Hostile architecture, also known as defensive architecture, hostile design, unpleasant design, or defensive urban design, is all around us; however, until recently, the topic of this design trend
had been largely unnoticed.
It isn’t difficult to tell whether or not
a design element is defensive:
Windows with decorative spikes to
prevent pedestrians from sitting,
benches with large armrests in
between each seat to discourage the homeless from sleeping in a public space,
and trees that have installed barbs in the branches to stop bird droppings from
falling onto parked cars—what do all of these features have in common?
In recent years, hostile architecture has become a hot topic on social media
and in the world of architecture. Is it another form of gentrification?
Is it to ensure public safety? Is it just for aesthetics?
The controversial topic has collected hundreds of thousands of opinions across the web.
In its truest form, hostile architecture can be described as a type of design that is used
to control people’s behavior. Like most design, this form of architectural design is used
to dissuade people from engaging in certain behaviors that a piece of architecture may
or may not have been designed for. Such examples include anti-skateboarding handrails and ledges, which are equipped with studs that are known as “skatestoppers,” floor studs that are installed in little nooks outside of buildings that homeless people typically sleep
in or rest in, and water sprinklers that activate with no other purpose than to discourage people from loitering.
Though hostile architecture has, for the most part, been seen as having a negative
impact on its surrounding environment, there are some instances in which these
designs help improve the condition of its space.
Two prime examples are anti-urination devices, also known as urine deflectors,
and anti-littering devices. Despite the positive impact these particular installations
have made in their communities, a larger, more prevalent issue still exists that ties
into discrimination and social justice.
Lawfully speaking, not much can be done with hostile architecture on private property.
And while there are plenty of hostile architectural designs implemented on private
property, the problem regarding public accessibility rises when benches and window
sills are installed with sloped surfaces and studs in an attempt to manage human engagement. Such features bring up the issue of accessibility and the public’s right
to public space, urban or otherwise. And does designing these spaces in such
a manner pose as an infringement on human rights, as these architectural elements essentially isolate certain demographics whether it be the homeless or a skateboarder?
- Many critics believe this is the case.
In 2018, British artist Stuart Semple (the same Stuart Semple who created the world’s pinkest pink, most pigmented, flattest black, and most glittery glitter), launched a social media campaign inviting the public to place identifying stickers on examples of hostile design.↔ http://theludlowgroup.com/2018/
The debate: Is hostile architecture designing people -- and nature -- out of cities?
Dean Harvey: My initial thought is that this cannot be considered
an extension of hostile architecture: spikes have been used to protect
damage to stonework
from bird
droppings for many years...
[...]https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/new-dean-harvey-james-
furzer-hostile-architecture-debate/index.html
*Sources of information
The Discussion On Hostile Architecture:
A Public Service Or Infringement On Human Rights?
- http://theludlowgroup.com/2018/03/01/the-discussion-on-hostile-
architecture-a-public-service-or-infringement-on-human-rights/
15 Examples of 'Anti-Homeless' Hostile Architecture
That You Probably Never Noticed Before
- https://interestingengineering.com/15-examples-anti-homeless-
hostile-architecture-that-you-probably-never-noticed-before
The rise of hostile architecture
- https://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/28/world/gallery/hostile-architecture/index.html
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου