An invisible force quietly shapes the environment while you’re walking and driving through cities. You may notice spikes under sheltered window sills, boulders underneath a section of freeway, or less obviously, dividing rails in the center of benches, or uncomfortable-looking sitting areas seemingly lacking a practical purpose. Likely, the average person would think nothing of it. But these strange urban features are all examples of hostile architecture, a surprisingly prevalent design ideology implemented throughout cities. 

This kind of architecture takes myriad forms, often involving design that seems antithetical to its purpose. For example, while benches usually function as resting places, a bench bisected by a railing may be hostile: purposefully designed to provoke discomfort, in an effort to discourage loitering. It is similar to why a kindergarten classroom or a playground in an elementary school would be so colorful— to be welcoming. Hostile architecture has the exact opposite intention.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines hostile architecture as “the design of public spaces in a way that stops unwanted behavior, for example putting spikes in doorways to stop people who have nowhere to live from sleeping there.” Hostile architecture has been controversial, as its intention to limit the behavior of the public (such as skating, sleeping, etc…) is more detrimental than beneficial, especially to homeless populations. 

The National Conference of State Legislators reports 4.2 million youth and young adults experience homelessness in the United States, 700,000 of which are unaccompanied minors (under the age of 18 without an adult/parent/guardian). Between the ages 13 and 17, one in every 30 youth experience homelessness each year. These numbers are scary, but they are real.

Unhoused people predominantly live in most, if not all, large cities in America, which is, co-incidentally, where hostile architecture is more prevalent-in densely populated cities with a continual influx of people traveling throughout. Many cities and private entities construct hostile architecture to prevent homeless people from using public spaces as their sleeping and hangout spots.

Hostile architecture has a clear dark side: dividing our cities and people, rather than bringing us together. By robbing vulnerable populations of a resting place when they are in need of support, hostile architecture is extremely detrimental. It promotes further stigma against homeless people, and excludes unhoused people from public spaces, such as by depriving them of a place to sleep when seeking protection from bad weather. By deterring homeless people from busy areas, hostile architecture covers up housing disparities, effectively working against local government’s goals to create a connected community.  

Aesthetics are nice when making a vision board for the year, or when redecorating your room, but by prioritizing aesthetics over actual human use, hostile architecture raises real concerns about our society’s priorities. Just because many housed people may not notice hostile architecture’s exclusionary effects, does not mean that they do not exist, which is why it is necessary to talk about these issues.

Too often, public officials remain ignorant of hostile architecture. To gauge officials’ knowledge of hostile architecture, leaders of Sunrise Bay Area's High School Team, Vivian Tolajian and Manasvini Tammineedi, interviewed mayoral aides from cities around the Bay Area, including Sacramento, San Jose, and Orinda. Representatives talked about their “big-picture” efforts to counter the housing crisis, that they are trying to implement permanent solutions, but also mention that there is much behind the scenes work with regards to location, water supply, etc….  Instead of investing in hostile architecture, city governments can redirect funds towards taking homeless people off the streets, into safe spaces such as shelters and homes. 

In fact, in Connecticut, House Bill 6400 was introduced to ban Hostile Architecture entirely. The act prohibits the installation of hostile architecture in public spaces, and was introduced during the General Assembly in January, 2023. It is important that, as the state with the most homelessness in the United States, that California especially (as well as New York and Florida, with second and third most, respectively) takes steps to make a change at policy levels. 

Hostile Architecture is much more than just aesthetics and appearance, creating a greater impact on the fabric of our cities, its impact evident in our communities. It's time to acknowledge the silent exclusion that these designs maintain and strive toward creating a more inclusive, compassionate urban environment where everyone is welcome in public areas, regardless of housing status. 

By taking a stand against hostile architecture, we not only reclaim our public spaces but also send a powerful message about inclusivity and compassion. We can inspire positive change, bridge societal divides, and pave the way for a more equitable and welcoming world for generations to come.