I encourage everyone to go read this very smart and very sad essay from Alex Andreuo at The Guardian. It’s a condemnation of defensive architecture, a euphemism for strategies that make the urban landscape inhospitable to the homeless.
They include benches with dividers that make it impossible to lie down, spikes and protrusions on window ledges and in front of store windows, forests of pointed cement structures under bridges and freeways, emissions of high pitched sounds, and sprinklers that intermittently go off on sidewalks to prevent camping overnight. There is also perpetually sticky anti-climb paint and corner urination guards, plus “viewing gardens” that take up space that might be attractive to homeless people. Here are some examples from a collection at Dismal Garden.
Andreuo writes of the psychological effect of these structures. They tell homeless people quite clearly that they are not wanted and that others not only don’t care, but are actively antagonistic to their comfort and well being. He says:
Defensive architecture is revealing on a number of levels, because it is not the product of accident or thoughtlessness, but a thought process. It is a sort of unkindness that is considered, designed, approved, funded and made real with the explicit motive to exclude and harass. It reveals how corporate hygiene has overridden human considerations…
If the corporations have turned to aggressive tactics, governments seem to simply be in denial. They offer few resources to homeless people and the ones they do offer are insufficient to serve everyone. Andreuo continues:
We curse the destitute for urinating in public spaces with no thought about how far the nearest free public toilet might be. We blame them for their poor hygiene without questioning the lack of public facilities for washing… Free shelters, unless one belongs to a particularly vulnerable group, are actually extremely rare.
He then connects the dots. “Fundamental misunderstanding of destitution,” he argues, “is designed to exonerate the rest from responsibility and insulate them from perceiving risk.” If homeless people are just failing to do right by themselves or take the help available to them, then only they are to blame for their situation. And, if only they are to blame, we don’t have to worry that, given just the right turn of events, it could happen to us.
Cross-posted at Pacific Standard.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 15
Unkind Architecture: Designing Against the Homeless - Treat Them Better — March 12, 2015
[…] Unkind Architecture: Designing Against the Homeless […]
Christopher J. Doucot — March 12, 2015
this is offensive architecture
Precious — March 12, 2015
Lisa, thank you for this very important article.
Dia12 — March 12, 2015
It looks like a goth belt.
I get not wanting people to urinate on buildings. But we have to do something to stop the problem at the root, not make spikey things.
Unkind Architecture: Designing Against the Homeless » Antropologia Masterra — March 13, 2015
[…] (View original at http://thesocietypages.org/socimages) […]
Northof60 — March 13, 2015
I wish architects and engineers would decline this work as a part of their professional standards. They could do that.
Alf Lives! — March 13, 2015
Millions of empty foreclosed homes all over the world. Millions of families living out in the streets when there are no beds in shelters. The bankers who fostered this crisis should be thrown in the ocean and left to drown. This is a sin against all humanity.
Barbara — March 13, 2015
Here's a different take on this -- why should we create outdoor spaces for people to lie or sleep comfortably? Isn't that just giving up on homeless people? Wouldn't it be better to create more and better shelters or permanent housing for homeless people rather than get mad at efforts to keep them off the street? And, by the way, what's offensive about sticky paint that prevents climbing? Do homeless people typically climb buildings? This seems like an odd thing to get upset about.
mimimur — March 16, 2015
Unkind is way to sympahetic a word to describe this. Extremist would be my choice. More and more I question how functional modern society is if not even the most devoted welfare state can provide basic food and shelter for everyone. To then instead torture those who own nothing but the clothes they wear - monstrous.
fencepost — March 20, 2015
Maybe we should make it a law that all executive work and leisure environments in the corporate financial or agri-business sectors have the air infused with pungent urine and fart scented perfumes (organic of course!), itch powdered chairs, and randomly honked air horns. Then when they go into public spaces to avoid the discomfort, they can sit on the spikes and in the dog poop parks and a small drop of equality can be achieved.
Unkind Architecture: Designing Against the Homeless | GEOGRAPHY EDUCATION — March 31, 2015
[…] Source: thesocietypages.org […]
Unkind Architecture: Designing Against the Homeless | HOME NATURES PACE — April 2, 2015
[…] Source: thesocietypages.org […]