How hostile architecture is ruining cities for everyone

If you’ve visited a big city recently, you may have noticed some changes. Benches look different, curbs and walls have been restructured, and the number of public amenities has decreased. Welcome to the world of “hostile architecture.”

This urban design strategy installs unusually shaped, and often uncomfortable, structures and surfaces under the facade of being decorative. In reality, these installations intend to modify people’s behaviors and prevent certain activities without explicitly setting rules. This could be something like a decorative bench that makes it uncomfortable to lie down or a grooved curb that prevents people from sitting down.

If you really look, these elements are all around us. Sometimes, hostile architecture is harmless, but members of society who rely on public infrastructure often find the concept inconvenient. As more structures are installed, it’s clear certain demographics are being targeted by “hostile designs,” but the people who are impacted most may not be the intended targets.

Hostile beginnings

Hostile architecture has been a part of urban design as long as cities have been built. Many design concepts predate the term, like street molding that discouraged public urination in the 1800s, and have been labeled as “hostile” in retrospect. On the surface, it doesn’t seem like a bad concept. After all, cities want people to be moving — not spending all day “waiting for the bus” on the bench.