“The London Spikes Controversy: Homelessness, Urban Securitisation and the Question of ‘Hostile Architecture” is a thought-provoking reading that explores the issue of homelessness and the use of “hostile architecture” in urban spaces, with a focus on the controversial case of the London Spikes. The reading, written by an urban studies scholar, analyzes the social and political implications of these spikes and raises important questions about the ethics and effectiveness of such architectural interventions. The London Spikes, also known as “anti-homeless spikes,” are metal studs installed in public areas to deter individuals experiencing homelessness from sleeping or resting in these spaces. The reading delves into the underlying causes of homelessness, emphasizing the need for comprehensive approaches that address the root causes of the issue rather than resorting to exclusionary measures. 

By examining the phenomenon of hostile architecture, the reading prompts readers to reflect on the broader implications of urban design choices on marginalized populations. It highlights the potential consequences of prioritizing security and aesthetics over the well-being and dignity of individuals in public spaces. The reading sheds light on the resistance and activism that emerged in response to the London Spikes, demonstrating the power of public opinion and collective action in challenging oppressive urban practices. It encourages readers to reconsider the concept of public space as a site of inclusivity and social interaction. “The London Spikes Controversy” provides a critical examination of hostile architecture, homelessness, and urban securitization. By interrogating the ethical dimensions of architectural interventions and the impact on marginalized communities, the reading invites readers to contemplate alternative approaches to urban design that prioritize social justice and inclusivity. 

The implementation of hostile architecture in public spaces has sparked significant disagreement and raised concerns about its impact on social cohesion and inclusivity. This approach, aimed at deterring certain behaviors or populations, creates a profound disconnect within communities due to underlying social and political agendas. Opponents argue that hostile architecture exacerbates existing social inequalities and stigmatizes marginalized populations, particularly those experiencing homelessness. By installing measures such as anti-homeless spikes, sloping benches, or armrests on benches, public spaces become unwelcoming and uncomfortable for individuals in need. This approach not only fails to address the root causes of homelessness but also perpetuates a cycle of exclusion and dehumanization. Moreover, the implementation of hostile architecture reflects wider political agendas and power dynamics. Critics argue that these design choices prioritize the interests of certain groups, such as property owners or businesses, while disregarding the rights and well-being of vulnerable individuals. It reinforces a vision of public spaces that caters to specific social and economic elites, leading to a further fragmentation of society. This disconnect arising from the implementation of hostile architecture highlights the need for alternative approaches to urban design. Advocates for inclusive and participatory design argue for the creation of public spaces that promote social interaction, accessibility, and a sense of belonging for all community members. By fostering a more inclusive environment, cities can challenge the divisive nature of hostile architecture and work towards a more equitable and cohesive society. 

 The Museum of Natural and Cultural History is a center of interdisciplinary research and education, serving the State of Oregon, the University of Oregon, Native American Tribes, the research community, K-12 students and teachers, and the wider public in Oregon and beyond. The space emulates an art museum that breaks the distinction between the interior and exterior. In other words, it exuberates an experience from both sorts of dynamics by having narratives, artifacts and furniture that represents the buildings program. From an architectural perspective it embraces inclusivity and accessibility for its surrounding community. However, there a very miniscule nuances within certain design elements that can fall under the category of hostile architecture if you’re viewing it from an accessibility point of view from physical use to sight lines of the space itself. For instance, the first element I discovered were the exterior benches that circulate the outdoor courtyard or museum that is adjacent to the main entrance. Each bench lacks flexibility by being completely fixed by being anchored the floor grade below. Its use is intended to stay without being placed elsewhere but being able to move it within the space can allow for more opportunity for community members to sit in large groups to discuss or reflect on their pre and post experience of their museum visit. Or simply for a daily area to lounge from present obligations of those that make up UO demographics of administration and students. Within interior space I was able to find a very enticing yet limiting graphic that was located on the North end of the museum that was utilized as a privacy screen placed onto two glass doors. The wall graphic itself worked well and added to the museum’s interior dynamic but the sightlines from the exterior become eliminated. So, I viewed this natural obstruction as a hostile architectural element for community members or populations that may not be able to attend the museum. Being able to provide exterior-to-interior sightlines ensures accessibility and inclusivity for all community members or marginalized populations.  

 (Museum of Natural and Cultural History, Window Graphic/Mural )

(Museum of Natural and Cultural History, Exterior Wooden Bench With Metal Anchor Plate)