Speech Flashcards
Intro
A city’s job is to provide its citizens a home and community, so why are they now actively discriminating over who can and cannot enjoy public spaces? Since the late 20th century there’s been an uprising in a certain architectural design called hostile architecture, or exclusionary design, defined as an urban design strategy that uses elements of the built environment to intentionally guide or restrict behavior, often targeting vulnerable populations like the homeless. The purpose of this design is to exclude the unwanted; the literal objective of this design is to attack the vulnerable. Even the name of the design sounds evil, with the definition of the word it’s associated with being “unfriendly”, and “antagonistic”. And while it targets certain individuals, others are inevitably affected. With the growing crisis of hostile architecture, it’s not enough to have a surface level understanding when it comes to a topic so terrible because to fight a problem you first have to be educated on it.
Example one
Homelessness is a complex issue that affects countries around the world. It’s an incredibly intricate problem with no easy solution. So what do cities do to solve said problem? They implement hostile architecture to keep homelessness out of the public eye. Instead of solving the issue, cities put spikes on ledges to keep the homeless from lying down. Instead of providing a safe space for those in need, cities design subways with bright lights to keep people from resting on their property. And instead of investing in shelters for the homeless, they take strategically placed bike racks to keep homeless individuals from setting up tents. How much does a city have to hate its citizens to segregate them from the public purposely via design? How little does a town have to care, that instead of trying to fix the problem of homelessness, it worsens the situation. How much does a city have to despise its own civilians that it actively pays money to take away the only place of security homeless individuals have? Cities are meant to aid their civilians with transportation, utility systems, and most importantly, security, not to implement a form of architecture with “hostile” in the name. If a city is there to provide for all citizens, then why is it that a group of people aren’t worthy of their aid?
Example 2
Hostile Architecture not only makes life harder for the homeless community, but for everyday citizens. While its purpose is to attack the homeless community, many others are caught in the crossfire. Homeless people aren’t the only people who rely on benches and ledges, it’s everyday citizens who use them daily. How will a mother change her baby when bars on benches take up all the space? How will the disabled or the elderly rest on a ledge when that ledge has spikes? Ledges on buildings that aren’t just used as the resting places of homeless individuals, they’re used by the community as seating, tables, and shelves. And as more and more cities are implementing this type of design, cities are getting more and more closed off to the public. When 55% of people live in cities, it’s baffling how cities take away spaces that are meant to be public from those individuals.
Example three
Segregating individuals, hiding them away, and classifying them as less than, where have we seen this before? As long as there has been history, there’s been genocides, sharing the same ideals as hostile architecture. Hostile architecture chooses favorites, favoring those more privileged, and excludes non-preferred users. Hitler excluded Jewish individuals with the Nuremberg Laws, America excluded African Americans with the Jim Crow laws, and now urban areas are excluding the homeless and the disabled with hostile architecture. Both genocides are recognised as foul and inherently nasty, yet a style of architecture designed to segregate individuals is seen as no big deal. And there is a racial explanation of why hostile architecture is mostly installed in black communities. It’s because hostile architecture’s whole point is to control the movement and presence of marginalized groups, singling out the black and homeless populations. The sooner we recognize how this form of architecture is rooted in segregation and racism, the sooner we fix the issue.
Opposing side
No matter how awful the drawbacks are in a problem, there are the reasons it was implemented in the first place. According to HMC Architecture, “Throughout history, architecture has stood as a representation of society, reflecting the values…, and eventual downfall of civilizations over time.” Hostile architecture follows the pattern. It reflects society’s view of homelessness, and how individuals don’t like to see a world where people struggle to get by. It shows the values of cities and how they prioritize the image of a perfect, clean city, free of the growing homeless crisis, and it ultimately reflects the downfall of community within public spaces, and the rise of hostility among architecture. Hostile architecture exists because of the internalized feelings people have about homeless people. The sight of those in need makes others feel distressed about their own good fortune, so cities have taken to hiding the less fortunate to make their city more “aesthetic”. However, the architecture seems to have the opposite effect, making the town antagonistic and prison-like. It was implemented to hide the problem, but it instead creates a new problem altogether. And while it was implemented for a reason that doesn’t mean it was a good one. Yes, it hides the homeless, but it ultimately takes away the public from public spaces. And while it was implemented for the aesthetic, it arguably makes the city less eye-catching because “hostile”is not a good look.
Conclusion
When you know better you do better, and it’s now time to do better. It’s almost useless to talk about a problem without a possible solution, so here’s mine, instead of having cities invest in hostile architecture that harms the community, they can instead invest in social organizations and more inclusive architecture. By investing in social organizations, it actively solves the issue, helping citizens off the streets and back on their feet. But it’s not only the homeless population affected by hostile architecture, therefore more solutions must be developed. By investing in inclusive architecture, public spaces can be open to all individuals and be used for various activities, like seating, socializing, or even sleeping, a huge upgrade from the restrictiveness of hostile architecture. Awareness is just the first step towards a better society, by advocating for these changes we just might be able to solve the issue of hostile architecture and create better cities for all.
