1

The benefit’s of hostile design

Ryan Thiessen

University of Manitoba

ARTS 1110

Dr. Honeyford

Virginia Ullyot

Date paper is due: December 1st, 2022

Word Count: 1529

Essay 2
 2

The benefit’s of hostile design

Hostile design is a design strategy that incorporates certain features into architecture to

discourage certain uses, and to prevent unwanted people from occupying certain areas. Some

popular examples of hostile design are spikes places on the ground to prevent people from

loitering or sleeping in that location, skate stoppers placed on ledges to prevent skateboarders

from skating on the ledges, dividers placed on benches to prevent someone from lying down,

security camera made easily visible to create a form of “self policing” in certain areas, and walls

or gates surrounding a community to prevent unwanted people from entering the community

(Rosenberger, Robert. 2020). There are multiple other forms are architectural design that could

be considered hostile design, but these are the most common. Hostile design is quite

controversial, with a large amount of people disagreeing with a majority of forms of hostile

design. (Petty, J. 2016). I believe that hostile design can be quite beneficial for society. There are

a variety of positives that can derive from the implementation of hostile design. Hostile design

should be implemented and used in a variety of public settings to create a more comfortable, and

in some cases, a potentially safer settings for everyday civilians, and to encourage members of

the population who are negatively effected by the use of hostile design to find alternate methods

and locations to conduct their activities that could be more beneficial to all parties.

The implementation of hostile design in public spaces can lead to space’s being more

comfortable, and in some cases, safer for the general public. One of the main purposes of hostile

design is to keep unwanted people out of certain public spaces. Some example’s hostile design

that can contribute to public places that are more comfortable and/or safer are dividers placed on

benches, skate stoppers, security cameras, and fences or walls. Dividers that are placed on

benches can commonly be found in public parks, shopping malls, and bus shelters. The goal of
 3

having these dividers is to prevent members of the population who are unhoused from lying

down and sleeping on the benches (Rosenberger, Robert, 2020). Preventing these people from

lying down on these benches opens them up for other civilians to sit on them and enjoy them.

Having people sleeping on benches in public spaces can make other people feel uncomfortable

being in these space’s (De Fine Licht, Karl Persson, 2017). If someone is sleeping on benches

inside a bus shelter, it could deter everyday civilians from going inside the bus shelter to wait for

the bus, which is what it is intended to be used for. Skate stoppers are small, primarily metal

knubs that are installed on ledges, making it nearly impossible to skate on these ledges

(Rosenberger, Robert, 2020). An example of a location where these can be found is in the

underground tunnels at the university of Manitoba. Skate stoppers are extremely effective in

locations like the underground tunnels at the university of Manitoba, as these tunnels are quite

narrow, to it would be extremely unsafe for somebody to be skating on those ledges, especially if

there are people walking in the tunnels. It is very easy for someone to fall while skating on these

ledges, so not only would someone be putting their own safety at risk, but they would also be

putting other people who would happen to be in the tunnel’s safety at risk. Locations where skate

stoppers are primarily installed, like the underground tunnels at the university of Manitoba, are

locations that were designed with the purpose of giving people a way of getting from A to B, not

for people to be skateboarding. Security cameras are extremely common is public places. Some

common location’s where security cameras are used are in retail store or businesses, hotel’s,

apartment complexes, and banks (Rosenberger, Robert, 2020). Signs can often be found within

these location alerting customers that there are cameras recording all activities within the

location. These cameras can prevent a variety of event from occurring such as theft, assault, and

vandalism. Having these cameras installed and made easily visible encourages people to behave
 4

and follow rules, creating a form of “self policing” (Rosenberger, Robert, 2020). This can make

consumers and everyday civilians feel safer when entering these areas, leading to a greater

overall experience. Fences and walls are another effective form of hostile design (Rosenberger,

Robert, 2020). An example where fences or walls could be used to keep unwanted people out of

public spaces would be fences or walls that restrict access to alleyways or underpasses. These are

areas that are commonly used by unhoused people to set up shelter (Rosenberger, Robert, 2020).

If locations like alleyways aren’t blocked off, people who are unhoused would likely set up

shelter, preventing the uses that the spaces were intended like providing access to buildings, or

making people who use these spaces regularly feel uncomfortable and potentially unsafe

(Rosenberger, Robert, 2020). The implementation of hostile design is an effective way of

preventing unwanted people from occupying public areas, providing the general public spaces

that are more comfortable, and in some cases, safer.

The use of hostile design can encourage the members of the population who are deemed

to be negatively effected to certain forms of hostile design, to find alternative ways of conducting

their activities that could end up being beneficial for them. Unhoused people are a group of

people who are deemed to be negatively effected by the use of hostile design. Some forms of

hostile design that effect them directly are dividers on benches to prevent unhoused people from

lying down, spikes installed on the ground on against ledges to prevent them from lying down, or

leaning on certain surfaces, fences, or walls to prevent unhoused people from accessing areas

where they could potentially set up shelter, and noise machines to prevent unhoused people from

loitering in areas when they may be unwanted (Rosenberger, Robert, 2020). Some of these

methods of hostile design are controversial, especially the use of spikes, as some people feel as if

using physical deterrents like spikes is disrespectful and inhumane (Petty, J. 2016). Even if some
 5

of these methods are a bit controversial, they are quite effective. By preventing unhoused people

for accessing certain areas, it can lead to some effects that could end up being beneficial for

unhoused people. If unhoused people aren’t able to lay down on benches to sleep or if they aren’t

able to access areas where unhoused people commonly set up shelter, they would be forced to

find alternative locations to conduct their activities. Some locations could end up being very

beneficial for them. They could go to a shelter, where they can receive proper food and water as

well as a place to sleep. There are some shelters now that offer rehabilitation programs to aid

unhoused people integrate themselves back into society by providing temporary housing as well

as employment to give them an opportunity to create a sustainable lifestyle for themselves. Some

people who are unhoused are content with staying in public place’s and sleeping in locations like

on benches in bus shelters, therefore hostile design can prevent that and be overall beneficial for

them (De Fine Licht, Karl Persson, 2017). Another group of people who could be deemed

negatively effected by hostile design are skate boarders. The primary form of hostile design that

effects them is skate stoppers. Although it seems to negatively effect them personally at the

surface, it could end up benefiting them. If skateboarders aren’t able to skate on ledges or any

other unwanted place, they would be forced to find somewhere else to skate. There are locations

that are designed for skateboarders like skate parks, where physical features are designed for

skateboarders to perform trick on in a safer manner. Having skateboarders skate at these

locations instead of public places where they are unwanted can lead to them having a personally

better experience by having more success performing their tricks and moves, and they can also

reduce their risk of injury by skating on surfaces that are designed to be skated on (Rosenberger,

Robert, 2020). The use of hostile design in its entirety, can end up being overall beneficial to the

groups who are deemed to be negatively effected by them.

The implementation of hostile design in a variety of public places can create a more

comfortable, and in some instances, safe environment for everyday citizens, as well as

potentially being beneficial for the groups of people deemed to be negatively effected by the

implementation of hostile design. Certain form of hostile design like dividers on benches, spikes,

fences, walls, security cameras, and skate that have the intent of keeping unwanted people out of

certain areas can lead to everyday civilians feeling more comfortable in these areas and in some

areas, it can make them safer. These forms of hostile design also force the people deemed to be

negatively effected by hostile design to find alternative methods to conduct their activities, like

unhouse people going to a shelter, and skateboarders going to a skatepark. The implementation

of hostile design can be very effective and beneficial for all members of society.
 7

References

De Fine Licht, Karl Persson. (2017). Hostile Urban Architecture: A Critical Discussion of the

Seemingly Offensive Art of Keeping People Away. Etikk i Praksis, 11(2), 27–44.

[Link]

Petty, J. (2016). The London spikes controversy: Homelessness, urban securitisation and the

question of "hostile architecture." International Journal for Crime, Justice, and Social

Democracy, 5(1), 67-81. [Link]

Rosenberger, Robert. (2020) “On Hostile Design: Theoretical and Empirical Prospects.” Urban

Studies (Edinburgh, Scotland), 57(4), 883–93,[Link]