For some time now, the concept of hostile design (or defensive design) has been at the center of a complex and heated debate, as people and advocates who use these public spaces have started documenting examples they encountered. These design features are made to intentionally exclude, harm, or hinder the freedom of human beings. Whether they target loitering teens, skateboard enthusiasts, or houseless individuals, they’re designed to remove a certain part of the community from a public space.

To gain insight from an expert in the field, we reached out to Cara Chellew, a public space researcher, writer, and PhD student in Urban Planning, Policy & Design at McGill University. She is also the founder of the Defensive Urbanism Research Network, as well as defensiveTO, a site aimed to shed light on how defensive urban design influences how we interact with public spaces. When it comes to terminology, Chellew prefers to use the word "defensive" to describe this design and spatial management strategy "because it defends space against unwanted use."

"This term includes objects like planter boxes that are installed in doorways to prevent people from seeking refuge but are not inherently hostile. Defensive urbanism can create hostile environments," she told Bored Panda. "Of course, some design is inherently hostile like spikes installed on ledges to keep people from sitting."

According to Chellew, defensive or hostile urbanism uses elements in the built environment to guide or restrict behaviors in urban space. "The behaviors targeted are those that are associated with people who use and rely on public space the most, like people who are unhoused and youth. Many of the behaviors targeted for people that are unhoused are essential for their survival — sleeping, going to the washrooms, finding food, panhandling, etc."

Chellew pointed out that these measures are what makes the practice especially cruel. "It does nothing to address the widespread problem of housing affordability and lack of free mental health and addiction supports. Defensive/hostile design attempts to displace people who need help rather than creating spaces that could support human wellbeing."

We also managed to get in touch with the creator of 'Hostile Design', Kristi, who was kind enough to chat with us about the background of their social media project and its community. When asked what inspired them to launch the page in the first place, Kristi explained that people have been documenting Savehostile design for years. "I’m just highlighting what people find. I’m not an expert in any way, shape or form," they said.

Even though the account was created only last month, it has already gained a strong foothold on the platform. With over 89K followers, the page is the perfect outlet for people to contribute with their own examples and participate in meaningful discussions surrounding the matter. "The followers all seemed as annoyed about this behavior in public design as I am."

"It’s only been a few weeks [but] I probably have 200 message requests right now," Kristi explained how many submissions the followers send over. Although it may seem like a high number, the founder said it’s quite easy for them to manage the account. "Open a DM, save the photo, credit it to the user, post."

Hostile design seems to flourish in the big cities around the globe, as supporters say it’s sometimes necessary to put an end to unwanted behavior. But opponents, activists, and academics who spend time researching these measures call it an inhumane practice as it targets specific sections of the community, especially the houseless.

When asked Kristi to share their own opinion about this, they were completely against it. "You should remove as many bench handles as you can when you see them in public. If you see pointless instructions under a bridge or spikes on top of a fire hydrant, you should remove them if possible. Again, I’m not an expert on this stuff. There are academics doing research that are far better at explaining the history and flaws."

Speaking of the biggest faults of defensive design features, Chellew said they create public spaces that are hostile to us all. "For example, the most common form of defensive urbanism in North American cities is the absence or removal of public amenities that make public spaces comfortable for people to use — benches, public washrooms, places of shelter and shade."

"When these public amenities are removed or omitted for fear of misuse or 'loitering', it affects how everyone can use and access the space," she added. "It especially makes it difficult for people who are elderly, people with disabilities, people with chronic illness, families with young children, etc. to navigate the city and access public space."

While there seems to be a number of reasons these public spaces get designed in a way that doesn’t actually serve the public, Kristi said the main goal is to keep out "the undesirables". "This doesn’t just include the houseless but also the working class that might need to loiter for a bit waiting on public transportation or resting between shifts. It’s a way to keep people always on the move instead of having public spaces that are inviting and welcoming. And a city that keeps its houseless away is a city that can pretend it doesn’t have any."

The recurring examples of hostile design are not to say designers and architects themselves are encouraging it — that’s rarely the case. As Chellew told us, it happens because cities and private developers are looking for quick-fix solutions. "If there are complaints that people are sleeping on benches it is easier to put center bars on benches rather than looking at why people have to sleep on benches in the first place."

If we want to see change and create public spaces that would feel inviting to all, "we must also address the lack of affordable housing and lack of free mental health and addiction supports," she explained. "It is all interconnected."

Chellew said the use of defensive design to govern public spaces is a political and ethical decision. "Policy must be changed at the municipal or even provincial or state level to prohibit design and management approaches that are meant to make spaces less accessible and more uncomfortable." 

"People can engage with their local political representatives through requesting meetings or creating petitions. In addition, professionals like planners, designers, and architects must take a stand against the practice as unethical as it does not promote the public good," she concluded.