 |
| Photo by National Coalition for the Homeless |
In urban environments around the world, the battle over public space has taken on a new and insidious form. Cities are increasingly turning to hostile architecture—design elements intentionally crafted to make certain behaviors uncomfortable or impossible—to manage, or more accurately, to marginalize the homeless population, and Portland, Oregon is no exception. These design choices are often subtle, blending into the urban landscape under the guise of aesthetics or functionality, but their true purpose is exclusionary.
So, What Is Hostile Architecture?
Hostile architecture, also known as defensive architecture or exclusionary design, refers to the intentional use of design elements in public spaces that aim to restrict certain behaviors—particularly those associated with homelessness. Examples include: benches with dividers or spikes, spiked ledges and window sills, as well as sloped or uneven horizontal surfaces. Most design choices opt to block access to covered walkways, alcoves, or other areas where homeless individuals might seek shelter from the elements.
These measures are often justified as ways to maintain cleanliness, deter vandalism, or enhance the aesthetic appeal of urban spaces. However, the primary function of hostile architecture is to control and exclude vulnerable populations, particularly the homeless.
As Portland’s homelessness crisis has grown increasingly visible, with a 65% rise in the number of people living on the streets, so too has the investment in defensive architecture across the city’s public spaces. In February, the Portland City Council allocated $500,000 to install benches and other structures specifically designed to prevent individuals from lingering near Laurelhurst Park and other areas. Back in 2019, the Oregon Department of Transportation spent over $800,000 placing boulders at five former campsite locations that had previously housed many of Portland’s homeless residents.
The primary goal of these installations was clear: to displace campers from these areas and prevent them from returning. However, this approach is not only devoid of empathy but also merely a deterrent, not a solution. Hostile architecture exacerbates and perpetuates the stigma and prejudice faced by the homeless, all while their numbers continue to climb.
The use of hostile architecture and urban design has become an increasingly common strategy to push encampments away from busy public areas that could pose safety risks. Yet, this tactic has only deepened the displacement of the homeless community.
Meanwhile, as the housing crisis worsens and calls for action grow louder—from both the homeless community and the neighborhoods where they seek refuge—Portland is struggling to meet the mounting needs. Despite having spent $1.7 billion on humanitarian services and affordable housing, many people in need of aid, temporary shelter, and affordable housing find themselves on waitlists that stretch up to five years.
Public spaces in Portland, as in any city, are meant to be accessible to all residents, regardless of their socioeconomic status. Yet, the rise of hostile architecture challenges this principle, creating environments that are selectively hostile—designed to be unwelcoming to homeless individuals while remaining inviting to others. This form of exclusion reflects deeper societal values, where the comfort and convenience of certain groups are prioritized over the basic needs of those experiencing homelessness.
In Portland, the ethical implications of hostile architecture are profound.
By designing public spaces that make it impossible for homeless individuals to rest, sleep, or seek shelter, Portland effectively criminalizes the basic human behaviors necessary for survival. This approach fails to address the root causes of homelessness, instead punishing those already struggling with extreme poverty. Likewise, the normalization of hostile architecture in Portland erodes the city’s reputation for empathy and social justice as these exclusionary designs become more widespread, they contribute to a growing apathy towards the plight of the homeless, making it easier for residents and policymakers to ignore the crisis. Most notable of all, hostile architecture in Portland is by design meant to be subtle, blending into the urban landscape in ways that make its exclusionary purpose less visible to the general public. This invisibility allows these practices to continue with minimal public scrutiny, despite their harmful effects on the homeless population.
 |
| Photo by Alberto Alonso Pujazon Bogani/PSU Vanguard |
However, these attempts at camouflage present the city with an uglier truth:
In Portland, hostile architecture not only reflects a deep-seated disregard for the unhoused population but also stands in stark contrast to the city’s commitment to sustainability and vibrant urban life. Portland is renowned for its green spaces and close connection to nature, yet the introduction of such architecture undermines these very values.
While the concrete-secured boulders may displace those seeking refuge, they also suffocate the soil, stifle the growth of grass and plants, and contribute nothing to the preservation or enhancement of urban life. This approach harms the environment while addressing none of the underlying issues.
Join the fight against NIMBYism!
No comments:
Post a Comment