Designing for Social Inclusion
Scroll
As hostile architecture keeps springing up to block people sleeping rough from accessing public spaces, we look at the long-term and structural ways cities can evolve to solve the mounting social crisis.
If you were to walk through a certain park in Berlin in 2008, you might notice an unusual bench. A squat little structure built of metal and slatted timber, it looked like any other bench, except for one feature – sharp steel spikes protruding from its seat. Hanging beneath the bench was a little coin slot, inviting aspiring sitters to slip in 0,50 €. This would prompt the spikes to contract and the bench would now be safe to sit on – but not for long. Soon a loud beep would warn the sitter to either get up or insert more money before the spikes emerged once more.
What might seem like a horrifying symptom of cold-blooded, late stage capitalism was in fact an installation by design student Fabian Brunsing. Called ‘Pay & Sit – Private Bench’, the artwork was a tongue-in-cheek dig at hostile architecture – urban design whose function is to prevent spaces being used by certain members of the public. While ‘Pay & Sit – Private Bench’ was satirical, it also took hostile architecture to its logical conclusion. In fact, there was outrage from those who didn’t quite get the joke. And who could blame them? In a culture where hostile architecture is becoming increasingly accepted – and hostile – a pay-per-use spiked bench seems entirely plausible.
Hostile architecture is no new concept. Train stations have long blasted music – often classical – to deter young people from loitering and causing nuisance. The motive was to prevent crime and it appeared to be effective. But as the rate of homelessness in cities has increased, so has the prevalence of hostile architecture.
The rise of hostile architecture is symptomatic of an inconvenient but fundamental truth: solving homelessness takes time, money and strategic thought. The measures needed to simply mask homelessness by blocking the use of public spaces are far less expensive and complex than the structural measures needed to solve the crisis at its root. Aside from wealth reallocation, tackling homelessness demands a total shift in our approach to urban planning and property ownership. Hostile architecture often comprises bolt-on design solutions – spikes, bars, etc – introduced to buildings or spaces post-construction. On the other hand, a comprehensive solution to homelessness is only reached by either taking preventative measures or by redesigning the use of cities to adapt to social crisis.
One way we can restructure our approach to urban planning to accommodate people without homes is to repurpose properties sitting vacant.
In 2014, there were an estimated 11 million vacant homes in Europe alone. Strategic incentives and changes to taxation laws can encourage the use of these vacant properties for shelter accommodation. In England, for example, council can impose rates of up to 50% for properties that have sat unoccupied and unfurnished for more than two years. At the incentive side of things, owners who offer their property as social housing to tenants chosen by the council can receive a grant that covers 50% of renovation costs. While this is not a blanket solution, providing safe, reliable crisis and interim housing is a crucial step in helping people experiencing homelessness transition into society.
In Finland, a more radical approach puts the need for shelter above all else – and it appears to be working. The ‘housing first’ model says that people experiencing homelessness need a home instantly, and that all other issues like addiction and unemployment can be worked on once they are safely housed in permanent dwellings. To help the process, many buildings have been converted into small apartments, like a 250-bed hostel in Helsinki which was repurposed as an 80-unit housing block. Finland is currently the only European country in which homeless has decreased in recent years. The success of the ‘housing first’ model sends a powerful message that shifting our approach to homelessness from moral to practical can solve the problem. It’s also a tangible example of how we can address housing crises not just through construction but by redesigning and repurposing existing structures within cities.
Growing populations, skyrocketing house prices and wealth inequality will continue to put pressure on cities to house everyone. Eradicating homelessness can be an uphill battle and it can only be approached by building more resilient, adaptable and empathetic cities. Using hostile architecture to shoo away people sleeping rough is not only cruel – it only masks a problem that we desperately need to solve.