How the rise of “hostile” architecture has allowed hostility to flourish within the population.
This image was originally posted toFlickrby chaircrusher athttps://flickr.com/photos/21977891@N00/14397525714 (archive). It was reviewed on 17 December 2017 byFlickreviewR 2and was confirmed to be licensed under the terms of the cc-by-2.0.
In Vancouver, immovable concrete spheres were placed in the alcoves of stores to prevent people sleeping in them. In Paris, spikes have been lined on the ledges of windows. In New York City, strips of metal have been installed on benches to make them more uncomfortable to lie on. These architectural elements have been growing in popularity in recent years, and are making it increasingly difficult for the homeless to find somewhere to sleep for the night. Some forms of hostile architecture are more inconspicuous, like benches divided up with multiple arm rests. Occasionally, hostile architecture is disguised as an art installation, through bright colors or unconventional shapes. Regardless of the form it takes, it is indisputable that anti-homeless architecture is the most inhumane strategy that has been implemented to tackle homelessness.
We don’t need to look far to find hostile architecture. In London, examples are all around us; for example, the slanted benches you see at every bus stop. Even though it isn’t immediately obvious, their thin design is intended to prevent people sleeping on them. Hostile architecture is particularly common in major cities, where the majority of homeless people reside. A 2019 report by Shelter concluded that out of the 280,000 people in the UK who were homeless on any given night, 170,668 of them lived in London. When confronted with these heart-wrenching numbers, the government and private builders resort to cruelty over compassion, building public structures that practically scream: “you aren’t welcome here.” Stereotypes that homeless people are dangerous or unclean have already led the homeless to feel isolated from the population, and hostile architecture is only allowing this mentality to thrive.
Tamsen Courtenay, an investigative journalist, explores this problem in her poignant book Four Feet Under. Courtenay wrote about her encounters with 30 homeless individuals who came from a variety of different backgrounds, all of which were witty and willing to share their experiences. The book discusses how the homeless are often assumed to be thieves upon entering stores, a product of the sickening prejudice that has led us to criminalize the innocent. Jade, a woman interviewed by Courtenay, speaks candidly on how the way the public treats her is psychologically taxing. “A little ‘hello’ would be fine, it makes you feel stronger. (But) everyone walks past, looks down on you.” This constant belittlement and dehumanization is proof that, in Courtenay’s words, “homelessness is much more than not having a home.”
Some advocates for hostile architecture claim that the structures are used to control various types of dangerous behavior, and aren’t always built with the sole intention of excluding homeless people. Dean Harvey, co-founder of the company Factory Furniture (known for producing hostile benches), argues that this type of architecture also aims to “prevent drug drops'' and “minimize the amount of time people spend in an area.” He also mentions that hostile architecture can reduce loitering, skateboarding, and other forms of unwanted activity in urban areas. From Harvey’s perspective, this will allow neighborhoods to become safer and more pleasant.
However, this justification is invalid when the company’s intentions are weighed against the impacts. When trying to prevent illegal or disruptive activity, you need to consider how your actions will affect the users of the space, which includes the homeless. A boulder or row of spikes may not mean much to the average city dweller, but it can have severe consequences for a homeless person. We should not be using architecture to reduce loitering when it comes at the cost of a human being having somewhere to sleep; we need new solutions that take into consideration the needs of those who are sleeping rough.
In the end, changing the way we design benches and buildings won’t end homelessness; we will need more structural approaches, such as creating more affordable housing options and increasing access to social services. However, the importance of architecture on our streets should not be underestimated. Architect James Furzer believes that architecture “can provide some sort of temporary solution, just to give (homeless people) some sense of well-being.” One of Furzer’s ideas is homeless pods, which are temporary shelters that attach to existing buildings. These pods will not only protect them from harsh weather conditions, but will also be “taking them out of the public eye [...], making them feel human again.” Architectural innovation is not a fix for all problems, but having somewhere to sleep that’s devoid of spikes or metal strips can make all the difference for one night. The homeless are not pests to control, but people deserving of respect and privacy; after all, that’s the least we can give to them.
コメント