from grassroots activism and legal challenges to public awareness campaigns. He advocates for alternative approaches that prioritize inclusivity, such as the implementation of public policies that address homelessness and the provision of supportive housing. Ultimately, the article sheds light on the complex interplay between urban design, homelessness, and social inequality. It calls for a reevaluation of urban spaces and the promotion of compassionate, inclusive environments that prioritize human dignity and social justice.

The building that I’m going to look at is Cheba Hut, because although it does use some ‘hostile architecture’, it could implement more ‘hostile’ strategies to prevent homeless people camping in front of their business. Due to the current politics in Oregon, which allow homeless people to essentially camp wherever they want without punishment, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for business owners to use strategies to prevent homeless people from camping in front of their stores. Many homeless people leave garbage wherever they go and are often violent due to drugs and/or mental illness, so if you’re a business owner it is completely reasonable to use strategies that keep them far away from your store. In the case of Cheba Hut, there is a small fenced off seating area in front of the store, however there are parts that are unfenced, which leave opportunities for homeless people to camp in front of their store. If the store implemented additional fences, metal spikes, or a better security system, they may be able to prevent this type of homeless camping. The politicians and people of Oregon refuse to address the growing homeless problem, and instead are implementing new measures which are emboldening homeless people and attracting them to our state. 

We have a variety of laws which make Oregon an attractive place for homeless people to live, and which encourage their destructive behaviors: we have decriminalized possession of small amounts of all drugs, we have given homeless people the right to camp on public property (resulting in the obstruction of sidewalks, camping in front of people’s houses, leaving trash and needles everywhere), we have essentially decriminalized theft under $1000 (if caught, thieves are given a citation, and aren’t even taken to jail for a night), and we have defunded the police at the time when we needed them most. Lawlessness is rampant in Oregon (destruction of property, theft, violent crimes) and unless new leaders are elected and new policies are implemented, these problems will only get worse. I was born and raised in Portland, but I am now ashamed of what my city and state have become. 

Cheba Hut Exterior