Executive Summary

Cities across the world have increasingly adopted built-environment strategies to deter or displace unhoused populations from public spaces. Collectively called anti-homeless architecture (or hostile architecture), these measures take many forms: from overt barriers such as spikes and fences to subtle design interventions like sloped benches and segmented seating. This white paper classifies these practices into a typology, evaluates their implications, and outlines the socio-political consequences for urban life.

1. Introduction: Defining Anti-Homeless Architecture

Definition: The deliberate use of design to restrict certain human behaviors in public or semi-public spaces. Core Intent: To discourage sleeping, loitering, resting, or dwelling by unhoused individuals. Context: Emerging alongside urban redevelopment, broken-windows policing, and gentrification pressures.

2. Typology of Anti-Homeless Architecture

2.1. Seating Modifications

Divided Benches: Armrests or partitions prevent lying down. Sloped or Curved Surfaces: Benches angled so resting is uncomfortable. Narrow Ledges and Perches: Spaces shaped for brief sitting, not reclining.

2.2. Ground and Pavement Interventions

Spikes and Studs: Metal spikes installed on flat surfaces to prevent lying down. Raised or Textured Pavement: Uneven surfaces beneath bridges or doorways. Slanted Surfaces: Sloping ground features that deter tents or bedding.

2.3. Defensive Landscaping

Dense Shrubbery: Thorny or thick plants blocking access to sheltered spaces. Strategic Planting Beds: Raised greenery in areas otherwise suitable for encampments. Rockscaping: Placement of boulders or gravel to prevent sleeping or gathering.

2.4. Structural Barriers

Gates and Fences: Blocking alcoves, underpasses, and sheltered entryways. Caged Vents and Grates: Restricting access to warm air vents used by unhoused people in winter. Blocked Nooks and Niches: Bricking over recessed areas of buildings.

2.5. Environmental Controls

Sprinkler Systems: Timed water sprays to deter overnight use of spaces. Acoustic Harassment: High-frequency sounds or continuous loud music. Lighting Schemes: Bright, continuous lighting to prevent sleep.

2.6. Temporal Restrictions

Timed Access Furniture: Seating that folds or retracts after hours. Restricted Hours Policies: Design combined with regulations enforcing closure of plazas or transit areas.

3. Motivations and Rationales

Aesthetic Goals: Maintaining a “clean” or “modern” city image. Economic Pressures: Protecting property values and commercial zones. Public Safety Narratives: Claiming deterrence of crime or nuisance. Governance Convenience: Avoiding long-term social policy interventions by substituting design solutions.

4. Social and Ethical Implications

Exclusionary Design: Reinforces segregation between housed and unhoused. Erosion of Public Space: Reduces accessibility for all urban dwellers, including youth, elderly, and travelers. Criminalization by Design: Turns poverty into a behavior to be “designed out.” Human Rights Considerations: Raises questions under international norms about dignity, shelter, and public participation.

5. Comparative Case Studies

London: Anti-sleeping spikes at retail doorways sparked public backlash and removal campaigns. New York City: Bench redesigns in subway stations to prevent lying down. San Francisco: Landscaping under freeways to deter encampments. Tokyo: Use of “perch seating” and frequent water cleaning in parks.

6. Policy Alternatives to Hostile Architecture

Housing First Initiatives: Permanent supportive housing to reduce homelessness. Public Design for All: Inclusive design standards that balance comfort and shared use. Community Engagement: Involving affected populations in design decisions. Harm Reduction Urbanism: Recognizing public space as part of the survival infrastructure of the unhoused.

7. Conclusion

Anti-homeless architecture is both a design practice and a political choice. While it may achieve short-term displacement, it does not resolve the root causes of homelessness and instead contributes to cycles of marginalization. A sustainable and humane urban policy must replace exclusionary design with inclusionary solutions that respect dignity while balancing multiple urban needs.

8. Recommendations

Urban Audit: Cities should inventory hostile architecture in public space. Ethical Design Guidelines: Establish municipal standards banning hostile interventions. Integrated Policy Approach: Link urban planning with housing, healthcare, and social services. Transparency: Require disclosure when design is intentionally exclusionary. Education: Raise awareness among architects, planners, and citizens about the implications of design choices.