M.ARCH YR 5: Master's thesis

EMPATHETIC ARCHITECTURE ALTERNATIVES TO HOSTILE ARCHITECTURE

By: Aishwarya Kohli

22900-Master’s thesis Faculty advisor - David Fletcher

01

02

03

ABSTRACT Public spaces are an important feature of the urban landscape as they promote the well-being of its residents through facilitating social interactions and providing a place for relaxation. Economically, urban centers with well-developed public spaces also attract more investments as they connote the idea of well-balanced societies. Therefore, governments and urban authorities emphasize on the development of well-designed urban spaces that ensure socio-economic benefits can be obtained. Despite this, findings show that many public spaces are misused through vandalism, rough sleeping by the homeless and anti-social behaviour such as drug-taking. In order to tackle such challenges and ensure the public spaces are well used, diverse strategies are suggested which range from small-scale interventions such as CCTV to large scale policies and use of barriers or hostile architecture. The key focus of this research was to identify arguments supporting the adoption of hostile architecture as a strategy to facilitate effective use of public spaces. The significance of the topic was to inform urban developers and authorities on the effectiveness of hostile architecture thereby, promoting its continued use. To address the research objectives, data was collected by examining case studies of hostile architecture in three cities; Glasgow, New York and New Delhi. The reviewed case studies were observed in the last decade (2011 to 2021) in order to understand how the use of hostile architecture encouraged effective use of public spaces. Findings reported showed that where the hostile architecture was used in the appropriate context, it was effective in keeping out unwanted behaviour from the public spaces. However, criticisms against its use were still observed as the architecture was argued to transform cities into ugly and uninviting places.

Keywords: Hostile, Architecture, New Delhi, Glasgow, New York, Effectiveness

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Hostile architecture illustrated in a public bench (Carey, 2018) Figure 2. Kelvingrove Park in Glasgow (People Make Glasgow, 2021) Figure 3. Homeless individual sleeping on public space (Jock, 2019) Figure 4. Uncomfortable bench in public space (Jock, 2019) Figure 5. Concrete spikes under a road bridge in China (Chadalavada, 2020) Figure 6. Pig ears on public benches to avoid misuse by skateboarders (Quinn, 2014) Figure 7. Camden bench in London city (Adler-Gillies, 2018) Figure 8. Conceptual framework Figure 9. Spikes in window sills in Manhattan (Omidi, 2014) Figure 10. Spikes in seating areas in New York (Hu, 2019) Figure 11. Metal bars on public benches in New York (Hu, 2019) Figure 12. Unfriendly benches in Manhattan New York (Kim, 2019) Figure 13. Unfriendly benches with dividers in New York subway (Kim, 2019) Figure 14. Leaning bench in New York subway (Kim, 2019) Figure 15. Granite protrudes on flower beds in Pali Hill (Ruetas, 2019) Figure 16. Metal spikes on pavements in public buildings (Ruetas, 2019) Figure 17. Sharp spikes on building pavements (Ruetas, 2019) Figure 18. Spikes on pavements in Glasgow public spaces (Scottish Housing News, 2016) Figure 19. Bristo building square in Glasgow (Qreate, 2018)

08 12 13 13 14 15 16 23 25 26 26 27 27 28 28 29 29 30 30

04

05

TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract List of Figures Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Background context 1.2 Perspective Adopted in the Thesis 1.3 Position on Topic, Scope and Issues Involved 1.4 Thesis Structure Chapter 2: Background, Objectives and Methodology 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Research problem 2.2.1 Importance of public urban spaces and their misuse 2.2.2 Hostile architecture to prevent public space misuse 2.3 Research objectives 2.4 Research questions 2.5 Methodology 2.5.1 Research philosophy 2.5.2 Research approach 2.5.3 Research design 2.5.4 Research method 2.5.5 Research strategy – comparative case study 2.5.6 Data analysis 2.5.7 Research methodology limitations 2.6 Summary Chapter 3: Literature Review and Conceptual Framework 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Public spaces in urban areas 3.2.1 Importance of public spaces 3.2.2 Misuse of public spaces 3.3 Adoption of hostile architecture and its consequences 3.4 Conceptual framework 3.5 Summary Chapter 4: Cases or Operationalization and Validation 4.1 Overview 4.2 Case Studies from New York 4.3 Case Studies from New Delhi 4.4 Case Studies from Glasgow 4.5 Discussion of the findings 4.5.1 Hostile architecture in New York, New Delhi and Glasgow 4.5.2 Effectiveness of hostile architecture in restricting unwanted behaviour 4.5.3 Benefits and disadvantages of hostile architecture in the cities 4.6 Summary Chapter 5: Conclusion 5.1 Conclusion 5.2 Impact and significance of conclusions 5.3 Limitations of the research and future work References

03 04 07 07 08 09 09 11 11 11 11 12 17 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 19 21 22 23 23 25 25 25 28 30 31 31 31 32 33 35 35 35 36 37

06

07

CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION 1.1 Bckground Context In essence, public spaces refer to urban areas that are accessible and shared by all residents from where they can partake daily activities and also participate in social activities. Public spaces, as argued by Navarrete-Hernandez, Vetro and Concha (2021), provide a wide range of benefits including environmental, social and economic to the inhabitants of the urban areas.

For instance, environmental benefits from public spaces include the improvement in air quality, reduced effects of pollution and heat island effect (Ji and Ding, 2021). Likewise, as social spaces, public spaces facilitate interaction and communication among urban residents as they can engage with one another in such spaces (Hye-Jin and Ye-Kyeong, 2015). A further economic benefit is also identified from the public spaces regards their impact on the improvement of the value of real estate and land within the city as they promote overall liveability (Ji and Ding, 2021).

Based on such insights, it emerges that the quality of a city can be determined by the available amount of public spaces owing to their capacity to support public activities.

Therefore, governments and different legislators emphasize on ensuring that public spaces are well designed in order to provide social, economic and environmental benefits through investing in urban planning. In addition, scientists and architectural planners have also developed more novel approaches to ensure that the developed public spaces meet quality standards and enable them to serve their functions appropriately (De Waal, Suurenbroek and Nio, 2021). In their study, De Waal, Suurenbroek and Nio (2021) reported that digital technologies were introducing novel developments in the types of urban typologies and practices known as networked urbanism. As a result, the use of such technologies led to the development of interactive and urban public spaces. Further study by Navarrete-Hernandez, Vetro and Concha (2021) would also indicate that the use of design interventions such as erecting solid walls and removal of graffiti on public spaces was also influencing their perceived safety, especially for women. In the study, the erection of solid walls was argued to enhance security perceptions as unwanted personnel were kept out of the public spaces. Another study by Kaklauskas et al. (2021) further revealed that scientists were also leveraging human emotions and psychological states through involving users in the development of the urban spaces in order to ensure that such spaces were pleasant, comfortable and sustainable. As such, there is a lot of overwhelming evidence that authorities are investing not only funds in the development of functional public spaces, but also, scientific research in order to ensure they deliver expected social, economic and environmental benefits.

However, while urban spaces may be well designed, a further limitation arises from the fact that they may end up being misused in that, they are not put into the use they were intended or that is stated and known to all. The argument advanced in this case is that, the net success of the urban public space is not only influenced by the architect or urban designer involved in its conceptualization, but also, the end consumer who adopts and uses it. In fact, Mandeli (2019) argues that despite being well designed, public spaces can be shaped by widespread public disillusion and failure to generate environments that reflect local values. For instance, they may have intense security and surveillance where they keep out different classes of people such as the homeless. As a consequence, different negative social behaviour and tendencies may lead to the deterioration of public spaces through misuse. For example, Teng et al. (2012) report that graffiti and vandalism in public spaces degrades the social status of the particular community and further diminishes the property’s value. As a result, where public spaces are misused and vandalised, other social vices such as theft, littering and loitering are also anticipated to crop up over time. Furthermore, as the public spaces lose their appeal through vandalism, the homeless are also likely to leverage the chaos and begin sleeping on the public benches.

However, one solution that is facilitating the addressing of the problem regards the implementation of hostile or defensive architecture such as spikes on the ground or benches that cannot be slept on by the homeless individuals (Blakely and Snyder, 1997). In another study, Carey (2018) highlighted similar findings, reporting that hostile architecture was adopted as a strategy to discourage unwanted behaviour from different groups of people including the homeless and drug users. Carey (2018) posits that although hostile architecture is dated in the 19th century, where anti-urination devices were implemented to prevent people from relieving themselves on building corners, the origin of the term is still unknown. However, Blakely and Snyder (1997) reported that the use of hostile in public spaces arose from the fact that they were important in keeping out unwanted behaviour from the spaces and in turn, ensuring legitimate users could benefit from the amenities in the public spaces. An example cited from the research regarded benches that could not be slept on as detailed in figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Hostile architecture illustrated in a public bench (Carey, 2018) As such, different researchers (Blakely and Snyder, 1997; Carey, 2018)argue that reliance on defensive or hostile architecture facilitates keeping out undesirable behaviour to legitimate users from public spaces.For example, rough sleepers are considered undesirable to the public spaces as they destroy the appeal and increase perceptions of insecurity.

1.2 Perspective Adopted in the Thesis While a lot of investment has been directed towards the design of public urban spaces, the authorities are continually challenged by the rising vices of their misuse. However, in order to discourage such behaviour, the present study argues that defensive or hostile architecture may not be the most optimal solution and instead; empathetic architecture is proposed. In this case, the hostile architecture may not provide an optimal solution as it focuses on moving the problem elsewhere by introducing changes to the built environment in only some places. In addition, the moral argument in this research suggests that the very notion of ‘defensive architecture’ ought to be questioned as a valid solution for public spaces. The study argues that the strategy of developing hostile architecture as a way to keep out crime and vandalism are still challenging to support and as a result, more empirical work is needed to support the viewpoint.

08

09

1.3 Position on Topic, Scope and Issues Involved The position assumed in this research is that, instead of implementing the defensive or hostile architectural elements on public spaces which renders them unusable even in well-meaning purposes, there is need to adopt more milder defensive approaches that operate like nudges in order to deter negative behaviour. Therefore, the scope of the research will be limited to examining how mild defensive architecture which nudge individuals to adopt well-meaning behaviour in public spaces will be examined. Some of the issues addressed in the research will also include the effect of implementing hostile architecture on the value of the architecture in public spaces as well as tolerance and liberties.

1.4 Thesis Structure The thesis is structured into five chapters. Chapter 1 is the introduction that provides a brief overview of the research area, perspective adopted in the thesis and the overall scope or delimitations. Chapter 2 delves further into the research problem as well as the approach or methodology to the investigation. In chapter 3, the literature review and conceptual framework guiding the research is presented. Chapter 4 examines the various cases that are operationalized and validated in the research. The final chapter concludes the work and summarizes the key insights from the study.

10

11

CHAPTER 2 : BACKGROUND, OBJECTIVE & METHODOLOGY 2.1 Introduction The chapter briefs the reader on the context of the problem, the intended research questions to be addressed and the selected methodology to facilitate data collection and analysis.

As such, the chapter is organized into four key sub-sections which address these aspects. To begin with, the background of the research problem is detailed, whereby, underlying themes related to the research topic are analysed. The second and third sections outline the research objectives and questions which are addressed in the current research. In the fourth section, the methodology guiding data collection and analysis is outlined. The summary section highlights the key findings obtained from within the chapter.

2.2 Research problem 2.2.1 Importance of public urban spaces and their misuse The evaluation of different studies reveals various definitions of public spaces that have emerged from different stakeholders. Varna (2014) argues that how public spaces are defined vary from architects and planners to private developers and project managers. In further explanation, Varna (2014) considers a public space, from the perspective of an architect, as a space which is part of the urban area that is designed and used by the inhabitants of the given area and where they feel that they have ownership of. A second definition, from a project manager, argues that public spaces are any spaces that can be accessed by the public and that exist for their good as well as the area where they are located (Varna, 2014). The suggestion from the different definitions is that public spaces encompass a range of infrastructure including roads and lighting as well as natural features such as water and vegetation that provide benefits to both the dwellers of the urban area and the general locality where they are located. A different study

by Moeckli (2019) also highlights similar insights, revealing that the definition of a public space is not clearly formulated and as a result, different disciplines have conceptualized it in unique ways.

However, Moeckli (2019) advocates for a generic definition of public spaces as one which is accessible and which can be used by an indeterminate number of people. Therefore, in the current research, public spaces are identified as those which are readily accessible to and owned by the public in a given locality.

Further insight from the definition of urban spaces, is that, they provide a direct benefit to urban dwellers by granting a freely accessible space where they can engage and come together as a community (Cruz, Roskamm and Charalambous, 2018). In their research, Cruz, Roskamm and Charalambous (2018) argue that public spaces are quite important for the social sustainability of an urban area by providing an opportunity for the public to interact and cooperate with each other as well as a space for acculturation, where individuals from particular cultures are able to get acquainted with others from different cultures through socialization. Further study by Woolley and Rose (n.d.) also indicates that public spaces provide economic value in that, they facilitate regeneration strategies in different cities. In this context, public urban spaces that are well designed are argued to further attract more investments due to the presence of vital amenities such as good parks, gardens and other spaces. Han, Nguyen and Sahito (2019) support the findings, indicating that the availability of green parks and well-designed public spaces is also likely to increase the prices of housing in the area, and directly, leading to the growth of real estate businesses.

Therefore, the findings underscore the growing importance of urban public spaces on the sustainability of the modern society through promoting social wellbeing and psychological health (Woolley and Rose, n.d.). Environmentally, Kruize et al. (2019) further add that public green spaces enhance the aesthetics of the urban centers and promote the health equity of its inhabitants by minimizing adverse effects of pollution and heat waves. As such, the insights also underscore the need to ensure public spaces are well maintained in order to not only benefit the ecology of the area but also, the health of city dwellers as they directly obtain vital advantages from relaxing in such spaces. An example of a green city park is Kelvingrove Park which is located in Glasgow.

Refer to figure 2 which displays the park.

Figure 2.Kelvingrove Park in Glasgow (People Make Glasgow, 2021)

As detailed in figure 2, the Kelvingrove Park in Glasgow provides an opportunity for the city’s residents to socialize and interact in a relaxed atmosphere. Benches are also illustrated from where the urban dwellers can enjoy their stay in the park.

2.2.2 Hostile architecture to prevent public space misuse Despite the various diverse arguments that support the benefits of ensuring the design of public urban spaces is well done, further challenges hinder city dwellers from enjoying such advantages. A key challenge that has been identified in different global cities, regards the misuse of urban spaces by homeless and delinquent individuals such as drug users (Bergamaschi, Castrignanò and Rubertis, 2014). In the study, it was revealed that the homeless population highly utilized the public spaces by transforming them into temporary homes, for instance, making beds and shelter in narrow streets, sleeping on benches and using piles of broken-down boxes to mark territory. Figure 3 depicts a homeless individual sleeping on a park bench in a public space.

12

13

Figure 3.Homeless individual sleeping on public space (Jock, 2019) From the illustration in figure 3, the misuse of a public bench is illustrated as a homeless individual uses it as temporary shelter. In addition to the misuse of public spaces by the homeless, vandalism and graffiti are also highlighted as an associated problem as they destroy the aesthetic appeal of the various urban spaces (Brajer, 2018). In explanation, the author argued that vandals not only destroy the aesthetic appeal of the architecture but also, theft of outdoor murals was also reported in different cities having been committed by the vandals.

As a result of the increasing encroachment by the homeless and both vandalism and graffiti, novel strategies including the use of CCTV and increased surveillance have been advocated over the years. Another unique strategy, regards the use of defensive or hostile architecture which is designed to restrict the negative behaviour (Jock, 2019). The author explained that although regulation and anti-homeless policies were already in force, installing the defensive architecture was more effective as it ensured the public structures were rendered difficult to use or uncomfortable by such populations. An example of the hostile architecture is a bench design that makes it difficult for the homeless to sleep as illustrated in figure 4 below.

Figure 4. Uncomfortable bench in public space (Jock, 2019)

In further study, McMaken (2019) also revealed that uneven sidewalks were also a common defensive architecture that made it difficult for the homeless to sleep on such spaces. Chadalavada (2020) added that defensive architecture was identified as a subtle expression of social division through urban design that was associated with the destitute such as the homeless. In this regard, the type of architecture allowed urban designers to discourage the use of public urban spaces in a manner that they did not intend. In another study, Litch (2017) also argued that the underlying feature of hostile architecture was not to make a large area inaccessible but only difficult to undertake a given activity within a small area. Figure 5 illustrates the use of spikes under a road bridge in China which prevents misuse by the homeless.

Figure 5. Concrete spikes under a road bridge in China (Chadalavada, 2020) From the figure 5, the incorporation of concrete spikes is intentional as a form of hostile architecture in order to avoid congregation and misuse by the homeless within the city. An additional finding by While and Atkinson (2015) is that, the various forms of defensive architecture are used in a subtle manner to cajole or remove unwanted people in the various spaces. The forms include seats that are designed to slope, incorporation of metal spikes on different surfaces in order to make them impossible to live on, walls that are by design uncomfortable and use of dividers to prevent people from lying down (While and Atkinson, 2015). The figure 6 illustrates dividers on public benches that discourage skateboarders from misusing them.

14

15

Figure 6. Pig ears on public benches to avoid misuse by skateboarders (Quinn, 2014)

From figure 6 it is observed that pig ears are added to the public benches as a strategy to prevent misuse by skateboarders.

Other studies also indicate that hostile architecture not only encompasses the use of architectural elements that make the public spaces unliveable such as studs on flat surfaces and sloped window sills but also changing the entire atmosphere of a given area in order to restrict a particular group from this space (Chadalavada, 2020; Quinn, 2014). The direct impact of introducing the hostile architecture on the surrounding areas is that, it discourages legitimate users from using such spaces. For example, where window sills are sloped, legitimate customers end up shying away from the amenities as the infrastructure communicates the idea of segregation.

In further explanation, Quinn (2014) reported that use of sound deterrents was also considered a form of hostile architecture whereby, classical music was played in different train stations in order to prevent congregation of teenagers. The argument in this case was that, the emission of high-pitched sounds that were irritating and could only be heard by the teenagers was effective in discouraging them from misusing the spaces as they congregated and prevented other legitimate users from enjoying such spaces. While and Atkinson (2015) also highlighted that the Bournemouth Council had also used bagpipe music in order to deter the homeless sleepers.

Therefore, from the analysis of the various studies (Litch, 2017; McMaken, 2019; Chadalavada, 2020), it emerges that the arguments advocating for defensive architecture are justified as they restrict or cajole unwanted behaviour while allowing legitimate users to enjoy the urban spaces as they were intentionally designed. As a result, fewer homeless people and delinquents are observed in the different public urban space environments. However, despite the increasing encouragement of using hostile architecture, other researchers argue that it is not entirely effective as it renders the amenities unusable by other well-meaning individuals. The argument was supported by Jock (2019) who reported that introduction of the architecture also made it difficult for shoppers to enjoy the public space.As such, hostile architecture has both desired and undesired consequences although there is more focus on shedding light on desired consequences.

For example, designing uncomfortable benches in the public spaces may lead to benefits such as keeping out unwanted homeless individuals. However, an undesired consequence would be increased discomfort to the legitimate shoppers who use such spaces as they are unable to enjoy the same space.

While and Atkinson (2015) also revealed that there was significant backlash against use of defensive architecture with numerous petitions being signed against their use due to the discomfort they introduced, particularly, adoption of bagpipe music to deter homeless sleepers in Bournemouth and addition of studs on Manchester pavements. Many of the suggested arguments against defensive architecture emphasize on the rising social inequalities as well as reliance on inhumane approaches to exclude different types of individuals. A different view by Robert Park, an urban sociologist, also revealed that when urban designers focused too much on making architecture that is hostile, ugly and uninviting, this had an unprecedented consequence of transforming the urban centers into ugly and uninviting places (Adler-Gillies, 2018). The sociologist highlighted the Camden bench as an example of a hostile architecture that was blatant and which hindered any form of interaction. Figure 7 illustrates the Camden bench.

Figure 7. Camden bench in London city (Adler-Gillies, 2018) The review of the different arguments against hostile architecture is indicative that there is no consistent discussion on how their principles apply to one another as well as acts that are morally acceptable and forbidden. The assertion arises from the fact that the installation of the different types of architecture has either resulted in backlash from the public (While and Atkinson, 2015) or harsh criticism on their consequence of turning cities into ugly and uninviting places (Adler-Gillies, 2018). The present research aims to correct this view by clearly outlining the principles of hostile architecture and also recommending various alternatives to some of the proposed forms.

16

17

2.3 Research objectives The following objectives will be addressed in the research; i. To identify the various ways that public spaces are misused in New York, New Delhi and Glasgow. The selection of the cities allows the researcher to compare the level of misuse of the public spaces in developing and developed world context. ii. To examine the impact of hostile architecture on the wellbeing of society with regard to restricting unwanted behaviour. iii. To understand whether context of hostile architecture has an influence on the success of interventions that are utilized. iv. To understand the unprecedented consequences arising from the adoption of hostile architecture in Glasgow, New York and New Delhi.

2.4 Research questions i. What forms of defensive or hostile architecture that have been adopted in New York, New Delhi and Glasgow, Scotland? The research question allows the researcher to identify the similarities and differences in the use of hostile architecture in the context of the developing and developed world. ii. How effective is hostile architecture in restricting unwanted behaviour of public urban spaces? iii. What are the benefits and shortcomings of adopting hostile architecture in New York, New Delhi and Glasgow public urban spaces?

2.5 Methodology 2.5.1 Research philosophy The research philosophy, as argued by Schwartz-Shea and Yanow (2012), enables researchers to understand the world in terms of what is considered as acceptable knowledge regarding a phenomenon or reality. As such, different researchers consider various viewpoints to comprehend the world, including, interpretive, positivist, realism, and pragmatism (Hürlimann, 2019). The present study will adopt the interpretive philosophy in examining the particular problem area regarding the role of hostile architecture in restricting unwanted behaviour and misuse of public urban spaces. Justification of the interpretive philosophy stems from the fact that it argues that true knowledge is developed subjectively, whereby, actors shape the reality in the environments they live in (Myers, 2020). Therefore, the interpretive philosophy advocates for empathetic understanding in building knowledge on how people interact with their environments. In the context of the research, there will be need to adopt a subjective position in understanding how hostile architecture restricts different behaviour in Glasgow, Scotland as well as the disadvantages that arise from its adoption in the city to the well-being of other urban dwellers.

2.5.2 Research approach With regard to the research approach, the present study will adopt the inductive type, whereby, the researcher will first collect data and thereafter, identify the underlying theories which influences the various observations (Trochim et al., 2016). The justification of an inductive approach arises from the fact that the research is subjective in nature and the researcher aims to understand the underlying motivation for the use of defensive architecture in the context of different cities. Furthermore, theory will be developed from analysis of collected observations by identifying similar patterns in the motivations of adopting defensive architecture.

2.5.3 Research design According to Curry and Nunez-Smith (2015), the adoption of the appropriate research design is important in order to ensure the right kind of data is collected and that weak conclusions are also eliminated from the research. In the current research, the exploratory research design is justified as it enables the researcher to explore the particular problem area and lay a foundation for other scholars to further advance the research area (Andrew, Pedersen and Mcevoy, 2020).

The researcher acknowledges that other studies (Petty, 2016) have examined hostile architecture as a strategy to avoid public space misuse. However, an existent gap that warrants the research, regards the examination of the effectiveness of such architecture in restricting unwanted behaviour in public spaces and the consequences that also arise. Žukauskas et al. (2018) further posit the exploratory design is also beneficial in allowing the researcher to generate numerous ideas pertaining to the problem area and in turn, facilitating better understanding of its underlying constructs.

2.5.4 Research method The research will adopt the qualitative method, whereby, only qualitative data will be collected. According to Mitzenmacher and Upfal (2017), the qualitative data is distinguished by its descriptive and subjective nature and is represented by images and text unlike the quantitative type that is objective and is depicted through numbers. Justification of a qualitative method arises from the subjective nature of the research where collected data will be influenced by researcher values.

2.5.5 Research strategy – comparative case study In order to collect the qualitative data in the research, a case study strategy will be adopted. According to Yin (2014), conducting a case study involves undertaking an inquiry which is empirical in nature within the real-life environment of a group or individual. However, in order to understand the effectiveness of the intervention – hostile architecture – utilized in the research, the researcher will adopt a comparative case study whereby, there is an emphasis to understand how context influences the overall success of an intervention (Yin, 2014).In this case, the researcher aims to collect data from three streets - New York, New Delhi and Glasgow – regarding how the use of hostile architecture is enabling city management to restrict misuse and undesirable behaviour in urban public spaces. Justification of a comparative case study stems from its effectiveness in gaining in-depth understanding regarding the selected intervention. The data collected will involve images of the different hostile architecture as well as descriptive text on the implications of the type of architecture.

2.5.6 Data analysis To analyse the qualitative data, a content analysis approach will be adopted, whereby, the researcher will identify existent patterns or codes from within the data which facilitates addressing the research questions (Elo et al., 2014). Justification for adopting the qualitative content analysis approach regards its effectiveness in reducing the data into concepts that can be used to describe the research phenomenon.

2.6 Summary The chapter introduced the background context of the research, whereby, the misuse of public urban spaces was emphasized. Insights reported indicated that although public urban spaces were beneficial socially, economically and environmentally, they were however misused by homeless and delinquent individuals, resulting in the loss of their functions. The use of hostile architecture was however identified as a novel strategy to cajole such behaviour and restrict misuse. Arguments against hostile architecture were also revealed and the research questions and objectives in the research also formulated.

18

19

CHAPTER 3 : LITERATURE REVIEW & CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 3.1 Introduction In this section, literature review is undertaken with a view to establish understanding on the misuse of public spaces and how hostile architecture is important in restricting unwanted behaviour in such environments. The consequences of using hostile architecture are also further delineated. In addition, alternatives to the hostile architecture which are more empathetic to the needs of the destitute are discussed. Finally, the conceptual framework guiding the study is detailed.

Main insights from the research are outlined in the summary section.

3.2 Public spaces in urban areas 3.2.1 Importance of public spaces The definition of a public space is highly contested as different researchers postulate widely diversified definitions. The UNESCO definition of a public space considers it as an open area which is accessible to all people regardless of their gender, socio-economic levels or race (UNESCO, 2017). The primary aspects associated with the UNESCO definition are accessibility and inclusiveness. Such aspects are also identified in another study by Madanipour (2015)who reveals that public spaces are a primary ingredient of the urban environment and places of encounter where public life unfolds. The encounter as suggested by Madanipour (2015), is facilitated by the ease of access and the inclusivity of such spaces. The findings are also supported by Sendi and Marušić (2012) who report that public spaces play various roles as an intermediary link between the dwelling and the outer world, thereby, presenting a space where social interaction occurs between residents. Based on the examination of the public space definitions, a confluence observed emphasizes on the ability of individuals or the general publicto gain unrestricted access and a right of way as theyare entitled to be physically present in the different spaces.

Nevertheless, although different definitions have emerged, they all underline the importance of free and unrestricted accessibility as a requirement for any public space (Sendi and Marušić, 2012; Madanipour, 2015; UNESCO, 2017). The finding is supported by Klein, Dove and Felson (2021) who revealed that in addition to ensuring public spaces are physically accessible, social access is also important as it guarantees that urban planners are able to achieve an improvement in health and well-being for its inhabitants. In the context of the urban spaces, social access regards their capability to allow different user groups to receive services and amenities. The concept is important as it underscores the need for urban designers to ensure they meet the needs of different user groups in the public spaces they develop. For example, different age groups, ethnicities and income groups are able to access the spaces without any prejudice or restraint.

The particular finding sheds light on the various patterns of use that are associated with public spaces since they are freely accessible to everyone. For instance, Cao and Kang (2019) revealed that although public spaces enhanced social life through fostering interactions that were social, different patterns of use were identified based on the age groups of the users as well as group sizes. An example mentioned was that, intimate pairs were likely to be engaged on their phones while intimate groups would either be using park amenities or seated and talking. Cao and Kang (2019) further highlighted that social groups were also likely to be using the open spacious areas for relaxation. In a different study by Hadavi and Kaplan (2016), the findings reported also underlined the close interactions between neighbourhood satisfaction and use patterns in public outdoor spaces. The suggestion from the different studies (Hadavi and Kaplan, 2016; Cao and Kang, 2019) was that, urban planners also need to plan for diversity and inclusivity across different social groups that utilize urban spaces in different ways.

However, as Cybriwsky (1999) further argued, with the growing need to cater for the demands of different social groups, social issues and divisions also emerge, for instance, the privatization of spaces that were once available for the public and an increase in surveillance and controlled access to public spaces in order to ensure security. The implication of increased surveillance in public spaces to those who use them is that the strategy is likely to increase perceptions of security as they feel that they are being monitored by appropriate authorities. On the contrary however, increased surveillance for those who do not use the public spaces may lead to perceptions of infringement of their privacy. The finding contradicts earlier insights by Madanipour (2015) and Sendi and Marušić (2012) who had suggested that public spaces promoted social interactivity by virtue of their openness and support for social inclusion as surveillance discourages use of the spaces. The assertions were also supported by Atkinson (2015) who revealed that there were various social inequalities and divisions in public spaces that were used by the super-rich and the average people in London. In this context, the average people refer to individuals who have adequate disposable income and can afford to visit public spaces in comparison to the super-rich who havemore than enough disposable income. In hindsight, Atkinson (2015) highlighted similar findings as Cybriwsky (1999), whereby, the increased use of private and public security apparatuses facilitated relative stability and safety. Such insights contradict the view by UNESCO (2017) that public spaces are freely accessible to all.

However, as the increased surveillance of public spaces and use of different security apparatuses is argued to increase safety perceptions of urban dwellers, they are however also criticized as they enhance social inequalities and divisions in the unrestricted public spaces. The finding is also reiterated by Bravo (2018) who revealed that in contemporary times, public spaces are no longer open, democratic and inclusive as numerous barriers including economic and social issues, privatization and rise of gentrification processes are a threat to different members of the community. Such members include individuals with mental or physical disabilities, the elderly and children. Despite such findings, further review also indicates that there are different cities where social inclusion is prioritised (Short, 2021). In the study, it was reported that in the public realm, there was need to adopt heterogeneous networks as well as catering for the needs of different pedestrian groups with mobility, cognitive and sensory impairment.

20

21

3.2.2 Misuse of public spaces While the various findings that indicate that public urban spaces offer unique opportunities for social interaction and encounters, further review contradicts this view and indicates that such benefits are challenged by various issues including the misuse of public spaces. In a study by Moss and Moss (2019) it was reported that between the period 2014 to 2017, about 6,518 people were found guilty of rough sleeping under the Vagrancy Act of 1824 in Manchester. The study further indicated that in 2017, about 21 rough sleepers also died on the streets of Manchester owing to a variety of factors including rise in crime and anti-social behaviour such as drug-taking. Similar insights were also reported in a different study byBergamaschi, Castrignanò and Rubertis (2014) who reported that the misuse of public spaces by the homeless arose from the fact that they often considered such spaces as their own private areas as they did not have homes. As a result, the homeless lived their lives openly in public urban spaces, often making money from such spaces through begging and later sleeping within them. Such insights underscore the rising misuse of the public spaces by the homeless as living quarters and sources of shelter as suggested by Moss and Moss (2019) who cited numerous cases of rough sleeping on public spaces.

Koprowska et al. (2020) further argue that although the homeless are classified as vulnerable people, their sight within public spaces is often unsettling and leads to perceptions of crime as well as loss of the aesthetics of the urban spaces. A similar view is also highlighted in a different study by Bonds and Martin (2016)who postulated that the homeless were often considered as a form of pollution which ought to be kept out of the city or cleaned. The assertion is however divisive as some of the homeless do not influence their conditions and may only find themselves in such positions. As a result, the authors reported that different strategies have been formulated over the years to rid the urban centers of the homeless, for instance, the implementation of policies that diminish the ability of the homeless accessing the urban centers (Bonds and Martin, 2016). A similar finding was also identified by Moss and Moss (2019) who added that in London, the use of policies such as Homeless Tax were also enforced, whereby, the rough sleepers and beggars who were found sheltering in public doorways and walkways were fined £100 on the spot and imprisoned where they were unable to pay. Nevertheless, the confluence from the different studies (Bonds and Martin, 2016; Moss and Moss, 2019)emphasizes on the consideration of homelessness as a form of pollution of public urban spaces as they destroy their aesthetic appeal and the subsequent need to find strategies that keep them out. Further insight from Koprowska et al. (2020) also reported that public spaces that were strewn with sights of the homeless also had an associated perception of insecurity.

Secondly, urban spaces are also misused through the rampant increase in skateboarding activity (Németh, 2006). The argument against skateboarding postulated that teenagers who were prone to such activity were unruly, deviant and disorderly. However, the finding is critiqued as it considers all young teenagers as having the same disorderly and unruly behaviour whereas there are exceptions to the behaviour. A similar finding was also reported in another study by Glenney and Mull (2018)where they added that skateboarding served as a form of subversion of rule governance as individuals use skateboard tricks as a form of self-expression or temporary escape through movement. The consequence of such arguments is that, allowing skateboarding activity within public spaces results in disorder and disregard for the law, hence, leading to the misuse of the spaces.

Despite such findings, other studies offer contradictory arguments such as Rogers (2018)who suggested that allowing skateboarding can be beneficial in lowering crime rates, mitigating obesity in the young population and fostering creativity. Rogers (2018) also argues that in some instances, the presence of skaters in the public spaces adds life and activity in the public spaces, thereby, enhancing the excitement levels. A similar insight was further reported by Jane Jacobs, an urbanism scholar, who suggested that skating was healthy and ought to be allowed as part of freedom (Snyder, 2017). Therefore, there is significant controversy against the skateboarding activity within public spaces as some proponents’ advocate for its acceptance whereas others view it as a form of defiance and disorder.

A third form of misuse of the public spaces regards vandalism and theft of the public property(Bostani, Sadeghi and Aghai, 2017). In the study, Bostani, Sadeghi and Aghai (2017) reported that vandalism was a social phenomenon whereby, individuals intentionally destroyed public facilities and equipment. In another research, Miller (2015)reported similar insights and added that vandalism and graffiti in different public spaces was expensive as it cost taxpayer money to repair such spaces. Furthermore, adding graffiti to the public infrastructure is also argued to destroy the aesthetics and further promote crime and drug-taking activity (Bostani, Sadeghi and Aghai, 2017). Therefore, the comparison of the different studies (Miller, 2015; Bostani, Sadeghi and Aghai, 2017) suggests that enforcement of policies to prevent the misuse of the public infrastructure by preventing such activities has been highly encouraged.

3.3 Adoption of hostile architecture and its consequences From the review of the different studies (Miller, 2015; Bostani, Sadeghi and Aghai, 2017;Bonds and Martin, 2016; Moss and Moss, 2019), it emerged that anti-social behaviour such as vandalism, rough sleeping from homelessness and disorderly skateboarding had a negative impact on the aesthetic appeal of the public spaces. In addition, the undertaking of the different activities also promoted disorder and various forms of criminal and drug-taking offenses. However, to mitigate such effects, several strategies were advocated which range from the small-scale interventions such as CCTV and surveillance to the large-scale use of policies against the behaviour and incorporation of barriers in the built environment. The main response strategy, which is the focus of this research, regards the adoption of hostile or defensive architecture, whereby, the built environment is used to restrict behaviour which would be regarded as anti-social (Carey, 2018). Similar insights were also highlighted by While and Atkinson (2015) who revealed that hostile architecture advocated for restructuring the built environment, for instance, barriers such as metal spikes on surfaces in order to keep out the homeless who sleep on themand the addition of dividers on public benches with an aim to prevent the misuse of the infrastructure by the homeless.

Further study by Chellew (2019) also highlighted similar views with regard to the use of “pig ears” on pavements to deter skateboarding activity. From an analytical perspective and side-by-side comparison of Chellew (2019) and While and Atkinson (2015), it emerges that the use of the forms of architecture is argued to be effective in keeping out the anti-social behaviour as the targeted groups find it uncomfortable to conduct their activities, for instance, skateboarders finding it difficult to skate on the surfaces with protruding “pig ears” whereas the homeless being uncomfortable and unable to sleep on pavement surfaces with spikes.

However, over the years, different arguments have arisen both in support of and against the use of hostile architecture. Lo (2017), for instance, highlights that hostile architecture can provide a solution to prevent anti-social behaviour and minimize the amount of time that different groups can spend in a given area. A case in point being sloped benches where they can’t sit for too long (Lo, 2017). As a result, since the hostile architecture prevents the congregation of different groups of people, the general public can perceive the public spaces as being safer and where they can freely undertake different social activities. Rosenberger (2019) highlights similar benefits by citing a further advantage whereby, the various forms of defensive architecture encourage self-policing and self-security within the urban centers. A similar view was also identified

by While and Atkinson (2015) who highlighted the Camden bench as an example and a type of architecture that promotes self-security as the anti-social behaviour of congregating would be reduced in the public spaces. The suggestion from these studies (While and Atkinson, 2015; Lo, 2017; Rosenberger, 2019)is that hostile architecture is beneficial in promoting perceptions of security by keeping out anti-social behaviour.

22

23

Despite such arguments, other authors however postulate that the hostile architecture is too aggressive and is aimed at designing people potentially out of the different spaces (Lo, 2017).

In another study, Quinn (2014) also highlighted similar insights that cities were growing colder towards different types of people as over 100,000 signatures were petitioned against the removal of spikes and pig ears from different public infrastructure. A second argument by While and Atkinson (2015)further suggests that use of hostile architecture makes the spaces uninviting even for the legitimate users. A case in point regards the use of the Camden bench where individuals cannot rest for too long. However, while the bench does reduce anti-social behaviour, legitimate users also get discouraged from using the spaces as they find them uncomfortable. Therefore, a need for more empathetic architectural solutions is underscored that can both encourage effective use of the infrastructure while restricting negative behaviour.

3.4 Conceptual framework Based on the review of the various studies and the highlight of different literature gaps, the present study is guided by the conceptual framework detailed in the figure 10 below

Figure 8.Conceptual framework As detailed in the conceptual framework, the study argues that the use of hostile architecture, primarily through either altering infrastructure, for example, in Camden seats or adding items to the infrastructure such as spikes to pavements can be beneficial in promoting the acceptable use of public spaces to legitimate users who seek to use the spaces as intended. The researcher mainly focuses on the two forms of hostile architecture while eliminating the use of music and colour as well as removal of items such as benches around public malls as they are easily identifiable in different cities. As a result, the comparative analysis of the available data will facilitate addressing the research questions in the study.

3.5 Summary The chapter highlighted several important insights regarding the use of hostile architecture to restrict unwanted behaviour. From the review of the importance of public spaces, it was revealed that such spaces promoted social cohesion and interactivity. As a result, there was need for urban planners to design the spaces in a manner that allowed them to be socially and physically accessible by individuals from different backgrounds and ethnicities. Further analysis also showed that the public spaces are misused through activities such as vandalism, skateboarding and the homeless who used the spaces as their homes. The misuse emerges from the fact that the different groups do not use the spaces as originally intended by urban designers. To mitigate such effects, the use of diverse interventions ranging from CCTV and surveillance to more large-scale solutions such as policies and barriers such as hostile architecture weresuggested as a way to restrict the unwanted behaviour from the different social groups. The conceptual framework underscoring the role of hostile architecture in promoting acceptable use of public spaces in fact, demonstrated that effective use of public spaces could be enhanced by modifying the built environment through defensive architecture.

In the next chapter, case studies on hostile architecture are examined.

24

25

CHAPTER 4 : CASE STUDIES 4.1 Overview The aim of the chapter is to review various case studies that depict different hostile architectural infrastructure that have been implemented in various cities with an effort to address the research questions in the study. In the first section, case studies from New York city are examined while the second and third sections review cases from New Delhi and Glasgow in Scotland. It is also noteworthy to highlight that based on the developed conceptual framework, the case studies specifically focus on infrastructure in the built environment that has been altered to restrict behaviour or where the infrastructure in the built environment has various additions made to it to discourage the antisocial behaviour and in turn, promote the proper use of the different amenities. In the fourth section, the obtained findings are discussed and the research questions addressed.

4.2 Case Studies from New York In New York city, several forms of hostile architecture were identified to restrict unwanted behaviour. In the research, focus was directed towards hostile architecture that prevented skating, rough sleeping by the homeless and congregation by different groups within the public spaces. As such, the cases reviewed included hostile architecture on window sills to prevent congregation, public benches to restrict rough sleeping and skating and pavements to ensure skating and congregation were avoided. To begin with, windows in public spaces had several spikes on their sills as a strategy to prevent unwanted social behaviour such as rough sleeping by the homeless. Figure 9 below shows the addition of spikes on window sills in Manhattan.

Figure 9.Spikes in window sills in Manhattan (Omidi, 2014)

From figure 9, the incorporation of spikes in window sills in Manhattan is observed to discourage the homeless who would either sleep on the surfaces or crowding by teenagers who would congregate in such spaces (Omidi, 2014). The author also reported that the various added features nudged individuals to practice right behaviour as window sills on public buildings were used as originally intended.

Figure 10 also illustrates addition of spikes on walls in order to prevent unwanted individuals from seating or occupying them.

Figure 10.Spikes in seating areas in New York (Hu, 2019) As reported by Hu (2019), the incorporation of spikes on the seating areas was disadvantageous as the areas were only accessed by private individuals. Therefore, the finding emphasized on the unprecedented consequence of adding hostile architectural features in public spaces as this discouraged their use by the general public.

In figure 11, metal bars on public benches are displayed that prevent misuse by skaters and the homeless who sleep on them.

Figure 11.Metal bars on public benches in New York (Hu, 2019)

26

27

From figure 11, Hu (2019) suggested that the incorporation of metal bars on the public benches led to discomfort for both the homeless who slept on them and the legitimate users who sought comfort from such spaces. Such findings emphasized on the adverse consequences of hostile architecture on the access of public spaces for legitimate users.

The finding was further underscored by the identification of unfriendly bench designs that were available in the New York city subway. Figure 12 displays the unfriendly benches in Lower Manhattan in New York city that discourage lingering and unwanted public behaviour.

Figure 12. Unfriendly benches in Manhattan New York (Kim, 2019) As Kim (2019) observed, the unfriendly benches were installed as a way to restrict lingering and other types of unwanted behaviour. However, the author reported that the defensive architecture was disadvantageous as the public viewed the city as being hostile. Such findings underscored the unprecedented consequences of hostile architecture. In reiteration of the findings, use of dividers was also observed with public benches in the New York subway. In figure 13 below, an unfriendly bench in the New York subway is illustrated which uses dividers to discourage the homeless from rough sleeping on them.

Figure 13. Unfriendly benches with dividers in New York subway (Kim, 2019) The view by Kim (2019) was that although criticism was advanced against the unfriendly benches in the public spaces, the arm rests were an added feature to ensure comfort for the public who used them to rest while awaiting transportation. However, from a different perspective, the arm rests discouraged sleeping by the homeless, thereby, suggesting that the hostile architecture was still empathetic to legitimate users in the public urban spaces.

Finally, Kim (2019) highlighted the use of leaning bars as a complement to the benches in public urban spaces as they provided accommodation for people who had difficulties sitting and standing up from lower benches. Kim (2019) however cited that despite the innovativeness of such structures, there were other criticisms levelled against them as the leaning benches were viewed as a war on sitting. Nevertheless, the infrastructure was considered effective in preventing unwanted congregation by different unwanted groups in such locations. Figure 14 shows a leaning bench design in the New York subway which prevents unwanted congregation in the public spaces.

Figure 14. Leaning bench in New York subway (Kim, 2019) As illustrated in the figure 14, fewer misuse practices such as rough sleeping would be difficult to undertake due to their unfriendly structures.

4.3 Case Studies from New Delhi In New Delhi, several cases of hostile architecture have also been identified which aim to restrict unwanted behaviour in public spaces. However, unlike New York, the researcher mainly focused on case studies that prevented rough sleeping due to the fact that the country was ranked as a developing nation. As such, priority was directed towards avoiding rough sleeping by the homeless who occasionally misused the public spaces. To begin with, hostile architecture on flower beds was identified. In figure 15, the addition of granite protrudes on flower beds in Pali Hill discouraged the homeless from sleeping on them.

Figure 15. Granite protrudes on flower beds in Pali Hill (Ruetas, 2019)

28

29

As illustrated in figure 15, the rough granite protrudes discouraged the homeless and lower-class citizens from sleeping or sitting on the pavements. However, Ruetas (2019) argued that the different criticisms were levelled against the hostile architecture which not only included the loss of aesthetic appeal but also, the discomfort to other ordinary citizens that were looking for benches to rest on in the location.

In figure 16, metal spikes were also added to the pavements of different public buildings in order to prevent misuse by the homeless and loitering by other idle individuals.

Figure 16. Metal spikes on pavements in public buildings (Ruetas, 2019) A different variant of spikes is also illustrated on figure 17 below which also deters the homeless from sleeping on the surfaces.

Figure 17. Sharp spikes on building pavements (Ruetas, 2019) As described by Ruetas (2019), the incorporation of sharp spikes on the pavements of buildings was a strategy directed towards eliminating unwanted groups from the various buildings, for instance, the homeless and vendors who occasionally used such spaces for their businesses. As a result, the main businesses lost as they could not attract their targeted clientele.

4.4 Case Studies from Glasgow In Glasgow, several forms of hostile architecture were also observed. As the researcher considered Glasgow a highly developed city, there was focus on hostile architecture that prevented behaviour such as rough sleeping by the homeless and disorder from skating activity. In figure 18 below, the use of spikes on building pavements is identified.

Figure 18. Spikes on pavements in Glasgow public spaces (Scottish Housing News, 2016) As detailed in figure 18, it was observed that spikes were added to different public spaces in order to discourage rough sleeping by the homeless. In addition, Scottish Housing News (2016) reported that the use of spikes and deliberate noise pollution was also adopted in order to ensure the homeless were unable to sleep in the environments. The findings also showed that criticism against the defensive architecture was rampant as the public argued that it led to a consequence of turning the city into a hostile environment.

Finally, the Bristo building where most teenagers spent time skating was restructured, thereby, discouraging such behaviour as shown in figure 19 below.

Figure 19. Bristo building square in Glasgow (Qreate, 2018) As detailed by Qreate (2018), the restructure of the building square incorporated pig ears which discouraged use of the space by skateboarders. One of the consequences of the hostile architecture was that, the author revealed that the square became less exciting as skateboarding was removed. Subsequently, the hostility of the city was associated with the incorporation of the defensive architecture that restricted skating.

30

31

4.5 Discussion of the findings 4.5.1 Hostile architecture in New York, New Delhi and Glasgow The first research question investigated the various forms of defensive architecture that were implemented in New York, New Delhi and Glasgow. By addressing the question, the researcher was able to identify the context in which the types of architecture were used as well as eminent similarities and differences in the use of the hostile architecture in the different cities. To begin with, the analysis of the findings showed that in both the developed (New York and Glasgow) and developing cities (New Delhi), there were similar challenges regarding the misuse of public spaces. The findings showed that rough sleeping from the homeless was common in the three cities although in different parts. In New York, the homeless were argued to misuse public benches (Kim, 2019) whereas in New Delhi, they were often observed on pavements (Ruetas, 2019). In Glasgow, rough sleeping was also observed on the pavements of the buildings (Scottish Housing News, 2016). The similarity in the findings from the three different cities on misuse of the public spaces by rough sleeping from the homeless reiterates previous work by Moss and Moss (2019) and Bergamaschi, Castrignanò and Rubertis (2014) who reported that the homeless misused pavements and public benches as they considered them their living quarters. In addition, the findings also underscored the wide scale nature of homelessness in different cities across the world and the lack of permanent solutions to tackle the problem. The implication of the results is that, they suggest that there is agreement in different countries that hostile architecture can be used against the vice of homelessness by making the experiences of the rough sleepers uncomfortable and as a result, keeping them out of the public spaces.

Secondly, the findings further revealed that although the conceptual framework had hypothesized that hostile architecture was depicted through altering the built environment and adding items to the infrastructure (figure 8), the results showed that in most cases, the addition of features to the built environment was more popular. In New York, findings showed that spikes were added to window sills and metal bars on public benches (Hu, 2019) while in New Delhi, results showed that granite protrudes were added to flower beds (Ruetas, 2019) and metal spikes on building pavements (Ruetas, 2019). A similar finding was also reported in Glasgow where spikes were added to building pavements Scottish Housing News, 2016). The suggestion from the findings was that, costs were influential in determining the kind of hostile architecture that would be used.

Secondly, the findings were also suggestive that different countries opted to add elements to the infrastructure as opposed to redesigning the entire facilities such as public benches due to their effectiveness. Such insights echo While and Atkinson (2015)who argued that hostile architecture through restructuring the built environment, for instance, barriers such as metal spikes on surfaces was important in order to keep out the homeless who slept on them. However, it is also important to highlight that in New York, the public infrastructure such as benches were further altered in order to restrict unwanted behaviour, for instance, the leaning benches identified by Kim (2019).

The findings reiterated Lo (2017) who reported that sloped benches where individuals could not sit for too long were effective in restricting such behaviour. The findings also echoed Adler-Gillies (2018) who also revealed that the Camden bench (figure 7) was beneficial in hindering interactions hence discouraging anti-social behaviour.

4.5.2 Effectiveness of hostile architecture in restricting unwanted behaviour The second research question investigated the extent to which the implemented hostile architecture was effective in restricting unwanted behaviour. In order to address the question, there was need to evaluate the context in which the hostile architecture was used in order to assess its effectiveness in fulfilling its function – restriction of unwanted behaviour. From the obtained findings, it was observed that in New York city, dividers were added to public benches in the subway to prevent sleeping and leaning bars also introduced to restrict congregation of different age groups in the subway (Kim, 2019). In New Delhi, granite protrudes were added to flower beds and metal spikes on building pavements to also discourage rough sleeping and misuse by mobile food vendors (Ruetas, 2019).

The analysis of these results indicated that making the public benches and pavements uncomfortable for the rough sleepers would be effective in restricting such behaviour. The findings resonated with While and Atkinson (2015) and Carey (2015) who had reported that barriers such as metal spikes on surfaces was effective in keeping out the homeless who slept on them while the addition of dividers on public benches with an aim to prevent the misuse of the infrastructure by the homeless.

The findings also showed that in Glasgow, pig ears were added in the Bristo building as a move to discourage skaters from misusing the public space and causing disorder. The analysis of these findings directly indicated that the use of the architecture in the context of their environments was effective in restricting the unwanted behaviour. With regard to restricting skateboarding, the findings reiterated Németh (2006) who had previously indicated that some teenagers who skated were unruly, deviant and disorderly. The findings also resonated with Glenney and Mull (2018) who had suggested that allowing skateboarding activity within public spaces would result in disorder and disregard for the law, hence, leading to the misuse of the spaces. However, the findings on the negative aspects of skateboarding contradicted Rogers (2018) who had suggested that allowing skateboarding could be beneficial in lowering crime rates, mitigating obesity in the young population, fostering creativity, added life and activity in the public spaces and as a result, enhanced their excitement levels.

4.5.3 Benefits and disadvantages of hostile architecture in the cities The final research question investigated the benefits and disadvantages of using hostile architecture in the various cities. Based on the analysis undertaken in section 4.5.2, it was observed that the use of the hostile architecture was important as they were effective in restricting unwanted behaviour in different contexts. Findings had shown that in New York, the use of dividers on benches and lean bars reduced congregation and rough sleeping in subways (Kim, 2019). Likewise, in New Delhi, the results had shown that use of granite protrudes and sharp spikes discouraged the homeless from rough sleeping in such areas (Ruetas, 2019). In Glasgow, use of pig ears was also observed to discourage the skating within the public spaces. Such insights underscored the effectiveness of hostile architecture in restricting unwanted behaviour in the different cities and as a result, promoting the appropriate use of the infrastructure. The results aligned to previous researchers (Lo, 2017; Carey, 2018; Chellew, 2019) who had identified similar benefits in other cities.

However, despite such benefits, the findings also revealed that there were some disadvantages associated with the use of hostile architecture. In New York, Kim (2019) reported that use of the hostile architecture in form of lean bars led to criticism as they were considered a war on sitting. In New Delhi, Ruetas (2019) had also reported that using sharp spikes and granite protrudes was dangerous to minors and also destroyed the aesthetic appeal of the public spaces. Finally, in Glasgow, Qreate (2018) had also reported that the use of pig ears to discourage skating in Bristo building square made the are less exciting as skaters had introduced activities that individuals could enjoy watching. The various findings aligned with previous insights which had also underscored similar benefits. For instance, with regard to using lean bars, pig ears and sharp spikes, the findings resonated with Quinn (2014) and While and Atkinson (2015)who had reported that hostile architecture made public spaces ugly and uninviting to the ordinary users. Therefore, the findings were suggestive that there was still need for more empathetic architecture that would strike a balance between restricting unwanted behaviour while also encouraging ordinary users to the public spaces.

32

33

4.6 Summary The chapter examined the findings from the reviewed case studies on hostile architecture. Findings reported showed that to an extent, hostile architecture can be useful in restraining unwanted public behaviour from various public spaces. For instance, in subways, dividers on benches are effective in restricting sleeping by ordinary users and homeless who misuse the spaces. However, various criticisms regarding the unprecedented consequences of the infrastructure were also highlighted. Therefore, before opting to implement hostile architecture, there is need for authorities to view the benefits and criticisms that are likely to emerge from such actions. In the next chapter, the study is concluded.

34

35

CHAPTER 5 : CONCLUSION 5.1 Conclusion The overarching objective of the research was to identify the principles of hostile architecture and support the argument that type of architecture was a valid solution for ensuring that public spaces were well used. Three research questions were identified and addressed through examining case studies of hostile architecture from Glasgow, New Delhi and New York. The first research question was addressed as various similar forms of hostile architecture were identified in the cities. For instance, public benches had dividers and were designed to ensure comfort was impossible for an individual sleeping on such spaces. Likewise, use of spikes and granite protrudes on pavements and flower beds also discouraged the misuse of the public spaces by the homeless. Pig ears were also identified in public spaces in order to restrict the disorderly behaviour of skateboarding.

The second research question was also addressed as the findings showed that the various forms of hostile architecture were effective in the contexts where they were used. For instance, in New York, installation of lean bars and dividers on public benches ensured that rough sleeping was discouraged and that ordinary users could wait for transportation. Likewise, results showed that in New Delhi, using the sharp spikes kept out homeless rough sleepers outside the pavements of buildings as well as business vendors who misused such spaces for their own benefit. As such, the use of the hostile architecture was argued to lead to improved use of the public spaces.

The third research question was also addressed as the results showed that there were both benefits and challenges of hostile architecture. With regard to the benefits, the analysis showed that using hostile architecture in their correct context led to effective use of public spaces by ordinary and legitimate users. On the contrary, the continued use of hostile architecture transformed the city into an ugly and uninviting place for the ordinary individual and they were also unable to enjoy the public spaces due to the discomfort from the hostile architecture.

In conclusion, the present study makes a case for hostile architecture as an important strategy that can lead to effective use of public spaces where context is closely considered. This is particularly in sensitive spaces such as subways where unwanted social behaviours such as drug-taking and crime are likely to arise when the architecture in such spaces supports their success. However, due to the criticism levelled against the uninviting consequences of public spaces that utilize hostile architecture, there is need for the concerned authorities to carefully consider the type of hostile architecture they need to adopt and the expected consequences that may arise.

5.2 Impact and significance of conclusions The key significance of the study conclusions is that, they reveal that hostile architecture, when carefully planned, can boost the effective use of public spaces and in turn, improve the well-being of the society as well as saving the society public funds used in repairing damaged public infrastructure. As such, the study recommends that authorities consider various forms of mild hostile architecture to promote use of the public spaces.

Secondly, the research conclusions are also significant as they indicate that the aggressive application of hostile architecture can lead to unprecedented consequences such as turning cities into ugly areas where ordinary users do not prefer to use them. Therefore, the study advocates for the adoption of milder forms of hostile architecture that can strike a balance between restricting unwanted behaviour and promoting use of public spaces for the well-being of the society.

5.3 Limitations of the research and future work One of the limitations in the research was that, data was not collected by a primary approach, whereby, survey questionnaires would be administered and interviews also undertaken with various related stakeholders involved in public spaces. The researcher acknowledged that the impossibility of using primary data arose from the restrictions of the Covid-19 pandemic which made it difficult to conduct interviews in-person. Furthermore, the researcher acknowledged that it would also be difficult finding adequate respondents from different cities. A second limitation also arose from the fact that there were few empirical studies that provided insight on the benefits and shortcomings of hostile architecture. As such, there is need for future scholars to ensure they use primary data collection processes such as interviews and surveys as well as undertaking more empirical studies to support the further research in the area.

36

37

REFERENCES Andrew, D.P.S., Pedersen, P.M. and Mcevoy, C.D. (2020). Research methods and design in sport management. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics.

Atkinson, R. (2015). Limited exposure: Social concealment, mobility and engagement with public space by the super-rich in London. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 48(7), pp.1302–1317.

Bonds, E. and Martin, L. (2016). Treating People Like Pollution: Homelessness and Environmental Injustice. Environmental Justice, 9(5), pp.137–141.

Bostani, M.K., Sadeghi, M. and Aghai, A. (2017). The impact of the juvenile vandalism in the public urban space. The case of Parsabad’s city in Iran. EspacioAbierto, 26(4), pp.49–61.

Bravo, L. (2018). We the public space. Strategies to deal with inequalities in order to achieve inclusive and sustainable urban environments. The Journal of Public Space, 3(1), pp.163–164.

Cao, J. and Kang, J. (2019). Social relationships and patterns of use in urban public spaces in China and the United Kingdom. Cities, 93, pp.188–196.

Chellew, C. (2019). Defending Suburbia: Exploring the Use of Defensive Urban Design Outside of the City Centre. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, [online] 28(1), pp.19–33. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26757401.

Cybriwsky, R. (1999). Changing patterns of urban public space. Cities, 16(4), pp.223–231.

Glenney, B. and Mull, S. (2018). Skateboarding and the Ecology of Urban Space. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 42(6), pp.437–453.

Hu, W. (2019). “Hostile Architecture”: How Public Spaces Keep the Public Out. The New York Times. [online] 8 Nov. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/nyregion/hostile-architecture-nyc.html.

Kim, E. (2019). A Field Guide to the “Weapons” Of Hostile Architecture in NYC. [online] Gothamist.

Available at: https://gothamist.com/news/a-field-guide-to-the-weapons-of-hostile-architecturein-nyc.

Omidi, M. (2014). Anti-homeless spikes are just the latest in “defensive urban architecture.” [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/jun/12/anti-homeless-spikes-latest-defensive-urban-architecture.

Ruetas, F. (2019). Hostile Architecture in India: Literally Fighting Poverty. [Online] RTF | Rethinking the Future. Available at: https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/rtf-fresh-perspectives/a2703-hostile-architecture-in-india-literally-fighting-poverty/ [Accessed 19 Aug. 2021].

Hadavi, S. and Kaplan, R. (2016). Neighborhood satisfaction and use patterns in urban public outdoor spaces: Multidimensionality and two-way relationships. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 19, pp.110–122.

Klein, W., Dove, M.R. and Felson, A.J. (2021). Engaging the unengaged: Understanding residents’ perceptions of social access to urban public space. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 59, p.126991.

Koprowska, K., Kronenberg, J., Kuźma, I.B. and Łaszkiewicz, E. (2020). Condemned to green?

Accessibility and attractiveness of urban green spaces to people experiencing homelessness.

Geoforum, 113, pp.1–13.

Lo, A. (2017). The debate: Is hostile architecture designing people -- and nature -- out of cities? [online] CNN. Available at: https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/new-dean-harvey-james-furzerhostile-architecture-debate/index.html.

Miller, L. (2015). Not all graffiti is vandalism – let’s rethink the public space debate. [online] The Conversation. Available at: https://theconversation.com/not-all-graffiti-is-vandalism-lets-rethinkthe-public-space-debate-38972.

Moss, C.J. and Moss, K. (2019). Out of Sight: Social Control and the Regulation of Public Space in Manchester. Social Sciences, 8(5), p.146.

Németh, J. (2006). Conflict, Exclusion, Relocation: Skateboarding and Public Space. Journal of Urban Design, 11(3), pp.297–318.

Rogers, J. (2018). Skateboarding is good for cities. So why is it a crime in DC? [online] Ggwash. org. Available at: https://ggwash.org/view/68633/skateboarding-is-good-for-cities.-so-why-is-it-acrime-in-dc.

Rosenberger, R. (2019). On hostile design: Theoretical and empirical prospects. Urban Studies, 57(4), pp.883–893.

Short, J.R. (2021). Social Inclusion in Cities. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 3.

Snyder, G.J. (2017). Skateboarding LA: inside professional street skateboarding. New York: New York University Press.

Adler-Gillies, M. (2018). How “hostile design” is quietly hurting our cities. ABC News. [online] 1 Mar. Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-02/design-crimes-how-hostile-architectureis-hurting-our-cities/9498912.

Chadalavada, K. (2020). Defensive architecture -A design against humanity. [online] Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339676322_Defensive_architecture_-A_design_ against_humanity.

Madanipour, A. (2015). Urban Design and Public Space. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, [online] pp.789–794. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/B9780080970868740499 [Accessed 18 Nov. 2019].

Quinn, B. (2014). Anti-homeless spikes are part of a wider phenomenon of “hostile architecture.”

The Guardian. [online] 13 Jun. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/ jun/13/anti-homeless-spikes-hostile-architecture.

Sendi, R. and Marušić, B.G. (2012). Neighbourhood Design. International Encyclopedia of Housing and Home, pp.21–28.

UNESCO (2017). Inclusion Through Access to Public Space | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. [online] Unesco.org. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/urban-development/migrants-inclusion-in-cities/good-practices/inclusion-through-access-to-public-space/.

38

39

While, A. and Atkinson, R. (2015). Defensive architecture: designing the homeless out of cities. [online] The Conversation. Available at: https://theconversation.com/defensive-architecture-designing-the-homeless-out-of-cities-52399.

Bergamaschi, M., Castrignanò, M. and Rubertis, P.D. (2014). The Homeless and Public Space: Urban Policy and Exclusion in Bologna. Interventions économiques, (51).

Brajer, I. (2018). The problem of vandalism on contemporary outdoor murals and street art.

CeROArt, (HS).

Han, H., Nguyen, T.V.T. and Sahito, N. (2019). Role of Urban Public Space and the Surrounding Environment in Promoting Sustainable Development from the Lens of Social Media. Sustainability, 11(21), p.5967.

Jock, K. (2019). The world has a hostile architecture problem. Is public space becoming private? [online] www.realchangenews.org. Available at: https://www.realchangenews.org/ news/2019/07/17/world-has-hostile-architecture-problem-public-space-becoming-private.

Kruize, H., van der Vliet, N., Staatsen, B., Bell, R., Chiabai, A., Muiños, G., Higgins, S., Quiroga, S., Martinez-Juarez, P., Aberg Yngwe, M., Tsichlas, F., Karnaki, P., Lima, M.L., García de Jalón, S., Khan, M., Morris, G. and Stegeman, I. (2019). Urban Green Space: Creating a Triple Win for Environmental Sustainability, Health, and Health Equity through Behavior Change. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, [online] 16(22). Available at: https://www.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6888177/.

McMaken, R. (2019). Homelessness and the Problem of Public Space. [online] Mises Institute. Available at: https://mises.org/wire/homelessness-and-problem-public-space.

People Make Glasgow (2021). Glasgow Country Parks and Public Gardens | People Make Glasgow. [online] peoplemakeglasgow.com. Available at: https://peoplemakeglasgow.com/thingsto-do/parks-gardens [Accessed 13 Aug. 2021].

Woolley, H. and Rose, S. (n.d.). The Value of Public Space. [online] Available at: https://www. designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/the-value-of-public-space1.pdf.

Carey, C.A. (2018). Hostile Architecture Aimed at People Experiencing Homelessness in Boston, Massachusetts: A Spatial Analysis. [online] Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325718557_Hostile_Architecture_Aimed_at_People_Experiencing_Homelessness_in_Boston_ Massachusetts_A_Spatial_Analysis.

Cruz, S.S., Roskamm, N. and Charalambous, N. (2018). Inquiries into public space practices, meanings and values. Journal of Urban Design, 23(6), pp.797–802.

Curry, L. and Nunez-Smith, M. (2015). Mixed methods in health sciences research: a practical primer. Los Angeles: Sage.

De Waal, M., Suurenbroek, F. and Nio, I. (2021). Responsive public spaces: Five mechanisms for the design of public space in the era of networked urbanism. Shaping Smart for Better Cities, pp.33–54.

Hürlimann, C. (2019). Research Philosophy and Ethics. Valuation of Renewable Energy Investments, [online] pp.111–126. Available at: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007% 2F978-3-658-27469-6_3 [Accessed 22 Aug. 2020].

Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K. and Kyngäs, H. (2014). Qualitative Content Analysis: A Focus on Trustworthiness. SAGE Open, [online] 4(1), p.215824401452263. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244014522633.

Moeckli, D. (2019). EXCLUSION FROM PUBLIC SPACE: a comparative constitutional analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Myers, M.D. (2020). Qualitative research in business & management. London; Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Ltd. Petty, J. (2016). The London Spikes Controversy: Homelessness, Urban Securitisation and the Question of “Hostile Architecture.” International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 5(1), p.67.

Schwartz-Shea, P. and Yanow, D. (2012). Interpretive research design: concepts and processes.

New York, Ny: Routledge.

Varna, G. (2014). Measuring public space: the star model. Farnham: Ashgate.

Yin, R.K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. 5th ed. Los Angeles: Sage.

Hye-Jin, J. and Ye-Kyeong, S. (2015). Characteristic of the Infra based Urban Architectural Space and Rethinking of the Global Society’s Public Place. Procedia Engineering, 118, pp.371–376.

Ji, H. and Ding, W. (2021). Mapping urban public spaces based on the Nolli map method. Frontiers of Architectural Research.

Kaklauskas, A., Bardauskiene, D., Cerkauskiene, R., Ubarte, I., Raslanas, S., Radvile, E., Kaklauskaite, U. and Kaklauskiene, L. (2021). Emotions analysis in public spaces for urban planning. Land Use Policy, 107, p.105458.

Mandeli, K. (2019). Public space and the challenge of urban transformation in cities of emerging economies: Jeddah case study. Cities, 95, p.102409.

Mitzenmacher, M., & Upfal, E. (2017). Probability and Computing: Randomisation and Probabilistic Techniques in Algorithms and Data Analysis: Cambridge university press.

Navarrete-Hernandez, P., Vetro, A. and Concha, P. (2021). Building safer public spaces: Exploring gender difference in the perception of safety in public space through urban design interventions.

Landscape and Urban Planning, 214, p.104180.

Teng, H. (Harry), Puli, A., Karakouzian, M. and Xu, X. (2012). Identification of Graffiti Countermeasures for Highway Facilities. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 43, pp.681–691. chim,W.,Donnelly,J.andArora,K.,2016.Researchmethods.Boston,MA:CengageLearning.

40