How Hostile Architecture Is Designed to Push People Away

Imagine having a long day and just wanting to sit down somewhere quiet to have your lunch and rest for a moment. You find a bench in a nearby park, but as you sit down something feels oddly uncomfortable: the bench isn’t smooth, there are gaps where you can’t properly keep your tiffin, and the backrest sits too far behind to support you. You somehow finish your food and think you might lie down for a minute to rest your back, but oh-uh the armrests placed right in the middle make it impossible to even straighten your body. What feels like poor design at first is actually something very intentional, a subtle example of what designers and urban planners call hostile architecture.

You return to your office and into your chair, suddenly realising how uncomfortable that bench in the park really was. But that discomfort wasn’t accidental. It was designed that way.

Hostile architecture, also known as disciplinary or defensive architecture, is an urban design strategy which uses objects or elements in public spaces to eliminate certain behaviours and keep certain groups of people away from those spaces.

Today at Emoris, let’s understand what hostile architecture really is, how it affects people, and what it reveals about the ethics of design.

1) What is Hostile Architecture or Defensive Architecture?

In recent years we have seen redesigning of the benches, addition of metal spikes on flat surfaces, corners, fencing and bars in public spaces.

We think it is just for “aesthetics” or “protection” of the city but in reality the intentions are not it. Referred in the link are multiple examples of these unpleasant designs.

Another example of this process is Camden Bench. These concrete benches are designed in a way so there are no crevices(cracks) which prevent drug-use and loitering, they have anti-graffiti coating and also prevent you from sitting comfortably, the same thing homeless spikes did but in a less obvious manner.

A public bench with the only purpose of serving as a seat does not provide the comfort! And the biggest irony is that these benches are installed in the areas of high foot traffic, where people actually need to sit and rest.

It may feel wrong at first, but imagine what would happen if someone occupied that seat for three hours in such a high-footfall area.

General public confuse these elements with “aesthetics” but they are clever design choices made for one clear purpose: Not letting people sit for hours.

It’s surprising how people often associate design with solving problems by improving the user experience, while hostile architecture does the complete opposite.

2) Examples of Hostile Architecture in India and Other Cities

We can understand the need to stop people from loitering, vandalism and drug-use. But why make spaces difficult to access?

Hostile architecture is often made to look intentional for other purposes than the actual intention. Homelessness is often the central idea targeted by these choices. 

A) Hiding Poverty From Public View in India

Think of when a President, Prime Minister or other VIP comes to visit India. What happens?

The best effort is made to hide poverty by building walls, screens put up, forced evictions, demolition of houses and so much more just to hide the poor side of the country.

Instead of working on the underlying issues of the country these communities are simply pushed from view.

Hostile architecture has also been utilised to prevent specific people and behaviors into public spaces leading to racial discrimination. This targets people who are already vulnerable and politics aim to push these people into corners of the city.

B) When Public Spaces Become Less Accessible

Defensive architecture does not only affect the homeless but also elderly citizens and pregnant women. In Indian cities, migrant workers, elderly, and pregnant women rely on these public spaces for shelter and rest. But now in the name of “development” many areas, often used by them, are designed to be inaccessible. 

Street vendors are another group targeted through these unpleasant designs. Fences, metal poles on footpaths all subtly prevent street vendors from setting up their stalls.

C) Discouraging Skateboarding Through Design

Youth is yet another group targeted, pig ears for example in London are commonly used to prevent people from skateboarding. These are small plastic, metal or concrete studs or spikes added to benches, sidewalks which are supposed to be accessible and inclusive.

One thing becomes noticeable when you start observing these designs closely: they rarely affect more privileged people, while those with fewer resources feel their impact the most.

It is also a difficult reality that issues like loitering or damage to public property are often associated with the same communities.

So instead of openly restricting access, many of these defensive design choices are quietly presented as architectural improvements, blending into the environment as aesthetic additions.

D) Low Bridges Limiting Access to Beaches

Defensive design is not just limited to streets but is included in urban planning too. An example of it can be Robert Moses and Bridges that Limit Access.

Robert Moses planned much of New York City’s infrastructure in the 20th century. One of his controversial decisions was building bridges unusually low on the roads leading to the beaches of Long Island.

The height was deliberately kept low enough that buses could not pass underneath them. As a result, people who relied on buses, often Black Americans and lower-income communities, could not easily reach those beaches, while people who owned cars still had access.

His methods were widely criticised, but the example clearly shows how design can shape who gets access to public spaces and raises important questions about social inequality.

E) Hostile Architecture for Birds and Animals

Humans are not the only ones targeted by this, even birds and animals are also an issue. Spikes on tree branches and narrow metal strips on ledges are used to prevent birds from sitting or building nests, and to stop cats from sleeping in those spaces.

In some places, chemical repellents are sprayed around buildings, garbage areas, or gardens to keep animals like dogs, cats, monkeys, or rodents away.

It raises a simple question: when design starts controlling who or what can exist in a space, how public is that space really?

3) Inclusive Architecture as an Alternative to Hostile Design

Intent is what separates hostile architecture from inclusive design. Hostile architecture focuses on control and restriction, using design elements that discourage certain behaviours or groups from occupying a space.

Inclusive design, on the other hand, is rooted in accommodation, accessibility, empathy, and the idea that public spaces should welcome everyone.

“A universal component of urban infrastructure design briefs is that the design outcome must exclude the possibility of the appropriation by the displaced of the designed object. In other words the designer is briefed to be unsympathetic and exclusive”
– Sean Godsell

Inclusive design means accessibility, rights and accommodation of all the poeple of the city. Park Bench House, Bus Shelter House are great examples of what the public and communities need instead of Hostile designs.

Designing with everyone in mind allows people of all kinds to engage with public spaces with dignity and respect. It supports the idea that cities belong to everyone, regardless of their economic situation, age, or ability.

Inclusive design does not aim to restrict people from using spaces. Instead, it asks a different question: how can a space be designed to accommodate the needs of many different communities?

Our Role as Designers in Designing for People

We designers shape how people experience cities every day. Something as simple as an armrest placed in the middle of a bench can determine whether someone has a place to rest or not.

Decisions like these may seem small, but they influence how welcoming(or unwelcoming) our public spaces become.

Public spaces do need to be protected from vandalism or misuse, but protection should not come at the cost of compassion.

The challenge is not simply to control behaviour, but to design spaces that remain functional while still respecting the dignity of the people who use them.

This is where empathy becomes essential. Understanding the social impact of our decisions allows us to design cities that are not only efficient, but also human.

Many defensive design choices blend so quietly into our surroundings that people rarely notice them. Designers, however, are in a position to recognise these patterns and bring attention to them.

In the end, design does more than shape objects and buildings, it shapes the shared spaces we live in and the experiences people have within them.

Recognising this responsibility reminds us that design is not only about solving problems, but also about shaping what’s called: The Human Side of Design.