Author: Kenneth Gao
School: Stuyvesant High School
Publication Date: July 18, 2023
New York’s public faces an almost invisible enemy: you likely see it on your daily commute, but you probably don't recognize it. However, it reinforces the city's social hierarchy, creating fundamental in-groups and out-groups of acceptability. This enemy isn’t some corporation, politician, or novel virus. Who is it? Or better yet, what is it? It’s NYC'S structural design.
“Hostile design” is the intentional addition of unfriendly elements to public spaces.
Hostile design encompasses a large range of structures that limit idle behavior (such as sitting or lying down) - to encourage consistent movement. Design elements can include spikes on windowsills, armrests dividing benches, or even the creation of “leaning stations” in service of traditional seating areas.
The intent of promoting movement appears beneficial, even necessary, but these choices consciously reinforce class divisions. It’s simple: when you limit the spaces where the City’s homeless can rest, you will not see as many homeless people. This denies the disenfranchised of a valuable political resource: visibility. If they aren't seen, they aren't considered. If they aren't considered, it’s unlikely much will be done politically on their behalf.
Moreover, it's imperative to remember how these design choices affect the homeless' psychology. When the City’s shape is custom-molded for the comfort of specific classes of people, they create clear hierarchies of desirables and undesirables. In an interview with AM New York, Shams DaBaron, an advocate for the homeless, laments his own experiences living on the streets:
"I had to stuff myself in the loops of benches, which is very dangerous to lay out on the bench. You feel trapped. The psychological impact of hostile architecture further establishes you as being not worthy. It sends a message that you’re not welcome here."
Left to Right: Man asleep on a ledge (Getty Images, Dustin Sullivan); A row of metal spikes gaurds a low garden wall in Manhattan (George Etheredge for The New York Times); Anti-loitering spikes on a window ledge (Cara Chellew)
We need to recognize that our public administrations shouldn’t exist to serve specific classes of people.
For one, this method of shooing away the homeless does not work. When the homeless have no available space on the surface, they will find a comfortable space that exists — the subway.
This was especially difficult for homeless people early in 2022: in response to rising violence on the MTA, Eric Adams and Kathy Hochul announced a crackdown on homeless people sleeping in subway cars.
The crackdown rhetoric was troubling. Mayor Adams says: “No more just doing what you want. Those days are over. Swipe your MetroCard, ride the system, get off at your destination. That’s what this administration is saying.”
Painting this phenomenon as a deliberate decision by individuals to create trouble, instead of a clear response to an incorrectly designed city, unfairly antagonizes people who simply need robust support.
To reiterate: homeless people don’t choose to sleep on the subway. They are forced to.
To Adams' some credit, he did invest $171 million to create shelters and employ medical support. This is, of course, a preferable option to neglecting the homeless outright.
In spite of this, does the number of displaced homeless meet the needs of support infrastructure on a 1-to-1 basis?
In recent weeks, the Adams administration has fought the City’s right-to-shelter mandate, which ensured that any resident needing temporary shelter would be housed. This is in response to a lack of temporary beds to meet asylum seekers' demands.
As a result, the city has been scrambling to retrofit existing spaces to meet the need but struggles to do so. This has led the city to contest the mandate. Advocates, in response, call upon the city to expand permanent housing offerings.
The situation is clear: this city is not made for homeless people. Our public infrastructure has failed to meet housing needs, and complacency with the situation has created a design philosophy that punishes those in need. As a city, we need to understand that our housing crisis can only be fought with empathy.
NYC needs better housing options, not leaning stations.
RESEARCH, NOTES, OR BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Examples of Hostile Architecture
Steel Stanchions
Prevents sitting in windowed areas, discourages idle movement
Leaning Bars
Reduces need for benches within transit system
Spikes
Makes it impossible to use alcoves, elevated areas, and gardens as a resting spot.
Sprinkler Systems
Strand uses a fire suppression system to prevent people from sleeping outside the store.
Armrests
Prevents people from lying down on public benches.
MTA’s “Enhanced Station Initiative”
https://ny.curbed.com/2018/4/3/17193678/mta-subway-enhanced-station-initiative-budget
Invested money into improving the aesthetic improvement of subway stations, as opposed to improving train efficiency.
Key Points
Subtle design choices reinforce existing political structures. <”Weapons”>
These structures deny homeless + disabled individuals the ability to comfortably navigate public spaces, and as a result, their visibility in common areas / affluent areas.
Creates in-groups of desirables, out-groups of undesirables.
Bennet Beinhardt, Open Hearts Initiative
“Anti-homeless architecture is another symptom of an approach to homelessness that fails to treat homeless neighbors with dignity and respect. It starts at the top, with a mayoral administration that uses the police to toss the belongings of our unsheltered neighbors, and is perpetuated when people with wealth and influence create hostile and unwelcoming spaces,”
Effects of Implementation
The increase of hostile architecture inadvertently makes train cars the only spot where homeless people can rest.
Social dynamics force homeless people to seek out areas where simple activities such as eating, sitting down, or lying down would be more socially accepted; this is why train cars often have multiple homeless people gathered in one spot.
This creates a psychological message – refer to the above point about outgroups.
The Backlash to the Backlash, 2022
Eric Adams and Kathy Hochul announce a crackdown on homeless people within the subway; using policemen to forcefully remove campers. This was in response to rising crime within the transit system during the time.
E.g. Michelle Alyssa Go, pushed by a homeless man onto the tracks
Policy does not distinct between violent offenders / people who are looking for shelter
Personal Opinions
This policy comes as a vindictive measure against the homeless – prioritizing. the comfort of some classes of New Yorkers while neglecting to treat vulnerable ones with respect / decency. It is an uncomfortable antagonization / stereotype of one group of people in order to create a simple narrative (and therefore create simple, ineffectual solutions.)
To Give Credit …
Adams has invested 171 million to create supportive housing / requisite medical professionals (while also clearing out homeless encampments.) It is the preferable option to victimizing the homeless while neglecting their immediate future. However, does the amount of displaced homeless meet 1-to-1 with supportive infrastructure?
Comments