Banning Hostile Architecture in San Diego County
Mock Policy Memo directed towards the San Diego County Board of Supervisors
POLS342- Public Policy
Executive Summary
Hostile architecture is exactly as it sounds- hostile. In its simplest form it adds obtrusive elements onto typical objects. The aim of hostile architecture is to perpetuate further vulnerability for the unhoused members of society, a group that is marginalized and vulnerable enough. Additionally, hostile architecture provides no added value to society that is positive. Because hostile architecture acts as an end to a means, it is the predator of the 7,638 unhoused individuals here in San Diego, and the antagonist that has convinced the greater population to dismiss those without a home through environmental aesthetics. Furthermore, hostile architecture has increasingly become more prominent in cities to deter the unhoused from public areas. In order to combat this issue, it is proposed that hostile architecture be either mandated, banned, or heavily taxed in San Diego County.
Issue History
The current problem at hand is hostile architecture, colloquially known as anti-homeless architecture. It takes the form of segmented benches, spiked or barred walls and corners, heavily bouldered areas, the use of intendedly rigid pavement, gaps in awnings to allow for the weather to seep through, and brutalist style installments of other kinds. There are a multitude of reasons why this is a problem. To begin, the most obvious is that the unhoused are most affected when public space starts to become less public. In the discipline of architecture, there is a significant conversation on the conceptualization of public space and how it is defined. Hostile architecture impedes on the fundamental notion of space as public because it attempts to define which classes of society can use public space. This show of force through architecture denotes how and, most importantly, by whom space is to be used. By allowing such hostile structures to exist, it perpetuates “the annihilation of space by law”- a topic that describes how “[cities] have turned to a legal remedy that seeks to cleanse the streets of those left behind by globalization and other secular changes in the economy by simply erasing the spaces in which they must live - by creating a legal fiction in which the rights of the wealthy, of the successful in the global economy, are sufficient for all the rest’ (Mitchell, 305). In allowing anti-homeless architecture to continue to be built, we are allowing the segregation of our public space by class- meaning that the rights of the upper and middle classes to use public space without the impediment of an unhoused individual has come before the need of those without secure housing to survive in public spaces. In direct correlation with separation of class through inanimate objects, hostile architecture and its unrestricted use in the county “redefine what is acceptable behavior in a public space” (Mitchell, 305) because they allow for activities that are more temporary, such as sitting or standing, instead of actions that are necessary functions of life, such as sleeping or taking shelter from the weather. It is important to note that anti-homeless architecture, by its pure existence, perpetuates the idea of a society where certain freedoms are defined by one’s class, even in public spaces.
In addition to infringing upon the purpose and true intention of public space, hostile architecture affects the larger population as a whole because it influences the ways in which people behave. One of the central points in architectural philosophy is that “beyond pleasure in architectural beauty or other “positive” aesthetic properties, experience of built structures also contributes to neutral and less positive states of mind, and shapes how we broadly take in our environment. A piece of that environmental understanding is local to the built structure itself: the ways we experience architectural objects may contribute to how we comprehend, and interact with, those objects'' (Fisher, 2015). To break down Fisher’s objective, architectural features of an object directly impact the state of mind of an individual and coherently impact the behavior of an individual as well. In regards to anti-homeless architecture (depicted through the photos in the appendix of this paper), its form is callous, often geometrical, and rigid. Brutalist architecture, though not always defined by these characteristics, is a modernist form typically distinguished by its large scale and abrasive facades of concrete. Analyzing Fisher’s description of architectural philosophy it is evident to see the positive reactions more ethereal or eloquent styles of architecture, such as Haussmannian or Neoclassical architecture, have on the individual versus negative reactions via styles such as brutalism. Hence, the majority of anti-homeless architecture is done in the brutalist style. The effect of the building style on everyday interactions is this: it is easier to dismiss an individual who does not belong at something as public as a bus stop when the architectural style is harsh and intended for separation. Without going into a full architectural analysis of one of the cornerstones of anti-homeless architecture, that is, the segmented bench, the placement of barriers on a bench does not institute privacy or even functionality. Instead, the segmented bench has created an attitude that when in public, we must separate ourselves from anyone else. This furthermore aids in the idea that we must dismiss the rest of the public, especially those that use public space to live. Within the ideals of architectural philosophy as explained by Fisher, “architects can design so as to promote class equality—or solidarity, justice, autonomy, or other social phenomena as we might foster”. The architecture of anti-homeless efforts, and the segmented bench, in particular, have fostered an environment of hostility towards the unhoused and have contributed to the divide of classes in society.
On the basis of morality, it is not difficult to argue why anti-homeless architecture needs to be banned or regulated. San Diego has the fourth-largest population of unhoused in the United States with 7,638 unhoused individuals as of 2020 (Cortez et. WeAllCount, 2020). The We All Count Report by the San Diego Regional Task Force on the Homeless accounts for 3,971 unsheltered individuals at the time the data was taken. That means that almost four thousand people in San Diego County had no place of residence and no place to sleep on any given night in January of 2020. Furthermore, San Diego “has eleven municipal codes that criminalize daily activities associated with homelessness...among the eleven are four codes that criminalize standing, sitting, and resting in public spaces: five codes that criminalize sleeping, camping, and lodging in public spaces, including in vehicles: and two codes that criminalize begging and panhandling” (Miller et. al, 23). When looking at hostile architecture as a moral issue, we must question if it is honorable to continue to allow spaces to be built that exclude the unhoused when they, by very existence, are outlawed. Moreover, if we continue to privatize space and criminalize any behaviors of those without secure housing, we are no longer helping to solve the homelessness crisis, but perpetuating the problem. The unhoused individual needing to use a public bench to rest is not the problem itself, but a side-effect of the greater issue of housing insecurity in San Diego. Hostile architecture therefore aims not to solve any problems in regard to homelessness. Furthermore, there are no current regulations or laws on hostile architecture in San Diego County. Allowing such belligerent structures that significantly affect an already disadvantaged population to go without any regulation is immoral. From a moral standpoint, the unchecked use of anti-homeless architecture is a defense mechanism of the government to keep the greater classes of society more content while the unhoused are ignored.
Alternative Solutions
The first alternative to the current lack of policy regarding hostile architecture is a ban on all anti-homeless architecture in San Diego county. With this ban it would ensure that any future installments of segmented benches, bouldered underpasses, barred corners, spiked pavements, or the like would not come to fruition. In this proposal, any current hostile architecture would not be removed. Removal of current infrastructure would be a heavy expenditure for the city and the funds could be subsequently allocated to other efforts. When infrastructure begins to deteriorate and needs to be replaced, it will eventually be replaced with more functional substitutes. The funds allocated towards the removal or redevelopment of public areas in regards to hostile architecture would be granted towards supporting the current organizations that help the homeless in San Diego County. Upon research from the Regional Task Force on Homelessness, there are currently 12,346 beds available for the unhoused. Yet, the population of unhoused individuals in the county is 7,638. This data makes obvious that while San Diego does not have a lack of adequate bed space, there must be a lack of adequate outreach, advertisement, or transportation to make the unhoused aware of bed space and furthermore get them to where they can be supported. By banning any new hostile architecture from existing and using the funds saved from any new developments, the county could improve the lives of the unhoused population.
Another course of action in regard to hostile architecture is to not only ban it within San Diego County, but to remove all current installations of it as well. In doing so, the county would create a more inclusive environment for all people. The problems previously stated with these defensive efforts would cease to exist and the functionality of the bench in public space would reappear. In doing so, the cities would take on all expenditures required for replacement, which may come at a hefty price. The fear with this approach is that funds being spent to replace the infrastructure could be spent helping the homeless more directly through rehabilitation programs. Although, what is more direct than allowing them a space to sleep at night, a shelter from the sun or rain, or just a corner to escape from the wind? This policy would allow for the unhoused to find places of rest more easily, for the general public to have functional benches reintroduced, and for a need for other architecturally inclusive styles to replace the current public facilities in the county.
Lastly, another alternate route of addressing hostile architecture in San Diego would be to tax the building of all anti-homeless architecture. In this case, and new developments that are privately funded that included installments of hostile architecture would be heavily taxed. Only the cost of the expenditure for such installments would be taxed, not the entire private property. This policy would have the greatest effect on spaces that are quasi-public, such as outdoor plazas, shopping malls, and specific parks. Furthermore, because many public benches and facilities in the true public sphere are paid for by the local government, they would not be taxed, but rather mandated to be built in an inclusive manner.
It is necessary to address that with all of these options, there are political restraints. Opponents to removal of anti-homeless architecture may claim that if the city provides more functional benches and spaces then the unhoused will be on every street; and furthermore, they will not want to leave the streets. Opponents may also argue that if it is already a criminal act for an unhoused individual to sleep in public, why give them the means to do so? Some may claim that the government cannot attempt to restrict architectural expression or that controlling certain architectural features within a quasi-public space is an overreach. While these arguments have valid points, they are missing the root of what this policy is trying to bring back to the community: a little bit of humanity. The acts of an unhoused individual are already criminalized according to California law. Just because it is illegal for someone to sleep in public does not mean someone without a home can avoid sleeping in general- sleeping is a function required by simple existence. In addition, the removal of anti-homeless architecture would not bring more people to the streets, it would make the overall environment more equitable. The policies I have described are not aimed at stifling the style of architecture in San Diego, but rather finding ways where architecture can include everyone and not just some. One must remember that hostile architecture affects the entire population at large, not just those without housing security. Hostile architecture is uncomfortable, not functional, and modifies the way we act towards the public.
Recommendations and Justifications
While all options presented are steps towards a more equitable future for the people of San Diego County, the option I most recommend is taxing the building of hostile architecture and only replacing infrastructure when needed. The justification for this recommendation is based on financial grounds. The stark contrast of data provided by the We All Count Report of 2020 showed that there is ample bed space, 12,346 beds to be exact, that are available for the county’s unhoused population of 7,638. Because this is the case, the question that further pursues is why are shelter’s not at fuller capacity? What is causing so many to sleep on the streets when there are plenty of beds available? San Diego County is approximately 4,526 square miles. A large majority of the shelters that offer bed space and services are located within San Diego city limits. But even the city of San Diego is approximately 342.5 square miles. Just by sheer size of the area it is assumed that many unhoused individuals are either not aware of the available services, or are not located near them or have any means to get to them. This issue, though not the focus of my policy, is one that could be aided through the heavy taxes that would be imposed on builders creating privatized public spaces- such as outdoor malls or plazas. The tax proposed would be a significant percentage, around 30 to 40 percent, of the cost to build any anti-homeless efforts. The tax would help to deter builders from implementing hostile architecture in their developments and the funds would go directly towards improving the transportation and advertisement needed to help the unhoused find shelters.
Furthermore, this policy is best suited for San Diego County as it falls in line with the types of legislation the Board of Supervisors is inclined to support. According to the Board of Supervisors Legislative Policy on Homelessness, the Board would “support legislation that would expand and provide additional funding for programs such as homeless outreach teams,” and, “support legislation that would seek to maximize federal and state resources to address the problem of homelessness in California and San Diego County” (Policy Number M-44). In the taxation of hostile architecture and replacement when needed, the county will be able to generate revenue for outreach as well as continue to make San Diego a more inclusive place for all of the residents.
Implementation can be an insurmountable task, but in this case may be better sought over a significant amount of time. The first step would be to pass a mandate that requires any facilities of public use to be built in an anti-hostile fashion. To clarify, this would not ban brutalist style architecture in San Diego County. It would only affect public facilities that attempt to use architecture to decrease functionality of the object so that any member of the public could not use the space. The ban would not be on stylistic expression, only on using architecture as a means to an end in migrating the unhoused. The county currently has infrastructure that will last the likes of 10 to 15 years. When hostile architecture begins to decay, it will be replaced with less expensive and more inclusive alternatives. Additionally, the tax revenue generated from any replacements or new developments with hostile architecture will aid in funding the San Diego Regional Task Force on Homelessness’s outreach team.
In order to create a more architecturally equitable county and bring back the true nature of public space, it is evident that hostile architecture must become a practice of the past. The policies presented aim to do exactly that and to serve all residents of San Diego County.
References
Cortez, Carlos. “On Fixing San Diego's Homelessness Epidemic: Expanding Fast and Free
Training.” The EvoLLLution, 26 Oct. 2020,
evolllution.com/attracting-students/todays_learner/on-fixing-san-diegos-homelessness-ep
idemic-expanding-fast-and-free-training/#:~:text=San%20Diego's%20homeless%20popu
lation%20is,total%20homeless%20population%20are%20veterans.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Shelters and Emergency Housing:
San Diego Area: HUD.gov / U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).” Shelters and Emergency Housing: San Diego Area | HUD.gov / U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 2021, www.hud.gov/states/california/homeless/shelters/sdgshelter.
Mitchell, Don. "The annihilation of space by law: The roots and implications of anti‐homeless
laws in the United States." Antipode 29.3 (1997): 303-335.
Carlson, Allen, "Environmental Aesthetics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer
2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/environmental-aesthetics/>.
Fisher, Saul, "Philosophy of Architecture", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter
2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/architecture/>.
San Diego Regional Task Force on Homelessness. “2020 We All Count Report.” San Diego
Regional Task Force on Homelessness, Reports & Data, 23 Jan. 2020,
www.rtfhsd.org/wp-content/uploads/2020-WeAllCount-Report-10.pdf.
Fisher, Marina, et al. “California's New Vagrancy Laws: The Growing Enactment and
Enforcement of Anti-Homeless Laws in the Golden State.” Feb. 2015, pp. 4–30.,
doi:s://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=258105111101104124123120015028110088038002035054002027096002013102000121002127080071043103049011103001110086111022020126105092058017008015072091005102076124027120072040051002094103116109069125116006106064000084008118116030124127122095026093121089081&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE.
United States, Congress, Chief Administrative Office, Office of Strategy and Intergovernmental
Affairs, and County of San Diego Board of Directors . Legislative Policy: Homelessness,
2019, pp. 1–3. www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/cob/docs/policy/M-44.pdf.
Policy Number M-44
Wallace, Elizabeth. “What's Behind the Uptick in Hostile Architecture?” Architectural Digest,
Architectural Digest, 22 Mar. 2018, www.architecturaldigest.com/story/hostile-architecture.
San Diego Regional Task Force on Homelessness. “2020 We All Count Report.” San Diego Regional Task Force on Homelessness, Reports & Data, 23 Jan. 2020, www.rtfhsd.org/wp-content/uploads/2020-WeAllCount-Report-10.pdf.
