Social Problem Analysis (Part Three)

Jared Gregory

College of Social Work-University of South Carolina

SOWK 441: Theories for Understanding Organizations and Communities

Dr. Melania Popa-Mabe

October 31st, 2023

 When viewing hostile architecture from a rights-based approach it is important to view

the five key human rights principles, which are nicknamed PANEL. That stands for participation,

accountability, non-discrimination, empowerment, and legality. Participation is for everyone

being entitled to participate in decisions that may affect them. Accountability is making sure

those who are in power are held accountable, and that those in power uphold their obligations to

the people they oversee. Non-discrimination means that everyone is given their rights without

discrimination and all discrimination should be eliminated. Empowerment is having everyone

know and use their rights when they want, and people should be able to influence the policies

that affect them. Legality means that any approach should be within legal rights set in both

domestic and international laws. By using a rights-based approach, we can advocate against

hostile architecture using PANEL as the reason why it is inhumane. The desired outcome would

be to get rid of hostile architecture and instead fund other ways to help the homeless population.

An outline can be done using a rights-based approach to achieve a desirable outcome. If

we were to give the homeless a voice to participate in discussions about hostile architecture, then

perhaps a solution could come that would benefit everyone. Something that can be difficult to

figure out is who is accountable for hostile architecture. It is mostly unknown who funds hostile

architecture and who is funding it, as it can vary depending on where you are. This makes it

harder to hold someone accountable, and if there was someone, we could hold accountable then

perhaps we could come up with more useful solutions. Hostile architecture is discriminatory, and

it is intended to drive the homeless away. Better outcomes can be achieved besides creating a

more hostile architecture, and some outcomes aren’t discriminatory. Instead of dehumanizing

homeless individuals, we could empower them and help support them to get out of the situations

they are in. Pathways To Housing PA discussed a report, which said “…the report emphasizes
massive spending by New York City, where over $70 million was allocated for the installation of

slanted benches.” Regular benches were replaced with slanted benches that require you to lean,

which makes them unusable to rest on. Instead of spending $70 million on hostile architecture to

drive the homeless away, that money could have been used to help the homeless population.

Instead of ignoring or dehumanizing homeless individuals, we should be empowering them and

treating them as equals. Finally, there are no laws prohibiting or against hostile architecture,

meaning it is legal. If we want hostile architecture to end then laws and policies would need to

be passed to combat it, and hopefully one day put an end to it.

When viewing hostile architecture from a needs-based approach it is important to know

what the needs of those affected are and how to meet them if they aren’t met already. One of the

most important human needs is shelter, with us also needing sleep and personal space. Those

experiencing homelessness do not have these, and hostile architecture gives them even less

shelter than they already have. Individuals experiencing homelessness rely on covered places

that they consider safe, which keeps them out of storms and severe weather, and comfortable

enough for them to rest. The desired outcome would be giving the homeless population a place,

or places, to go and rest without worry of being harmed or feeling dehumanized. Giving them

safe shelter and places to go during the day would help them a lot, and it is something they

deserve.

Knowing shelter is a need, the desired outcome would be to provide shelter to those

experiencing homelessness. Hostile architecture removes even more places for the homeless to

rest, and the money being used to fund it could instead be allocated to help provide for the needs

of the homeless. This could include adding more shelters, opening day centers, more affordable

housing, and more. There are many ways to combat homelessness, but hostile architecture isn’t
one of them. It pushes people away, but the homelessness problem remains. Homelessness isn’t

ended by pushing the problem away or having someone else deal with it, it’s done by helping

people attain their needs and giving them resources.

Article 25 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 11.1 of the

1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights recognize adequate

housing as a right. Adequate housing means having shelter that protects people from the weather,

has lighting, ventilation, is sanitary, and has proper maintenance standards. As the United

Nations Human Rights says, “…under international law, to be adequately housed means having

secure tenure-not having to worry about being evicted or having your home or lands taken

away.” (UNHR, 2023) Proper housing is viewed as a right, so why isn’t it enforced as one?

Many people go without adequate housing and instead of helping them attain it we instead take

away even more shelter by enforcing hostile architecture. By denying people access to adequate

housing, we are denying them a right they deserve.

References

Hostile by design. Pathways to Housing PA. (2023, September 12).

https://pathwaystohousingpa.org/news/hostile-by-design#:~:text=Digging%20even

%20deeper%2C%20the%20report,the%20installation%20of%20slanted%20benches.

The human right to adequate housing | Ohchr. (n.d.). https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-

procedures/sr-housing/human-right-adequate-housing