Hostile architecture and its uncertain future

Hostile architecture, also known as defensive or exclusionary design, is an increasingly controversial urban trend aimed at influencing human behaviour by deterring activities considered undesirable. This includes loitering, sleeping in public spaces and skateboarding, amongst others. While such designs are seen by some as a practical solution to maintain public order, they are being increasingly criticised as symbols of urban inequality, exclusion, and disregard for the needs of marginalised communities, writes John Ridgeway.

Hostile architecture refers to design elements intentionally created to prevent certain behaviours in public spaces. These features often include anti-homeless features where spikes are added on flat surfaces to deter sleeping. We also see dividers on benches to prevent people from lying down or sloped or uncomfortable seating to discourage prolonged use.

It is not unusual to see youth-deterrence measures such as high-frequency sound emitters, known as "Mosquito devices," designed to annoy younger people but remain inaudible to most adults. We are seeing skateboard deterrents, like raised bumps or metal clips on railings and ledges and limited public seating or the use of hard, cold materials to deter lingering. These designs are often implemented in areas with high homelessness rates, busy commercial zones, or public spaces where prolonged stays are seen as undesirable.

While many will argue that hostile architecture is a practical solution to urban management, critics highlight several ethical concerns. Homeless individuals are disproportionately affected by anti-sleeping features, making their already precarious situations worse. Such designs also criminalise poverty and offer no constructive solutions to address homelessness.

These designs also discourage interaction in public spaces, reducing opportunities for community building and social cohesion. This in turn means that youths, often targeted by these designs, feel alienated and unwelcome in urban spaces.

Elderly individuals and people with disabilities may also find these designs challenging, as they reduce the availability of comfortable seating and resting areas, but most alarming of all - hostile architecture turns public areas into exclusionary zones, counteracting the fundamental purpose of these spaces - to be inclusive and accessible for all.

Global examples of hostile architecture

London is a hotspot for hostile architecture, with anti-homeless spikes commonly found in commercial areas and residential properties. Sloped benches and armrests are often installed in parks and train stations to deter prolonged use by homeless individuals.

In San Francisco, public benches have been redesigned with dividers, making it impossible to lie down. New York City subway stations often feature spikes on ventilation grates to prevent people from using them as sleeping spots.

Sydney and Melbourne have implemented spiked fixtures and sloped seating in public areas to discourage loitering and sleeping and bus stops are designed with gaps or armrests to prevent lying down. Toronto has seen a proliferation of anti-homeless benches with central dividers, while sloped seating designs have become common in public parks.

In Hong Kong, public seating often includes barriers or dividers, making them unsuitable for resting. Singapore's urban design also frequently restricts seating in busy areas to discourage loitering.

As urban populations grow and public spaces become increasingly contested, the debate surrounding hostile architecture is likely to intensify. Its long-term future, however, will depend on several factors.

Awareness campaigns and a public backlash against hostile architecture are already gaining momentum. Social media platforms have played a significant role in exposing and critiquing these designs, pressuring governments and organisations to reconsider their use.

This in turn has led to a growing movement toward ethical and inclusive urban design that prioritises accessibility and community engagement. Organizations like the Centre for Humane Urban Design in the UK advocate for creating spaces that serve everyone, including the most vulnerable populations.

Legal and policy changes

Some regions are now beginning to consider laws to curb hostile architecture. Cities like Los Angeles and New York, for example, are exploring policies that mandate the inclusion of amenities like public seating and shelters. Advocates in Toronto are lobbying for legislation that prevents anti-homeless designs in new public infrastructure and cities like Amsterdam and Vienna have embraced inclusive design principles, rejecting exclusionary practices.

This change could be happening because the cost of hostile architecture often outweighs its benefits, as cities must repeatedly invest in modifications to deter "undesirable" behaviour. Addressing root causes, such as homelessness and youth disengagement, is proving to be a more sustainable and effective approach.

This means that to counter the negative impacts of hostile architecture, cities can adopt more inclusive and innovative design strategies. Benches with adjustable features or modular designs can accommodate various needs without excluding specific groups.

Public areas that encourage this kind of interaction, such as outdoor libraries, art installations, or multi-functional gathering spots, foster positive behaviours naturally. Programmes like Finland’s "Housing First" model, for example, also address homelessness at its root by providing permanent housing solutions.

In some cities, there are signs of legislative pushback against hostile architecture. In San Francisco, community groups have successfully challenged anti-homeless measures, leading to the removal of certain spikes and dividers. In Vienna, urban planning regulations now explicitly forbid designs that exclude vulnerable populations.

All this means that public art and creative interventions are increasingly used to reclaim public spaces. In London, artists have transformed anti-homeless spikes into miniature gardens to highlight their exclusionary nature. In Vancouver, community groups have installed temporary cushions on hostile benches to draw attention to their lack of comfort.

As the world deals with challenges like homelessness, urban overcrowding and social inequality, the debate over hostile architecture reflects broader questions about who public spaces are for and how cities can balance order with inclusivity.

While hostile architecture may offer short-term solutions to certain urban issues, it fails to address root causes and often exacerbates societal divides. The long-term future of urban design must prioritise inclusivity, sustainability and compassion.

With growing awareness and advocacy, cities have an opportunity to shift away from exclusionary practices toward designs that genuinely serve all residents, fostering a sense of belonging and community. In this vision, public spaces can become true reflections of the diverse and dynamic populations they are meant to serve.

Hostile architecture may have a foothold in urban planning today, but its relevance in the future is far from certain. As public consciousness evolves and legal frameworks adapt, the era of exclusionary design could give way to one where cities are built not just for control, but for connection.