A Hostile Architecture Tour Around London — Part 2
This is a follow-up to my first article on hostile architecture in London from April 2022. This time with even more photos, and some theory.
While collecting more examples of hostile architecture in London over the summer, I realised that I struggled to understand the seemingly random usage of hostile (or defensive, more about the distinction below) design elements. They seemed far to rare to have a meaningful impact and — overall — unable to fulfil their intention.
After all, what is the point of anti-homeless spikes if one can literally move two metres to the side? Rough sleeping obviously exists on a massive scale in London despite the “Camden benches” (see Part 1). What purpose have “anti-skateboarding” installations in areas hardly any skateboarder would ever go? For someone like me who is not an architect or an expert on urban design but a casual observer, this was puzzling at first.
Hostile vs defensive?
Authors often make a distinction between hostile and defensive design. The distinction implies that one is passive (“defending”) while the other is active (“hostile”).
However I would argue that this is a question of perception rather then intention. A design element or a created environment can be perceived as hostile even though this was not the active intention of the designer, but an implicit — i.e. a necessary - effect of the design. Therefore I would defend using the term “hostile” when writing from my — not the designers — perspective.
Accordingly, an object or an environment can be defined as hostile if they are produced with explicit or implicit hostile intent or if the object, or the environment, treats us in a hostile way. [1]
However reading up on “defensive design” put me on the right track: Most importantly it led me look more generally into the recent history of urban design theory.
The philosophy of defensive urban design
“Crime prevention through environmental design”, CPTED, is a concept originally formulated by architect Oscar Newman in 1972s [2] and formulated as guidelines later [3]. However the idea appears to have been around in the 1960s [4]. While not describing what we think of as hostile design elements nowadays, Newman piloted the idea that urban design can influence, shape (or better “restrict”) the behaviour of people in public spaces with the intention of “crime prevention”.
Defensive urban design, a component of the design philosophy CPTED, is an intentional design strategy that uses elements of the built environment to guide or restrict behaviour in urban space as a form of crime prevention, protection of property, or order maintenance. [5]
This concept opens the door to understand that hostile design elements do not always need to be obvious or have a single purpose. Rather than plastering an area with warning signs, its intention is expressed by design decisions which can be subtle and even work subconsciously. It is sufficient to create an environment where people are less likely to use a space in any “unintended” way, or better: in a way not intended by the urban planner, private owner or authority.
While some forms, like anti-loitering spikes are inherently “unpleasant” or “hostile”, these concepts do not adequately describe design features or devices that are neither unpleasant nor hostile, but still defend against unwanted use. [6]
And therein lies the obvious contradiction for a city like London: Open spaces in urban areas are — on paper — supposed to be inviting, welcoming and make people feel safe, but at the same time “loitering” or in other words “feeling too much at home”, needs to be discouraged.
Once that concept is understood, a lot of design decisions I came across in London start to make much more sense in a wider context: Rather then putting spikes in every corner or using obvious hostile benches everywhere, creating an ambiguous environment — welcoming on the surface but discouraging and limiting in detail — achieves the same goal.
A flawed concept
The issue with defensive design is that the underlying philosophy is deeply flawed: Especially when it comes to social spaces, rather than tackling the root causes of crime, defensive urban design philosophy essentially considers every citizen a potential criminal. It also pre-defines what the purpose of public spaces is intended to be, instead of leaving this decision to the people who use it.
In the end defensive design theory doesn’t even attempt to prevent any crime directly, rather it limits, and is trying to shape, social behaviour which is in itself not illegal. And because it is often based on exclusion it simply shifts unwanted behaviour to other areas.
From anti-homeless benches and the spikes in the City to uncomfortable sitting areas, London is certainly a poster child for defensive designs of all kinds. While some boroughs embrace this more openly than others, hints can be found in every area. In a city obsessed with “tackling anti-social behaviour” this is hardly a surprise.
Honorary mentions from around London
After the theory, here are some more examples from across London. Most of those I found by aimlessly strolling around, so they are neither representative for certain areas nor in a particular order.
For More see A Hostile Architecture Tour Around London — Part 3
All Images are © 2022 Wolfgang Hauptfleisch CC-BY 2.0
— — — —
[1] de Fine Licht, Karl. (2021). “Hostile architecture” and its confederates: A conceptual framework for how we should perceive our cities and the objects in them. Canadian journal of urban research
[2] Oscar Newmann, Defensible Space (1972) New York: The Macmillan Company
[3] Oscar Newmann, Creating Defensible Space, Design Guidelines for Creating Defensible Space (1996) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research
[4] Angel, Schlomo. (1968). Discouraging Crime Through City Planning. (Paper №75). Berkeley, CA: Center for Planning and Development Research, University of California at Berkeley.
[5] Chellew, Cara. (2019). Defending Suburbia: Exploring the Use of Defensive Urban Design Outside of the City Centre. Canadian journal of urban research. 28. 19–33.
[6] Chellew, Cara. (2019)
[7] I am also still fascinated by the hostility of “pseudo-historic” and historic design elements in London, something I would like to explore in the future if I find the time (I have yet to find out if a theory of “hostile architecture in the Victorian era” exists)
