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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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-meas
ure/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%2
0In%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%2
0In%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-lit
erally-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-architectureis-
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/in
dex.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-r
oadways-giant-piles-of-boulders.html.
Figure 11:
King, Ryan. “Photograph of Patrol Car”.
2023.