by caslan | May 30, 2023
Overview:
Hostile architecture is commonly found throughout the cityscape of Eugene. With a large unhoused population, the city, and many private business owners are anxious to remove any traces of homeless people from their sites. Since constant surveillance is costly and prone to error, examples of hostile architecture has been implemented to act as a deterrent to the majority of the unhoused population. Though some examples are more prevalent than others, such as spikes placed under cover, many instances go unnoticed as they shield themselves behind aesthetic or functional use.
Design 1:
This image shows surrounding context of the hostile architecture bench.
This image clearly shows the bench with an arm rest dividing the space preventing the unhoused people from sleeping under shelter.
This image shows the plan view of the bench and how the armrest is located in the middle on the right of the bench. There is no way around the armrest for a sleeping person.
This image shows the section view of the bench clearly indicating the armrest that divides the space.
Description:
The benches at the EMX Dad’s Gate station are good examples of hidden hostile design. In the middle of the benches are tall arm rests that are seldom used by the average bus rider. Instead the main purpose is to divide the bench up preventing homeless people from laying down to sleep at night under the shelter of the bus stop. The goal is meant to prevent loitering and gathering around the bus stop by unhoused people creating a “safer” and more welcoming environment for the remaining population. This architecture divides the population and clearly shows who is valued in this space.
by faithw | May 24, 2023
In the article, “The London Spikes Controversy: Homelessness, Urban Securitisation and the Question of ‘Hostile Architecture”, James Petty analyzes the bigger picture behind the implementation of ‘hostile architecture’ in urban areas and spaces. Petty begins the article by exploring the London 2014 controversy of the implementation of ‘anti-homeless spikes’. This controversy is discussed as a case study analysis that centers around the connection this controversy has to ‘urban securitization’ and ‘hostile architecture’. The article provokes and analyzes various questions related to multiple controversial issues. Many various architectural interventions are discussed with close attention to the controversy behind the installation of them. The article highlights the controversy with many issues other than the metal spikes. Although, all of these examples are related back to questioning the ethics, impact, marginalization, and overall relationship that ‘urban securitization’ and ‘hostile architecture’ have with social inequality. The discussion of ‘hostile architecture’ has on perpetuating social inequality through its negative implications that have caused a societal distaste stereotype on homelessness. Petty ends the article with the argument of ‘urban securitization’ and ‘hostile architecture’ perpetuating social inequality and provokes controversy around socio-political, governmental, ideological and socio-economic conditions that have supported the harsh rejection that has redefined the acceptance of ‘out of place’ homelessness.
Image of the Beer Garden’s discrete implementation of spiral razor wire on top of the palisade and promote hostile architecture.
The Beer Garden in Eugene, Oregon has implemented ‘hostile architecture’ through the very common spiral razor wire being implemented on top of the space’s surrounding palisade. I think that a large issue is the perception of stereotypes that are promoted by ‘urban securitization’ and ‘hostile architecture’ which have led to society overlooking implementations of ‘hostile architecture’ because it’s become so common. The rejection of accepting ‘out of place’ homelessness has become dominant throughout society making many people feel as though it’s necessary for their security and/or safety. The analysis provided in the reading, “The London Spikes Controversy: Homelessness, Urban Securitisation and the Question of ‘Hostile Architecture” by James Petty, is meant to provoke questioning and rethinking one’s perception and beliefs around ethics, impact, marginalization, and overall relationship to social inequality. With this mindset, the spiral razor wire represents rejection of accepting the ‘out of place’ homelessness and promoting social inequality. This mindset has flooded society and resulted in a very large and controversial issue on the perpetrating of social inequality that’s promoted many negative stereotypes around homelessness. This is argued to be done through the social control of feeling a need for ‘hostile architecture’ and ‘urban securitization’ which in this case, is supported by the feeling of necessity for spiral razor wire to provide a sense of safety.
by hpeters4 | May 24, 2023
READING SUMMARY
In the article, “The London Spikes Controversy”, by James Petty, public spaces and the idea of hostile architecture are discussed in relation to the idea of privatizing public spaces. Hostile Architecture is an urban design strategy that uses various structures either attached or installed to certain spaces in order to make the uninhabitable. Some examples of this are things like spikes, chairs, and benches that make lying down impossible and sprinklers in parks or other public areas. This type of design is called designing out, meaning designing out of certain identities and behaviors of categories of people from public spaces. In some places, the aesthetics of a place equals the overall health and quality of that place, as visible poverty is not only conducive to that idea but according to Petty can also be destructive to public spaces, then leading to hostile public spaces.
The spikes in London are an example of hostile architecture. Spikes were embedded into the ground around public spaces in order to deter the homeless population from sleeping near these places. The image of the city, therefore, takes priority over the well-being of others as well as creating spaces that feel hostile. Chairs and benches are also designed in a way that only allows for users to sit in them, and commonly for not long periods at a time. This is a way of making sure people can’t get comfortable and for them to be able to stay for a while, as well as rendering these places uninhabitable for sleeping. Sprinklers in parks or other public spaces are another example of this. Since sprinklers are on a timed setting they go off at certain times of the day throughout the week. This makes users unable to spend a lot of time in these places because there is a chance the sprinklers might go off, ruining whatever they were doing in the first place.
BUILDING INTERPRETATION
Looking at the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art is a very public place on campus meant for people to come and enjoy art. It’s a very public space, yet the architecture and design within and around the building suggest otherwise. The exterior of the building was designed for there to be no overhang and in a rainy state like Oregon
Exterior of JSMA
that is an important factor in a lot of buildings, but also in shelters. This building does not offer any form of relief from the weather unless you walk inside, and if a shelter is what you are seeking, an art museum wouldn’t be the first choice. To preserve the image of the building no form of shelter or rest surrounds the building, they have subtly made a way of privatizing public space.
When you walk inside, it doesn’t get much better, there is minimal to no furniture for sitting in any portion of the museum. There is however one unique bench piece, which in the reading was referred to as a “designer chair”
, meaning its only purpose is for aesthetic purposes rather than functional purposes. The bench isn’t meant for users to sit down, get comfy and stay a while. The furniture choices and lack thereof all indicate a sense of urgency and unwelcomeness in the space, by not allowing users to feel comfortable and create their own sense of purpose for the place. Which in the end is the ultimate goal, because we are designing for people, and the users are the
Interior of JSMA
ones who decide what makes a space special and unique.
by wkrois | May 24, 2023
Summary
In this article John Petty explored the idea of “hostile architecture,” and its continuous implementation specifically in London. Hostile Architecture is described as architecture and design that is installed in urban settings that is aimed to directly influence and control the activities of the public, and more intentionally the houseless population. It mentions how the metal spikes that are installed for “security” reasons on any exterior flat surface, make the outdoor space feel unwelcoming and uncomfortable, especially for the houseless population. There is an interesting dynamic between the public and the state, enforcing safety components against a marginalized group who are more often than not less safe than anyone else. Petty believes there is another solution to control the public and their activities in a less scary way. He explains that there has been activism against the spikes, with arguments that it is a breach of human rights to feel comfortable in the public realm regardless of your housing status. He emphasizes the importance of acknowledging and addressing the issue of social inequality and encouraging designers and city planners not to resort to “hostile architecture.”
A Seemingly Safe Public Oasis
The interior of any site, should, and most likely won’t have any “hostile architecture” designs. I chose the exterior of the Hult Center to analyze for this subject. Through my observation, the public realm of the outside of this building was very welcoming and comfortable. To my surprise, I didn’t see anyone using the public space, no houseless people, or civilians of any kind. It seemed to offer a quiet and private place, even though it is on the intersection of two very busy streets. It also is in close proximity to downtown and the bus station, where a lot of the houseless population resides. At this site there are a lot of covered spaces, a variety of heights, and even a secluded courtyard near the north of the building. There are no spikes and when I walked by there was no security or overwhelming surveillance that I noticed. I bet it is different when there is an event going on. Overall I feel like this center doesn’t threaten the human rights of the houseless population, and would allow anyone to feel welcome and comfortable in their public outdoor spaces it provides.
by ssoto2 | May 23, 2023
Main Point: The main idea that was talked about in this reading had to do with the design of cities and the way that the design turns a “public” space into a space that is no longer completely public. They talk a lot about hostile architecture and how it makes certain spaces unusable for certain groups of people. The example that they mentioned the most was the Anti-homeless spikes in London. They installed spikes on the ground of a public space so that homeless people could not sleep there. Some people find this concept of hostile architecture to be very disappointing. They believe that a public space should remain public, and when you do things, like adding anti-homeless spikes to the street, you aren’t eliminating homelessness you are just denying them the use of a certain space. People fear that homeless people are being treated just like animals and that is not okay. On the other hand, some people argue that hostile architecture is necessary for the aesthetic appearance of the city. Although this is also a little contradictory. Obviously the spikes are not super aesthetically pleasing to look at, and the homeless people still exist just not in those areas so nothing is really being solved. The biggest argument made in this article is the fact that a public space that is actually public does not exist. There is always some form of hostile architecture that is targeted towards a specific group of people, even if we may not all notice it. Another example was the rails on benches to deter skateboarders from using them for tricks. Overall it seems as if the architecture of the cities is making it clear that homeless people are not welcome.
Hostile Architecture at 5th Street Public Market: The 5th Street Public Market in Eugene, Oregon is supposed to be a public space where people can shop, eat, drink and socialize. There are many aspects that make it super inviting to the public such as heaters, seating areas, a variety of restaurants and lots of different boutiques and shops. There are also some aspects that turn it into a not fully public place. I noticed a few different types of hostile architecture within the 5th Street Public Market. The first type of hostile architecture that was apparent was the signs that indicated that people could not bike or skateboard through the market. Although it may not seem like this is hostile architecture, it is because it is turning a space that is supposed to be public and open to all individuals, into a place that does not welcome skateboarders and bikers. Another form of hostile architecture that I noticed on the exterior part of the 5th Street Public Market is the use of tables and chairs as opposed to benches. The seating area where these tables and chairs are located is under a covered space with heaters. The chairs make it so that homeless people do not sleep or campout at the market like they would if there were benches or something for them to lay on. One other form of hostile architecture that I noticed on the interior of the shops at the 5th Street Public Market was the security cameras inside the shops. These are a form of hostile architecture because they make it clear that certain individuals (criminals, anyone acting in an undesired way) are not welcome into the stores or the area.
This photo shows one of the forms of hostile architecture that exists at the 5th Street Public Market. It is a sign indicating that biking and skateboarding is not allowed which discourages this group of people from going to this public area because they do not feel welcome.
by caslan | May 17, 2023
Reading Summary:
Kaufmann-Buhler presents her dissatisfaction with the presentation of gender roles in the American workplace, especially how these roles are enforced subliminally through the selection of office furniture. She states that the presupposed office structure dictated the creation of the hierarchical form of modern office furniture.
As the office space was being redesigned, furniture soon followed suit. The standardization of the male and female gender in the charts of “Joe” and “Josephine” by Henry Dreyfuss became popular with designers. However, this standardization and optimization of office furniture led to the perpetuation of gender roles and norms within the workspace. Many issues with the furniture related to how the pieces positioned posture differently from men and women. Traditionally men had higher desks and comfier furniture designed for working and lounging while women were granted lowered desks with typing attachments and chairs that forced a more upright and tasked posture.
This hierarchy of gender dictated the comfort of the users, whether it was a man or woman. Typically, men held executive positions while women resorted to secretary positions. When women held executive positions, they were faced with the task of balancing the expectation of masculinity in power without abandoning their identity. Typical furniture such as the Zapf executive chair was designed for the standard male form, leading to the discomfort of many women as proportions were not right who were expected to use the chair. The same principle applied to men in secretary positions, as the provided furniture was not fit to their height or proportion.
Building Analysis:
The Bier Stein is a restaurant located in the southern region of Eugene. It is a Bavarian-style restaurant prioritizing the selection of specialty beers and bar-style food. The interior features an open floorplan seldom broken with columns and a fixed central all round access bar.
The remaining space is arranged around the central bar, with various areas of seating. The furniture ranges are diverse. Booth seating is showcased around the windows and northwest region of the interior. Bar seating is found opposing the eastern side of the bar where orders are placed. Filling in the remainder of the space is a grid of tables from standard height to counter level with raised chairs. This variety of furniture helps accommodate all body forms without drawing while remaining ambiguous.
By taking advantage of the window wall, booth seating allows for a larger individual to be seated comfortably as compared to traditional chair seating. The included bar seating helps separate the people more interested in drinks than food and allows for a more direct ordering experience. The varying heights of tables help break up the monotony of the table grid while providing seating for taller individuals.
Overall, The Bier Stein presents a wide variety of seating to accommodate a plethora of different customers.
This view shows the layout of tables along with the variety of seating options provided to customers.