Hostile architecture

Bolts installed on the front steps of a building to discourage sitting and sleeping

Hostile architecture, also known as defensive architecture, hostile design, unpleasant design, exclusionary design, anti-homeless architecture, or defensive urban design, is an urban-design strategy that uses elements of the built environment to purposefully guide behavior. It often targets people who use or rely on public space more than others, such as youth, poor people, and homeless people, by restricting the physical behaviours they can engage in. ^[1]

The term hostile architecture is often associated with items like "anti-homeless spikes" – studs embedded in flat surfaces to make sleeping on them uncomfortable and impractical. This form of architecture is most commonly found in densely populated and urban areas. ^{[2] [3]} Other measures include sloped window sills to stop people sitting; benches with armrests positioned to stop people lying on them; water sprinklers that spray intermittently; and public trash bins with inconveniently small mouths to prevent the insertion of bulky wastes. ^[4] Hostile architecture is also employed to deter skateboarding, BMXing, inline skating, littering, loitering, public urination, ^[5] and trespassing, and as a form of pest control. ^[6]

Background

Although the term hostile architecture is recent, the use of civil engineering to achieve social engineering is not: antecedents include 19th-century urine deflectors and urban planning in the United States designed for segregation. ^{[7] [8] [9]} American urban planner Robert Moses designed a stretch of Long Island Southern State Parkway with low stone bridges so that buses could not pass under them. This made it more difficult for people who relied on public transportation, mainly African Americans, to visit the beach that wealthier car-owners could visit. ^{[10] [11]} Outside of the United States, public space design change for the purpose of social control also has historic precedent: the narrow streets of 19th century Paris, France were widened to help the military quash protests. ^{[12] [ better source needed ]}

Its modern form is derived from the design philosophy crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED), which aims to prevent crime or protect property through three strategies: natural surveillance, natural access control, and territorial enforcement. ^[13] According to experts, exclusionary design is becoming increasingly common, not least in large cities such as Stockholm. ^{[14] [15] [16]}

Consistent with the widespread implementation of defensible space guidelines in the 1970s, most implementations of CPTED as of 2004 were based solely upon the theory that the proper design and effective use of the built environment could reduce crime, reduce fear of crime, and improve quality of life. Built environment implementations of CPTED seek to dissuade offenders from committing crimes by manipulating the built environment in which those crimes proceed or occur. The six main concepts according to Moffat are territoriality, surveillance, access control, image/maintenance, activity support and target hardening. Applying all of these strategies is key when trying to prevent crime in any neighborhood, crime-ridden or not. ^[17]

Beyond CPTED, scholarly research has also found that modern capitalist cities have a vested interest in eliminating signs of homelessness from their communal spaces, fearing that it might discourage investment from wealthier individuals. ^[18] In England, much of their hostile architecture has been attributed to a desire by the government to combat an anti-social street scene, taking the form of begging and street drinking. ^[19]

Applications

Spikes

Anti-homeless spikes in New York, designed to prevent sitting.

Hostile architecture can occur as spikes, bumps or other types of pointed structures. They are typically placed on ledges outside buildings, under roofs or other places where people seek rest or shelter, and also around shops. ^{[20] [21] [22] [23]} The property management company Jernhusen uses a variant by placing pipes instead of spikes in several places at Stockholm Central Station. ^{[14] [24]} In 2014, images circulated on the internet of a place in London where homeless people used to sleep. The ground had been fitted with sharp upward-pointing spikes to get rid of people who used to sleep there, but after widespread protests, the anti-homeless spikes were removed. ^[25] There are also anti-homeless spikes which are intended to ensure that people do not, for example, sit against a house wall, or stand in a particular place. ^[1] It is difficult to adequately assess how many different types exist, but it is certain that there are many forms of the phenomenon, including split bricks which form cracks, various forms of bent metal pipes, and plates welded upwards to form spikes. ^{[26] [27] [28]} Former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson has called the spikes "stupid". ^[29]

Sleeping deterrents

The "Camden bench", used in London, has a design that is stated to discourage sleeping, littering, skateboarding, drug dealing, graffiti and theft

Simme seating prevents users from laying down

In many large cities, for example Tokyo and London, benches have been designed to prevent people from sleeping on them. These benches have been constructed so that the seat slopes at an angle, which requires the user to support themselves entirely with their feet; such benches are ubiquitous on bus stops across the United Kingdom. ^[30] Another deterrent design is to include armrests placed down the center of the bench, preventing the user from lying down across the seats. ^[31]

Camden Borough Council in London commissioned concrete-block benches (dubbed "Camden benches") designed to discourage uses such as sleeping, skateboarding and placing stickers. ^{[7] [32]} There are other variants, in which level differences are absent but they tend to be either too short to lie on, or have iron pipes placed two-thirds of the way in, or multiple armrests placed along the entire length of the bench. ^[33] Such benches are common in airports. ^[34]

Other types of seats, such as Simme seats, are designed to be too small to accommodate laying down or sleeping. They are installed in locations where homeless camping is prevalent. ^[35]

When the City Tunnel in Malmö, Sweden, was opened in 2010, the design of the benches on the new train platforms was reported to the Equality Ombudsman because the benches were tilted so much that they were difficult to impossible to use for sitting. ^{[36] [37]} The Swedish state-owned real estate company Jernhusen has also used so-called "homeless-proof" benches at the train station in Luleå, with seven iron bars at 47 cm (19 in) intervals per bench. ^{[38] [39]} Jernhusen's press officer maintained that they "put in the armrests primarily to make it easier for the elderly and disabled to sit and stand up" but admitted in an interview that the perceived orderliness problems at the station building influenced how the benches were designed. ^[38] Another example of a company that has installed such benches is Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe, Berlin's local public transport company. ^{[40] [41]}

Some examples of sleeping deterrents take the form of temporary changes to buildings. An example of this occurred in a Liverpool building, previously the Bank of England headquarters, in December 2016. A blue sloping steel structure covered in oil was placed over the stairs at night, so that the homeless who used to sleep and rest on the stairs would not stay there. ^{[42] [43]}

Boulders installed along a freeway ramp in Portland, Oregon to deter transient camps.

Fence under the stairs of the City Archives in Kungsholmen in Stockholm (2015). ^[45]

Camping deterrents

In Seattle, Washington, United States, the city government installed bicycle racks to prevent homeless people from camping. ^{[46] [47]}

Since 2013, the Oregon Department of Transportation in Oregon, United States deployed large boulders at eight locations that had been the site of transient camps in Portland. These boulders were installed to deter illegal camping near the freeways. ^[48]

Fences or grates

Fences or grates are a common form of exclusionary design, often used to prevent access to places where there is protection from the elements, for example under stairs, bridges, or near fan systems that blow out hot air. ^{[49] [50] [51]}

In the spring of 2015, the City of Stockholm, Sweden, erected a 200,000 kr (~22,900 USD) fence to prevent homeless people from seeking shelter under a staircase in Kungsholmen. ^[49]

Removal

Passengers sit on the floor waiting for trains in the Moynihan Train Hall in New York City due to a lack of benches, which some critics have argued is designed to keep away the homeless.

Sometimes exclusionary design is not about adding features, but rather about taking them away. Fredrik Edin, who has written a book on exclusionary design, says that removal is the most common type of exclusionary design, where, for example, benches used by the public are removed precisely because they are used by the public. ^{[53] [54] [55]} One example is when representatives of the New York City Subway announced via social media in 2021 that "benches were removed from stations to prevent the homeless from sleeping on them." The agency later said the tweet was a mistake. ^{[56] [57] [58]} Benches at certain locations at Stockholm Central Station were removed in 2015 in favour of chairs and benches were also removed at Luleå railway station. Their press officer stated that they had problems with the station being used as a warming shelter. ^[39] Many public toilets have begun to be removed in the UK in places considered to be untidy. ^[42]

Security cameras

One of the most common forms of hostile architecture takes the form of surveillance. While security cameras do not physically prevent people from engaging in certain behaviors, they can restrict actions in public spaces through enabling remote oversight and increasing the fear of retaliation for socially taboo actions. ^[59] In cities like Cincinnati, there has been a noted sharp increase in the number of CCTV cameras in public spaces since the 1990s. ^[60]

Urination deterrent

This section is an excerpt from Urine deflector.[ edit ]

A urine deflector is a device for deflecting the stream of urine during urination. These may be part of a chamber pot, latrine or toilet intended for the purpose, or they may be deterrents, installed in the sides or corners of buildings to discourage their casual use as urinals by passers-by. They may be constructed in various ways from a variety of materials but are typically designed to have an angled surface which catches and redirects the stream.

Hostile architecture as art or embellishment

A large, sturdy flowerpot outside a building in Stockholm, designed to discourage use of the space without looking aggressive

This type of exclusionary design may involve, for example, displaying a large flowerpot where homeless people previously used the pavement to sleep. Other examples that have occurred include a stone painted in rainbow colours, putting out blocking shrubbery on a sidewalk, and "fun" shaped seating. ^{[61] [62] [27]}

In Sweden, loudspeakers in Finspång have played music in order to get addicts to leave certain places. In the UK and Germany, so-called anti-loitering devices (see The Mosquito) have been installed to ensure that young people do not stay in places where they are installed. ^{[63] [64] [65]} The devices work by emitting a monotone sound at such a high frequency that most people after adolescence lose the ability to hear it. ^[66] Critics have stated that the devices constitute a violation of human rights and also comment that the phenomenon would create a "dangerous gap" between young people exposed to it and older people who can avoid it. ^{[67] [68]} In Germany, classical music has been used in an attempt to keep drug users away. ^[69] In Berlin, a plan to use atonal music at S-Bahn stations has been withdrawn after criticism. ^[70]

Sprinklers

Sprinklers can be found in areas where spikes are considered too permanent; this solution involves spraying water on those staying in a particular place at a particular time. ^{[49] [39] [71] [72]}

The Strand Bookstore in New York used such a system in 2013 to deter homeless people sleeping outside the store at night. ^[73] Bonhams in San Francisco was criticised for an external sprinkler system that it claimed was used to clean "building and perimeter sidewalks during non-business hours intermittently over a 48-hour period", and which was also a point where homeless people gathered. ^[74]

Reception

Opposition to hostile architecture in urban design states that such architecture makes public spaces hostile to all people and especially targets the transient and homeless populations. ^[75] Proponents say that clearly establishing a sense of ownership over the space helps maintain order and safety and deter crime and unwanted behaviors. ^[76]

Examples of hostile architecture circulating within UK media have led to negative reception. Nonetheless, types of hostile architecture have increased. For example, Selfridges in Manchester installed metal spikes outside their store for the purpose of reducing "litter and smoking," which suggests hostile architecture may be implicated for one reason but explained by another. ^[22]

Often as part of a larger pattern of tactical urbanism, some opponents of hostile architecture have responded to it directly to undermine its intended effects. Where public seating is absent or inadequate, some have built and installed seating themselves in an act called "chair bombing". ^[77] Others have removed or vandalized anti-homeless spikes and armrests in protest of anti-homelessness legislation. ^{[78] [79]} Some members of England's homeless community interviewed by researchers have noted that hostile design contributes to their displacement and feelings of insignificance, as it appears that local business interests are prioritized over their survival. ^[19]

Identification

Some forms of hostile architecture are easy to identify, while others could be interpreted as either exclusionary or non-exclusionary, such as spaced-out singular chairs constructed at a playground in Sweden, which may appear intentionally designed to dissuade homeless sleeping, or as an acknowledgement that Swedes consider it impolite to sit near strangers. ^[80] Some researchers have said that hostile architecture should be evaluated within the wider context of the community, and should recognize the social and political forces motivating a particular design choice, such as anti-homelessness legislation or sentiments. ^[59]

Evidence

As of March 2020 ^[update] , there has not been a wide-scale empirical study that has measured the impact of hostile architecture on the wellbeing of homeless people or other targeted populations. ^[59]

Gallery

• 
  Spikes added around fountain in Government Center, Miami, in 2011 at downtown transit center
• 
  Ledge with skatestoppers preventing skateboarders from grinding
• 
  Spikes on a ledge in Boston to prevent sleeping or sitting
• 
  Spiked handrail, presumably preventing users from sliding down
• 
  Floor spikes in Shoreditch, London, U.K, designed to prevent people from sleeping on the ground.
• 
  Benches with metal pipes to prevent lying down at a train station in Vienna.
• 
  Pins prevent pedestrians from resting on ledge
• 
  Anti-homeless object in Shinjuku Station underpass.

See also

• Architecture terrible
• Anti-trespass panels, spiky rubber and wooden mats meant to discourage trespass on or near rail tracks.
• Bird control spike
• Defensible space theory
• Defensive design
• Functionalism (architecture)
• Natural surveillance
• New Urbanism
• Privately owned public space
• Skatestopper
• Urban vitality

References

1. 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. Archived from the original on 2019-07-22. Retrieved 2019-07-22.
2. Omidi, Maryam (12 June 2014). "Anti-homeless spikes are just the latest in 'defensive urban architecture'". The Guardian . Archived from the original on 31 May 2020. Retrieved 23 February 2015.
3. Andreou, Alex (18 February 2015). "Anti-homeless spikes: 'Sleeping rough opened my eyes to the city's barbed cruelty'". The Guardian . Archived from the original on 19 April 2020. Retrieved 23 February 2015.
4. Quinn, Ben (13 June 2014). "Anti-homeless spikes are part of a wider phenomenon of 'hostile architecture'". The Guardian . Archived from the original on 7 May 2020. Retrieved 23 February 2015.
5. Morris, Hugh (2016-02-04). "Anti-pee paint: San Francisco's walls fight back". The Telegraph. ISSN   0307-1235 . Retrieved 2022-08-22.
6. Andrea Lo (7 December 2017). "The debate: Is hostile architecture designing people -- and nature -- out of cities?". CNN. Retrieved 2022-08-16.
7. Swain, Frank (2 December 2013). "Secret city design tricks manipulate your behaviour". BBC. Archived from the original on 26 June 2019. Retrieved 23 February 2015.
8. Lee, Jackson (23 July 2013). "Urine Deflectors in Fleet Street". The Cat's Meat Shop. Archived from the original on 6 October 2013. Retrieved 23 February 2014.
9. "Architectural Exclusion: Discrimination and Segregation Through Physical Design of the Built Environment". Yale Law Journal . 124 (6): 1836–2201. 2015. Archived from the original on 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
10. Swain, Frank. "Secret city design tricks manipulate your behaviour". www.bbc.com. Archived from the original on 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
11. "The True Measure of Robert Moses (and His Racist Bridges)". Bloomberg.com. 2017-07-09. Retrieved 2023-06-02.
12. Rossem, Anna van (2022-06-24). Hostile architecture and its effect on public space in Nijmegen: A case study at the central station of Nijmegen (Bachelor's thesis). Radboud University.
13. Chellew, Cara (2016). "Design Paranoia". Ontario Planning Journal. 31. Archived from the original on 2022-02-19. Retrieved 2018-12-30– via ResearchGate.
14. "Designen som ska hålla hemlösa borta". DN.SE (in Swedish). 2015-04-07. Archived from the original on 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
15. Smith, Naomi; Walters, Peter (2017-10-25). "Desire lines and defensive architecture in modern urban environments" . Urban Studies. 55 (13): 2980–2995. doi:10.1177/0042098017732690. ISSN   0042-0980. S2CID   148822954. Archived from the original on 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
16. Edin, Fredrik (2017). Exkluderande design (in Swedish). Stockholm. p. 42. ISBN   978-91-87777-28-8. OCLC   1045613015. Archived from the original on 2022-02-19. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
17. Wilson, Paul (1989). Designing Out Crime. Australian Institute of Criminology. p. 23.
18. Gerrard, Jessica; Farrugia, David (September 2015). "The 'lamentable sight' of homelessness and the society of the spectacle". Urban Studies. 52 (12): 2219–2233. Bibcode:2015UrbSt..52.2219G. doi:10.1177/0042098014542135. ISSN   0042-0980. S2CID   146460552.
19. Johnsen, Sarah; Fitzpatrick, Suzanne; Watts, Beth (2018-10-03). "Homelessness and social control: a typology". Housing Studies. 33 (7): 1106–1126. doi: 10.1080/02673037.2017.1421912 . ISSN   0267-3037. S2CID   158718588.
20. Chellew, Cara (2016). "Defensive Inequalities". Spacing Magazine.
21. Dum, Christopher P. (2016). Exiled in America : life on the margins in a residential motel. New York. p. 222. ISBN   978-0-231-54239-5. OCLC   958066095. Archived from the original on 2022-02-19. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
22. "Defensive architecture: keeping poverty unseen and deflecting our guilt". The Guardian. 2015-02-18. Archived from the original on 2015-02-20. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
23. Kim, Elizabeth (2019-08-14). "A Field Guide To The 'Weapons' Of Hostile Architecture In NYC". Gothamist. Archived from the original on 2021-08-14. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
24. ""Exkluderande design" vid Centralen tar bort sovplatser". DN.SE (in Swedish). 2015-03-27. Archived from the original on 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
25. Edin, Fredrik (2017). Exkluderande design (in Swedish). Stockholm. p. 18. ISBN   978-91-87777-28-8. OCLC   1045613015. Archived from the original on 2022-02-19. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
26. "Photos of the Most Egregious 'Anti-Homeless' Architecture". www.vice.com. 25 June 2019. Archived from the original on 2022-02-19. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
27. "15 Examples of 'Anti-Homeless' Hostile Architecture That You Probably Never Noticed Before". interestingengineering.com. 2020-11-22. Archived from the original on 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
28. "Vancouver's 'defensive architecture' is hostile to homeless, say critics". Vancouver Is Awesome. 24 June 2019. Archived from the original on 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
29. "Activists Pour Concrete on Store's 'Anti-Homeless' Spikes, Win". www.boston.com. Archived from the original on 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
30. "The cornucopia of anti-homeless sleeping design". BBC News. 2014-06-09. Archived from the original on 2022-01-28. Retrieved 2022-02-19. Look at the design of bus stop seats in the UK. They typically prevent anyone from sleeping. One of the most common designs is a narrow plastic bench with a pronounced slope. A sleeper would roll off.
31. Bell, Kim (2013-12-18). "Metro's bench dividers at bus shelters seen by some as slap at homeless". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2014-08-22. Retrieved 2014-06-08.
32. "The Camden Bench". Ian Visits. 2 December 2016. Archived from the original on 7 January 2021. Retrieved 4 January 2021.
33. Waters, Carlos (2017-12-01). "Why cities are full of uncomfortable benches". Vox. Archived from the original on 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
34. "Obekväm design motar bort oönskade från städerna". Dagens Nyheter (in Swedish). 2014-11-30. ISSN   1101-2447. Archived from the original on 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
35. Blair, Allyson (27 August 2016). "City tries out a new, more comfortable bus stop seating option". Hawaii News Now. Retrieved 19 January 2025.
36. "Exkluderande arkitektur påverkar hela samhället negativt". Sveriges Arkitekter (in Swedish). 8 January 2019. Archived from the original on 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
37. Edin, Fredrik (2017). Exkluderande design (in Swedish). Stockholm. p. 16. ISBN   978-91-87777-28-8. OCLC   1045613015. Archived from the original on 2022-02-19. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
38. Nyberg, Micke; Isberg, Catharina (2015-03-12). "Här är det förbjudet att ligga ner". SVT Nyheter (in Swedish). Archived from the original on 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
39. Gitz, Randi; Haupt, Inger (2014-02-26). "Här är järnvägsstationen med enbart ståplats". SVT Nyheter (in Swedish). Archived from the original on 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
40. Wagner, Jonas. "Kein Platz für Obdachlose (nd-aktuell.de)". www.nd-aktuell.de (in German). Archived from the original on 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
41. Krieg, Claudia. "Menschen statt Bänke schützen (nd-aktuell.de)". www.nd-aktuell.de (in German). Archived from the original on 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
42. Edin, Fredrik (2017). Exkluderande design (in Swedish). Stockholm. pp. 23–24. ISBN   978-91-87777-28-8. OCLC   1045613015. Archived from the original on 2022-02-19. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
43. "'Anti-homeless' slope put in doorway". BBC News. Archived from the original on 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
45. "Staket för 200.000 ska hålla hemlösa borta". DN.SE (in Swedish). 2015-03-23. Archived from the original on 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
46. Groover, Heidi (19 December 2017). "Seattle Uses Bike Racks to Discourage Homeless Camping". The Stranger . Archived from the original on 22 November 2019. Retrieved 17 December 2017.
47. "New anti-homeless architecture: Seattle uses bike racks to block rough sleepers". The Guardian. 2018-01-24. Archived from the original on 2020-08-14. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
48. Kruzman, Diana (2019-07-04). "Portland's homeless campers face new obstacle: piles of boulders". oregonlive. Archived from the original on 2020-07-24. Retrieved 2020-07-25. The boulders are a form of hostile architecture or defensive design
49. Edin, Fredrik (2017). Exkluderande design (in Swedish). Stockholm. p. 20. ISBN   978-91-87777-28-8. OCLC   1045613015. Archived from the original on 2022-02-19. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
50. "ZEIT ONLINE | Lesen Sie zeit.de mit Werbung oder im PUR-Abo. Sie haben die Wahl". www.zeit.de. Archived from the original on 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
51. Schneider, Jens (28 September 2011). "St. Pauli hält Obdachlose mit Zaun auf Distanz". Süddeutsche Zeitung (in German). Archived from the original on 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
52. Murphy, Tim (January 3, 2023). "Monster of 2022: Moynihan Train Hall and the hostile architecture ethos". Mother Jones. Retrieved 8 May 2024.
53. Edin, Fredrik (2018-09-05). "Den vanligaste formen av exkluderande design". Skumrask (in Swedish). Archived from the original on 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
54. Muraca, Frank (2018-01-09). "Excluding Fast and Slow: Charlottesville's Long Battle over Public Space". Metropolitics. Archived from the original on 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
55. Edin, Fredrik (2017). Exkluderande design (in Swedish). Stockholm. ISBN   978-91-87777-28-8. OCLC   1045613015. Archived from the original on 2022-02-19. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
56. "NYC Transit blasted for tweeting that subway station benches were removed to deter homeless". New York Post. 2021-02-06. Archived from the original on 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
57. Perrett, Connor. "The New York City MTA sparked backlash for saying it removed benches from subway stations to 'prevent the homeless from sleeping on them'". Business Insider . Archived from the original on 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
58. Goldbaum, Christina (2021-02-08). "The Subway Was Their Refuge on Cold Nights. Now It's Off-Limits". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331. Archived from the original on 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
59. Rosenberger, Robert (March 2020). "On hostile design: Theoretical and empirical prospects" . Urban Studies. 57 (4): 883–893. Bibcode:2020UrbSt..57..883R. doi:10.1177/0042098019853778. ISSN   0042-0980. S2CID   202333075.
60. C., Hurley, David (2002). Closed circuit television : the Cincinnati experience. University of Cincinnati. OCLC   52100550.
61. Edin, Fredrik (2017). Exkluderande design (in Swedish). Stockholm. p. 21. ISBN   978-91-87777-28-8. OCLC   1045613015. Archived from the original on 2022-02-19. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
62. "'Hostile design' makes Calgary an unwelcoming modern city, says architect". CBC/Radio Canada. Archived from the original on 2021-07-17.
63. Snis, Alva (2016-11-28). "Kritiserat pipljud i Tensta avstängt under helgen". Sveriges Radio (in Swedish). Archived from the original on 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
64. "#defensiveTO | Light + Sound". defensiveto. Archived from the original on 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
65. "Raue kämpft mit Piepton gegen Jugendliche". MAZ - Märkische Allgemeine (in German). 19 September 2018. Archived from the original on 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
66. Education.com. "Sonic Science: The High-Frequency Hearing Test". Scientific American. Archived from the original on 2017-10-24. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
67. "High-pitched 'anti-loitering' devices targeting young people breaches human rights: advocates". ABC News. 2018-10-11. Archived from the original on 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
68. Kirk, Tracy (4 August 2017). "The use of sonic 'anti-loitering' devices is breaching teenagers' human rights". The Conversation. Archived from the original on 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
69. Pergande, Frank; Hamburg. "Brennpunkt Hauptbahnhof: Klassische Musik gegen Drogenkonsum". FAZ.NET (in German). ISSN   0174-4909. Archived from the original on 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
70. Benjes, Lisa (2018-08-31). "'Art shouldn't be weaponised': the atonal concert championing Berlin's homeless". The Guardian. Retrieved 2022-02-25.
71. "Bristol tanning salon installs sprinklers to stop homeless people from sleeping outside". The Independent. 2018-02-01. Archived from the original on 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
72. "Salon criticised over anti-homeless water sprinklers". BBC News. 2018-01-30. Archived from the original on 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
73. "Strand Bookstore 'uses sprinklers to evict homeless'". New York Post. 2013-11-14. Archived from the original on 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
74. "Luxury auction house under fire after sprinkler system douses homeless". The Guardian. 2016-06-10. Archived from the original on 2022-01-27. Retrieved 2022-01-27.
75. Hu, Winnie (November 8, 2019). "'Hostile Architecture': How Public Spaces Keep the Public Out". The New York Times . ISSN   0362-4331. Archived from the original on September 3, 2020. Retrieved November 12, 2020.
76. O’Shea, Linda S. Awwad-Rafferty, Rula. Design and Security in the built environment. Fairchild Books inc. 2009. ISBN   978-1-56367-497-6. Pp 27.
77. "chair bombing - popupinfrastructure". cargocollective.com. Retrieved 2024-04-26.
78. MacNeill, Arianna. "'Hostile architecture': A group wanted for removing armrests from MBTA benches says they're helping the homeless". www.boston.com. Retrieved 2024-04-26.
79. "Victory As Tesco Abandons Anti-Homeless Spikes After Concrete Vandalism". HuffPost UK. 2014-06-12. Retrieved 2024-04-26.
80. de Fine Licht, Karl (February 2021). ""Hostile architecture" and its confederates: A conceptual framework for how we should perceive our cities and the objects in them". Canadian Journal on Urban Research.

External links

• Cara Chellew, Bars, barriers and ghost amenities: Defensive urban design in Toronto Torontoist.
• Lloyd Alter, Hostile design doesn't work for any age group Mother Nature Network.
• Cara Chellew, Defensive Inequalities Spacing Magazine.
• "When Design Is Hostile On Purpose". Popsci. 28 July 2016. Retrieved 16 August 2017.
• HostileDesign.org, Project homepage of Stuart Semple sticker campaign.