May 29, 2025 | 1940s, 2020s, reaction paper, Week 9
Architecture has a long history of creating borders for people. Walls create spaces that separate us from each other, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and most buildings are designed for very specific groups of people. The most popular, in recent years, has been defensible architecture, specifically against the homeless population. Boulders under bridges, excessive armrests on benches, and subtle spikes on planters are just a few examples of the many, architects have designed to prevent homeless people from camping out. The growing awareness of this type of architecture, however, is slowly changing the way architects design and the way people view public spaces.
Figure 1: A table stretching across a small border between a park and the rest of the city.
Installation Border-Crossing, Lugano, Switzerland, 2024
Figure 1 shows an example of an architect attempting to create more connections in spaces and break down the borders. The installation is a large table that stretches across a border connecting the two sides. People are huddled around the table, working on a project collectively.
Figure 2: An advertisement for a fence as added security to a home.
House Beautiful, April 1940, p. 99
“24-Hour Protection and Privacy for Your Home or Estate”
Security has always been taught as an important feature to have in our homes, community spaces, and public spaces. A fence is one way to create a border between you and others. An interesting observation is that the wealthier a residence is, the more closed off it is from the public. People who are living in poverty tend to have little to no privacy and security, yet they often have much stronger communities.
May 29, 2025 | 1990s, Week 9
In the article “Defensive Landscape Architecture in Modern Public Spaces,” Chris Binnington and Alessio Russo talk about how the increasing use of defensive landscape architecture undermines the inclusivity and accessibility of public urban spaces. It is very common for people to justify using these design elements as crime prevention measures, which means marginalizing vulnerable groups such as the homeless, the youth, and people with disabilities. In order for a place to be fully sustainable, the writers agree that it must adopt a holistic design approach where social inclusion and community engagement are priorities over exclusionary tactics. Binnington and Russo are advocates for public spaces to be designed for coexistence rather than separation as a result of hostile design.
One main point made is how defensive designs often target specific groups as a way to deter them from certain public spaces. Elements like absent materials, benches with armrests, and anti-homeless spikes are placed with the intention of making spaces uncomfortable for people to exist in them. While to some degree, they can serve as safety enhancements, they are more effective in criminalizing poverty and youth culture, thus emphasizing and contributing to social inequalities. One example of this is the use of bright lights and security cameras to deter people from sleeping in spaces and from hanging out as if they feel like they are being watched they won’t want to spend time there.
Another point is how inclusive design can serve as a viable alternative to defensive architecture. In the Folkets Park in Copenhagen, there was a community wide renovation which introduced armless benches allowing people to sleep on them and lighting which was zoned to create a balance of safety. Another example was in Melbourne’s urban planning, they incorporated skateboarding facilities into public spaces as it is a big part of the culture. Both of these are examples of ways that spaces can be effectively designed to both be safe and welcoming for a diverse community without having to use exclusionary design practices.
Figure 1. Anti-homeless bench
https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/designing-for-typologies/hostile-architecture-anti-homeless-architecture/
This photo shows an example of a bench that falls under the category of hostile design. Some reasons for this is the material being metal makes it really hot in the summer cause it isn’t under a cover and makes it really cold in the winter and the shape of it makes it uncomfortable to sit on or lay on.
Picture
Figure 2. Enclosed Fence
House Beautiful, July 1990, volume 132, no, 7, pg 61
This could be seen as an example of hostile design using a fence to keep people in and out as a way of defining the boundary of where people are not allowed to cross.
May 29, 2025 | 1990s, 2020s, reaction paper, Week 9
Summary/Takeaway
In the article “Defensive Landscape Architecture in Modern Public Spaces,” written by Chris Binnington and Alessio Russo, they argue that the increasing use of defensive design elements like spikes, separated benches, etc., diminishes inclusivity and accessibility in public spaces. These actions are usually used to target groups like the homeless or skateboarders, excluding them from areas meant for communal use. The authors say that these actions conflict with the Sustainable Development Goals which advocate for safe and inclusive public spaces for all. For example in the UK, there are many skate stoppers or other physical obstacles to prevent skateboarders from using their surfaces. While these obstacles are primarily used to protect property, this alienates the youth and disrupts social dynamics of public spaces. The article also presents case studies where inclusive design has been successfully implemented. For instance in Copenhagen’s Folkets Park, the community redesigned the park to accommodate diverse user needs, including the homeless through changes like zoned lighting and inclusive seating.
Application
Figure 1 illustrates how hostile architecture in Paris like anti homeless benches and concrete blocks pushed unhoused people out of public spaces ahead of the 2024 Olympics
WIRED
One recent example of defensive landscape architecture is the installation of large concrete blocks beneath the Pont de Stains bridge in Aubervilliers for the 2024 Olympic Games. This area used to be used as a shelter for many individuals including migrants and homeless people but in July 2024, authorities cleared the encampment and replaced it with immovable concrete blocks to prevent reoccupation. Although this was meant to make the city and area seem “clean” many argue that it’s actually a form of hostile architecture without offering sustainable housing solutions. This also showcases the concerns brought up by Binnington and Russo where the use of defensive design elements actually take away inclusivity and accessibility from public spaces.
Figure 2 explores the challenges of recreating traditional English style borders in American climates revealing how garden aesthetics can reflect access to resources that only some can afford
House Beautiful, November 1991, vol. 202, pg 32
Getting Real About Borders
The November 1991 “House Beautiful” article “Getting Real About Borders” by Ken Druse reflects the themes from Binnington and Russo’s “Defensive Landscape Architecture in Modern Public Spaces” through its showcasing of English style borders. While the article celebrates the beauty of mixed plantings, it also highlights the challenges of recreating and maintaining the design. Since these designs need constant maintenance, constant staff attention, and constant pruning, it makes the landscape exclusive and only available to the privileged. This reflects the critique in Binnington and Russo’s article where they discuss that certain landscape designs are visually appealing but have the ability to exclude less privileged users.
Comparison
The current case in Paris, with large concrete blocks placed under a bridge to steer away homeless people is a clear example of defensive design as it uses harsh materials to keep certain people out of a public space. In comparison, the House Beautiful article from November 1991 talks about English-style gardens that, while beautiful, are hard to maintain and remain somewhat exclusive. These gardens aren’t physically exclusive, but they still create barriers as only people with enough resources can realistically have them. While the current case in Paris is more aggressive and seen from the public eye, the House Beautiful case still connects even though it is more private. Both cases simply use design that excludes others whether it was meant to or not.
May 29, 2025 | 1930s, 2020s, reaction paper, Week 9
Binnington, Chris, and Alessio Russo in, Defensive Landscape Architecture in Modern Public Spaces, suggests defensible landscapes are becoming ever more imbedded in the design approach of cities. These spaces do their best to appear as open and accepting as any other typical public space, but contain features which subtly hint at the acceptable activities within the space. Defensible landscape has become more radically exclusionary to unwanted groups of individuals who are considered disruptive in the public realm. Beginning with skateboarders in the 90s, architectural approaches have been taken to actively stop the unwanted acts of a group individuals in order to avoid the broken window theory. Slowly these approaches began to include the homeless population which often finds shelter on benches or under eaves for sleeping and protection from the weather, ultimately treating these individuals as if they were crimes waiting to happen. With the inclusion of said features becoming more common place, the public space no longer becomes public, and becomes a limbo between public and private, controlling the actions of specific individuals who interact with a space on a daily basis.
I agree with the message of Defensive Landscape Architecture in Modern Public Spaces, as rather than exploring the root cause of homelessness, like rising housing costs, and the decline of access to metal health facilities, hostile architecture has become a socially acceptable way to reject the homeless population from the general population. Not only is this simply suppressing a largely growing population, it is also avoiding tackling the problem from its source, and is creating an acceptable erasure of this group of people’s existence entirely. Overtime, anti-homeless elements in the built environment have become synonymous with criminal activity. These notions have taken a physical effect of not only anti-homeless, but now anti-thief features in public spaces becoming far more common. This approaches can be as subtle as “armrests” on benches, to as overt as CCTV cameras placed in view, to discourage any unwanted activity or groups. As someone who used to skateboard though high school and undergrad, features of hostile design aren’t always as obvious as expected, and often time go unnoticed unless one trains their eye to see these exclusionary elements. Powerful places are vital to the creation of a successful city, but just as important, are the spaces in-between those places, the public realm, the stitch that knits the urban fabric together into one.
Figure 1. Stuart Semple’s life-size poster plastered over common anti-homeless features in public spaces.
Stuart Semple Calls Out Hostile Architecture with Powerful OOH Campaign
Stuart Semple, a British artist, has taken it upon himself to call out the hostile design features he has noticed in cities. With bold text, and powerful life-size imagery, Semple punctures large posters over anti-homeless spikes highlighting how these features can become invisible in the built environment unless you are looking for them. He wishes to bring attention to the hostile nature of these spaces, and highlight the otherwise understated, violent aspect to this approach of exclusionary design. Rather than taking the steps to aid homelessness, these aspects of the built environment aim to erase houseless groups from the public view, allowing for the avoidance and pushing away of a rapidly increasing problem that has no clear or simple solution.
Figure 2. General Electric refrigerator ad
HouseBeautiful 1930: Vol 68 Iss 5, p.26
Caption: “You can AFFORD the economical General Electric Refrigerator
Though HouseBeautiful was created far before any contemporary notion of anti-homeless measures, the magazine itself is exclusionary to that very same group of people. Being a homeowner is one a barrier of entry to be included in many aspects of a community. When large groups of individuals find themselves rejected from spaces due to their lack of financial means, or access to mental health care, this can be grounds to create ostracized, radicalized, and villainized groups. Much like the older copies of HouseBeautiful including only white, homeowners in their advertisements and articles, that space becomes inherently exclusionary to any other group of people who do not fall under that category. Obviously, this example is on a much smaller scale compared to the current homeless situation of any major city, but the message stays the same — rejection from society further pushes individuals who need help away, rather than encouraging seeking the help that is needed to live a dignified, comfortable life.
May 29, 2025 | Week 9
1) Reading Summary/Takeaway
A major takeaway from “Defensive Landscape Architecture in Modern Public Spaces” by Binnington and Russo is that many urban public spaces are designed less to support community and more to control who has access to them. While these designs are often justified as crime prevention, they mostly target specific groups, especially the unhoused and youth, by making spaces uncomfortable or inaccessible. The authors point out that this kind of design, often referred to as “defensive” or “hostile,” reflects broader trends of privatization, where public spaces are increasingly shaped by commercial and aesthetic interests.
One example discussed is the use of “skate-stoppers” and anti-homeless spikes in Bristol, UK. These design elements are built directly into benches, ledges, and sidewalks, often disguised as artistic or decorative. But their purpose is clear—to discourage behavior like sleeping, resting, or skateboarding. These physical barriers don’t solve social problems; they just push them out of sight.
2) Application (Current and Historical Cases + Comparison)
Current Case: Benches Outside Penn Station, NYC
Right outside Penn Station in New York, a row of metal benches makes a clear statement—this space isn’t meant for rest. The benches are divided by multiple armrests, making it impossible to lie down. On paper, it might look like standard urban furniture, but in practice, it’s a form of defensive design that discourages anyone, especially unhoused individuals, from staying too long. It’s a space designed for passing through, not for being in.
.
Figure 1. Segmented metal benches outside Penn Station are designed to prevent prolonged rest.
Image by author
Historical Case: Mid-Century Living Room from House Beautiful
In a 1954 issue of House Beautiful, a full-page spread shows a living room built for comfort. The furniture is deep and soft, arranged to invite conversation and lingering. The space is open and flexible—designed for rest, for hospitality, and for people to feel at ease. In contrast to the harshness of defensive public design, this living room reflects a value system rooted in comfort and welcome.
Figure 2. A mid-century living room with low, plush seating designed for comfort and hospitality.
House Beautiful 1954, no. 9, p.87
“The right sofa makes any guest feel at home.”
Comparison
These two examples couldn’t be more different. One invites you in; the other quietly pushes you away. The Penn Station benches may seem neutral at first glance, but their design sends a strong message about who’s welcome and who’s not. The mid-century living room, on the other hand, assumes that people want to be together—that design should support community, not filter it. Together, they show how even small design choices can reflect big cultural priorities about who belongs where.
May 29, 2025 | 1930s, 2000s, 2010s, 2020s, Week 9
Reading Summary/Takeaway: In this article, Chris Binnington and Alessio Russo examine how defensive landscape architecture has evolved and explore best practices to ensure inclusion and safety in public spaces. Defensive or hostile architecture has been designed over time, but it experienced a rise in America in the 1900s when it was used as a tool to enforce racial segregation in projects such as the “Robert Moses” Eastern Motor Parkway Bridge. In the modern day, Binnington and Russo argue that “defensive landscape architecture elements are being redesigned to become seamlessly integrated within public space, becoming artistic features within the landscape attempting to mask their intended purpose (Borden, 2019, p. 232).” While defensive landscape architecture often denies the fundamental human rights of marginalized groups, it is usually rationalized with promises of improving safety and reducing crime. In the present day, the privatization of public domains has led to urban public spaces that are becoming increasingly focused on capitalist and consumer society. The privatization of public domains has enabled the curation of a desired image or environment, often excluding individuals such as the unhoused, who do not fit in the “ideal society.” Binnington and Russo suggest that to design successful inclusive public spaces, designers must move away from defensive landscape architecture to inclusive design in which “cultural spaces are accessible, inviting and exciting to use.”
Binnington and Russo offer multiple examples of public spaces that ensure inclusion and safety. The first example, Oppenheimer Park in Vancouver, designed by Space2Place, celebrated the “park’s historical significance while also welcoming the disadvantaged and homeless.” Through the creation of clear sightlines, all users have a sense of safety without isolating the homeless from the community. Another example is Griffiths Gardens in Auckland, New Zealand, which serves as a “multi-functional space where local office workers can eat lunch, children can play, and educational events” can take place. The design team also considered the experience of the homeless community, as seen in the presence of common planting boxes and a community fridge.
Application:
Historical Case: The “Robert Moses” Eastern Motor Parkway Bridge (Figure 1) is a prime example of hostile architecture that enforced racial segregation in America. Built in 1931, the bridge had a low clearance, restricting the size of motor vehicles that could drive underneath it to individual cars. The low clearance meant that buses, the main form of transportation for much of the African American population, could not fit underneath the bridge and further could not access certain parts of New York and Long Island. The demolition of the bridge in the late 1960s allowed for the construction of an updated bridge with a higher clearance, which could accommodate buses and other tall vehicles.
Figure 1. Photograph of “Robert Moses” Eastern Motor Parkway Bridge, which only had a tall enough clearance to accommodate individual cars, not public transportation.
Cannato, Vincent J. “A Bridge Too Far.” City Journal, 23 Mar. 2023. https://www.city-journal.org/article/a-bridge-too-far-2
Current Case: The Signal Station North Project (Figure 2) in Baltimore, Maryland, was a collaborative effort between the Neighborhood Design Center (NDC), local stakeholders, artists, and designers to develop a lighting plan for the Station North Arts District. By inviting community members into the design process, NDC was able to think beyond the functional aspects of light to create a lighting plan that prioritizes visibility for the comfort of all user groups, with the goal of building social interaction and community.
Figure 2. Rendering of Signal Station North lighting design project.
“Signal Station North: An Arts District’s Plan for Equitable Lighting.” The Neighborhood Design Center, ndc-md.org/case-study/signal-station-north-an-arts-districts-plan-for-equitable-lighting.
Comparison: The “Robert Moses” Eastern Motor Parkway Bridge (Figure 1) and the Signal Station North Project (Figure 2) illustrate the shift away from defensive landscape architecture and towards inclusive design, as Binnington and Russo argue in the article. The “Robert Moses” Eastern Motor Parkway Bridge was a project from the early 1930s that was intended to exclude a specific group. In comparison, the Signal Station North Project was designed with input from all stakeholders to create an inclusive environment for all users, further demonstrating the shift towards universal design in the twenty-first century.
