Architecture has evolved over the years, transitioning from a primarily religious focus to a civic one. However, recent trends indicate a shift back towards limiting access for already marginalized groups.
Architecture encompasses not only the design of structures but also the creation of welcoming environments for citizens to participate in public life. In previous years, there has been a concerted effort to revitalize downtown centers in many towns, transforming them into vibrant spaces where people can freely enjoy their leisure time.
As the idea of “beautifying” a town center has started to reach an important status in our government there have been questions raised on how to properly handle a homeless population in larger cities. Cities like Boise have introduced “hostile architecture” to try to discourage unwanted behaviors. This idea of hostile architecture contradicts some fundamental principles of architecture, which aim to promote accessibility and foster better connections throughout the city and across different social classes.
Hostile architecture not only adversely affects the homeless population of a city but also hinders the accessibility of other marginalized groups, including the elderly and disabled. This creates an even bigger worry about how to combat it.
Cities will decide to spend more money on harming the homeless population than helping them. Measures such as anti-panhandling laws and incarceration result in an average cost of approximately $31,000 per person per year. In contrast if cities decided to pass laws and programs in support of the homeless population, they would spend roughly $10,000 per person according to homelessvoices.com. Hostile architecture can make up a huge portion of that $31,000 per year price tag by cities having to redesign benches, walkways, and other basic structures.
However, all the talk about money isn’t as important as the ideas and feelings behind hostile architecture. The idea that architecture has started to drift away from helping people to hurting them instead is the bigger issue. Like all careers, there is an aspect of ethics in architectural design. Architects who knowingly design and take part in hostile architecture have corrupted that ethical decision.
They knowingly inflict harm and make life more challenging for already marginalized individuals. Furthermore, they may inadvertently contribute to the difficulties faced by the elderly and disabled populations.
Hostile architecture is a massive problem in modern society. Although it may not be immediately apparent, once one type is identified, more instances become noticeable throughout a city. The use of “arm rests” in the middle of benches may seem like a design choice for the use of the bench but upon closer inspection is a way to mitigate the use of benches as a spot to sleep.
In Boise, near Rhodes Skate Park under Interstate 184, a seemingly random pile of rocks was recently placed there to deter homeless individuals from sleeping there due to its proximity to major homeless shelters in downtown Boise.
Hostile architecture is a stain on society that should be stopped. Instead of spending money on the new design of architecture and programs that hurt the homeless population cities should instead focus on the more ethical and in some ways cheaper option and help instead.
Connor Anderson can be reached at [email protected]