by bekahe | Jun 16, 2023
Introduction
Several cities across the United States are experiencing overwhelmingly high levels of homelessness. Currently suffering from the nation’s highest rate of homelessness is Eugene Oregon with approximately 3,069 unhoused individuals. There are a multitude of factors contributing to this issue such as mental illness and substance abuse, however, the lack of affordable housing is also largely responsible. Unfortunately, the housed population commonly views the unhoused as an eyesore to the city resulting in the presence of hostile architecture. This is evident throughout the city in different forms making it obvious the unhoused are unwelcome. This paper will explore the not so evident actions being taken against hostile architecture and provide an overview of the kinds of solutions architecture can provide for the unhoused population.
Despite the growing population of the unhoused, the city of Eugene has several initiative programs in place as an effort to help provide housing for the large population living without it. Some of these initiatives include, safe sleep sites, transitional housing communities, permanent supportive housing, and the housing first model. These strategies have been implemented in several city-wide plans to end homelessness and with the support of the community and nonprofit organizations, Eugene has been able to successfully provide more housing options for the unhoused population. These case studies will be explored further in our paper to help show what has been done in Eugene to help support the unhoused community.
The current situation in Eugene, Oregon concerning the unhoused community and related social problems is critical and requires immediate attention. The number of unhoused individuals in the area has continued to increase due to various factors such as high housing costs and a lack of affordable housing options. Additionally, mental health challenges, substance abuse, and traumatic experiences have further complicated the issue. The impact of homelessness goes beyond those affected as it also has negative effects on public health and safety, perpetuates stigmatization and criminalization, and aggravates poverty and income inequality. Therefore, it is crucial to find comprehensive and collaborative solutions to address the underlying causes and provide sustainable support to the unhoused population and the wider community experiencing challenging circumstances.
The matter of homelessness in Eugene, Oregon, is a complex and multifaceted issue that has been influenced by historical events, economic conditions, and government policies. This report presents an analysis of the emergence of homelessness in Eugene, its current state, the challenges faced by individuals without permanent housing, and the potential for resolving this problem. The report emphasizes the importance of a comprehensive and cooperative strategy to effectively address the homelessness issue.
Historical Overview of Homelessness
Industrial Revolution
Although Eugene, Oregon did not exist as a city during the Industrial Revolution from the late 18th to the early 19th century, exploring the impact of this era on the United States can offer valuable insights into the causes and effects of homelessness. Comprehensive research by Todd DePastino’s “Citizen Hobo: How a Century of Homelessness Shaped America” and Kenneth L. Kusmer’s “Down & Out, on the Road: The Homeless in American History” illuminates the intricate connection between industrialization and homelessness, which contributes to a deeper understanding of the historical context.
“Citizen Hobo” by DePastino delves into the origins of homelessness as a social problem during the Industrial Revolution and its subsequent impact on America. The book explores how industrialization and urbanization disrupted traditional social structures, leading to the displacement of workers and the breakdown of established support systems. Rural migrants seeking employment in the growing cities often faced unfavorable working conditions, low wages, and limited access to affordable housing. These economic and social changes contributed to the rise of itinerant populations and homelessness as a prevalent issue. DePastino’s research provides a nuanced understanding of the experiences of homeless individuals during this period, shedding light on their daily struggles, survival tactics, and relationships with wider society. This work helps to extrapolate the historical influences of the Industrial Revolution on homelessness in Eugene, offering insight into the factors that may have contributed to the city’s eventual development of homelessness.
In “Down & Out, on the Road,” Kusmer provides a historical overview of homelessness in America, covering different eras such as the Industrial Revolution. Kusmer explores the challenges faced by workers during this period, including displacement, slum growth, and the difficulties in securing stable housing and employment. He highlights the impact of rapid urbanization and population growth on housing infrastructure, exacerbating the shortage of affordable housing options for workers. Additionally, Kusmer discusses the exploitative labor practices and limited social welfare systems that further contributed to the precarious living conditions experienced by many. Through his research, Kusmer sheds light on the complex social and economic factors that led to homelessness during the Industrial Revolution, providing a broader understanding of Eugene’s experiences within the national context.
The rise and continuation of homelessness during this time were caused by broken social systems, unaffordable housing, unfair labor practices, and insufficient social support networks. Despite Eugene, Oregon not forming a city during the Industrial Revolution, the impact of industrialization still greatly affected the issue in the area.
Urban Renewal/ Expansion
Historically, American cities have undertaken urban renewal and expansion projects to revitalize urban areas. However, these initiatives often resulted in the displacement of marginalized communities. DePastino’s research reveals that urban renewal projects specifically targeted neighborhoods with low-income housing, slums, and informal settlements, deeming them as blighted or undesirable. Consequently, these areas were demolished and replaced with new infrastructure or more expensive housing. This approach directly caused the displacement of individuals and families, who were often left with nowhere to turn.
Through urban renewal and expansion, the cities grew, and the demand for housing increased, leading to rising property values and rent. This phenomenon made it increasingly difficult for low-income individuals and families to find affordable accommodations. Many people and communities are compelled to vacate their homes because of demolition or high expenses, frequently lacking resources and support systems. These processes have a disruptive and destabilizing impact on the lives of the homeless population. The shift in population resulted in the distortion of the original commercial or community network, leading to the destruction of the economic infrastructure. Gentrification, in particular, involved the renovation or redevelopment of neighborhoods, attracting wealthier residents and driving up housing costs. As a consequence, marginalized populations, including those already struggling with homelessness, faced significant challenges in securing stable housing.
The consequences of urban renewal and city expansion include the marginalization of communities, a shortage of affordable housing options, and a deepening cycle of vulnerability and instability. Historically, the poverty population has been neglected in this process and during this time both governments and companies were lacking supportive services for the laborers, workers, or poverty people.
The Great Depression
The impact of the Great Depression on the United States, including Eugene, Oregon, was profound and devastating. From 1929 to the late 1930s, the country faced severe economic turmoil triggered by the stock market crash and the collapse of critical industries. This led to the closure of businesses, a rise in unemployment rates, and widespread poverty, plunging the nation into economic despair. Unfortunately, the people of Eugene, Oregon also suffered from the far-reaching consequences of this crisis, with many families and individuals grappling with unemployment and housing instability. This led to a housing crisis that tragically displaced vulnerable citizens.
The United States faced a myriad of difficulties during the Great Depression, including high unemployment rates, poverty, and social unrest. “Citizen Hobo” by DePastino delves into the history of homelessness during this era. The economic collapse resulted in many losing their jobs, homes, and facing eviction, leaving them homeless or living in poor conditions. These challenges affected various groups, including migrant workers, the unemployed, and marginalized individuals who had to confront them head-on. By utilizing DePastino’s research, we can gain a deeper understanding of the historical framework of the Great Depression and its impact on homelessness in Eugene. This sheds light on the struggles and experiences of the unhoused population in the region during that time.
During The Great Depression, socio-economic factors such as unemployment, poverty, and the housing market collapse contributed to homelessness. Kusmer’s research highlights the experiences of those who were displaced from their homes and forced into itinerant lifestyles. These individuals often traveled in search of work and necessities, with little protection for their labor and no supportive resources available. Living on the street or in industrial areas was often the only way to increase daily job opportunities. Unfortunately, this only worsened the social problem of homelessness in the United States. The overcrowded cities lacked affordable housing, supportive resources, and financial stability, creating an endless loop of homelessness that continues to occur today.
Zoning Laws
The unhoused population in Eugene, Oregon and the wider United States has been greatly affected by zoning laws that have been in place since the early 1900s. These laws were created to regulate land use and promote organized development during a time of urbanization and industrialization. However, the historical background of zoning laws shows that they have inherent biases and unintended outcomes, especially when it comes to the unhoused community.
During the first few decades of the 20th century, zoning laws were commonly utilized to separate land uses and foster financial development. Nevertheless, they were also utilized to discriminate and exclude. Throughout the United States, such as in Eugene, Oregon, zoning rules were utilized to impose racial segregation and uphold socio-economic inequalities. Certain communities were exclusively zoned for single-family homes, preventing low-income individuals and families from obtaining affordable housing in desirable locations.
During the mid-20th century, homelessness was exacerbated by urban renewal projects that aimed to modernize and revitalize cities. Unfortunately, these initiatives often involved removing low-income neighborhoods and displacing vulnerable groups. Zoning regulations were used to support these endeavors by reserving specific areas for commercial development or urban renewal activities, ultimately leading to a scarcity of affordable housing and an increase in homelessness.
Following World War II, there was a rise in suburbanization, which led to stricter zoning laws favoring single-family homes over multi-family homes. Unfortunately, this adversely affected low-income individuals, causing concentrated poverty in specific urban areas. Consequently, the unhoused population faced a shortage of affordable housing options and limited access to shelter. The primary drivers of this issue are exclusionary zoning practices, urban renewal, and suburbanization.
Throughout history, zoning laws have been utilized to enforce racial segregation, preserve socioeconomic disparities, and bar low-income individuals from accessing affordable housing in sought-after regions. This, in conjunction with urban renewal endeavors and suburbanization trends, has resulted in restricted housing options for those without homes, leading to concentrated poverty in certain urban locales. The continued effects of such discriminatory zoning practices underline the urgent necessity for all-inclusive reform and just urban planning approaches that tackle the underlying causes of homelessness and guarantee secure and stable housing for every individual.
Homelessness in Eugene, Oregon
Definition of Homelessness
First, it is critical to understand the full depth of what homelessness means to comprehend the complexity of the issue in Eugene, Oregon. For example, “homeless” and “unhoused” are commonly used umbrella terms when really homelessness can be understood in a multitude of ways encompassing various definitions and categories. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), homelessness refers to individuals who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence. This includes people living on the streets, in emergency shelters, transitional housing, or in places not meant for human habitation. The HUD also recognizes the concept of being at the risk of homelessness, which applies to individuals or households who pace imminent eviction, displacement, or lack of resources to maintain stable housing. Furthermore, within the homeless population, there is a distinction between sheltered and unsheltered homelessness. Sheltered homelessness refers to individuals staying in emergency shelters, transitional housing programs, or safe havens. Unsheltered homelessness, on the other hand, concerns those who are residing in locations not intended for habitation, such as cars, parks, abandoned buildings or on the streets. Additionally, chronic homelessness refers to individuals who have experienced long term homelessness, often coupled with a disability or other significant barrier. This term also encapsulates those who have been continuously homeless for more than a year’s time or have experienced at least four episodes of homelessness within the past three years. These various definitions are important when it comes to identifying and addressing the unique needs and individuals who fit into each category (Henry et al.).
Demographics
In order to provide the proper resources necessary and move towards a viable solution to the homelessness crisis in Eugene, Oregon, rather than attempting to make the problem invisible by implementing hostile architecture, it is first important to understand what kinds of people make up the large population of unhoused. The demographics of people experiencing homelessness in Eugene has of course evolved over time due to economic conditions, social policies, and systematic issues as previously mentioned however, the type of people experiencing homelessness stays consistent with individuals struggling with mental health, veterans, individuals with disabilities, racial/ethnic groups, individuals suffering from substance addiction, unaccompanied youth, young adults, and even families with children.
The Lane County Human Services Division conducts an annual one night Homeless Point in Time (PIT) Count on the last Wednesday of January. This count includes a survey of the unsheltered and sheltered homeless populations, as well as a Housing Inventory Count (HIC) of beds and units dedicated to homeless individuals. The PIT Count provides valuable information about homelessness and is used by various organizations and policy makers to address the issue.
The latest full report, before PIT Count methodologies were changed, found a total of 2,165 people experiencing homelessness in Lane County, where Eugene and Springfield are the two largest cities. Of these, 1,633 were unsheltered, 426 were in emergency shelters, and 106 were in transitional housing. The count also revealed an increase in the number of homeless individuals compared to the previous years, with the majority being unsheltered.
The count highlighted several subpopulations, including 197 homeless veterans, 26 unaccompanied homeless youth, and 84 families with children left without shelter. It also revealed that 30.9% of all people counted reported struggling with substance abuse, while 69.1% reported living with a mental illness. Additionally, the count provided insight on chronic homelessness in Lane County with 38% of all homeless individuals being considered chronically homeless.
Dialing in and focusing on the Eugene, Oregon area specifically, the Homeless by Names List (HBNL) reported 3,136 people that were receiving services as of January 2022. This is noteworthy considering the homelessness population of the entire county was significantly less than this only a few years prior. The HBNL data reveals that adult households with children represent 24% of the homelessness population in Eugene, while youth under 25 account for 16% of those receiving homeless services. Furthermore, veterans make up 7% of the homeless population, and Black, Indigenous, and People of Color account for 18% of those experiencing homelessness in Eugene. Additionally, 61 unsheltered individuals identified as experiencing and trying to flee domestic violence situations. The remaining population relying on services consist of people with disabilities, unaccompanied youth, and those experiencing severe housing cost burden putting them at a higher risk of homelessness. Without taking responsibility for the current conditions and utilizing architecture to work towards a solution rather than in a hostile way towards the unhoused, the homelessness crisis will only continue to worsen.
Supportive Services
The City of Eugene has been actively engaged in efforts to address and end homelessness through the implementation of supportive services. These initiatives include emergency shelters, temporary shelter programs such as overnight parking, and rest stops for safe sleeping. These efforts reflect the city’s commitment to addressing homelessness and providing temporary relief and support avoiding utilizing strategies related to hostile design.
Emergency shelters have played a crucial role in providing immediate shelter and support for individuals experiencing homelessness in Eugene. Organizations such as St. Vincent de Paul and the Eugene Mission have been at the forefront of operating and managing these shelters, offering beds, meals, and basic amenities to those seeking refuge.
St. Vincent de Paul Society of Lane County and the Eugene Mission have emerged as key players in the ongoing efforts to end the homeless crisis in Eugene. Both organizations have demonstrated a strong commitment to addressing the multifaceted challenges faced by individuals experiencing homelessness and have made significant contributions to the community’s initiatives.
St. Vincent de Paul Society of Lane County is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing housing and supportive services to individuals experiencing homelessness. They have seen much success with their operation of the Eugene Service Station, which includes emergency shelters specific to men, women, and families to offer a safe and secure environment for those seeking immediate shelter. Additionally, their comprehensive range of supportive services, such as case management, employment assistance, and mental health support, encourages individuals to overcome barriers and work towards long term stability. By addressing both the immediate needs and the underlying causes contributing to homelessness, St. Vincent de Paul has been instrumental in making a positive impact (“Supportive Services”, St. Vincent De Paul).
Similarly, the Eugene Mission has played a pivotal role in supporting efforts to end homelessness in Eugene. Founded in 1953, the Eugene Mission has a long standing history of serving the homeless population. Through its emergency shelter program, they have been able to provide individuals in need with a safe place to stay, accompanied by essential resources such as meals, clothing, and restroom and shower facilities. Moreover, the organization also offers additional services and programs to help address the root causes of homelessness. These include case management, referrals, and support for finding stable housing and employment. By taking a comprehensive approach and working collaboratively with other organizations and community volunteers, the Eugene Mission has significantly contributed to the community’s efforts towards ending homelessness (Eugene Mission).
Both of the organizations mentioned above have demonstrated a commitment to holistic solutions and community engagement. Additionally, they have established partnerships, developed prevention programs, and engaged in advocacy to address homelessness comprehensively. Through their collective efforts, these organizations have made a significant impact on the lives of individuals experiencing homelessness and have been crucial in advancing the community’s goal of ending homelessness in Eugene, Oregon.
In addition to support from non-profit organizations, the City of Eugene website gives an overview of the variety of different programs implemented meant to provide shelter for the vast group of people struggling with housing stability. The first of these was the “Dusk to Dawn” initiative, started in 2012 and geared towards offering a safe and supervised place for individuals to sleep during the nighttime hours when other shelters may be either at capacity or even closed. This specific program aims at providing a temporary shelter option for those who need it but are unable to access traditional shelters or perhaps simply prefer not to stay in them. It offers a low barrier approach, meaning individuals are allowed to enter the shelter regardless of their sobriety, mental health conditions, or other factors that may limit their access to conventional shelters. The program also provides basic amenities such as restrooms, showers, and storage for personal belongings.
Dusk to Dawn has since evolved to meet the ever changing needs of the homeless population. In the earlier years, the shelter consisted of only temporary campsites where individuals were able to set up their personal tents, however in recent years, there has been a shift towards more structured and managed sites to offer increased safety and support for participants. The program of course has also expanded its capacity to accommodate the increasing rate of individuals seeking overnight shelter. With time, the program has also advanced to be available year round rather than being limited to the colder months and only operating November through April.
Since this initiative was started, it has played a crucial role in providing a safe and regulated environment where individuals can sleep, rest, and access necessary resources. It offers a supportive setting during the nighttime hours for individuals who would otherwise be sleeping on the streets or in other unsafe conditions leaving themselves particularly vulnerable. By providing a temporary respite and access to basic amenities, the Dusk to Dawn program is an essential component contributing to ending homelessness in Eugene.
Similarly, the Rest Stop initiative was started soon after in 2013 providing additional safe designated spaces for people to seek temporary shelter. This program shares many qualities with the Dusk to Dawn program discussed previously, however it has additional amenities such as trash collection and even shared kitchen facilities. These additional resources suggest that Rest Stops are available and welcome for individuals to stay for a longer period of time compared to a single night through the Dusk to Dawn Program. By offering longer stays, the Eugene Rest Stop program offers individuals experiencing homelessness a sense of stability, security, and community living while they work towards finding a more permanent housing solution.
The issue of camping by the homeless population has been a complex and contentious topic, hence the reason programs like the above are so critical. From a historical perspective, camping laws against the homeless population in Eugene, Oregon can be characterized by a series of policies and ordinances aimed at regulating camping and sleeping in public spaces. These laws have of course evolved over time, reflecting the city’s response to the challenges posed by homelessness and the desire to balance the needs of the community with the rights and well being of individuals experiencing homelessness.
One noteworthy camping law in Eugene was the implementation of the “Camping Ordinance” in 2018. Under this ordinance, camping on any public property, including parks, sidewalks, and other city owned spaces, was prohibited between the hours of 7:00 AM and 9:30 PM. The goal of this ordinance was to address the concerns related to public health, safety, and the use of public spaces.
The enforcement of such camping laws however has faced criticism from advocacy groups and individuals who argue that such measures criminalize homelessness and exacerbate the challenges faced by those without stable housing. Critics also argue that these laws can perpetuate a cycle of displacement and make it even more difficult for individuals experiencing homelessness to access basic necessities and services. Additionally, members of the general community have expressed concerns about the impact of such laws on the homeless population. They argue that punitive measures do not address the underlying causes of homelessness and can further marginalize vulnerable individuals. These concerns are proven true based on the 2019 PIT count for Lane County. Figure 2 graphically shows the amount of people experiencing homelessness, including those who are unsheltered, in emergency shelters, and transitional housing. There is a clear downward trend starting in 2012 when programs like the Dusk to Dawn and Rest Stops were implemented in Eugene, however as a direct result to the new camping ordinance in 2018, there is a large spike in the amount of unsheltered people recorded in 2019.
On the other hand, the implementation of such camping laws has prompted reactions from the general community with some members strongly supporting the laws. They find it necessary for maintaining cleanliness and safety in public spaces. They believe that regulating camping can help protect the rights and interests of the broader community. The issue of camping laws has sparked ongoing discussions and debates within the community. Balancing the concerns of public health, safely, and the rights of individuals both in the community and individuals experiencing homelessness continues to be an ongoing conversation, with efforts focused on finding sustainable and compassionate solutions.
One of these solutions includes implementing Safe Sleep Sites, an initiative started in 2020 as a response to the camping bans and rise in unsheltered homeless population. This program offers supervised locations where individuals can sleep, ensuring their safety and minimizing the risks associated with sleeping on the streets. The Safe Sleep Site program also provides an alternative option for those who may not have access to traditional shelters or prefer a more secure, and community based living environment. These sites are typically managed by nonprofit organizations, such as St. Vincent de Paul and Eugene Mission as previously mentioned, teamed with other community partners. These partnerships have been essential in providing the necessary resources, infrastructure, and support services to ensure the success of these sites.
Safe Sleep sites offer a structured and supervised environment that prioritizes safety, community, and access to basic amenities. They often include designated sleeping areas, shared kitchens, restrooms, and common spaces for residents to interact. Additionally, supportive services such as case management, counseling, and employment assistance are provided to help individuals secure stable housing and regain self-sufficiency. Since its inceptions, the Safe Sleep Site Program has expanded to include multiple locations throughout Eugene, offering a multitude of individuals a safer alternative to sleeping on the streets. It is an integral part to the community’s efforts to address the immediate needs of individuals experiencing homelessness and provide them with a supportive environment.
Transitional Housing
Transitional housing is an additional component critical in addressing the homeless crisis in Eugene; providing individuals and families with a temporary and supportive living environment while they work towards obtaining stable, permanent housing is an important step towards a solution. This form of housing aims to bridge the gap between emergency shelters, such as those previously discussed, and long term housing solutions by offering more structured and comprehensive supportive services.
Programs that fall into the transitional housing category typically provide residents with stable housing for a defined period, usually ranging from a few months up to a couple of years, depending on individual needs and program requirements. During their stay, residents receive case management, counseling, life skills training, employment assistance, and other supportive services that help them address the underlying causes of their homelessness and develop the necessary skills for self sufficiency (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development).
In the context of Eugene, Oregon, transitional housing programs have been implemented by various organizations and agencies to support individuals and families experiencing homelessness. St. Vincent de Paul of Lane County is of course one of many of such organizations as they remain a key player in making efforts to help aid and end the homelessness in Eugene. Programs like these provide a safe and stable environment for individuals to rebuild their lives and work towards securing permanent housing.
Transitional housing has been recognized as an effective intervention in addressing homelessness and facilitating successful outcomes for participants. Studies have shown that individuals who access transitional housing ultimately experience improved housing stability, increased income, and reduced rates of homelessness in the future (Shinn, et al.).
Moreover, these programs contribute to cost savings by reducing the use of emergency shelter services and other costly interventions associated with chronic homelessness (Shinn, et al.). The provision of comprehensive support services in transitional housing settings can help individuals overcome common barriers, such as mental health issues, and substance abuse, leading to positive long term outcomes. Furthermore, programs like this generally have a positive reaction from the general community as they help provide an alternative to homeless individuals sleeping in the street while also maintaining the public health and safety.
It is important, however, to also acknowledge the challenges and limitations of transitional housing. The availability of such housing units are often limited, leading to long waiting lists and insufficient capacity to meet the high demand. Funding constraints and the need for ongoing support services present additional challenges in sustaining transitional housing programs over time. To address these limitations and enhance the effectiveness of transitional housing, efforts have been made to integrate additional approaches, prioritize rapid rehousing strategies, as well as coordinate as much as possible with other homeless service providers. These strategies all aim to minimize the length of stay in transitional housing and expedite the transition to permanent housing solutions (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development).
Overall, transitional housing plays a crucial role in supporting individuals and families experiencing homelessness by providing them with a stable and supportive environment to rebuild their lives. By also addressing the underlying cause of their homelessness and equipping participants with the necessary skills, transitional housing programs contribute to long term housing stability and self sufficiency.
Emerald Village Eugene is a notable transitional housing community that has garnered attention for its success in supporting the large population of people experiencing homelessness. This case study highlights the key features and accomplishments of Emerald Village Eugene, showcasing its innovative approach and positive outcomes.
Emerald Village Eugene, also known simply as Emerald Village, is a community based transitional housing project developed by SquareOne Villages, another popular nonprofit organization in Eugene. As outlined on their website, it offers affordable, sustainable, and supportive housing for individuals transitioning out of homelessness. It also supports individuals who are coming out of incarceration and need a chance to get back on their feet. The community consists of a variety of tiny homes seen in figure 3, which are small, self contained dwellings designed to provide privacy and comfort.
One of the primary goals of Emerald Village is to create a supportive environment where residents can regain stability and start to rebuild their lives. The community provides a range of supportive services, including case management, employment assistance, access to healthcare, and life skills training. These services are tailored to meet the unique needs of each individual, empowering them to overcome barriers and achieve long term housing stability.
Emerald Village has been recognized for its success in achieving positive outcomes for its residents. According to a report by the University of Oregon, residents of Emerald Village experience significant improvements in housing stability, mental health, and overall well being. The report also highlighted the strong sense of community and mutual support among residents, contributing to a supportive and empowering living environment.
Moreover, Emerald Village has demonstrated the potential of tiny home communities as a cost effective and scalable solution to address homelessness. The relatively low cost of constructing and maintaining tiny homes, combined with the supportive services and resources provided, allows for a sustainable model that can easily be replicated and utilized in other communities.
The success of Emerald Village can be attributed to various factors. Its community based approach fosters a sense of belonging and mutual support among residents, creating a supportive atmosphere for personal growth and development. Additionally, the collaboration between SquareOne Villages, local government, and other community organizations has been instrumental in securing funding, resources, and community support for the project.
All in all, Emerald Village serves as a promising model for transitional housing communities, showcasing the positive impact that supportive, affordable housing can have on individuals experiencing homelessness. Its success highlights the importance of combining housing with comprehensive supportive services to address the underlying cause of homelessness and promote long term stability. Since its implementation, other organizations in Eugene have adopted the same or similar strategies to offer additional transitional housing communities in Eugene, Oregon.
Permanent Supportive Housing
Permanent supportive housing (PSH) has also proven to be an effective approach to addressing chronic homelessness by combining affordable housing with supportive services. This section discusses the key aspects as well as benefits of the permanent supportive housing initiative and how it can be a helpful approach to combat homelessness without utilizing hostile design.
Permanent supportive housing refers to the provision of long term, affordable housing coupled with wraparound services tailored to meet the needs of individuals experiencing chronic homelessness, particularly those with complex challenges such as mental illness, substance use disorders, or even disabilities. The primary goal of permanent supportive housing programs is to provide a stable and supportive living environment that enables individuals to maintain housing stability and improve their overall well being (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development).
Numerous studies have demonstrated the positive impact of permanent supportive housing on individuals and communities. Research has consistently shown that such programs reduce homelessness, decreases emergency room visits, lowers incarceration rates, and improves overall health outcomes (Gilmer, et al.). By providing stable housing and easy access to supportive services, permanent supportive housing solutions address the root causes of homelessness and promotes recovery and self sufficiency.
A notable example of successful permanent supportive housing is the Housing First Model. Housing First prioritizes providing immediate access to stable housing, without imposing any preconditions such as sobriety or compliance with treatment. This approach recognizes that housing stability is a fundamental first step in addressing other challenges faced by individuals experiencing chronic homelessness. Implemented in multiple cities across the United States, Housing First models have demonstrated remarkable success in reducing homelessness and improving quality of life outcomes for participants. A study evaluating this model found that participants in permanent supportive housing experienced significant reductions in homelessness, emergency service utilization, substance use, and psychiatric symptoms.
In addition to the positive outcomes for the individuals participating in the program, permanent supportive housing has also proven to be a cost effective solution. Research has shown that it reduces public spending on emergency services, such as hospitals and jails, as people experiencing chronic homelessness often utilize these services at higher rates than the general population (Basu, et al.).
The implementation of permanent supportive housing requires collaborations between housing providers, healthcare organizations, social services agencies, and local government entities. Additionally, it requires the availability of affordable housing units, funding for support services, and policies that support development and sustainability of such programs.
Overall, permanent supportive housing has emerged as a critical and effective strategy in addressing chronic homelessness. By combining affordable housing with tailored support services, these kinds of programs offer a pathway to stability, improved health outcomes, and long term housing retention for individuals experiencing homelessness.
The Commons on MLK in Eugene, Oregon, is a successful example of permanent supportive housing program that utilizes the Housing First Model. It is a result of a sustained partnership between the community and healthcare stakeholders, aiming to address chronic homelessness with Housing First initiatives and trauma informed design.
This project is part of a strategic housing plan developed by the Housing and Homelessness Board in 2016 to create 600 additional housing opportunities for chronically homeless individuals with particular needs. The commons on MLK aligns with various strategic plans, including the Lane County Poverty and Homelessness Board Strategic Plan, the Community Health Improvement Plan, and the Lane County Strategic Plan.
Partnerships have been key to the success of The Commons on MLK. The Housing is Healthcare Coalition, consisting of organizations such as Lane County, Homes for Good, Sheltercare, PeaceHealth, Trillium Community Health Plan, Kaiser Permanente, and PacificSource, has played a vital role in supporting and funding the project. This is a prime example of the type and amount of community support it takes to make projects like this possible. Furthermore, the project was funded through a variety of sources, including tax credits, federal and local funding, and private grants. The city of Eugene also contributed funds and exempted the project from development charges, while other organizations, including the ones listed above, also provided funding support.
As previously mentioned, The Commons on MLK follows the Housing First initiative, meaning they prioritize a permanent housing solution for people experiencing homelessness and provide in house services and support. It also does a great job of recognizing and addressing peoples basic needs, including the idea that housing and food are essential before attending to other challenges individuals may face.
The complex, shown in figure 4, officially opened in February of 2021 offering 51 units to be filled and an array of supportive services available to tenants. ShelterCare provides support services such as behavioral health support, ongoing case management, assisted rent, peer support, and connections to the community, all of which help tenants stay in housing and achieve self sufficiency. The specific design of The Commons on MLK reflects a trauma informed approach, acknowledging the likelihood of residents having experienced trauma while living on the streets. Design elements include expansive windows, calming colors, private rooms for peer support, and a courtyard with water features all coming together to create a healing environment.
Due to the large population of people experiencing homelessness, placement into the Commons on MLK does not work on a first come first serve basis the same way a typical residence would. Instead, placement into this type of housing is done through referrals from Lane County’s Centralized Waitlist. This is essentially a master list of every individual currently struggling with homelessness based on shelter counts across the city. This list, however, prioritizes placing individuals who are experiencing chronic homelessness as well as those who are high utilizers of the crisis systems. From the city’s point of view, these are the individuals who need stable housing the most. Additionally, just because these individuals are trying to get back on their feet and recover from being homeless does not mean they get to live here at no cost. Rent at the Commons on MLK is income based, ensuring affordability for all tenants. Since many homeless individuals have no income, they receive project based vouchers that allow them to live there, while those with income pay no more than 30% of their total income. Additionally, to qualify for housing, potential tenants must have an income that is 50% or less than that of the average median income in Eugene (Trillium Community Health Plan).
In the few years this project has been opened, it has been deemed quite successful. It effectively highlights the importance of sustained community partnerships, evidence based strategic planning, and the need for ongoing support and services to address homelessness effectively. Furthermore, based on this project’s success, there have since been additional Permanent Supportive Housing projects that utilize the Housing First model built in Eugene, Oregon to continue efforts in ending the homelessness crisis.
Conclusion
The issue of homelessness in Eugene, Oregon is a complex problem influenced by historical events, economic conditions, and government policies. The city’s current state of overwhelmingly high levels of homelessness reflects a lack of affordable housing, alongside factors such as mental illness and substance abuse. Moreover, the presence of hostile architecture further exacerbates the challenges faced by the unhoused population. By understanding the historical context, including the impact of the Industrial Revolution, urban renewal, the Great Depression, and zoning law challenges, we can gain insights into the root causes of homelessness and work towards comprehensive solutions that ensure secure and stable housing for all.
Understanding the complexity of homelessness is crucial to comprehending the issues faced in Eugene. Homelessness encompasses various definitions and categories, including sheltered and unsheltered homelessness, as well as chronic homelessness. Demographically, people experiencing homelessness in Eugene include individuals struggling with mental health, veterans, individuals with disabilities, racial/ethnic groups, individuals suffering from substance addiction, unaccompanied youth, young adults, and even families with children.
The Lane County Homeless Point in Time Count Provides valuable information about homelessness in the area. The latest report indicated an increase in homelessness compared to previous years, with a majority being unsheltered. It also highlighted subpopulations such as homeless veterans, unaccompanied homeless youth, families with children, and individuals struggling with substance abuse or mental illness.
Supportive services play a critical role in addressing the homeless crisis in Eugene. Non-profit organizations like St. Vincent de Paul Society of Lane County and the Eugene Mission have been instrumental in providing emergency shelters, case management, employment assistance, and mental health support. These organizations work collaboratively with other agencies, community volunteers, and the city of Eugene to offer holistic solutions and advocate for homelessness prevention.
Programs like Dusk to Dawn and Rest Stops provide temporary shelter options for individuals who cannot access traditional shelters. These initiatives prioritize safety, basic amenities, and a low-barrier approach to accommodate individuals with different needs and preferences. Furthermore, the Safe Sleep Site program offers supervised locations where individuals can sleep, ensuring their safety and minimizing risks associated with sleeping on the streets. These sites provide structured environments, supportive services, and community based living to help individuals secure stable housing and regain self-sufficiency.
Transitional housing programs in Eugene aim to bridge the gap between emergency shelters and permanent housing solutions. Organizations like St. Vincent de Paul of Lane County provide stable housing and comprehensive supportive services to help individuals address the underlying causes of their homelessness and develop the necessary skills for self sufficiency. Studies have shown that such transitional housing interventions lead to improved housing stability, increased income, and reduced rates of future homelessness.
Permanent Supportive Housing has also proven to be an effective approach in addressing the homelessness by combining affordable housing with supportive services. Success has been found utilizing the Housing First Model, which prioritizes immediate access to stable housing without preconditions such as sobriety. The availability of affordable housing units, supportive services, and collaborative efforts among housing providers, healthcare organizations, social services agencies, and local government entities are crucial for the implementation of permanent supportive housing. Creating a healing environment to help individuals achieve stability and self sufficiency is key.
In conclusion, addressing homelessness in Eugene, Oregon requires a multifaceted approach that includes understanding the demographics, implementing supportive services, and providing transitional and permanent housing options. By recognizing the unique needs of individuals experiencing homelessness and working together as a community, Eugene can continue to strive towards a viable solution that doesn’t involve hostile architecture to end the homeless crisis.
Bibliography:
Basu, Anirban, et al. “Comparative Cost Analysis of Housing and Case Management Program for Chronically Ill Homeless Adults Compared to Usual Care.” Health Services Research, vol. 47, no. 1pt2, 2011, pp. 523-543.
DePastino, Todd. Citizen Hobo : How a Century of Homelessness Shaped America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003. Print.
Eggiman, Matthew. Homelessness in Eugene: An Exploration of Our City’s Most Pressing Issue. 2020. MA thesis.
Housing Implementation Pipeline. City of Eugene – Planning & Development Dept., 2022.
“Emerald Village.” SquareOne Villages, www.squareonevillages.org/emerald.
Eugene Mission – Rescue + Revitalize + Restore, 24 June 2020, www.eugenemission.org.
Gilmer, Todd P., et al. “Effect of Full-Service Partnerships on Homelessness, Use and Costs of Mental Health Services, and Quality of Life Among Adults With Serious Mental Illness.” Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 67, no. 6, 2010, p. 645.
Henry, Meghan, et al. The 2019 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2020,
HUD.gov / U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), www.hud.gov.
Kusmer, Kenneth L. Down & Out, on the Road : the Homeless in American History. Oxford ;: Oxford University Press, 2002. Print.
“Lane County Shelter Feasibility Study.” Eugene, OR Website | Official Website, Technical Assistance Collaborative, Dec. 2018.
Lewis, Aaron M. “They Just Want the Eyesore Gone”: Evictions and Belonging in Eugene’s Washington Jefferson Park Houseless Encampment. 2022. MA thesis.
Oregon’s 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness. Oregon Ending Homelessness Advisory Council, 2008.
“Shelter.” Eugene, OR Website | Official Website, www.eugene-or.gov/4903/Shelter.
Shinn, Marybeth, et al. “Predictors of Homelessness among Older Adults in New York City.” Journal of Health Psychology, vol. 12, no. 5, 2007, pp. 696-708.
“Supportive Services | Here to Help | St. Vincent De Paul.” St. Vincent De Paul, 20 Dec. 2022, www.svdp.us/services/.
Trillium Community Health Plan. “Addressing Chronic Homelessness.” 20 Sept. 2022, Presentation.
by rking3 | Jun 16, 2023
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.
by lsmith21 | Jun 16, 2023
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.