A Classification Scheme for Hostile Design

Abstract

A discussion is emerging over what is called “hostile design,” among other names, i.e., the construction of public-space objects in ways that exclude particular usages, and with an alleged effect of discrimination against already vulnerable populations. Critics outline various examples, from spikes added to a ledge to deter loiterers from sitting, to armrests added to a bench to discourage the unhoused from using it as a place to sleep. In an effort to sharpen the notion of hostile design as a critical tool, I develop an original typology, one in which the various examples are organized in terms of the mechanisms through which their hostility is enacted. This sets up reflections on some variables of hostile design—such as their level of “conspicuousness,” and their “domain of effect”—that cut differently across these categories.

Rules without regulation and regulation without rules

“…8 Further examples are chicanes employed as traffic-calming measures to decrease vehicle speed (Distefano & Leonardi, 2019;Lee et al, 2013;Zhang et al, 2020) and fences placed at the edge of a sidewalk near the road in order to discourage pedestrians from crossing there and steer them towards a zebra crossing. Conceptually significant here are even ethically criticizable examples of so-called hostile architecture like "sleep-prevention benches" (Rosenberger, 2014(Rosenberger, , 2017(Rosenberger, , 2020(Rosenberger, , 2023: these are benches with metal dividers, or an uneven surface, that are unusable for any purpose other than sitting.…”