Putting a fence and gate around a courtyard does not at first raise any alarms to the public as they walk past it on the street. It is seen as natural to defend and cordon private property, especially in the United States where land ownership goes hand-in-hand with the American dream. State owned public parks are available to anyone who does not have access to their own little patch of green, but what happens at the blurred line between private and public? First Christian Church (marked A in the figure below) located in the heart of downtown Eugene where a large portion of the unhoused population lives. A grand neoclassical building with a large dome and a courtyard tucked away behind a metal fence. On its own, the fence would not be considered hostile. However, features such as the tight weave of metal to detour fence hopping and the chain warning against trespassing on the main covered entrance, it is clearly meant to keep people from sleeping near it. Despite inclusive messaging on the sign, the churches warming center is located adjacent (location B) to the church separate from congregation and grand architecture. Out of sight, out of mind. Much debate has gone into how churches enjoy tax exempt status like public institutions and what their role is to the public, which here, is obviously not the unhoused.
Diagram of church and adjacent warming center
I agree that there are many public spaces or private spaces that aren’t clear if it is welcome to be used or not. I think if there is a place of interest for houseless people, spaces that are public enough around it are going to be used.
I agree completely about the confusion in what is a public space and what is private, especially within a normally welcoming facility such as a church. I believe that the pure irony is in the “All are welcome sign” when the design addition clearly doesn’t include those that are houseless. The chain is a less subtle approach to deterrence. It seems as if the space is exclusive to a particular crowd.
If you had a church, would you invite homeless people to be sleeping on your doorstep? I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the church to discourage homeless people from sleeping on their doorstep, especially when homeless people bring trash, drugs, and danger with them. Additionally, the sign ‘all are welcome’ is not contradictory to having a warning sign + chain; ‘all are welcome’ applies to entering congregation, and if a homeless person were to try to enter congregation on a Sunday, then I’m sure they would be accepted (if they were respectful and not belligerent).
Choosing a church as the focus example of hostile design really sparked my attention. Some churches are private while others are considered public, as well as the land that they are built on. Does the hostility of the gate and its intentions to keep the houseless population away mean that the church is not welcoming of new members or of all people? Or would the church argue that the building is sacred and they have every right to protect it? This is why I was so intrigued by this example; it blurs the line between religion and politics.