Hostile architecture is a design strategy as a form of population control. It is also known as “anti-homeless” architecture.
Some disguise that form of architecture as art, ranging from spikes laid across the ground under bridges, simple designs of extra armrests dividing a seating bench and abstract artistic sculptures used by the public that can deter people from residing in a place for too long.
William Armaline, Human Rights Institute director and San Jose State associate professor in the department of sociology and interdisciplinary social sciences, said hostile architecture is everywhere and he is “no stranger” to that new style of design.
“I have seen it in San Jose, San Francisco, and Oakland,” Armaline said. “The spikes on the ground or uncomfortable things on the benches so you can sit but [not] lay.”
Armaline said the design is targeted toward unhoused and/or poor people.
“I personally remember these things growing up in the late ’90s, early 2000s in New York and places like that, and then of course it got much more common as homeless and other issues exploded,” Armaline said.
As that new form of urbanization makes its way through large cities, Armaline said the architecture contributes to the dehumanization of houseless individuals.
“It is basically trying to remove the eyesore for the property owners and otherwise the privileged,” Armaline said. “But it’s not like you do that and those folks come in and sit, it’s just left empty.”
While there have been talks of budget proposals addressing the issue and providing assistance to those that are in troubling situations, the rate of people who have become houseless has risen 7%, according to an Oct. 6 CalMatters article.
“You are basically creating unwelcoming public places because you’re unwilling to deal with the human outcomes of your fucked up system,” Armaline said.
On Feb. 23, the city of San Francisco counted 7,800 unhoused residents, which takes up about 1% of the population, according to a June 29 San Francisco Chronicle article.
SJSU history graduate student Joshua Montes said he doesn’t think architecture is any kind of solution given that it just pushes people elsewhere.
“I think hostile architecture is perhaps not the most humane application or the most humane solution,” Montes said.
San Jose’s houseless population increased by 11% during the coronavirus pandemic and residents are becoming houseless faster than they are receiving shelter, according to a Sept. 20 article by San Jose Spotlight.
SJSU junior Shane Pasimio said he also feels like hostile architecture is not the correct way to assist the houseless population.
“It’s displacing them and they are going to go to the next city and then that city is going to do the same thing and they are just going to get pushed away,” Pasimio said.
On Sept. 29, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a suite of bills to help address the houselessness crisis and enhance the state’s response to people suffering from mental health issues on the streets, which is part of his $22 billion housing affordability and homelessness package, according to a Sept. 29 state news release.
Pasimio said he feels that there should be more houseless shelters as no one is really benefiting from the current take on the poor.
“There should be more homeless shelters, more group community efforts to try to deal with homelessness,” Pasimio said.
As more people are becoming aware of this hidden attack on the poor and houseless, advocates are saying that this form of architecture is inhumane and unethical.
“What do you do when you don't want to solve the thing but you need to act like you give a shit about solving the thing? You do a bunch of really cruel stuff to those people that blame the victim and make it sound like it's the poor person's fault that is sitting on the bench,” Armaline said.
