To most, innovation and design are positive developments, but there are more evil sides that often go ignored, one being hostile architecture, otherwise known as anti-homeless architecture.
Anti-homeless policy is nothing new, whether it be loitering laws and sit-lie ordinances, or barriers to enter (or sit on) public spaces. The latter has become more discreet, emerging all over infrastructure in major cities like Portland, New York City, and San Francisco. People facing houselesness often feel more comfortable sleeping outside as opposed to shelters, but lawmakers are expending money, time, and energy to bar that. What makes it seem like a quirky and eccentric design is often a mechanism to keep homeless people from using them as makeshift beds — for example, slanted benches or amrest on benches. These subtle “quirks” make it nearly impossible for folks to sleep on them and are thus violent in nature. Houseless people are being displaced from the streets and can no longer find shelter outdoors.
California is a particularly violent offender, especially San Francisco; in the 90s, a number of benches were extracted from Civic Central Plaza and from United Nations Plaza in 2001, rendering so many homeless people devoid of a comfortable sleeping and sitting space. The city has also begun to use “pree-proof” paint, which literally bounces the urine back to the person who is urinating; public urination is often the only option for homeless folks, and instead of investing money into public restrooms, the city spends its resources on violent design. Walnut Creek is no stranger to hostile architecture; in Civic Park, there are a number of benches with a cement block in the center of them (see image), which is to prevent people from sleeping on them. Many pedestrians will not notice this aggressive design feature, which is what makes it so effective.
Hostile architecture makes it clear that the city (the officials, the elite) do not see homeless people as members of the community, so they want to physically remove them from public spaces; to them, houseless folks are not welcome in their city. Instead of addressing the issue, hostile architecture otherizes homeless people, and encourages the rest of the community to do the same. Homeless people need the public space more than anyone else, more than someone taking a lunch break in the park, more than someone who is walking to work, yet it is becoming increasingly dangerous for homeless people to enter these spaces.
