This image was taken in downtown Eugene and it shows a fenced off area with several plants and trees within it. Although it doesn’t appear to be hostile, the fencing discourages homeless people from camping in this space. This was a smart move by the city of Eugene, since the downtown area attracts many homeless people, which has turned downtown into one of the most unattractive and dangerous parts of the city. Even though its relatively subtle, and one can simply go under/over the fence, hopefully it encourages homeless people to think twice before camping there.
Fenced off area with plants
Fenced off area with plants highlighted
If people do not know the definition of hostile design or they do not have an idea of what it is, the railing can be easily identified as an street buffer. It is enclosing the sidewalk but at the same time preventing the unhouse to trespass the fence and camp in the middle. It is a place that would be very noticeable and uncomfortable to get in and out.
Hi this is a very smart way to prevent tents along the streets. While I don’t think this is its only purpose it does do a good job. My only concern is that couldn’t they just set up tents within the barrier?
I agree this is a very clear way to deter unhoused individuals from sleeping in this area or occupying the general space.
Hey Jesper,
This aspect of hostile design is not something I would have considered before this term. I think that in this case it functions to prevent homeless camps from existing on the larger sidewalk. I think the main aspect of the hostile architecture is the chains as they are a cheaper form of barricade over the trees. Especially as seen in this example, the chains can bridge from the vegetation zones and extend the barricaded area.
I agree that these downtown features don’t seem like a hostile design effort. But it makes sense why the city would do that. When you plant a tree, it provides shelter, and in order for the houseless not to sleep under that shelter, putting planters and a rope might help.
This definitely seems like a hostile design. The only thing I could see this fence helping with is creating a street buffer for safety reasons like Valeria said. Even with that idea, it seems unnecessary for the setting and so it appears to be for no other reason than to keep unhoused people off the sidewalk and away from shaded areas where they could seek shelter.
I think that the implementation of a fence-like barrier around the plants is considered hostile design, in this case. Although the plants need some shelter to grow, there is an unnecessary extension of fencing between the two separate plant clusters that adds multiple extra square feet between the plants that cannot be used. This extension of space that is being blocked to prevent misuse of not only the plants but the entire area between them.
As a kid my town used to have these and I always thought it was because they didn’t want people touching the plants, but rather to keep people from camping or gathering on sidewalk space.
Although the implementation of railing can be used to reduce the number of tents, I think that this was a second thought in the design. The railing along with trees can also be used to make the vegetation look more attractive to the public and add to the aesthetic. If the railing was solely for prevention, I would think that the middle section that is completely open would be filled with an element that closes the gap and further discourages any sort of gathering.
I think that this is an accurate analysis of this space, however some of the comments raise a good point that the fencing might have been implemented as a way to make it look more attractive to the public instead of trying to exclude homeless people, however I think the fencing perhaps was implemented to achieve both goals.