How does design shape, constrain, or encourage people’s interactions with their surroundings and with each other? What is the moral responsibility behind designing for people? To what extent do designers influence perception of daily life? Following a week of extensive visual experimentation and contextual research of the “Architectural Spikes” from the V&A’s Rapid Response Collection (V&A Museum, 2014), we identified a common thread in our personal positions around the intersection between design, morality, social responsibility and community building. In this project, we explore this intersection through the means of a publication, creating a short reader that aims to inform, illustrate and spark an open ended conversation as a means to reflect on “hostile design” and its significance in our current western context. This unified output also serves as a container that synthesises and encompasses a unified language around our research, building on visual cues and experimenting with ways of conveying different layers of information through typography, illustrations, symbols and diagrams.
The London Spikes Controversy: Homelessness, Urban Securitisation and the Question of ‘Hostile Architecture’
This research paper from the University of Melbourne, Australia, examines key points around the use of hostile architecture in displacing unwanted communities from certain urban areas whilst prioritising the influx of the mid-upper classes. Although this argument seems correct at first glance, we must acknowledge the different elements at play when considering “hostile design” and the political biases that advocate for these dramatic generalisations. I disagree with the idea that all instances of hostile architecture promote the “death of the public space”, as I think this argument only takes into account the moral grounds of displacement and class divide, instead of looking at all the variables such as safety, the right to protect private property, common good, amongst others.
Although it’s true that urban planners and designers have a responsibility to create spaces for all people without marginalising some, the reality is that, isolated solutions will only go so far when tackling social issues. Hostile architecture is only one example of isolated design that responds well to a corporate brief yet leaves us with many moral questions, gaps and design failures.
“Hostile architecture” and its confederates: A conceptual framework for how we should perceive our cities and the objects in them
Karl de Fine Licht’s, “Hostile architecture” and its confederates: A conceptual framework for how we should perceive our cities and the objects in them”, dives into the possible definitions and implications of the concept of “hostility”, which presents some very solid grounds in which to judge hostile design in light of it’s intent and context (de Fine Licht, 2021). This argument revolves around the power of both perception and intent in contextualising design. Sometimes design is not intentionally hostile or restrictive, but as it happens, when put to test, it becomes hostile by the conditions and context it inhabits. This means, as designers, we have to realise that although we have some control over our work, it will be ultimately judged in line with the context it inhabits. It’s not enough to stand and defend the suitability of our work by it’s own merit or initial intent, but the practice of design requires an interest and keen awareness of the context in which our products or ideas will be used, exposed or placed.
‘Critical Graphic Design: Critical of What?’
What is criticality in design? Does critical always have to translate to criticism? Or is criticality really about producing work that is informed, located, contextual, holistic, as opposed to flippant, uninterested,
narrow, shallow?
When being asked to critically reflect on our positions on the “Architectural Spikes” in relation to context and situation, I tend to be extremely suspicious of any simple answer which would appease the Twitter crowd. Like with every complicated social issue, there’s the need to look beyond the “current context” and consider both sides of the coin. The designer is indeed responsible for remaining as objective as possible, and considering all the possible outcomes when solving a design problem, yet, the element of conscience, values and morality undoubtedly plays a big part in the way we evaluate “criticality”. To me, design can sometimes be purely about solving design problems, but without forgetting we have the moral responsibility to keep the big picture in mind and hold tight to the broader implications.
As a designer, I’m interested in exploring the attitude and practice of graphic communication design in relation to bigger social and cultural issues as well as the formal qualities of design as tools for supporting and championing the values and ideas I adhere to. I’m aware that design does not and will not provide all the answers, but I think it can work in conjunction with other disciplines in order to see meaningful changes in society. I’m also conscious of my personal biases around social justice and urbanism, as I come from a non-western context where the discussions around social care, responsibility and the use of public space are diverse and complex.
‘Census, Map, Museum’ Imagined Communities
In ‘Census, Map, Museum’ Imagined Communities, Benedict Anderson touches on the role of visual representations in the development of culture, identity and communities. The way people interpret social divisions, designing categories as a way to understand social matters but also as a way to shape society. He reflects on the map, as a tool for visual representation that shaped our ancestor’s worldview, speaking of our crave to understand the world we live in. Every single generation has used visual representations as a way to understand, investigate and share their worldview.
These ideas raise extremely contextual and speculative questions when juxtaposed with the “Architectural Spikes”. Could it be that our culture is fostering the very same environment in which hostile architecture is a mainstream approach to social control? Are artist like Sarah Ross, Gordan Savičić or Stuart Semple just bringing more attention to the great class divide? Is communication design just about raising awareness, or is there responsibility for the perception we generate in the population and how it’s materialised? Does what we say as designers create critical change or just make noise to highlight inconformity? Does social media act in a way as the census, map and museum makers nowadays? Who is in charge of “imagining our society”?
I wasn’t able to find any study/article/post/project researched so far that contains the outlook of those most affected by hostile architecture. Maybe we should question our very approach to research and the way we engage with design problems that have the potential to re-shape society.
Sean Godsell Architecture
Based on the philosophy that “A humane city can provide its homeless with the most rudimentary shelter by building it into the city’s infrastructure” (Godsell, 2002), this Melbourne-based architectural firm embarked on a project of questioning the role of transitional shelter and the use of design in providing immediate support to those most in need. By designing something so simple as a bench that converts into shelter at night, the designers look at a completely opposing approach to the one explored throughout our project.
Their approach raises several questions about the role of design in society and the tension that exists in our common understanding and use of public space. On one hand, there’s nothing positive about the fact people are pushed to sleep in the streets, or about the prevalent issues of violence and antisocial behaviour around urban spaces. On the other hand, there is a real and immediate need to support and provide for the vulnerable, and there’s a corporate responsibility in the way we approach public spaces as places for integration. This is true especially for those who live in particular areas of the city and have to navigate the complex scenario of defending their public and private spaces while remaining humane and within the bounds of morality.
Defensive Space Theory – Oscar Newman
Oscar Newman’s Defensive Space Theory presents an opportunity to break from the initial value judgement around hostile architecture, and start thinking on how to use design to encourage the desired behaviour rather than prevent unwanted behaviour. This probably goes beyond the design of a bench, a building, or the sharpness, look, or location of architectural spikes. It goes into the realm of listening to communities, looking at the issues they are facing, and acting in the best interest of those affected by using design not just as a means to an end but as a research method.
His practice as an architect stands as a relevant example of the use of design research for understanding people’s behaviour and using knowledge to create meaningful change in society. It also shows the power of bad design and the risks of making de-contextualised decisions. It’s important to note that design does not generally create social change in isolation, but it can be a great tool working alongside other disciplines in order to make an impact, just as Newman’s practice and it’s intersection with sociology and psychology. His research concludes that people are more likely to take responsibility for their surroundings when presented with the right design conditions, in which there is more emphasis on ownership of the public and semi-public space. By analysing existing design diagrams, and formulating new design in response to the analysis, this theory has served as a cornerstone for the development of more equitable communities in the 21st century. (Newman et al., 1980)
Bibliography
Museum, V.and A. (2014) Architectural spikes: V&A explore the collections, Victoria and Albert Museum: Explore the Collections. Available at: https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O1296001/architectural-spikes-kent-stainless-ltd/ (Accessed:
February 18, 2023).
Petty , J. (2016) “The London Spikes Controversy: Homelessness, Urban Securitisation and the Question of ‘Hostile Architecture,’” International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy [Preprint]. Available at: https://doi.org/5(1): 67‐81 .
de Fine Licht, K. (2021) “Hostile architecture” and its Confederates: A Conceptual Framework for how we should perceive our cities and the objects in them, View of “Hostile architecture” and its Confederates:
A Conceptual Framework for how we should perceive our cities and the objects in them. The University of Winnipeg. Available at: https://cjur.uwinnipeg.ca/index.php/cjur/article/view/290/145 (Accessed: February 18, 2023).
Laranjo, F. (2014) Critical graphic design: Critical of what?, Modes of Criticism. Available at: https://modesofcriticism.org/critical-graphic-design/ (Accessed: February 23, 2023).
Park Bench House (2002) Sean Godsell architects. Available at: https://www.seangodsell.com/park-bench-house (Accessed: February 23, 2023).
Newman, O. and Franck, K.A. (1980) “Creating Defensible Space,” in Factors influencing crime and instability in urban housing developments. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
Anderson, B. (2006) “Census, Map, Museum,” in Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London ; New York: Verso, pp. 163–185.
Zeitoun , L. (2022) Artist Sarah Ross defies hostile and inaccessible architecture with satirical jogging outfits, designboom. designboom. Available at: https://www.designboom.com/art/sarah-ross-archisuits-project-los-angeles-11-03-2022/ (Accessed:
February 20, 2023).