A Thorn in the Rose City
The Tensions of Hostile Architecture in Portland, Oregon
THESIS:
Portland’s use of hostile architecture towards the unhoused contradicts the city’s welcoming image.
KEY WORDS:
Hostile architecture, Hostile design, Homelessness, Unhoused, Portland, Oregon
INTRODUCTION
The number of unhoused individuals in the United States has remained steady at nearly 600,000 (HUD, 2022), and with many taking shelter in public spaces, it has become more visible in urban areas. Portland, Oregon, is contending with the impact of this population on the city’s image, economic growth, and residents’ safety. Responses to this situation are varied and include legislative movements, non-profit programs, and implementations of hostile architecture strategies to discourage unhoused populations from occupying public spaces.
This essay investigates the historical context and current state of Portland’s use of hostile architecture practices that limit access to public spaces for unhoused individuals. It focuses on the concepts such as Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) and how public initiatives employ these ideas. Furthermore, this essay examines how this approach reflects broader societal attitudes toward homelessness and the marginalization of vulnerable groups.
Portland is a dichotomy between its reputation as a welcoming and socially progressive community and the city’s growing homelessness crisis, which challenges its ability to act on its social values. The implementation of hostile architecture strategies will be cataloged to illustrate Portland’s response to its growing number of unhoused residents.
A SOCIAL PROBLEM
Portland, Oregon, has a severe social problem: As of 2022, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) counted 5,228 homeless people, 58.5% of whom are unsheltered. Since 2019 there has been a 30.2% increase in the total number of homeless and a staggering 50% increase in the number of unsheltered homeless (see Fig.1). (Elliott 2022)
These unsheltered individuals need to find somewhere to sleep, and without an official bed, they will rest wherever they can access. According to HUD, unsheltered means these people are not sleeping in emergency shelters or transitional housing; instead, they are sleeping in places not intended for humans, such as on sidewalks, parks, ad-hoc shelters, or vehicles. Of the 3,057 unsheltered people counted in 2022, 42.8% of these families self-identified as sleeping on the streets and sidewalks, 7.9% slept under bridges and overpasses, 3.9% slept in parks, and 4% slept in doorways (see Fig 2). Nearly all of the unsheltered residents of Portland are sleeping on any publicly accessible piece of ground, a visible population in the city.
Fig 1. The percentage change in homelessness for Oregon according to HUD’s published annual reports. The 1029-2020 numbers are thought to be low due to Covid-19’s restrictions.
Fig 2. The sleeping locations of unsheltered households (note, not individuals) as counted by HUD in 2022. Note that most families are sleeping in highly visible public locations.
TENSIONS BETWEEN THE PAST AND PRESENT
Today, Portland’s public image is that of a welcoming, inclusive, and liberal city. It has a reputation for providing social services and is attractive to the unhoused. However, Portland was not always viewed this way; this social-justice-fueled city has a colorful and exclusionist racist past.
Portland’s colonized history reaches back to the fur trade and gold rush of the 17th Century. Opportunists raced to the West Coast in search of their lucky strike riches and populated towns from California through to Alaska, including Oregon. These early settlers were predominantly white descendants of European immigrants. The city of Portland was officially founded in 1843 (Wollner et al.).
In the 1920s, Portland was a small city of approximately 258,000 people (Gibson). Societal concerns over the lawlessness and immorality of the West Coast opened the door for the Klu Klux Klan to recruit memberships and establish an Oregon chapter (Horowitz 369). Due to the hardships of the Great Depression and World Wars, Portlanders began to allow African American and Asian immigrants into their city, initiating a slow turn toward acceptance and racial diversity. Despite its highly racist past, today, Portland has an overly welcoming attitude, known to be comprised of loud-spoken social justice advocates.
Since this first shift in social acceptance, Portland’s reputation has become synonymous with welcoming. Portland’s welcoming spirit pushed boundaries when, in 2016, Portland’s Mayor Wheeler announced that the city would remain a sanctuary city for its thousands of undocumented immigrants (Roth). There is no official definition of a sanctuary city. However, for the Rose City, this meant that local law officers would not help the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement to locate and deport these undocumented immigrants. The official announcement to remain a sanctuary city was a major national political statement in light of Donald Trump’s recent Presidential win.
Accepting all people, documented or not, into a city does not come for free. Undocumented immigrants do not have the needed Social Security Numbers to receive an official paycheck, so they are limited to sustaining from likely low-paying cash jobs. Without an SSN, people cannot submit applications for tax refunds, unemployment assistance, and other similar social programs. This means these Portland residents must rely on the kindness of strangers to subsist. Portland has well-earned the reputation of being welcoming and supportive to those who rely on their community’s support; this support extended to all people experiencing homelessness.
Portland’s overtly welcoming image bears an interesting social question: Can a city be too welcoming? As unhoused families find a place to rest, they are not always welcome at their chosen location. Pushed onto public property, many people find the road verge – that patch of grass between the sidewalk and the road – to pitch a tent and group their belongings. Possessions spill onto sidewalks, block driveways, and are considered an eyesore. Communities have expressed concerns about increased crime rates and biohazard garbage from growing homeless populations in their neighborhoods. Social media sites buzz with popular topics like “‘We’re done with Portland’: Some residents move away over what they say is the city’s lack of response to homeless camps” and “Oregon’s recent growth in homelessness among largest in the nation” that reach 559 and 631 comments respectively (Reddit: dazzlehasslehoff) (Reddit: cheese7777777). Portland’s residents are becoming fed up with the rapidly growing number of people experiencing homelessness that are filling up their public spaces.
This growing population also places a strain on the local policymakers. In the last ten years, officials have introduced multiple public ballot measures with recurring public camping ban requests as unhoused people migrate from the city parks into residential neighborhoods (Dooris). In June of 2023, Portland approved a ban on street camping from 8 am to 8 pm (Zielinski). However, this ban is limited to the daytime because the DoJ has made a public statement that “not allowing people to sleep on the street may be illegal” (City of Portland). Portland has inadvertently created its own problem by welcoming all individuals into its city without enough public programs and housing solutions to manage this growing population.
Portland is a highly liberal with that fights for the right of all citizens, regardless of race, gender, religion, or housing situation. Nevertheless, public citizens, private business owners, and elected officials are tired of tents and trash filling their streets. It is heartless and cruel to displace a homeless camp, but what if a particular site is no longer an attractive or comfortable place to sleep? Increasingly, Portland has been managing the unhoused population with a less contented method known as hostile architecture.
HOSTILE ARCHITECTURE
Hostile architecture is an architectural or design feature prohibiting certain activities from a target population. It involves physical features that make a space uncomfortable, unwelcoming, or unsafe for specific people. Hostile architecture is known by many other names, including hostile design, defensive architecture, and exclusionary architecture. Petty further defines that hostile architecture is “understood as explicitly coercive, violent and unjustly aimed at those towards the bottom of the socio‐political spectrum, while other forms of social control and division remain largely invisible (normative) and therefore not the target of vociferous public outrage” In hostile architecture, there are morally allowed and morally disallowed behaviors (de Fine). An essential distinction between bad design and hostile architecture is that these design features are targeted at specific populations. These defensive features are most often targeted at those associated with homelessness.
Hostile architecture is less perceptible to the unaffected populations. Those not directly impacted by the deterrent measures may be unaware of the purpose of prohibitive design features, like seat dividers on a public bench. Other features, such as new artwork, could be perceived as positive or aesthetically pleasing. Unaffected groups may also not live in areas with high concentrations of unhoused people, so they have limited exposure and must be made aware that prohibitive design features exist.
Critics argue that these design features further stigmatize and marginalize certain groups. Hostile architecture creates social distancing and ideas of “otherness” (Carr et al.). They say public spaces should be for all and push for more humane and inclusive designs. However, most other socially acceptable solutions for removing tents from city streets involve transitional housing or other large-scale bed-focused solutions that require large amounts of funding and possibly years to accomplish.
Despite Portland’s welcoming attitude, the overwhelming unhoused population created a desperate situation. While hostile architecture is not inclusive, is it inappropriate to install prohibitive architectural features around schools, adjacent to public sidewalks, and beside high-speed roadways? Hostile architecture is becoming an increasingly popular decision for the city’s private homeowners, business owners, and city decision-makers.
GLOBAL EXAMPLES
Hostile architecture is an expansively used design method to control public behaviors. Examples of hostile architecture can be found in various cities worldwide, reflecting localized concerns around loitering and homelessness, amongst other unwanted behaviors. Common features include spikes, unsleepable benches, and added security features.
London, England, experienced a loudly protested display of hostile architecture in 2014. “Anti-homeless” spikes were set into an apartment’s concrete entryway. Although they were on private property, these spikes could be seen from the public sidewalk (Figure 3). A concerned citizen shared their outrage for such discriminatory design, and their peers spoke out on social media. These spikes are classified as hostile architecture because the city installed them to prevent homeless people from sleeping under shelter.
Fig 3. The spikes at an apartment building in London.
The city of Copenhagen, Denmark, replaced urban benches with beautiful rock sculptures. These smooth-surfaced rocks work well for sitting and undulating in height to accommodate differently-sized people. These undulations also prevent homeless people from sleeping comfortably (see Figure 4). The cold, hard material of these concrete ‘rocks’ would be exceptionally cold and uncomfortable for someone searching for a night’s rest.
Fig 4. Benches were replaced with artistic rocks in Copenhagen.
India’s population has a significant socio-economic divide where the poorer classes serve the privileged few. In a residential area called Pali Hill in Bandra, India, Granite shards are embedded around flower beds to prevent the lower classes from resting in the public spaces after a day’s hard labor of domestic work (see Figure 5).
Fig 5. Serrated granite prevents lower-class domestic workers from resting in an Indian neighborhood.
Art installations are dual-purpose in Vancouver, Canada. A beautification project included a series of spiked wavy metal strips (see Figure 6). Officially these metal grates are to cover the vents. This design will also deter loiterers from resting or the unhoused from napping, although the city denies this secondary purpose.
Fig 6. An art installation in Vancouver with no official hostile design purpose.
In Paris, France, some businesses have resorted to installing spikes on window ledges where the unhoused could sit sheltered from the weather. These spikes are aggressively anti-loitering and appear hostile to anyone who sees them. In the instance shown in Figure 7, these spikes provide additional security for clients using the ATMs at this bank.
Fig 7. Spikes were installed outside of a bank in Paris.
These examples highlight the global prevalence of hostile architecture. Cities are implementing various design features to discourage specific activities by certain populations. An observed commonality from examples worldwide is that most design features are meant to keep unhoused people away.
THE AESTHETICS OF HOSTILE DESIGN IN PORTLAND
The issue of hostile architecture has a prominent relationship with the aesthetics and “look” of the city of Portland and its identity. Portland, Oregon, is no different from other cities in that its residents care about the city’s image. However, the way the people of Portland interact with the art and culture of the city is unique. The people of Portland are interested in socially and economically supporting public arts (Portland Plan). This means that the citizens of Portland are paying attention to what is built in their city.
The issue of hostile architecture in Portland, with its impact on the city’s image and social values, is similar to Boris Johnson’s concerns about similar structures in London mentioned in James Petty’s article on the London Spikes controversy. The presence of hostile architectural interventions in Portland calls into question the city’s constructed image and underlying social priorities. This conflict stems from the clash between Portland’s desired aesthetic and the visible presence of homeless people who do not fit into the idealized urban environment. As Petty points out, aesthetics have a significant impact on shaping urban spaces, often promoting a sanitized and controlled version of city life. This aesthetic vision is challenged by visible forms of hostile architecture, which disrupt the desired image of the city. However, the perspectives of people experiencing homelessness are frequently overlooked in these discussions. The emphasis is frequently on property owners’ opinions, reinforcing their authority and entitlement over public space. Those in charge of public design in Portland are interested in maintaining an image of a prosperous and clean Portland, which the unhoused population does not fit into easily. On the contrary, the citizens of Portland are very aware of their city’s image in terms of built forms, and hostile designs such as the spikes pictured in (Figure 3) do not fit their idea that Portland is a loving and welcoming city and therefore would express outrage. This all leads to the existence of subtle hostile architecture that we have documented in Portland; things like planter boxes, boulders, and sculptures accomplish all things for all parties involved except the unhoused.
CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN (CPTED)
Many of our examples can be discussed through the lens of CPTED, so we must briefly discuss its history and goals and why it is vital for us to evaluate its effects. CPTED is a well-known design strategy that is used all over the world. A widely accepted definition of CPTED claims, “the proper design and effective use of the built environment can lead to a reduction in the fear and incidence of crime and an improvement in the quality of life” (Crowe). This author outlines three overlapping strategies: territorial reinforcement, natural surveillance, and natural access control. Territorial reinforcement is a critical component and will be discussed below with the planters in front of this Portland ice cream shop. At its core, architecture and design are forms of regulation and control (Schindler). Territorial reinforcement is about how others try to control activities in areas they believe they have a right to control and is often associated with feelings of pride. However, this can come with unintended consequences when the people do not have any legal ownership over the territory. This is why studying the adverse effects of these environmental design tactics is important.
HOSTILE ARCHITECTURE IN PORTLAND’S BACKYARD
Portland, known for its progressive and inclusive reputation, is facing a disheartening contradiction in the form of hostile architecture aimed at the unhoused population. This trend can be seen in the strategic placement of planter boxes (figure 8) in public spaces. While these seemingly insignificant structures do their intended job of making the city greener and possibly even providing food for people, their true motivation becomes apparent upon closer inspection of the context in which they were installed.
Fig 8. Planters were installed outside an ice cream shop in Portland.
A homeless camp in Portland’s Hawthorne neighborhood, particularly in front of Dairy Hill Ice Cream, irritated residents and business owners. According to sources, “early morning dog walkers noticed that the homeless camp was gone, replaced with shiny, plant-filled aluminum tubs.” The planters were well received during their installation; neighbors even assisted. The Homeless and Urban Camping Impact Reduction Program of the City of Portland assisted in cleaning up various locations, including the one described. Neighbors and business owners purchased the planters, soil, and plants, and a GoFundMe campaign was planned to reimburse everyone involved fully. The neighborhood used These planters as subtle deterrents, discouraging unhoused people from seeking refuge in these public spaces. This hostile architecture strategy benefited one population group while further marginalizing another. This concept is often referred to as Territorial reinforcement, a method of Crime Prevention Through Design (CPTED).
By implementing architectural and design elements, such as large, heavy planters, they can designate certain areas or settings as belonging to a specific group or activity. Interventions like this promote strong feelings of pride and ownership among residents by establishing clear boundaries and ownership markers, as evidenced by neighbors coming out of their homes to offer their own plants for the planter boxes and a local artist being hired to paint the boxes. It is not enough to be able to defend an area from the safety of one’s own home; individuals must genuinely want to take on this role out of a sense of territorial pride and ownership. Implementations of such methods may seem similar to Portland’s reputation at first, as neighborhood gardens and art installations are common in the city. Still, when the context surrounding these designs is examined, there is an apparent lack of acceptance for people of all social groups.
ART AS HOSTILE ARCHITECTURE
The image in Figure 9, discovered while I was strolling through downtown Portland, reveals an intriguing sight that warrants further investigation. Two massive concrete sculptures in the shape of fruits are situated within the public right-of-way, nestled between the sidewalk and the road. These sculptures, like the planter boxes mentioned earlier, act as deterrents to people setting up tents in this area of downtown land. At first glance, these artistic additions may appear to be a positive addition to the neighborhood street, raising the question of what harm could result from people enjoying the visual appeal of art. Under the surface, however, this seemingly innocuous approach conceals a more insidious form of hostile architecture, one that thrives unnoticed within densely populated and affluent neighborhoods like the one depicted in Portland.
Fig 9. Concrete sculptures sit in public space.
Art, celebrated for its aesthetic appeal and ability to enhance public spaces, can unintentionally deter homeless individuals from occupying these areas. Consider the concrete fruit sculptures seen in Figure 9. Most people, especially those in Portland with a history of close connection with art (site), see the sculptures only as a work of art. Still, those exposed to the ideas behind hostile architecture and exclusionary design will take note of their deliberate placement and purpose. These sculptures, strategically placed between the sidewalk and the road, create a physical barrier that prevents homeless people from seeking shelter in that area. The goal of such design choices is to discourage the use of tents and temporary structures while prioritizing aesthetic appeal for wealthier residents and visitors. Unknown to many, art as a form of hostile architecture reinforces public spaces’ exclusionary nature.
These sculptures, along with planter boxes and architectural features, contribute to the larger concept of hostile architecture. While the placement does not explicitly target the homeless, it does align with the goal of discouraging their presence in visible and frequented areas. The subtle nature of these tactics allows authorities and policymakers to avoid overtly violating the rights of homeless people while upholding a specific social order and aesthetic standard in a wealthy area of downtown Portland. Using sculpture to keep homeless people out of public spaces raises ethical concerns. Society frequently resorts to aesthetic measures instead of providing meaningful solutions and support, putting aesthetics ahead of the urgent need for affordable housing, social services, and mental health care.
Despite their artistic value, these sculptures can subtly function as tools to deter homeless individuals from sleeping in public spaces. Their deliberate placement and purposeful design contribute to a larger pattern of exclusionary architecture, shifting attention from the pressing social issues. It is crucial to critically assess the impact of such design choices and advocate for inclusive and compassionate urban planning that tackles the root causes of homelessness rather than perpetuating its invisibility through subtle means.
Subtle tactics, such as these sculptures, effectively hide the underlying issue of homelessness. Rather than addressing the root causes and providing meaningful solutions, these surface-level interventions act as “band-aid” solutions that mask the problem. The disregard shown toward the factors contributing to homelessness demonstrates society’s preference for aesthetics over the social well-being of its marginalized members. Instead of addressing systemic issues and advocating for comprehensive approaches, attention is diverted by focusing on the visual aspects, perpetuating the oversight of the complex challenges homeless individuals face.
HOSTILE ARCHITECTURE AND SPENDING
This example of hostile architecture in Portland takes a less elegant approach than the previous planters and sculptures, instead using large boulders. This strategy is used to discourage homeless people from camping near Portland’s freeways and is not as obvious to onlookers as some examples seen globally, such as spikes (Chellew).
Fig 10. Sleeping person surrounded by boulders.
The significant financial investment made by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) in deploying boulders as a deterrent to camping raises important questions about the economics of such measures. With over $800,000 spent on boulders in 2019 alone (Kruzman), it is evident that substantial resources are being used to keep the unhoused away from public spaces near Portland’s freeways.
While many argue that these projects contribute to public safety and protect the well-being of residents, it is clear that such funds could potentially be better utilized in more comprehensive and proactive approaches to address homelessness. The cost of implementing hostile architecture is just one aspect of the financial burden associated with managing encampments and dealing with the consequences of homelessness.
By primarily focusing on defensive measures like hostile architecture, there is a risk of perpetuating a cycle of temporary displacement without effectively addressing the root causes of homelessness. As unhoused people continue to just relocate to new areas, the underlying issue remains unresolved, creating an ongoing need for further interventions and subsequent expenditures that could all be spent on more productive measures.
This shows the economic impact extends beyond the direct costs of implementing hostile architecture. The visibility of homelessness and the unhoused people can affect the perception of public spaces and have implications for local businesses, tourism, and property values. While residents may advocate for defensive measures to solve immediate concerns, it is crucial to consider the potential long-term consequences for the city’s economy and overall well-being.
Instead of relying solely on hostile architecture, a more economically sustainable and compassionate approach would involve investing in affordable housing initiatives, support services, and programs that address the systemic causes of homelessness. By tackling the underlying issues contributing to homelessness, cities can work towards sustainable solutions that benefit individuals experiencing homelessness and promote social cohesion and economic stability. To address the complex economic challenges associated with homelessness, we must engage in a broader discussion about the proper distribution of financial resources and explore innovative, cost-effective strategies.
HOSTILE SURVEILLANCE AND LAW
In the next section, we will discuss law enforcement as hostile design and its effect on the houseless population. When police cars like the one depicted in (Figure 11) patrol public parks, it can create an unwelcome and threatening environment for homeless individuals, further exacerbating their struggles and marginalization. While law enforcement plays a crucial role in maintaining safety and order, it is essential for them to strike a balance between their duties and demonstrating empathy and understanding towards the most vulnerable members of a community. Addressing this complex situation requires finding a solution that benefits everyone involved.
Fig 11. A police vehicle patrols the sidewalk in the North Park Blocks.
Despite the intention behind Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles, as discussed earlier, they can unintentionally favor specific groups while marginalizing others. This exclusion can show itself in various ways, including limiting access to particular individuals or discouraging specific social groups. One subtle yet impactful example highlighted is the effect that law enforcement vehicles have on the homeless population. Numerous studies have shown that homeless individuals are disproportionately targeted by policing efforts (Ellsworth). Even when not engaged in illegal activities or breaking any laws, the mere presence of law enforcement can have a distinct impact on this group due to their past interactions or experiences with law enforcement or their association with a larger community.
Expanding the perspective on exclusionary practices, Sarah Schindler offers a thought-provoking analysis of historical methods employed to keep undesirable individuals out of specific places. She discusses using laws and ordinances to limit access, threats of violence to enforce social norms, and the construction of cities with physical barriers that impede movement between different areas. While legal scholars have extensively researched the first two forms of discrimination, namely laws and social norms, Schindler deviates from the norm by emphasizing the role of architecture and design in exclusionary practices. We’ve previously discussed bridges designed to prevent buses from passing underneath them, and systematic policing of public spaces is a similar form of exclusionary design. This is relevant to us because certain exclusionary tactics, like racist zoning ordinances, have been recognized and made illegal (Schindler).
The more subtle tactics, like street layouts and public bench design, are much harder to address legally due to their primary functional uses. Even more difficult to make illegal would be police presence in itself, which is why we consider the patrol car shown in (Figure 11) so dangerous. Furthermore, the text accurately emphasizes the difficulty in making the presence of law enforcement illegal in and of itself. The patrol car, as depicted in the accompanying figure, is a symbol of power and authority, but it can also perpetuate a sense of fear and exclusion within specific communities. The difficulty in addressing this issue stems from the fact that the primary function of police presence is to maintain public safety and deter crime. When attempting to reconcile the potential exclusionary effects of police presence, the dual nature of police presence necessitates a nuanced approach. In conclusion, Sarah Schindler’s goal is to shed light on the importance design has on inclusion and to try to move beyond just ordinances and standards. What is critical is a broader conversation about the complexities involved in talking about exclusionary design tactics, particularly those rooted in functional uses like most architectural examples, and the presence of law enforcement, by exploring the relationship between design, social dynamics, and exclusionary practices.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, examining Portland’s utilization of hostile architecture in response to its unhoused population highlights a glaring contradiction to the city’s reputed welcoming image. Despite its reputation as a socially progressive and inclusive community, implementing hostile architecture strategies contradicts these purported values and perpetuates the marginalization of vulnerable groups, particularly the unhoused. By employing architectural interventions like benches with dividers, spikes, or sloped surfaces to restrict access to public spaces, the city inadvertently sends a resounding message that prioritizes the comfort and convenience of its residents at the expense of the well-being and dignity of its unhoused population.
The historical context and present state of hostile architecture practices in Portland underscore broader societal attitudes towards homelessness. Instead of addressing the root causes of homelessness and enacting compassionate and comprehensive solutions, the city’s response has centered around deterrence and exclusion. This approach not only fails to tackle the underlying issues but also reinforces the cycle of homelessness and exacerbates the challenges faced by individuals experiencing homelessness.
Furthermore, deploying concepts such as Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) reveals the city’s emphasis on security and economic growth over its unhoused residents’ fundamental human rights and well-being. By predominantly seeing homelessness through the lens of crime and safety, Portland further stigmatizes and marginalizes those in need, perpetuating negative stereotypes and detracting from efforts to build empathy and understanding within the community.
Portland’s paradoxical nature, encompassing its reputation and the escalating homelessness crisis, spotlights the tension between the city’s aspirations and its capacity to tackle the issue effectively. To better reflect its actions with its values, Portland must shift its approach from hostile architecture and exclusionary measures towards more compassionate and comprehensive solutions. Although solutions are not the aim of our research, bettering the city’s relationship with the unhoused population would require substantial investments in affordable housing, the expansion of supportive services, and the promotion of social policies that prioritize the well-being and dignity of all residents, regardless of their housing status.
Overall, the employment of hostile architecture in Portland contradicts its acclaimed welcoming image and reflects broader societal attitudes toward homelessness. The city must reassess its strategies and embrace a more empathetic and inclusive approach to address the needs of its unhoused population. Only through genuine empathy, collaborative efforts, and a commitment to social justice can Portland save its identity as a socially progressive community with the challenges posed by its mounting homelessness crisis.
REFERENCES
“A Brief History of Urban Renewal in Portland , Oregon (AF/165431).” Efiles, efiles.portlandoregon.gov/record/4076843.
Cozens, Paul, and Terence Love. “The Dark Side of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED).” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 2017, doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.013.2.
Crowe, Timothy D., and Lawrence J. Fennelly. “Introduction to Cpted.” Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, 2013, pp. 3–14, doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-411635-1.00001-2.
Dooris, Author: Pat. “People for Portland Seeks to Eliminate Outdoor Homeless Camping with New Ballot Initiative.” Kgw.Com, 2 Apr. 2022, www.kgw.com/article/news/local/the-story/people-for-portland-homeless-tax-ballot-measure/283-e2026ed8-aa9a-497b-875f-d189fd1b49d8.
“HUD Releases 2022 Annual Homeless Assessment Report.” HUD.Gov / U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 19 Dec. 2022, www.hud.gov/press/press_releases_media_advisories/HUD_No_22_253.
Johnston, Robert D. Radical Middle Class: Populist Democracy and the Question of Capitalism in Progressive Era Portland, Oregon. Princeton University Press, 2013.
Licht, Karl de Fine. “Hostile Urban Architecture: A Critical Discussion of the Seemingly
Offensive Art of Keeping People Away.” Etikk I Praksis, vol. 11, no. 2, 2017, pp. 27–44,
https://doi.org/10.5324/eip.v11i2.2052.
Mackenzie, Hilary. The Portland Park Blocks : Their Origin and Development. University of
Washington, 1988.
Newman, Oscar. Defensible Space: Crime Prevention through Urban Design. Collier Books, 1973.
“North Park Blocks.” Portland.gov, www.portland.gov/parks/north-park-blocks.
“Portland Plan.” PortlandOnline RSS, www.portlandonline.com/portlandplan/index.cfm. Accessed 15 June 2023.
Rosenberger, R. (2020). On hostile design: Theoretical and empirical prospects. Urban Studies,
57(4), 883–893. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098019853778
Schindler, Sarah. “Architectural Exclusion: Discrimination and Segregation through Physical Design of the Built Environment.” The Yale Law Journal – Home, www.yalelawjournal.org/article/architectural-exclusion#_ftnref41.
Stephenson, R. Bruce. Portland’s Good Life: Sustainability and Hope in an American City. Lexington Books, 2022.
Witt, Matthew, “Dialectics of Control: the Origins and Evolution of Conflict in Portland’s Neighborhood Association Program” (2000). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 6054.
IMAGES
Figure 1:
Elliott, Debi. “2022 POINT-IN-TIME COUNT: Count of People Experiencing HUD Homelessness1in Portland/Gresham/Multnomah County, Oregon on January 26, 2022.” 2022 Point In Time Report – Full, Joint Office of Homeless Services, 9 November 2022, https://multco-web7-psh-files-usw2.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2022%20Point%20In%20Time%20Report%20-%20Full.pdf. Accessed 10 June 2023.
Figure 2:
Elliott, Debi. “2022 POINT-IN-TIME COUNT: Count of People Experiencing HUD Homelessness1in Portland/Gresham/Multnomah County, Oregon on January 26, 2022.” 2022 Point In Time Report – Full, Joint Office of Homeless Services, 9 November 2022, https://multco-web7-psh-files-usw2.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2022%20Point%20In%20Time%20Report%20-%20Full.pdf. Accessed 10 June 2023.
Figure 3:
Petty, James. “View of The London Spikes Controversy: Homelessness, Urban Securitisation and the Question of ‘Hostile Architecture.’” Crime Justic Journal, 2016, https://www.crimejusticejournal.com/article/view/792/550. Accessed 15 June 2023.
Figure 4:
Fraieli, Andrew. “Hostile Architecture: The Indirect Public Fight on the Homeless.” Homeless Voice, 7 July 2019, https://homelessvoice.org/hostile-architecture-the-indirect-public-fight-on-the-homeless/. Accessed 15 June 2023.
Figure 5:
Ruetas, Faith. “Hostile Architecture in India: Literally Fighting Poverty – RTF.” RTF | Rethinking The Future, https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/rtf-fresh-perspectives/a2703-hostile-architecture-in-india-literally-fighting-poverty/. Accessed 15 June 2023.
Figure 6:
Toulgoet, Dan. “Metal Vent Covers” Vancouver’s ‘defensive architecture’ is hostile to homeless, say critics. Vancouver Is Awesome, 24 June 2019, https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/courier-archive/news/vancouvers-defensive-architecture-is-hostile-to-homeless-say-critics-3102287. Accessed 15 June 2023.
Figure 7:
Chellew, Cara. “Anti-Loitering Spikes .” The Debate: Is Hostile Architecture Designing People – and Nature – out of Cities?, CNN, 21 December 2017,
https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/new-dean-harvey-james-furzer-hostile-architecture-debate/index.html. Accessed 15 June 2023.
Figure 8:
30, Garren April, and SE Examiner May 1. “Spring Flower Power on Hawthorne.” The Southeast Examiner of Portland Oregon, 29 Apr. 2022, www.southeastexaminer.com/2022/04/spring-flower-power-on-hawthorne/. Accessed 9 June 2023.
Figure 9:
King, Ryan. “Photograph of Sculpture”. 2023.
Figure 10:
Oregonian/OregonLive, Diana Kruzman | The. “Portland’s Homeless Campers Face New Obstacle: Piles of Boulders.” Oregonlive, 26 July 2019, www.oregonlive.com/portland/2019/07/homeless-campers-face-a-new-obstacle-along-portland-roadways-giant-piles-of-boulders.html.
Figure 11:
King, Ryan. “Photograph of Patrol Car”. 2023.