by sbaker8 | Jun 9, 2023
Knight Libary Located on University of Oregon campus, lacking somewhere for people experiencing homeless to sleep or rest.
As a current student that attends the University of Oregon and also being a resident of Eugene, I am deeply aware of the pressing issue of homelessness that plagues our community. In order for me to gain a better understanding of the experiences faced by unhoused individuals, I have analyzed a well known building located on campus, The Knight Library. This building serves as an example of the broader challenges faced by those without shelter. Through examining its architecture, design, and the surrounding urban space, my goal is to shed light on the ways that the environment is formed to either welcoming or rejecting unhoused individuals. This analysis has aspects of contributions from my fellow students’ postings, whose insights have provided valuable perspectives on the building that I initially chose.
Image shows a space in the Knight Library that includes three distinct types of seating suggesting different uses through their designs.
The building in question stands tall, its imposing structure dominating the surrounding landscape. The facade boasts modern design elements, with sleek lines and large windows that offer a glimpse into the interior. In addition to the imposing and modern design elements of the building, further analysis reveals aspects that contribute to the exclusion of unhoused individuals. One student (“Modernity in the Home”, stejido4) in their posting has pointed out that the contemporary aesthetic of the building fails to address the specific needs of those without shelter. While the sleek lines and large windows may be visually appealing to the housed population, they do little to create an inclusive environment for unhoused individuals. The building’s design seems to prioritize aesthetics and functionality for the privileged, rather than considering the experiences and challenges faced by those without homes.
This is the interior of the Knight Library
Another student (“Decline in Design and Comfort Over Time”, rking3) highlighted the lack of accessible entrances or inclusive features that would enable unhoused individuals to access the building comfortably, without feeling demonized. The absence of ramps or alternative entryways that are far out of the way, not only pose physical barriers but also symbolically reinforces the exclusionary nature of the building. By neglecting to provide accessible entry points, the building effectively communicates a message that unhoused individuals are not welcome, deserving of equal access, or targeted audience to the facility. This design flaw further perpetuates the marginalization of unhoused individuals, denying them the basic right to shelter and safety.
The large room contains moments of privacy with desks, computers, and very few views to the outside or other rooms.
Moreover, an additional student (“Modernity in the Home”, stejido4) emphasizes that the building’s interior design may also contribute to the sense of exclusion experienced by unhoused individuals. While there are features in the building that are visually appealing there are aspects that serve as a stark reminder of what the unhoused lack—a comfortable and secure living space. The building’s interior may be designed with functionality and comfort in mind for the housed population, but it fails to address the needs and realities of those without shelter. This disconnect between the design and the experiences of unhoused individuals further reinforces the notion that they do not belong or have a place within the building’s intended purpose.
Light paths embedded at the railing of the stairs and the ceiling of each floor leads people to explore more.
Collectively, these observations highlight the ways in which the building’s design falls short in welcoming unhoused individuals. The prioritization of aesthetics and functionality for the housed population, the absence of accessible entrances, and the disconnect between the interior design and the realities of homelessness all contribute to an environment that perpetuates exclusion and reinforces the societal barriers faced by unhoused individuals. It is crucial for architects and designers to consider the diverse needs and experiences of all individuals, including the unhoused, when creating spaces that promote inclusivity and dignity for everyone.
(Knight Library, IDEA Space Entry Door)
Moving beyond the building itself, the urban space surrounding it is filled with hostile design, worsening the plight of unhoused individuals. A student (“Un-inclusive Design Features”, Phoebew) discusses the concept of hostile architecture, revealing intentional design choices aimed at deterring and excluding certain individuals. Uncomfortable seating is a prominent example, deliberately designed to discourage resting or loitering by using materials like metal or dividers that prevent lying down. Similarly, spikes and protrusions strategically placed on ledges and surfaces, as identified (“Hostile Architecture on Campus”, Stejido4) prevent sleeping or sitting, further marginalizing unhoused individuals.
A bench with hostile design outside of the Science Library.
Metal bumps limits one’s movement while laying on the bench.
Additional examples of hostile design include bike racks positioned to impede pathways, high curbs and lack of seating in campus areas (“Hostile Design in Campus”, jzhou9), an uncomfortable sloped entrance at Allan Price Library (“Hostile Design by Allan Price Library”, tinao), and armrests dividing concrete benches outside the EMU (“Hostile Architecture: The EMX Dad’s Gate Station and Concrete Benches outside the EMU”, caslan). These design choices prioritize convenience and discourage unhoused individuals from finding shelter, rest, or comfort.
Hostile design bench in front of the UO Rec Center, used to deter people from using this seating area as a space for refuge. The different levels within the bench as well as the material being that of concrete make the bench uncomfortable to sit or lie on for long periods of time.
This diagram shows the areas in which it would be uncomfortable for someone to use this bench as a sleeping area.
The prevalence of hostile design in the urban space surrounding the building exacerbates the challenges faced by unhoused individuals. Uncomfortable seating, spikes, constrained pathways, and the absence of rest areas all communicate exclusion and perpetuate the marginalization of the unhoused population. It is imperative for designers, architects, and policymakers to reevaluate these hostile practices and strive to create inclusive urban environments that prioritize the dignity and well-being of all individuals.
Bike Racks to prevent siting on curbs.
Diagram showing the barrier that is creating by the bike racks placement.
The urban space surrounding the building creates an exclusionary and uncomfortable experience for unhoused individuals. The design choices and hostile features send a clear message that they are not welcome or deserving of equal access to public space. The lack of accessibility, uncomfortable seating, and hostile architecture not only present physical challenges but also inflict psychological distress. These design choices perpetuate social stigma, reinforce marginalization, and undermine the dignity and belonging of unhoused individuals.
This image shows surrounding context of the hostile architecture bench.
This image clearly shows the bench with an arm rest dividing the space preventing the unhoused people from sleeping under shelter.
This image shows the section view of the bench clearly indicating the armrest that divides the space.
As another student (“Seats Leading to Innovation: Design, Education, and Aspiration”, mlovette) insightfully pointed out, design has the potential to inspire and uplift individuals. However, the design choices in this building and its surroundings contribute to the perpetuation of homelessness and social inequality. Instead of fostering inclusion and empowerment, the built environment further exacerbates the struggles faced by unhoused individuals, hindering their pursuit of stability and a way out of homelessness.
Allen Hall (locate at a pathway between Friendly Hall and Allen Hall)
In conclusion, the building and its urban space exemplify the systemic challenges experienced by unhoused individuals in our community. Our analysis and the contributions of fellow students highlight that the built environment can either compound or alleviate these difficulties. Architects, designers, and policymakers bear the responsibility of considering the needs and experiences of unhoused individuals. By striving for inclusive spaces that prioritize dignity, compassion, and a sense of belonging for all, we can challenge and transform existing design practices, working towards a more just and equitable society.
Bibliography
Decline, Design, and Comfort Over Time by rking3
https://blogs.uoregon.edu/h3s23/2023/05/17/decline-design-and-comfort-over-time/
Seats Leading to Innovation, Design, Education, and Aspiration. by mlovette
https://blogs.uoregon.edu/h3s23/2023/05/17/seats-leading-to-innovation-design-education-and-aspiration/
Un inclusive Design Features by phoebew
https://blogs.uoregon.edu/h3s23/2023/05/22/un-inclusive-design-features/
Hostile Architecture On Campus by stejido4
https://blogs.uoregon.edu/h3s23/2023/05/24/hostile-architecture-on-campus/
Modernity in the Home by stejido4
https://blogs.uoregon.edu/h3s23/2023/04/19/modernity-in-the-home/
Hostile Architecture, The EMX Dad’s Gate Station by caslan
https://blogs.uoregon.edu/h3s23/2023/05/30/hostile-architecture-the-emx-dads-gate-station-and-concrete-benches-outside-the-emu/
Hostile design by Allan Price Library by tinao
https://blogs.uoregon.edu/h3s23/2023/05/30/hostile-design-by-allan-price-library/
Hostile designs in campus by jzhou9
https://blogs.uoregon.edu/h3s23/2023/05/30/hostile-design-in-campus/
Hostile Architecture: Bike Rack Placement in the Education Annex Parking Lot by faithw
https://blogs.uoregon.edu/h3s23/2023/05/30/hostile-architecture-bike-rack-placement-in-the-education-annex-parking-lot/
Hostile Design chooses who is part of their “Public” by starkv
https://blogs.uoregon.edu/historyofinteriorarch/2023/05/31/hostile-design-protects-only-some-types-of-public/
Hostile Design of Hayward Feild by ayakov
https://blogs.uoregon.edu/h3s23/2023/05/26/hostile-design-of-hayward-feild/
by sbaker8 | May 31, 2023
Location (1): Lillis Business Complex – Located on Kincaid St / Side of Lillis Business Complex
Lillis Business Complex: facility that serves as a hub for business education, innovation, and collaboration
Hostile architecture can be seen throughout our entire world. Especially, in our present day with the help of our new advancements that are meant to decrease vandalism, loitering, etc. in public spaces. In the city of Eugene I have observed that there are various forms of hostile architecture/design that have been embedded around campus. The examples that I discovered target two different groups that are within our community.
I uncovered an example of hostile architecture connected to the renowned academic facilities of the University, namely the Lillis Business Complex. Despite significant promotion and visibility of these locations, the presence of subtle hostile designs often goes unnoticed.
The initial type of hostile architecture I encountered was observed in the bus benches situated alongside the Lillis Business complex. These benches were deliberately divided by metal bars, creating an obstacle for individuals, particularly those experiencing homelessness, to lie down and rest. Consequently, this design approach creates an unwelcoming atmosphere on campus, effectively excluding this specific group from utilizing the facilities. Although these benches serve the purpose of enhancing the area’s cleanliness and preventing the growth of homelessness in the vicinity, their aesthetic appeal and material quality contribute to their purpose of deterring prolonged occupancy. Moreover, the curvature of the bench design aims to provide a visually pleasing and polished appearance. The furniture itself is divided into three sections, with varying levels and angles, intended to address accessibility and ergonomic concerns for typical users. However, beneath the surface, there exists a subtle undertone of hostile architecture within the bench design. While individuals experiencing homelessness can still find a seat to rest, the intentional division of the bench discourages extended periods of loitering, such as sleeping. Overall, despite the seemingly well-intentioned purpose of these architectural elements within the surrounding context and community, the presence of subtle hostile design elements is evident. These benches, primarily intended for waiting for the bus, compromise comfort and effectively deter individuals, including those experiencing homelessness, from engaging in long-term use.
Bus Benches Near Lillis Business Complex
by sbaker8 | May 30, 2023
Location (2): Knight Campus Building – Located on Franklin Blvd
Knight Campus: facility where cutting-edge research and innovation hub fostering interdisciplinary collaboration and breakthrough discoveries
Hostile architecture can be seen throughout our entire world. Especially, in our present day with the help of our new advancements that are meant to decrease vandalism, loitering, etc. in public spaces. In the city of Eugene I have observed that there are various forms of hostile architecture/design that have been embedded around campus. The examples that I discovered target two different groups that are within our community.
I uncovered an example of hostile architecture connected to the renowned academic facilities of the University, namely the Knight Campus. Despite significant promotion and visibility of these locations, the presence of subtle hostile designs often goes unnoticed.
The instance I encountered was located at the rear of the Knight Campus. There, I discovered a set of steps designed to resemble natural seating with a sloping angle. However, upon closer inspection, the space is divided by metal strips, deliberately creating barriers. This architectural feature can be interpreted as targeting both the unhoused population, making it uncomfortable for them to occupy the area for extended periods, such as sleeping, and the skateboarding community, discouraging their presence through obstacles and metal strips. While the architecture initially presents a modern appearance, the addition of these metal strips undermines its aesthetics, aiming to maintain a clean space free from individuals experiencing homelessness or skateboarders. By simultaneously deterring loitering of large groups, these elements contribute to a reduction of loitering in the public realm. The aforementioned reduction in loitering leads to the introduction of the second architectural element I discovered on the University of Oregon’s campus.
Seating Behind Night Campus
Unfortunately, the subtle modifications within the furniture design can be exploited in contrasting ways or at the very least present a design that can be interpreted as both hostile and non-hostile architecture. This duality highlights a widespread problem found throughout the world, where architectural elements are implemented to safeguard construction and public seating areas from damage or loitering. It is regrettable that these design choices often prioritize the selling factor to incoming students, potentially overshadowing the importance of addressing issues such as homelessness and other forms of hostility within public spaces.
by sbaker8 | May 24, 2023
Summary:
“The London Spikes Controversy: Homelessness, Urban Securitisation, and the Question of ‘Hostile Architecture’ is an article by James Petty from the University of Melbourne, Australia. Published in the International Journal for Crime, Justice, and Social Democracy in 2016, the article explores the concept of hostile architecture within the context of the spikes controversy in London in 2014. The controversy arose when anti-homeless spikes, metal studs strategically placed in public spaces to deter homeless individuals from sleeping, sparked public debate and scrutiny regarding visible methods of environmental social control.
Petty situates hostile architecture within broader socio-political and governmental shifts toward neoliberal arrangements and urban securitisation. The article discusses various forms of environmental social control, such as ultraviolet lights in public toilets and CCTV cameras, highlighting the blurred line that distinguishes hostile architecture from other forms of social control.
The article also examines the increasing securitisation of urban and public spaces, emphasizing the militarisation and privatisation of public space and the punitive turn in society. It explores the regulation of homelessness and the intentional exclusion of certain identities from urban spaces. The article questions whether the public backlash against the spikes represents resistance to urban securitisation or a broader aversion to both the homeless and the mechanisms that regulate them.
By providing a critical analysis of the spikes controversy, the article sheds light on patterns of urban securitisation, public space, and homelessness. It offers insights into the socio-political dynamics that shape the use of hostile architecture and the responses it elicits.”
Figure 1. View of T4 Main Seating Area
Building interpretation:
“The London Spikes Controversy: Homelessness, Urban Securitisation and the Question of ‘Hostile Architecture’” by James Petty and the interior of T4 boba in Eugene, Oregon offer contrasting perspectives on the relationship between design, comfort, and inclusivity in public spaces.
The interior of T4 boba incorporates elements that aim to create a welcoming and visually appealing atmosphere. The hanging lights resembling upside-down wine glasses, teal color accents, and inclusion of plants contribute to an inviting ambiance. However, it’s important to note that while these design choices may be aesthetically pleasing, they do not necessarily guarantee comfort for all individuals.
Interestingly, this raises questions about the connection between design choices and the concept of hostile architecture discussed in Petty’s article. Hostile architecture refers to architectural features deliberately implemented to discourage certain activities or populations, often targeting homeless individuals. While T4 boba’s interior design does not explicitly align with hostile architecture, the examination of the spikes controversy prompts us to reflect on the broader implications of design choices in public spaces.
Considering the spikes controversy, it becomes crucial to explore whether design decisions, even when intended to be welcoming, inadvertently contribute to exclusionary practices or discomfort for certain groups. This is not to say that T4 boba intentionally engages in hostile architecture, but rather to encourage a critical examination of the intersection between design, comfort, and inclusivity.
Both the spikes controversy and the interior of T4 boba highlight the importance of creating public spaces that prioritize inclusivity and comfort for all individuals. They remind us to consider the potential unintended consequences of design choices and advocate for spaces that are not only visually appealing but also genuinely welcoming and accommodating to diverse needs.
by sbaker8 | May 17, 2023
In the article “If the Chair Fits: Sexism in American Office Furniture Design” by Jennifer Kaufmann-Buhler, it talks about the issue of gender bias within the designing and creation of office furniture. The author specifically examines the influence of gender biases on office chair designs, bringing light to the embedded assumptions and stereotypes.
According to Kaufmann-Buhler, the office furniture design mirrors and inflicts societal gender norms and various inequalities. The author highlights that office chairs have often been traditionally tailored to fit the male body, disregarding the various needs and personalization of women in the workplace. This bias is prominent in various design aspects, such as seat size, lumbar support, and armrest positioning, these all tend to favor larger and taller individuals.
In addition, Kaufmann-Buhler speaks about how office furniture design reinforces gendered power dynamics within the workplace. By prioritizing a traditional masculine aesthetic, there are office chairs that can contribute to the exclusion of women and reinforce male dominance. The author states that these designs reinforce the perception that the workplace is a male-dominated space, resulting in the marginalization of women and impeding their professional progress. It also then creates a box for women to be sent into because they don’t fit the chair to a tea.
The article also goes and explores the potential consequences of sexist office furniture design. It asserts that discomfort and physical strain caused by poorly fitting chairs can impact women’s productivity and overall well-being. Kaufmann-Buhler emphasizes the importance of inclusive and ergonomic design principles that consider the diverse needs of individuals irrespective of gender.
Overall, Kaufmann-Buhler’s article brings forth the issue of sexism in American office furniture design, advocating for a more inclusive approach. By challenging the ingrained gender biases in chair design, the author calls for heightened awareness and consideration of the diverse needs of all individuals in the workplace.
Side hall view of JSMA courtyard
The Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art also known as the JSMA has a strong sense of belonging within the campus environment, distinguished by its unique materials and intricate detailing. However, this distinctiveness also highlights the plight of the unhoused, who lack individuality and the comfort of a home. While the museum’s limited openings provide privacy, they reflect the unwelcoming nature faced by those without permanent residences.
In contrast, the unhoused are deprived of the opportunity to personalize their living spaces, unlike the museum’s carefully arranged interiors. Through its exhibits, the JSMA offers a glimpse into the lives of different cultures and time periods, while the unhoused struggle to hold onto memories as their transient existence adapts to harsh conditions.
While the museum serves as a refuge for those seeking disconnection, it also represents a disconnection for the unhoused from the sense of belonging that a permanent dwelling provides. The preservation of memories and the luxury of connecting with stories within the museum stand in stark contrast to the unnoticed and overlooked nature of the unhoused in society.
In this context, the JSMA’s expression of belonging through design highlights the importance of addressing the challenges faced by marginalized populations, including the unhoused. It urges us to deepen our understanding and empathy, promoting inclusive and supportive approaches that ensure everyone can find warmth, comfort, and a sense of belonging in our society.