In the article “Defensive Landscape Architecture in Modern Public Spaces,” Chris Binnington and Alessio Russo talk about how the increasing use of defensive landscape architecture undermines the inclusivity and accessibility of public urban spaces. It is very common for people to justify using these design elements as crime prevention measures, which means marginalizing vulnerable groups such as the homeless, the youth, and people with disabilities. In order for a place to be fully sustainable, the writers agree that it must adopt a holistic design approach where social inclusion and community engagement are priorities over exclusionary tactics. Binnington and Russo are advocates for public spaces to be designed for coexistence rather than separation as a result of hostile design.

One main point made is how defensive designs often target specific groups as a way to deter them from certain public spaces. Elements like absent materials, benches with armrests, and anti-homeless spikes are placed with the intention of making spaces uncomfortable for people to exist in them. While to some degree, they can serve as safety enhancements, they are more effective in criminalizing poverty and youth culture, thus emphasizing and contributing to social inequalities. One example of this is the use of bright lights and security cameras to deter people from sleeping in spaces and from hanging out as if they feel like they are being watched they won’t want to spend time there.

Another point is how inclusive design can serve as a viable alternative to defensive architecture. In the Folkets Park in Copenhagen, there was a community wide renovation which introduced armless benches allowing people to sleep on them and lighting which was zoned to create a balance of safety. Another example was in Melbourne’s urban planning, they incorporated skateboarding facilities into public spaces as it is a big part of the culture. Both of these are examples of ways that spaces can be effectively designed to both be safe and welcoming for a diverse community without having to use exclusionary design practices.

Figure 1. Anti-homeless bench
https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/designing-for-typologies/hostile-architecture-anti-homeless-architecture/

This photo shows an example of a bench that falls under the category of hostile design. Some reasons for this is the material being metal makes it really hot in the summer cause it isn’t under a cover and makes it really cold in the winter and the shape of it makes it uncomfortable to sit on or lay on.

Picture
Figure 2. Enclosed Fence
House Beautiful, July 1990, volume 132, no, 7, pg 61

This could be seen as an example of hostile design using a fence to keep people in and out as a way of defining the boundary of where people are not allowed to cross.