Reading Summary/Takeaway: In this article, Chris Binnington and Alessio Russo examine how defensive landscape architecture has evolved and explore best practices to ensure inclusion and safety in public spaces. Defensive or hostile architecture has been designed over time, but it experienced a rise in America in the 1900s when it was used as a tool to enforce racial segregation in projects such as the “Robert Moses” Eastern Motor Parkway Bridge. In the modern day, Binnington and Russo argue that “defensive landscape architecture elements are being redesigned to become seamlessly integrated within public space, becoming artistic features within the landscape attempting to mask their intended purpose (Borden, 2019, p. 232).” While defensive landscape architecture often denies the fundamental human rights of marginalized groups, it is usually rationalized with promises of improving safety and reducing crime. In the present day, the privatization of public domains has led to urban public spaces that are becoming increasingly focused on capitalist and consumer society. The privatization of public domains has enabled the curation of a desired image or environment, often excluding individuals such as the unhoused, who do not fit in the “ideal society.” Binnington and Russo suggest that to design successful inclusive public spaces, designers must move away from defensive landscape architecture to inclusive design in which “cultural spaces are accessible, inviting and exciting to use.”
Binnington and Russo offer multiple examples of public spaces that ensure inclusion and safety. The first example, Oppenheimer Park in Vancouver, designed by Space2Place, celebrated the “park’s historical significance while also welcoming the disadvantaged and homeless.” Through the creation of clear sightlines, all users have a sense of safety without isolating the homeless from the community. Another example is Griffiths Gardens in Auckland, New Zealand, which serves as a “multi-functional space where local office workers can eat lunch, children can play, and educational events” can take place. The design team also considered the experience of the homeless community, as seen in the presence of common planting boxes and a community fridge.
Application:
Historical Case: The “Robert Moses” Eastern Motor Parkway Bridge (Figure 1) is a prime example of hostile architecture that enforced racial segregation in America. Built in 1931, the bridge had a low clearance, restricting the size of motor vehicles that could drive underneath it to individual cars. The low clearance meant that buses, the main form of transportation for much of the African American population, could not fit underneath the bridge and further could not access certain parts of New York and Long Island. The demolition of the bridge in the late 1960s allowed for the construction of an updated bridge with a higher clearance, which could accommodate buses and other tall vehicles.
Figure 1. Photograph of “Robert Moses” Eastern Motor Parkway Bridge, which only had a tall enough clearance to accommodate individual cars, not public transportation.
Cannato, Vincent J. “A Bridge Too Far.” City Journal, 23 Mar. 2023. https://www.city-journal.org/article/a-bridge-too-far-2
Current Case: The Signal Station North Project (Figure 2) in Baltimore, Maryland, was a collaborative effort between the Neighborhood Design Center (NDC), local stakeholders, artists, and designers to develop a lighting plan for the Station North Arts District. By inviting community members into the design process, NDC was able to think beyond the functional aspects of light to create a lighting plan that prioritizes visibility for the comfort of all user groups, with the goal of building social interaction and community.
Figure 2. Rendering of Signal Station North lighting design project.
“Signal Station North: An Arts District’s Plan for Equitable Lighting.” The Neighborhood Design Center, ndc-md.org/case-study/signal-station-north-an-arts-districts-plan-for-equitable-lighting.
Comparison: The “Robert Moses” Eastern Motor Parkway Bridge (Figure 1) and the Signal Station North Project (Figure 2) illustrate the shift away from defensive landscape architecture and towards inclusive design, as Binnington and Russo argue in the article. The “Robert Moses” Eastern Motor Parkway Bridge was a project from the early 1930s that was intended to exclude a specific group. In comparison, the Signal Station North Project was designed with input from all stakeholders to create an inclusive environment for all users, further demonstrating the shift towards universal design in the twenty-first century.