Roldan 1

You Are Not Welcome Here: How Hostile Architecture

Exacerbates the Homeless Epidemic
By: Onyx Roldan April 16th, 2021

Introduction

There are all different types of beds—some are soft, firm, just right. Some are twins, queens, and

some are even king sized. There are flannel sheets, while some are sleek and luxurious Egyptian

cotton. Some are donned with fluffy and full feather pillows. Some people like to cuddle up in

bed with their pet at night, even. Just the thought of how nice it is to climb into a big, warm bed

at the end of a long day could send anyone asleep. Well, in America alone, over half a million

people have nothing to picture.

Over 500,000 people in American on any given day have no bed to sleep in, and no place to call

home1. Tonight, they will find themselves searching the streets for somewhere to sleep-- maybe

their bed for the night will look like a bench in the middle of the park, or the stairs of the train

station, or maybe even the top of a grate, where they’ll at least feel the warmth drafting up from

the city vents. As hard as these people already have it, there is a war raging on against those

experiencing homelessness, and it’s more subtle than ever. Those experiencing homelessness are
Roldan 2

being treated like animals, being forced underground, in street corners, and out of the very few

public spaces they find comfort in, and we, taxpayers, are funding these actions2.

Anti-homeless architecture is a growing

problem both in America as well as globally.

Also known as “hostile architecture”, these

structures are designed to keep the homeless

and those seeking shelter off of public

property and out of sight of those who have

access to housing3. Common forms of Bench in Philadelphia's Love Park

hostile architecture includes spikes on the

ground, especially those near or around air vents that may provide warmth on cold nights, bars

disguised as hand rests in the middle of benches, and large structures or monuments strategically

placed in open spaces where some may find it comfortable and safe to sleep at night4. While

homelessness can be an uncomfortable issue that some wish to avoid, anti-homeless architecture

is an issue that needs to be addressed because it not only takes money away from resolving the

homelessness issue and puts it towards avoidance of the problem, but it also sends the message

that those experiencing homelessness are not worthy of existing among the rest of society5.

The Issue at Hand

Hostile architecture is not only extremely expensive to implement-- for example, Iowa city

considered spending around $150,000 to replace benches with ones with armrests6—but it sends

a message to those experiencing homelessness that there is no place for them in society, further
Roldan 3

isolating an already greatly marginalized and forgotten group. By treating this group as a public

eyesore, anti-homeless architecture dehumanizes the homeless population and denies them

meaningful support as while discouraging them from reaching out for help. “When you’re

designed against, you know it,” Ocean Howell, an architectural history professor at the

University of Oregon, says. “Other people might not see it, but you will. The message is clear:

you are not a member of the public, at least not of the public that is welcome here.”7 This

message of shame and condescendence only adds to the fact that 34% of American cities have

laws against “camping” in public, while 57% have laws against camping in specific public

spaces8— laws that are clearly imposed with the purpose of criminalizing homelessness.

So why can’t the homeless utilize shelters? It may be difficult for a housed person to understand

why someone experiencing homelessness might prefer to sleep on a bench rather than inside of a

shelter. Many shelters may not even have room to take more people in on any given night. In

many cities across America, there are less shelter beds than there are homeless persons, with this

difference usually being in the hundreds, and sometimes thousands9. Not only this, but for many

women, homeless shelters put them at a greater risk of violence10. In a study completed by the

American Journal of Public Health, under a third of women interviewed who sleep in public

places or shelters had recently experienced physical violence, with the same proportion

experiencing recent sexual violence. Two thirds of those interviewed said that they had recently

experienced emotional violence, including aggressive threats and language11.

Homeless people seeking shelter outside are also at a much higher risk of sexual assault and

victimization. The lifetime risk for violent victimization among mentally ill homeless women is a
Roldan 4

disturbing 97%12, while 32% of homeless women, 27% of homeless men, and 38% of homeless

transgendered persons reported physical or sexual assault in the last year13. Anti-homeless

architecture does nothing to alleviate this problem either. An unnamed woman interviewed by

the Salt Lake Tribune recalled how the placement of rocks outside of a women’s shelter, a

popular location for camping, has only driven sexual assault to another area of the city. “The

rocks don’t do any good,” she said, “[the predators] have just moved down the street.”14

Ultimately, hostile architecture diverts money, a large portion of which is taxpayer dollars, that

could be going towards solving the issue of homelessness and puts it towards a distraction.

Instead of this, cities pour money into putting spikes in the ground, hand rests on benches, and

filling in empty spaces with rocks.

Anti-homeless Architecture in Action

Hostile architecture can be found almost everywhere in most U.S. cities and across the world. In

2018, Philadelphia’s already beloved Love Park underwent 26 million dollars in renovations,

those of which were proposed and presented as “more accessible and inclusive”—these

renovations included curved and slotted benches, rocks throughout the park, and the replacement

of many benches and curbs used for seating with tables and chairs15. Although many have

already voiced their opinions opposing these renovations and pointing out their hostile nature,

Philadelphia’s officials have maintained their position that these structures promote inclusivity16.

San Francisco has installed “pee-proof” paint in the city— a certain type of paint which forces

urine to bounce back off of the ground and onto the person. While no one wants people urinating

on the streets, for many homeless people living in cities, it can be nearly impossible to find a
Roldan 5

bathroom that allows non-customers17. In the same city, in both the 1990’s and 2001, benches

were removed overnight in busy city centers, leaving tired visitors with nowhere to rest and

homeless people with nowhere to sleep18.

In Salt Lake City, Utah, the Geraldine King Women’s Resource Center is homeless shelter for

women. As many homeless shelters have less available beds than the number of those seeking

shelter19, many people have historically slept on the beds of grass located outside the shelter. In

early 2021, the city replaced this land with jagged rocks, so that the typical campers, those who

are turned away and left to sleep outside, had nowhere to go at night20.

These structures, however, do not solely affect the homeless. Claims that these structures may

help to “promote inclusivity”21 can be easily disproven—the homeless are not the only group

affected by hostile architecture. Groups that may find themselves feeling the secondhand effects

of these structures include pregnant women, the elderly, disabled, and the injured, each and every

time they may feel the need to lie down or spread out when in public spaces22. These structures

are simply framed in a way that paints them in a positive light, but in reality, they isolate all

different types of people and only make our public spaces less accessible23.

Alleviating the Problem

The most obvious place to start when it comes to improving conditions for the homeless and

unsheltered is through the abolishing of anti-homeless architecture. While it is extremely

important for residents to advocate for the homeless by expressing their opposition of hostile

architecture to their city officials, the real power in this situation lies within local governments
Roldan 6

and businesses24. City officials, as well as private owners of public spaces, need to actively make

the decision to reverse their impact on the homeless by removing hostile design from their

spaces.

Once this is completed, city governments must invest funding budgeted for implementing anti-

homelessness architecture into programs that house the homeless and invest in their future rather

than demise. While each city offers their own local support for the homeless, it is important to

address the issue federally. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development offers a

number of programs that assist the homeless that are in need of more funding25. One extremely

important program that individual cities can contribute to is the Title V program, which enables

organizations, governments, and nonprofits to house or assist the homeless26. The U.S.

Government Accountability Office estimates that as of 2010, there are over 10 million vacant

homes across the U.S.27, all of which can be eligible for housing the homeless, but only if local

governments approve. If money used for implementing hostile architecture was put towards the

Title V program, thousands of unsheltered people could find a safe place to sleep each night

instead of being forced on to benches and streets28.

Governments must also work even more than they currently are in order to decrease the current

rate of homelessness. The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness has a coordinated Federal

plan to end homelessness that highlights some important programs that governments must

implement and maintain in order to end homelessness that are not currently in action29. These

include funding supportive housing from the Section 8 Program, which assists very low-income

families with rent payment and also allows participants to choose their own housing30, to return
Roldan 7

funding to transitional housing that includes both housing sites and rent assistance31 and

including the homeless and local governments in the decision-making process as to where to

allocate funds32.

The Coalition for the Homeless advises local governments to follow in the footsteps of 1980’s

New York City, where the first permanent supportive housing programs were established33.

Permanent supportive housing has been proven to be the least costly form of emergency and

institutional care, and in New York City has reduced the rate of homelessness and saved taxpayer

dollars, which would have gone to implementing hostile architecture and funding short-term

solutions for homelessness34. Over time, with access to stable shelter, great improvements have

been shown in the rate of substance abuse, health issues, and mental illness in those utilizing

permanent supportive housing35.

Vancouver, BC offered a particularly notable

response to the rest of world’s hostile

architecture— instead of deterring the

homeless with spikes and arm rests, they have

embraced outdoor shelters. RainCity Housing,

a shelter in Vancouver, placed “pop-up

Vancouver's inclusive architecture shelters” throughout the city, which read “this

is a bench” during the daytime, and “this is a

bedroom” during the night36. Some of these shelters offer covering from inclement weather and

provide both a supportive message and a comfortable and safe place to sleep37. These benches
Roldan 8

are utilized each night and provide a temporary solution for those experiencing homelessness.

This sets a great example as to how cities can assist the homeless in the short-term after they

remove hostile architecture.

The Societal Benefit to Solving Homelessness

Implementing permanent supportive housing programs has been shown to have positive impacts

on health, proving to be more successful at reducing substance abuse than programs that

provided participants with health treatment before housing38. Further studies conducted from

1994-2001 following the

implementation of subsidized

housing in New York City

show that over time,

permanent supportive housing

in the city has been an

extremely effective method of

reducing homelessness39. Figure 1

Those exiting shelters and

entering subsidized housing have a significantly lower rate of return to shelter when compared to

those entering unknown arrangements or their own housing40(Figure 1). the property value of

neighborhoods containing New York City’s supportive housing has not declined either41, making

it an extremely successful program both in the short term and long term.
Roldan 9

Ending homelessness has a greater societal benefit that is often noted in typical discussion. It’s

important to imagine what a world without homelessness could provide economically. Just by

providing supportive housing alone, taxpayer dollars are saved. A chronically homeless person,

on average, costs taxpayers $35,578 per year, which is reduced by approximately 49.5% upon

placement in supportive housing42. Healthcare costs of the homeless are reduced by

approximately 59%, emergency department costs are decreased by 61%, and the number of

general inpatient hospitalizations is decreased by 77% within the community43. In Albuquerque,

the estimated cost savings return of a permanent supplemental housing program is about $1.78

on each dollar spent on the program, and an estimated $14,700 saved per year per person44.

When homeless people are given the shelter and resources they need to succeed, they are able to

contribute to the success of the greater society, rather than spending time searching for a safe and

comfortable place to sleep at night.

Conclusion

This brief has clearly demonstrated how anti-homeless architecture is nothing more than a band-

aid over the homeless epidemic that is so prominent in the United States as well as globally.

Considering all of the information presented, it is only a logical step for local governments to

eliminate hostile structures within U.S. cities and begin investing the money budgeted for these

renovations into local programs that help establish housing for the homeless and keep them out

of shelters and the streets. This all begins on the local level, and government officials must enact

these policies and make these budget changes. These changes to the system have the potential to

benefit the United States greatly both socially and economically.

Roldan 10
1
Endnotes

National Alliance to End Homelessness, “The State of Homelessness in America,” available at

https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness-
reportlegacy/#:~:text=There%20are%20an%20estimated%20553%2C742,people
%20in%20the%20general%20population/ (last accessed April 14 2021).
2
National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, “No Safe Place: The Criminalization of
Homelessness in U.S. Cities,” available at https://nlchp.org/wp content/uploads/2019/02/No_
Safe_Place.pdf (last accessed April 16 2021).
3
UNSW Sydney Newsroom, “Defensive Architecture: Design at its Most Hostile,” available at
https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/art-architecture-design/defensive-architecture-design-its-most-
hostile (last accessed April 16 2021).
4
Ibid.
5
Ibid.
6
KWWL Television Inc., “Cost to Replace Iowa City Benches Estimated at $105k,” available at
https://kwwl.com/2019/01/18/cost-to-replace-iowa-city-benches-estimated-at-150k/ (last accessed
April 13 2021).
7
Alex Andreou, “Anti-Homeless Spikes: ‘Sleeping Rough Opened My Eyes to the City’s Barbed
Cruelty,’” The Guardian (Feb 2015), available at https://www.theguardian.com/society/
2015/feb/18/defensive-architecture-keeps-poverty-undeen-and-makes-us-more-hostile/ (last accessed
April 12 2021).
8
National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, “No Safe Place: The Criminalization of
Homelessness in U.S. Cities.”
9
Ibid.
10
Lauren Kirchner, “Doubly Victimized: The Shocking Prevalence of Violence Against Homeless
Women,” Pacific Standard (July 2014), available at https://psmag.com/social-justice/doubly-
victimized-violence-homeless-women-girls-shelter-86458 (last accessed April 16 2021).
11
Ibid.
12
Lisa Goodman and Others, “Episodically Homeless Women with Serious Mental Illness: Prevalence
of Physical and Sexual Assault,” 65 (4) (1995), available at
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1037/h0079669.
13
Margot Kushel and Others, “No Door to Lock: Victimization Among Homeless and Marginally
Housed Persons,” 163 (20) (2012), available at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
14609786/.
14
Taylor Stevens, “How Design Limits the Homeless from Camping, Sleeping in Public Spaces in Salt
Lake City,” The Salt Lake Tribune (March 2021), available at https://www.sltrib.com
/news/2021/03/21/how-city-design-limits/ (last accessed April 15 2021).
15
Kaitlin Jock, “The United States Has a Hostile Architecture Problem. Is Public Space Becoming
Private?”, International Network of Street Papers (April 2019), available at https://insp.ngo/the-united-
states-has-a-hostile-architecture-problem-is-public-space-becoming-private/. (last accessed 14 April
2021).
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid.
18
Ibid.
19
National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, “No Safe Place: The Criminalization of
Homelessness in U.S. Cities.”
20
Taylor Stevens, “How Design Limits the Homeless from Camping, Sleeping in Public Spaces in Salt
Lake City.”
21
Kaitlin Jock, “The United States Has a Hostile Architecture Problem. Is Public Space Becoming
Private?.”
22
Alex Andreou, “Anti-Homeless Spikes: ‘Sleeping Rough Opened My Eyes to the City’s Barbed
Cruelty.’”
23
UNSW Sydney Newsroom, “Defensive Architecture: Design at its Most Hostile.”
24
Winnie Hu, “’Hostile Architecture’: How Public Spaces Keep the Public Out,” The New York Times
(November 2019), available at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/nyregion/hostile-architecture-
nyc.html (last accessed April 15 2021).
25
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Homelessness Assistance,” available at
https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/comm_planning/homeless/programs. (last accessed April 13
2021).
26
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Title V- Federal Surplus Property for Use to
Assist the Homeless,” available at https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/title-v/. (last accessed April
13 2021).
27
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Vacant and Abandoned Properties: Turning
Liabilities Into Assets,” available at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals
/em/winter14/highlight1.html. (last accessed April 13 2021).
28
Ibid.
29
National Coalition for the Homeless, “How Can the Federal Government Plan to End
Homelessness?,” available at https://nationalhomeless.org/usich-plan-to-end-homelessness-2020/ (last
accessed April 14 2021).
30
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Housing Choice Vouchers Fact Sheet,”
available at https://www.hud.gov/topics/housing_choice_voucher_program_section_8 (last accessed
April 14 2021).
31
National Coalition for the Homeless, “How Can the Federal Government Plan to End
Homelessness?.”
32
Ibid.
33
Coalition for the Homeless, “Proven Solutions,” available at
https://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/proven-solutions/#:~:text=Proven%20housing% 2Dbased
%20policies%20include,Vouchers%20or%20Section%208%20vouchers (last accessed April 15 2021).
34
Ibid.
35
Patrick Markee, “Research Proves that Federal Housing Programs Work to Reduce Family
Homelessness,” Coalition for the Homeless (February 2009), available at
https://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/BriefingPaper-
ResearchonHousingAssistanceforHomelessFamilies-2-12-2009.pdf (last accessed April 15 2021).
36
Jenny Uechi, “Vancouver Gives Classy Response to London’s Anti-Homeless Spikes,” Vancouver
Observer (June 2014), available at https://www.vancouverobserver.com/new s/vancouver-gives-classy-
response-londons-anti-homeless-spikes (last accessed April 14 2021).
37
Ibid.
38
National Academies of Sciences Engineering Medicine, “Permanent Supportive Housing: Evaluating
the Evidence for Improving Health Outcomes Among People Experiencing Chromic Homelessness,”
available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK519594/ (last accessed April 15 2021).
39
Patrick Markee, “Research Proves that Federal Housing Programs Work to Reduce Family
Homelessness.”
40
Ibid.
41
Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy, “The Impact of Supportive Housing on
Surrounding Neighborhoods: Evidence from New York City,” available at https://shnny.org
/uploads/Furman_Center_Policy_Brief.pdf (last accessed April 15 2021).
42
National Alliance to End Homelessness, “Ending Chronic Homelessness Saves Taxpayers Money,”
available at https://endhomelessness.org/resource/ending-chronic-homelessness-saves-taxpayers-
money/ (last accessed April 15 2021).
43
Daniel Garrett, “The Business Case for Ending Homelessness: Having a Home Improves Health,
Reduces Healthcare Utilization and Costs,” American Health and Drug Benefits, available at
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4046466/#:~:text=Providing%20 permanent
%20supportive%20housing%20to,hospitalizations%20is%20decreased%20by%2077%25 (last
accessed April 14 2021).
44
Aaron Hilf, “Research Reveals Big Economic Benefits to Housing Homeless Population,” Phys.org
(October 2016), available at https://phys.org/news/2016-10-reveals-big-economic-benefits-
housing.html (last accessed 16 April 2021).

Photo Citation:

Decena, Alvin. Homeless Man Sleeping on Ground: Pexels

https://www.pexels.com/photo/grayscale-photo-of-man-lying-beside-tree-808424/?
utm_content=attributionCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pexels

Benches In Love Park: The Philadelphia Inquirer

https://www.inquirer.com/philly/living/love-park-philly-benches-anti-homeless-hostile-architecture-
defensive-design-setha-low-20180531.html

Raincity Benches: Spring Advertising

https://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/vancouver-gives-classy-response-londons-anti-homeless-
spikes

Rates of Return to Shelter: Coalition for the Homeless

https://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/BriefingPaper-
ResearchonHousingAssistanceforHomelessFamilies-2-12-2009.pdf