Designing Against People
Since ancient times, public space has provided opportunities for social interactions, trading, and politics within a city. However, these opportunities are only available to groups that society values, excluding unwanted populations, such as the homeless. Those who are unhoused depend greatly on public space for refuge, however, patterns of hostile architecture have prevented them from meeting their basic needs. Actions that society deems as inappropriate have been forbidden in public spaces, such as lying down and sleeping, which is associated with the homeless. This exclusion can be seen translated through benches with unnecessary dividers that prevent people from comfortably lying down. These designs have been disguised as artistic features, hiding their true intentions, and a lack of sympathy. Because the homeless are depicted as dangerous, Society justifies these design decisions by labeling them as strategies for spatial security. However, the real reasoning is to protect tourism and please upper-class users, since the homeless don’t exactly fit into their desired image.
Figure 1, outdoor landscaping
House Beautiful, April 1961, pg. 107
The landscaping around the pool in Figure 1 can relate to the idea of well-designed pubic space. The way the steps leading up to the pool are designed allows for people to sit comfortably on any level, even providing the opportunity for lying down. Rather than designing against certain positions, this design is anti-hostile architecture, encouraging people to move and sit how they want to, where they want to.
Figure 2, unorthodox benches in Tokyo
https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/designing-for-typologies/hostile-architecture-anti-homeless-architecture/#e897eb3b47dbb2000c68bd12df1aed669aa472ed#185348
The bench shown in Figure 2 exemplifies anti-homeless architecture in Tokyo, Japan. The bench has a unique tubular design that makes it impossible for people to lie down. Additionally, the material chosen makes it so that the surface’s temperature is exaggerated during the cold and hot months.
Comparision
Comparing both examples of the sitting areas, we can quickly differentiate hostile architecture from anti-hostile architecture. While both designs were influenced by the human body, figure 2 worked against the body, while figure 1 worked to comfort and support the body. For example, the bench in Figure 2 looks very unwelcoming, due to its curved surface that’s awkward to sit on, making it impossible to lie down. In contrast, the long and flat steps in Figure 1 encourage long-term sitting and lying down. It’s interesting to see how comfort is prioritized depending on the target group aimed at. The House Beautiful magazine offered examples of residential landscaping, where the goal was to make an oasis for the residents, a space where relaxation was of the highest concern. However, when it comes to public space, the goal is to limit the amount of comfort users will feel.
Although public spaces provide the necessities, like sitting areas, benches will be altered to restrict movement. As a result, certain populations, such as the homeless, are deprived of their ability to dwell in public space. It makes sense that private backyards be tailored to the needs of the occupant, however, it does not make sense that public space, which is supposed to be for everyone, has been designed to exclude certain groups of individuals. Thinking about the construction, it takes more work and skill to design a tubular bench than to create a flat surface, which highlights the time and money society is willing to spend to design uncomfortable spaces.
