I'd never heard the term "hostile architecture" before, but once I learned how it was defined, I could think of examples of it that I've seen in Seoul and elsewhere. Hostile architecture is specifically designed to be uncomfortable as a way to minimize social problems like loitering and sleeping in places where you're not supposed to sleep. The best example to come to mind is converting a flat bench into a set of fused armchairs by introducing armrests that prevent a person from lying down. The following video takes a pretty slanted view of hostile architecture, which is primarily designed to keep bums and vagrants from loitering and sleeping in certain public spaces, but which also negatively affects the handicapped and the elderly while doing nothing to actually help the bums and vagrants. I'm glad I didn't encounter such architecture during my recent long walk. I took full advantage of benches and shwimteo wherever I found them, and they were all thankfully smooth and flat. The video makes its point clearly, but I would have liked to hear a defense of hostile architecture.
Monday, November 20, 2023
4 comments:
READ THIS BEFORE COMMENTING!
All comments are subject to approval before they are published, so they will not appear immediately. Comments should be civil, relevant, and substantive. Anonymous comments are not allowed and will be unceremoniously deleted. For more on my comments policy, please see this entry on my other blog.
AND A NEW RULE (per this post): comments critical of Trump's lying must include criticism of Biden's lying on a one-for-one basis! Failure to be balanced means your comment will not be published.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I've heard this called "hostile architecture" or "defensive design." I think either of those terms work better than "aggressive architecture," because it's not really aggressive, is it? It's not like those benches are leaping out at you and slapping you upside the head. They are hostile to certain uses, though. I suppose you could say that it is "aggressively" trying to discourage certain uses, but that seems like bending over backward semantically when you already have a perfectly good term like "hostile."
ReplyDeleteAs for the actual practice itself, I would tend to agree that we need to treat the root problems rather than trying to design our way around them. People will find a way to adapt to or get around design solutions.
My mistake. I'll correct the blog post. "Hostile" and "defensive" are the terms used in the video.
ReplyDeleteOh, I thought that was the term used in the video (which I obviously didn't watch).
ReplyDeleteNo, I just had one of my many senior moments and mentally changed "hostile" to "aggressive" for no good reason. Zee brain, she eez brokeen.
ReplyDeleteIt's an interesting video, but totally unconcerned with exploring the problem with such architecture (if "architecture" is the right word for benches, chairs, etc.) in a balanced manner. I mean, I mostly agree with the video's slant, but I'd still be interested to learn what the designers of such spaces were thinking.