Anti-Homeless Architecture: The Pernicious Philosophy of “Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design”
On February 5th, 2021, Twitter user @Des4gr8ness sent a tweet accompanied with a photo of an empty subway platform to the New York City Transit’s twitter account, asking why the platform’s benches had been removed. A representative from the @NYCTSubway account replied, in a now deleted tweet, “Hi, Jeremy. Benches were removed from stations to prevent the homeless from sleeping on them. ^JP”
Twitter users quickly lashed out at the NYCT reply, demanding to know why it was necessary to prevent the homeless from sleeping in their stations in the dead of winter, a critically dangerous time of the year for the homeless, who are at risk of dehydration, hypothermia and frostbite in extreme cold conditions.
The NYCT’s removal of benches to keep away the homeless is part of a harmful practice endemic to large cities across America, but is especially prevalent in New York City: Hostile architecture, also known as “urban defensive architecture” or “exclusionary design”, is an urban design strategy aimed at crime and theft prevention. Originating from a philosophy of “Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design”, hostile architecture employs three primary tactics described by York University Research Administrator Cara Chellew as “natural access control, natural surveillance and territory enforcement.”
Devices of hostile architecture may seem innocuous in their most common forms, such as surveillance cameras in front of apartment buildings or arm rests built onto benches. However, the reality of hostile architecture manifests in a mass deployment of these urban designs in public spaces to keep out “undesirable” populations- particularly, the homeless population. This not only materially harms homeless people, removing what few spaces of refuge they may have in a crowded urban setting for sleep or protection from the environment, but brings up a broader question at the heart of urban design and machinations of government: If the homeless do not belong in the private eye or the public, where do they belong?
Credit: @hostiledesign_nyc via Instagram
Broken Windows and Spiked Benches
Hostile architecture has been in use for hundreds of years, dating back to the use of conical structure surrounding buildings in England to prevent public urination on private property. In the modern era, the use of crime preventative architecture has been incorporated into the racist and destructive “broken windows” philosophy of the late 20th century. “Broken windows” refers to a crime prevention philosophy that suggests that the visibility of crime, poverty and infrastructural negligence in urban settings encourages criminal behavior. The enforcement of policy inspired by of this school of thought has led to the over-policing of impoverished communities and communities of color.
In the installment of anti-homeless hostile architecture seen in urban areas today, what crime is being prevented? Urban designers and landlords who install hostile architecture argue that arm chairs on benches, spiked bars along brick walls and barriers surrounding urban plazas prevent loitering and other disruptive activity such as skateboarding. Yet, to those without stable housing and or a place to sleep, the message sent by hostile architecture is clear: you are not welcome here. For homeless New Yorkers, hostile architecture and anti-loitering laws makes any action short of permanent mobilization an unlawful activity.
Credit: @hostiledesign_nyc via Instagram
The crime preventative measures that inspire modern day hostile architecture have crept from privately owned property into public spaces and utilities. The removal of benches on city subway platforms, “one seat” rules on trains that prevent a person from lying down on the subway, and spiked railings along the perimeters of public property are not measures put in place to get rid of pesky teenagers on skateboards, but to push homeless people out of the public eye. In New York City, a metropolis with one of the highest housing costs and inaccessible, gentrified real estate markets in the country, the creation of repellent and exclusionary architecture in reaction to widespread homelessness is nothing short of depravity.
The question arises again: If one becomes homeless and loses access to private spaces, and are then subtly (or not-so-subtly) pushed out of public spaces, where are they supposed to go? Urban designers and landowners who install hostile architecture do not have the wellbeing of the homeless, or the public at large, in mind, but rather are concerned with the appearance and upkeep of an environment they perceive to be theirs- whether that be a building lobby, a public park or a whole city. The homeless population, many of whom are without housing as a result of the disparate spread of wealth and resources that benefit those who control and plan the city, are simply not a part of a desirable general public.
Credit: @hostiledesign_nyc via Instagram
The Criminalization of Homelessness
In New York City, to exist as a homeless person is functionally illegal. Sleeping on the street, sitting by a building or stopping to eat is considered loitering, entering private buildings for refuge is considered trespassing, and panhandling on public spaces such as the subway is illegal. Under the reign of Bill de Blasio, the criminalization of homelessness has only intensified as the NYPD has become further involved in handling and policing homelessness.
Under de Blasio, a Freedom of Information request received by the Safety Net Project reported a 44.5% increase of “street sweeps”, the destruction of homeless encampments and displacement of homeless people.Though the De Blasio administration shifted the role of homeless services to civilian agencies and away from the NYPD in 2020, police officers were still shown on camera participating in “homeless outreach” in subway stations.
Advocates for the homeless such as Coalition for the Homeless and the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty (NLCHP) have stressed that de Blasio and Governor Andrew Cuomo must shift away from the long tradition of criminalizing homelessness in poverty without addressing the reasons why there are people sleeping on the street in the first place. In 2020, the NLCHP launched the “Housing Not Handcuffs” campaign, which focuses on dual goals of ending the criminalization of homelessness and making housing available to all those without stable housing. Changing from a penal approach to a systemic problem of poverty to an interventive and humanitarian program is essential for not only ensuring the humane treatment of the homeless, but ending homelessness altogether.
You can endorse the “Housing Not Handcuffs” campaign here.
