Communities have created a stigma towards homeless people, but aren’t willing to do anything to help. Instead they file complaints, harass them, give out fines, and treat them as outcasts; Even though they are still considered as part of the community. A majority of public places are now even adding structures to benches, corners, platforms, or walls to make it so no one can camp out there for the night. If cities and officials are against the homeless finding shelter within public areas, then where are they to go? They have no other choice than to hide themselves from society, “We are creating a world in which a whole class of people simply cannot be, entirely because they have no place to be” (Mitchell 1997). 

vicenews. What Happens When Cities Make Homelessness a Crime: Hiding The Homeless. YouTube, 23 Nov. 2015, www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYFeY2pS0ks.

 

In the city, space is regulated through a number of means. Some, such as defensive/hostile architecture, is relatively obvious (Petty, 2016), however others are more subversive. Increasingly, space in the city is being ‘recolonised’ and repurposed. Areas the homeless are likely to congregate are the targets of enthusiastic urban renewal and privatisation schemes (Roy, 2016). To most citizens these acts are seen as a municipal good, however the result is that space becomes less welcoming to all city-dwellers (Smith & Walters, 2018).

 

These processes recreate spaces, transforming them into areas with set purposes to be utilised by set people, sanitising and managing the space against alternative uses and users. Through design and implementation, unsanctioned and undesired uses are defended against. These strategies render the intentions power has towards a space quite visible, people have an implicit understanding of whether they are the intended users of a space, or whether they are undesirable (Pomeroy, 2011; Smith & Walters, 2018). The homeless are made to feel uncomfortable and unwelcome within an area, their exclusion is written into the architecture of the new place design (Roy, 2018).

 

After a space is sanitised, groups such as the homeless become more visible and socially recategorized as non-conforming and dangerous. This increases the already powerful exclusion which they already face. Space sanitation strengthens certain social norms of an area, stating who belongs and who does not. Users of an area gradually change to those desired by place designers; and the homeless vacate. This reinforces stereotypes and prejudices against the homeless (Sibley, 1998).

 

Of course, leaving derelict areas undeveloped in the city as some sort of ‘token gesture’ to the homeless population is not a solution. Measures need to be taken that assess and solve the root cause of the need for the homeless to appropriate public space: the lack of means to reliably access safe and affordable private spaces.

References
Cheshire, L. Walters, P. & Have, C. (2018). ‘Strangers in my home’: Disaster and the durability of the private realm. The Sociological Review, 1-16. Doi: 10.1177/0038026118754781

Petty J (2016). The London spikes controversy: Homelessness, urban securitisation and the

question of ‘hostile architecture’. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social

Democracy 5(1): 67‐81. DOI: 10.5204/ijcjsd.v5i1.286.

Pomeroy, J. (2011). Defining Singapore public space: From sanitization to corporatization. Journal of Urban Design, 16(3), 381-396. doi: 10.1080/13574809.2011.571164

Roy, P. (2018). “Welcome in my backyard” …but on my terms: making sense of homeless exclusion from renewed urban spaces in Copenhagen. GeoJournal 83, 289-304. doi: 10.1007/s10708-017-9769-8

Sibley, D. (1998). The problematic nature of exclusion. Geoforum, 29(2), 119-121.

Smith, N. & Walters, P. (2018). Desire lines and defensive architecture in modern urban environments. Urban Studies 55(13), 2980-2995. doi: 10.1177/0042098017732690 

 

Defensive architecture is the design of public city architecture which primarily focuses to “actively exclude particular categories of person” – which in most cases, target and affect homeless people (Smith & Walters, 2018, p. 2983-4). Examples of defensive architecture are metal spikes under bridges or on large smooth surfaces to eradicate habitable spaces, as well as the implementation of arm rails on city benches and chairs, discouraging the convenience and comfort of sprawling oneself out to sleep (de Fine Licht, 2017).. With the goal of limiting the ways an object can be misused, these deliberate changes in planning inevitably foster a hostile and cold feel to not just the homeless, but also to the dynamic of the city altogether (Vox, 2017).

 

In the video “Why cities are full of uncomfortable benches” by Vox, a few advantages of these defensive designs are the possibilities to deter crime, prevent the destruction of public property, and decrease loitering (Vox, 2017). However, the implementation of defensive designs cannot guarantee the decline of deviant behaviour in all cities, however, it does successfully promise hostility toward the homeless (as well as to the disabled who cannot sit on leaning benches, and animals, who cannot nest atop of awnings, for example). Therefore, the existence of defensive city designs begs us to ask the question of if these designs truly eradicate homelessness, or if they simply ‘hide’ the publicity of homeless people? How do these designs help the homeless?

 

Therefore, in exploring and acknowledging the negative effects of defensive architecture, a possible means to better address city homelessness would be to provide greater access to homeless shelters. Considering the large population of homeless people in Brisbane, a free walk-in shelter that provides a warm shower and/or a bed to sleep in (Even if it’s only for one night!) could potentially provide them with the energy and rest that they need to continue to live and find work. In addition, to aid shelter funding/staff, the homeless could “pay” to stay more nights by taking on responsibilities (such as cleaning the cafeteria, doing laundry, doing the dishes), which could provide them with a sense of autonomy as well as the opportunity to socially and cognitively develop. In sum, defensive architecture are hostile blockages that do not provide viable solutions in eliminating homelessness (de Fine Licht, 2017). City planners and designers can and should instead pursue other avenues which provide the marginalized with tangible solutions and opportunities to grow.

 

While these organisations are successful in helping homeless people in the Brisbane city, most of the organisations only offer short-term solutions, for example crisis accommodation, haircuts, food, toiletries, and clothing (Brisbane City Council, 2018). Although, not every single homeless person in the Brisbane City has access to these services (Brisbane City Council, 2018). For example, only a few people are provided with temporary accommodation off the street. This is a problem that the Council must immediately address as no one should be sleeping rough (Brisbane City Council, 2018). A solution for this may be creating more temporary accommodation in the city. This could be like the video attached where it shows a design of how New York could house its homeless population in the city (Dezeen, 2018). However, while it is known that more accommodation is need for homeless people in Brisbane this cannot be a long-term solution (Brisbane City Council, 2018). As by building more and more accommodation for homeless people is not practical and economical (The Australian Independent Media Network, 2018). Instead, a strategy that provides a long-term solution must be implemented in the Brisbane city.

 

A long-term solution the Council should consider is offering the homeless people in temporary accommodation free education and work experience that leads to full-time employment (The Australian Independent Media Network, 2018). By the homeless people staying temporarily in accommodation while they are working they will be able to save up their income for permanent and stable accommodation. As homeless people leave the accommodation as they have a stable income and home, other homeless people can receive the same services. Hence, the Brisbane City Council should consider this strategy as it is a long-term solution and may reduce the rate of homelessness in Brisbane.