The article The London Spikes Controversy: Homelessness, Urban Securitization and the Question of ‘Hostile Architecture’  by James Petty challenges the public response to the use of hostile architecture in publicly accessible spaces. The article describes how we have evolved to become an exclusivist society that wants people to live by social norms. These norms are both issues of aesthetics and public image.

Petty explained that society has moved from being anthropophagic to anthropoemic, or exclusivist. He used the media attention gained by the London Spikes to investigate the subtle ways we use hostile architecture to intentionally prohibit certain populations or ‘others’ from performing certain activities in public. These uses are called hostile architecture. Petty describes hostile architecture as a design that selectively and directly prohibits certain individuals from being comfortable in a space. Other examples of hostile and exclusive architecture include the pink lights and irritating noises to stop teens from loitering. These designs are specific to teens and aim to push them away from a certain space.

The London spikes mentioned above were added near an apartment door on private property, but they could be seen by the general public. The tension that garnered social medial virality was not the spikes themselves but rather the overt presence of hostile architecture. As Petty described, Boris Johnson had described the discord between aesthetics and public image by using the adjective ‘ugly’ to describe the presence of these spikes. He wasn’t commenting on the artistic rhythm of the metal bumps or the craft used to install them; Boris Johnson was confronted with London’s global public image and needed to remind the world that Londoners are good people who would not take such evasive measures against the homeless.

I believe that had these spikes been kept private, there would have been no outrage. Say, for example, that every apartment had ‘London spikes’ beside the front door to stop unhoused from sleeping too close to their doors. Residents would be able to walk along the street pretending to be inclusive and friendly but all the while knowing that their individual homes were protected. The issue was not with the urban securitization of front doors but rather the overt and public presentation of the spikes. Seeing these spikes made it impossible for residents and visitors of London to ignore the greater social issues of homelessness in this community.

I couldn’t agree more with Petty’s conclusion that the issue of the spikes was not the spikes themselves, but rather it brought to the forefront society’s desire for social norms. The homeless are outside of that norm, and therefore they make us uncomfortable. We do not want social issues like income and opportunity disparity – or haves and have-nots – to be thrust into our psyches. I think this is the basic sentiment for NIMBY-ism. People care about their neighbors and don’t want them to suffer, but we also don’t want to be reminded of this pain. If we don’t have to see the suffering, then we can pretend like the problem doesn’t exist. If the unhoused stay in their shelters and out of our parks – if they stay in their lanes and we stay in ours – then we can all go on with our days and not have to take ownership of the welfare of our communities.

This weekend I was at the Hult Center. It took me a minute to find examples of hostile architecture because it is a generally welcoming space for all. Well, it is welcoming if we follow social protocols.

Eugene is a welcoming city for all people except in the bathroom. Inside the Hult Center, the bathrooms are labeled men and women.  The gendered bathroom signs send a signal that these are decidedly cis-gendered bathrooms. The signs that are hostile toward any gender-fluid or non-binary person. It is customary and normal to have adjacent bathrooms for two genders. However, this is nothing more than standard practice. It is possible to have ungendered bathrooms. The hostility of this architecture has been normalized, but it still serves to control who can move where within the bathroom spaces and, in the end, is totally unwelcoming to a segment of our population.

The exterior of the Hult Center has an example of excluding another segment of the population: skateboarders and BMX riders. The hand railings are detailed with pig ears so that disruptive youth cannot slide down the railings – they’ll have to practice their skills elsewhere. The pig ears send the clear message that some people are welcome on this property but not one particular segment.

Pig ears on the handrails outside of the Hult Center.