PresentationPDF Available

Hostile Architecture Aimed at People Experiencing Homelessness in Boston, Massachusetts: A Spatial Analysis

Authors:

Abstract

Abstract: Hostile architecture involves designing urban spaces in such a way that the space itself discourages certain unwanted behaviors that are often associated with specific groups of people, such as youth, drug users, and people experiencing homelessness. This study aims to better understand the occurrence of hostile architecture impacting people experiencing homelessness in the city of Boston, Massachusetts as it relates to a variety of spatial and neighborhood characteristics. Based on the theoretical propositions in David Harvey’s “Right to the City,” I predicted that examples of hostile architecture aimed at the homeless were more likely to appear farther away from local homeless shelters, in areas zoned for business rather than residential use, and in areas with higher median incomes. A sample area of ten Census Block Groups within Boston was randomly selected for analysis, and all examples of hostile architecture aimed at the homeless within the sample area were photographed and geo-tagged. Analysis of the resultant maps revealed that examples of hostile architecture aimed at the homeless were more likely to appear farther away from local homeless shelters, in areas zoned for residential rather than business use, and in areas with lower median incomes. The most common hostile objects in Boston are retaining walls, benches, and doorways. Hostile architecture aimed at people experiencing homelessness in Boston most commonly targets sleeping in public and sitting on sidewalks.
Hostile Architecture Aimed at People
Experiencing Homelessness in
Boston, Massachusetts: A Spatial
Analysis
Caitlin Carey, University of Massachusetts Boston
Society for the Study of Social Problems 2018 Annual Meeting
Philadelphia, PA
August 11, 2018
*2018 Student Paper Award, Sociology and Social Welfare Division
What is Hostile Architecture?
“Hostile architecture” (also called “defensive architecture” or
“unpleasant design”) involves designing urban spaces in
such a way that the space discourages certain unwanted
behaviors
Typically targets behaviors associated with people
experiencing homelessness, drug users, and youth
Prior Literature
Mostly from the fields of Architecture and Urban Studies
Focus on hostile architecture outside of the U.S. (mostly in
the U.K.)
No spatial analyses
There is a debate about how much the intent of design
matters
Research Questions and Hypotheses
Where are instances of hostile architecture aimed at people
experiencing homelessness most concentrated in the city of
Boston?
H1: Hostile architecture aimed at people experiencing
homelessness is more likely to appear farther away from
homeless shelters
H2: Hostile architecture aimed at people experiencing
homelessness is more likely to appear in areas zoned for
business
H3: Hostile architecture aimed at people experiencing
homelessness is more likely to appear in areas with higher
median incomes
What are the most common types of hostile objects aimed
at people experiencing homelessness in Boston?
What behaviors associated with people experiencing
homelessness are most frequently targeted by hostile
architecture in Boston?
Methodology
Analyze hostile architecture aimed at
people experiencing homelessness
through David Harvey’s Right to the City
to form research questions and
hypotheses
Apply Harvey to Hostile
Architecture
Random selection of ten Census Block
Groups in Boston
Draw Sample
Walk around sample area to photograph
and geo-tag hostile architecture aimed
at people experiencing homelessness
Data Collection
Create point data for hostile architecture
and layer that with shapefiles for
median income, zoning subdistrict, and
proximity to homeless shelters
Create Maps
Results
Results
Results
Results
Results
Results
Conclusion
H1: Hostile architecture aimed at people experiencing
homelessness is more likely to appear farther away from
homeless shelters
H2: Hostile architecture aimed at people experiencing
homelessness is more likely to appear in areas zoned for
business
H3: Hostile architecture aimed at people experiencing
homelessness is more likely to appear in areas with higher
median incomes
Retaining walls/fences, benches, and doorways are the
most common types of hostile objects in Boston
Sitting/resting and reclining/sleeping are the behaviors that
are most commonly targeted by hostile architecture aimed
at people experiencing homelessness in Boston
Policy Recommendations
There is a need for cities to develop processes that include
people experiencing homelessness in their planning
processes
Cities should implement policies that prevent hostile
architecture
References
Andreau, A. (2015). Anti-homeless spikes: ‘Sleeping rough opened my eyes to the city’s
barbed cruelty.’ The Guardian. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/18/defensive-architecture-keeps-poverty-
undeen-and-makes-us-more-hostile
Chan, J. (2015). Moral agency in architecture? The dialectics of spatializing morality and
moralizing spaces. Architecture, materiality and society: Connecting sociology of
architecture with science and technology studies, Palgrave-Macmillan, 198-214.
Chellew, C. (2017). Design Paranoia. Ontario Planning Journal, 31(5), 18-20.
Gesuelli, F. (2016). Forced to live dead in public space: An experiment of democracy in
Rome. Housed By Choice Housed By Force - Homes, Conflicts and Conflicting
Interests. Retrieved from http://architecturemps.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/04/GESUELLI-F_FORCED-TO-LIVE-DEAD-IN-PUBLIC-
SPACE_AN-EXPERIMENT-OF-DEMOCRACY-IN-ROME.pdf
Harvey, D. (2008). The right to the city. New Left Review, 53, 1-16.
Petty, J. (2016). The London spikes controversy: Homelessness, urban securitisation
and the question of 'hostile architecture.’ International Journal for Crime, Justice, and
Social Democracy, 5(1), 67-81. doi: 10.5204/ijcjsd.v5i1.286
Savicic, G. & Savic, S. (2014). Unpleasant design: Designing out unwanted behaviour.
Proceedings from 5th STS Italia Conference. Milan.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Its mundanity makes it innocuous. Its common sense approach makes it pervasive. But once you see it, it’s impossible to stop noticing its use around the city. I’m talking about defensive urban design, also known as defensive or hostile architecture. It’s used to guide behaviour in urban space by designing out specified uses of street furniture or the built environment as a form of crime prevention or protection of property.
Article
Full-text available
Federal, state, and city governments spend substantial funds on programs intended to aid homeless people, and such programs attract widespread public support. In recent years, however, state and local governments have increasingly enacted policies, such as bans on panhandling and sleeping in public, that are counterproductive to alleviating homelessness. Yet these policies also garner substantial support from the public. Given that programs aiding the homeless are so popular, why are these counterproductive policies also popular? We argue that disgust plays a key role in the resolution of this puzzle. While disgust does not decrease support for aid policies or even generate negative affect towards homeless people, it motivates the desire for physical distance, leading to support for policies that exclude homeless people from public life. We test this argument using survey data, including a national sample with an embedded experiment. Consistent with these expectations, our findings indicate that those respondents who are dispositionally sensitive to disgust are more likely to support exclusionary policies, such as banning panhandling, but no less likely to support policies intended to aid homeless people. Furthermore, media depictions of the homeless that include disease cues activate disgust, increasing its impact on support for banning panhandling. These results help explain the popularity of exclusionary homelessness policies and challenge common perspectives on the role of group attitudes in public life.
Article
Full-text available
p class="AbstractTxt">This article examines an ostensibly new feature of the securitised urban landscape: ‘hostile architecture’. Following controversy in 2014 London over ‘anti-homeless spikes’– metal studs implanted at ground level designed to discourage the homeless from sleeping in otherwise unrestricted spaces – certain visible methods of environmental social control were temporarily subject to intense public scrutiny and debate. While contests over public and urban spaces are not new, the spikes controversy emerged in the context of broader socio-political and governmental shifts toward neoliberal arrangements. Using the spikes issue as a case study, I contextualise hostile architecture within these broader processes and in wider patterns of urban securitisation. The article then offers an explanatory framework for understanding the controversy itself. Ultimately the article questions whether the public backlash against the use of spikes indicates genuine resistance to patterns of urban securitisation or, counterintuitively, a broader public distaste for both the homeless and the mechanisms that regulate them. </p
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Unpleasant Design is an aggregation of techniques and strategies in urban design where social control is an inherent property of objects and places. Unpleasant Design research recognizes the growing desire for controlled environments amongst different authorities, but it also accounts for the way different citizens react to it. Unpleasant Design is manifested in the form of “silent agents” which manage the behaviour of people without the explicit presence of officials. Unpleasant Design is principally about the relationship of space, design and social interaction. Thus, it is not aimed at harming users of public space in general. Unpleasant Design usually discriminates against particular social groups in order to allow for another to exist. These groups are not always threatening our security, they are sometimes simply a minority or powerless (the teenagers, the poor, marginal groups). We continuously look for qualifiers for something to act as u unpleasant. Our data is an accumulation of field observations of deployed technologies; interviews with scholars and practitioners in the field of urban design. It also includes case studies of particular applications of Unpleasant Designs. Seeking to reveal power structures beyond surveillance and social control in designed interactions, we offer a critical perspective on emerging design patterns.
Chapter
What does moral agency mean in architecture? This question should pique every science and technology studies (STS) scholar and architectural theorist. Not only do architects espouse some kind of ethics (Till 2009; Fisher 2010), but such ethics are often represented or embodied in what architects subsequently design and craft as architecture. This embodiment can occur either incidentally (Sorkin 2011:143) or, unexpectedly so, often quite deliberately (Scott 1980; Evans 1982; Singley 1993; McDonough and Braungart 2002; Henderson 2006; Sennett 2008; Moore 2012; Ford 2014; Quinn 2014). But do all these examples then amount to moral agency in architecture? Specifically, what form can moral agency take in architecture? And how is such moral agency represented or embodied in what architects build, if at all? Can architecture then, as the intended construction of material artefacts by humans (Müller and Reichmann, this volume), have some kind of moral agency? Little work, if any, has been done to address these questions.
Article
The abstract for this document is available on CSA Illumina.To view the Abstract, click the Abstract button above the document title.
Article
Homelessness is a perennial problem in the United States and has been analyzed using many theoretical frameworks. The issue has also been a contentious one for courts and continues to be the subject of numerous suits today. Many jurisdictions in the United States have enacted laws that prevent homeless people from legally existing within those jurisdictions; these laws effectively criminalize being homeless. These statutes have spawned lawsuits alleging violations of homeless people's rights. This Comment examines homelessness and its interaction with the law through the lens of citizenship. It argues that the legal paradigm in the United States denies homeless people full citizenship and membership in communities. Court decisions that rule on rights-based challenges to these laws reinforce the exclusion of the homeless from the public, even when they ostensibly rule for homeless plaintiffs, by restricting homeless people's ability to take advantage of these decisions and denying homeless people the same menu of rights that exist for people with residences.
Article
There is a link between changes in the contemporary political economy and the criminalization of homelessness. Anti-homeless legislation can be understood as an attempt to annihilate the spaces in which homeless people must live, and perform everyday functions. This annihilation is a response to the economic uncertainty produced by the current political economy. The process of criminalizing homelessness 1) destroys the very right of homeless people to be; and 2) reinforces particularly brutal notions of citizenship within the public sphere. Such laws are made possible when urban government and surrounding communities and elites seek to promote the urban landscape at the expense of urban public space. This usurpation of public space will have profound impact not only on homeless people but also on how the housed interact with each other.