Mobilier urbain anti-sdf : quand les villes repoussent les sans-abri

Homeless are linked with insecurity = we don't want to see them

“prévention situationnelle”(situational prevention) : from the US : use architecture to prevent
insecurities before it happens but excludes a lot of pop /move them out of the sight

gentrification concerns homeless but also us : we appreciate less the public space
not openly against the homeless : hidden into art or to make it accessible to disabled
no more bench to "fight against sedentarisation of society" or easier to clean

but citizens communicate and fight back :)

Schindler, ‘Architectural Exclusion: Discrimination and Segregation Through Physical

Design of the Built Environment’ (2015) 124 The Yale Law Journal 1934

Abstract : built environment = has physical features that make it difficult for certain
individuals to access places
historical racially restrictive covenant = forbidden by law yet there are less obvious
exclusionary urban design tactics
2 reasons of why discriminatory exclusion through architecture ≠ discriminatory
exclusion through law
- Courts and law maker fail to see architecture as a regulation (functional)
- Even when architecture regulatory power is recognized, jurisprudence is insufficient
to address its harms

Intro : ex of bridges in NY built low so that buses could not pass underneath and black/poor
ppl could not access beach = no public transport no poor
= because of racism such acts were not seen as “powerful symbolic messages” but
dismissed
+ difficult to prove the intent of discrimination + less obvious

I. How does the built environment controls or regulates behavior

=infrastructure placement and design as physical and symbolic contributors to economic and
social inequality, exclusion, and isolation
= less explicit and discussed in public sphere than law but as powerful
=lawmakers should pay more attention to it
II. How do municipalities uses environment to exclude
=practical examples
III. How have courts reacted to obvious exclusion
=traditional land use methods
=historical analysis of US
IV. How have courts reacted to architectural exclusion
=Equal Protection Clause and the Civil Rights Act of 1866
= court cases exemples
+ how this reaction is inadequate
CCL : laws need to be updated, this article provides concrete examples of discrimination and
wants the public to fight them and find ways to update laws

=> behavior may be regulated or constrained, in part, by “architecture.

=> def : architecture : the physical world as we find it, even if ‘as we find it’ is simply how it
has already been made + civil engineering, city planning, urban design, and transit routing
decisions

I. Architectural exclusion: theory

intro : History has 3 ways of exclusion : ordinances, social norms to threaten and
architecture, only architecture has not been addressed by scholars

A. Architecture as Regulation
architected urban landscape regulates, and the architecture itself is a form of regulation even
if we don’t see it at first sight
If scholars agree that architecture may disfavors some group they don’t see it as a
regulation/important
Ex:
- Lessig gives examples of architecture having impact of behavior (large street in paris = you
can not really protest in them) but does not focus on it
- Lee Tien says architecture = regulation intended to influence acts by shaping, structuring,
or reconfiguring the practical conditions of acts
-Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein use term “choice architect/architecture” = they know
design is not neutral
CCl : features of the built environment that function to control human behavior; architecture
is a regulation/regulatory tool

B. Architecture as Architecture in Legal Scholarship: Racialized Space and Place,

Briefly
confrontation of space and mobility to racism
Ex :
Lior Jacob Strahilevitz : exclusionary amenities = features of residential developments that
are generally expensive and that only appeal to certain demographic groups
Elise C. Boddie : spaces have racial identities (history, reputation,..)= certain ppl don’t
belong here
CCl : ppl think that cities are designed for general public interest but no, for exclusion;
landscape is a tool of modern racism

CCL : regulation through architecture is just as powerful as law, it is less identifiable and less
visible to courts, legislators : they see it has an impact but don’t recognize it as as powerful
as a law

II. Architectural exclusion: practice

intro : ways that states and municipalities have created infrastructure and designed their built
environs to restrict passage through and access to other areas of the community
expressly exclude or indirectly
 A. Physical Barriers to Access
1. See ex of bridges for Jones beach access
= todays it wouldn’t be accessible to b open about wanting to exclude the poor
2. Lack of sidewalk/crosswalk between neighborhood to separate
=divided highway-style median barriers on local arterials = same effect
= safety is compromised for pedestrians do discourage them
3. Walled ghettos : old but still used :
Detroit build walls in 1940 : they were not destroyed
Hamden Connecticut builds fence between (mostly black)housing projects and suburbs in
1950 to “keep crime law” in 2012 the fence was still here and supported to “keep the price of
houses in the suburb hight “ (was destroyed in 2014)
4. Gated communities = mostly legals but private
5. Barriers and blockades to mold traffic pattern
public power use them to stop drug buyers(having to drive more in small streets = nope)

CCL : people who support those type of architecture are not openly anti poor or racist
open goal of those is “public health and safety”, side effect is restrained access and
pushing certain class of individuals in shity part of town

B. Transit
architectural exclusion with design and placement of public transit and transportation
infrastructure = different areas, siting or not,...

1. Placement of Transit Stops

poor = take public transport= can’t access underserved areas = if you don’t want poor don’t
have public transportation
if black people can’t access the suburbs they can(t work there either

2. Placement of Highway Routes, Bridge Exits, and Road Infrastructure

Bridge exits and highway off-ramps are often located so as to filter traffic away from wealthy
communities
sometimes constructed on poor neighborhood to destroy them

3. Wayfinding: One-Way Streets, Dead-End Streets, Curvy Streets, and Confusing Signage
to funnel traffic away from certain areas and into others + make access by car difficult
make neighborhood confusing for strangers (sometimes citizen remove traffic signs
themselves)

4. Residential Parking Permits

you can park only where you leave or where friends give you permit to = Supreme Court
said it was ok

CCL : impact of pedestrian and poor ppl safety (ex : crossing roads),impact on access to
public facilities (parks, benches,..)

CCL : conceal racially discriminatory motives behind a veneer of health and safety rationales
 III. A brief history of exclusion by law (and norms)
Which tools of exclusion have been used throughout history (racial zoning, racially restrictive
covenants, and exclusionary zoning)

A. Legal Regulation that Furthered Exclusion

interplay between land-use law and the exclusion of people of color and the poor

1. Judicial Disapproval

a. Racial Zoning
Cities use zoning powers directly to keep out minorities (Baltimore 1910, Atlanta,...)
Blatant racism + “public peace/health concerns”
=> Buchanan v. Warley : supreme court deemed it illegal

b. Racially Restrictive Covenants

private law and adopted racially restrictive covenants = “run with the land” future owners are
binded too
“you can not rent to a black person”
=>Corrigan v. Buckley : supreme court deemed it legal
=> became institutionalized and internalized = very hard to challenge
=> 1948 Shelley v. Kraemer : supreme court deemed it illegal

2. Judicial Ambivalence: Exclusionary Zoning

cities = blocked from using public and private-law exclusionary techniques = need for indirect
zoning regulations = large lot sizes, square-footage minimums for buildings, or occupancy
restrictions that make property unaffordable to or impractical for use by poor people or
extended families
=> if no poor no blacks
or forbid “low-income home business”

=>desire to preserve property values; housing ≠ fundamental right

=> supreme court said “need to prove discriminatory intent”

CCl : supreme Court = good against formal racial barriers, not so much when more subtle

B. Social Norms That Furthered Exclusion: Sundown Towns, “White Terrorism,” and Threats
To Keep the “Other” Out
History of norms for segregation : minority neighbors would undermine white property value,
white ppl have to fight against that
Sundown Town say : first law to exclude minorities then white ppl harassment

CCL : need of law to punish these behaviors

C. A Clarification: Legal Exclusion Versus Architectural Exclusion

Legal exclusion : uses traditional legal tools (covenants), enforced by officials and self-
policing
Architectural : uses physical features of the built environment, enforced by its very presence
but the two overlap; make it more difficult but do not prevent 100%
ex : zoning law in the past : we can still see white neighborhood today and architecture of
the time is still here
ex : private property law + zoning and covenants

CCL : segregation by law is no longer permissible, its remnants—the legacy of that

segregation—continue to exclude individuals from public spaces
IV. Architectural exclusion in the courts: a lack of attention and success

intro : review of limited case law and scholarly literature + actual legal protections are
insufficient

A. A Failure To Recognize Architecture as Regulation

Architecture= less explicitly regulatory than law = operates surreptitiously bc not gov action =
citizen are unaware that they are political choices

zoning = political process+ covered by law,, not architecture

Law constraints behavior, while architecture constraints physical movement and hence
behavior
the existence of the architecture blocks you completely(legal but impossible) whereas the
law punishes you after (possible but illegal)

ccl : law has been used to shape behavior, design has been used across time and
civilizations to perpetuate desired systems of belief; architecture = symbol + not studied in
law but cities are conscious of it + not recognized by pop as constraining

B. The Jurisprudence of Exclusion Fails To Account for Architecture

1. Claims: Laws That Could Be Used To Challenge Architectural Exclusion

equal protection claim = requires a plaintiff to show that race was a reason for an
exclusionary decision + has been intentionally discriminated against

2. Holdings: Application of Relevant Law to Architectural Exclusion

ex : City of Memphis v. Greene. : city of Memphis closed off a street that connected a white
neighborhood to a black neighborhood, after white residents petitioned for the road’s
closure.
= creation of a physical barrier to reduce “traffic pollution” coming from black neighborhood
civic association took it to court : road closure constituted a badge of slavery in violation of
the Thirteenth Amendment; supreme court overturned that : they lost bc no “racially
exclusionary desire” + restriction “wasn’t severe “
=> in Jennings v. Patterson, barricade = “severe “ so they won bc violation of various
provisions of the Civil Rights Act, including section 1982
CCL : in Memphis v Greene Supreme court recognized the “symbolic significance” but didn’t
weight it

V. Problems and solutions

A. Legacy Problems and the Enduring Nature of Architecture

resent physical manifestations of policies that are now defunct or present pb?
= bit of both bc highway project of the 50’s still here but also present exclusionary zoning

=legacy pb ++ : “ durability of land-use decisions” + build something easier than remove

something so most violator just pay a fine

ccl : it has impact on ppl feeling degraded and stigmatized, on geography of opportunity it is
made by public policy maker so wrong; but so everywhere that difficult to get rid of

B. Proposed Solutions: Courts and Legislators

1. Judicial Solutions Are Unlikely To Be Successful

we need modernized or progressive view of the Equal Protection Clause + + local state
should tackle things like exclusionary zoning

2. Legislative Solutions Carry Some Promise

Elected officials at the federal, state, or local level + stop the funding +reforming

C. An Architectural Bent on an Environmental Impact Statement

when large project : administrators need detailed environmental review pursuant to state or
federal law
=> add impact on the exclusion of certain underrepresented groups, including poor people
and people of color
=architectural exclusion analysis

D. An Architectural Inclusion Version of the Americans with Disabilities Act

“one must be able to enjoy reasonable access to the spaces and places that make up civic
life” should be applied to disabled, poor and poc
=>we want statute like Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (prohibits construction of a
separate entrance for disabled individuals) for poor
but : ADA is result of neglect not of centuries of discriminations

Conclusion

This Article has demonstrated that the built environment serves to segregate and has
highlighted ways in which segregation by architecture, like segregation by law, operates in a
pernicious manner. The remainder of the Article seeks to establish how legal decision
makers tend to overlook the regulatory nature of architectural forms of exclusion. It does this
by examining judicial consideration of physical exclusion by law and by architecture
Viewing the built environment through a regulatory lens, one may begin to see the world
differently. A bridge does not exist merely to transport pedestrians or motorists across a
body of water or over a road, but also to deposit those pedestrians and motorists into certain
areas and not others. If a law were to require certain individuals to take one exit but not
another, we might question its intent or its legality, but if a decision-maker creates an
architectural feature that has the same effect, it is often viewed as innocuous
=> call for action, use this article to raise awareness