The downfall of urban design

Urban centres have been long hailed as symbols of progress and modernity. As a future designer an alarming trend has emerged within urban design – the incorporation of anti-homeless features. These features are not only ethically questionable but also mark a regression in the way we design our cities. I want to shed light on the concept of anti-homeless urban design, discuss its negative impact on both vulnerable populations as well as the overall urban environment.

Understanding Anti-Homeless Urban Design

Anti-homeless design refers to the intentional integration of architectural and design elements meant to discourage or deter the homeless population from occupying public spaces. The motives behind these features are often to maintain a certain image of cleanliness, security and exclusivity, which in turn alienates those who are already marginalised and struggling.

Examples of Anti-Homeless Design Features

1.     Spikes and Dividers: These are often added to flat surfaces like benches, windowsills, and planters.

2.     Hostile Landscaping: The deliberate use of uncomfortable materials such as rocks, gravel or uneven surfaces in public spaces.

3.     Public Space Closures: Designing public spaces in a way that they can be easily closed off during certain hours to prevent homeless individuals from occupying them overnight

4.     Obstruction of Spaces: Installing armrests in the middle of benches, curved or sloped surfaces, or fences that prevent lying down or sitting comfortably

5.     Anti-Loitering Measures: Emitting high-frequency noises or playing classical music in public areas.

Impact on Vulnerable Populations

1.     Loss of Dignity: Anti-homeless features sends a clear message that homeless individuals aren’t welcome or valued members of the community. This can erode their sense of dignity and belonging, exacerbating already difficult circumstances.

2.     Limited Access to Public Spaces: Public spaces are meant to be inclusive and accessible to everyone. Anti-homeless designs such as spikes on benches or barriers in doorways, also restrict the use of public spaces for other people not just the homeless population.

3.     Social Isolation: By discouraging homeless individuals from occupying certain areas, anti-homeless design perpetuates social isolation, making it harder for them to connect with supportive networks and services.

Negative Impact on Urban Environment

1.     Homogenised Urban Landscape: Anti-homeless design often leads to a bland, uniform urban environment. The removal of diverse activities and individuals from public spaces diminishes the vibrancy and vitality that makes cities unique.

2.     Undermining Social Interaction: Urban centres thrive on social interaction. Design features that discourage people from gathering or sitting down can lead to a decrease in spontaneous interactions, weakening the sense of community.

The prevalence of anti-homeless design features raises important questions about what we as a society value and prioritise in our cities. Instead of finding ways to exclude vulnerable populations, our urban centres should embrace inclusivity, compassion and innovative solutions that address the root causes of homelessness. By fostering environments that support and uplift all members of the community, we can create cities that are truly vibrant, diverse, and most importantly; welcoming.

Here are some architectural and urban planning interventions that could be employed by current and future designers to prevent anti-homeless design in cities:

1.     Design Guidelines and Standards: Developing and enforcing design guidelines that explicitly discourage the use of anti-homeless features. These guidelines can promote inclusive design, prioritise human dignity, and ensure that public spaces are accessible to all.

2.     Community Workshops: Organising workshops involving architects, urban planners, community members, as well as not only representatives from homeless advocacy group but willing participants from the homeless community. Engaging in open discussions to collaboratively design spaces that cater to diverse needs while avoiding exclusionary elements.

3.     Placemaking Initiatives: Focus on placemaking that emphasises creating meaningful and engaging spaces. Design with the intention of fostering a sense of place and community, which can discourage the implementation of hostile design features.

4.     Supportive Housing Integration: Plan and design supportive housing complexes within urban areas. Integrating housing with other urban elements can reduce the need for people to live on the streets.

5.     Inclusive Design Education: Include inclusive design principles in architectural and urban planning education. By raising awareness about the impacts of design on vulnerable populations, future professionals will be better equipped to create inclusive spaces