Its hostile architecture, its just hostile architecture you agree with. Most hostile architecture is done either by people who live there or with consent of the people who live there. Its architecture done for no reason except to discourage people from gathering... thats hostile en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_architecture "It often targets people who use or rely on public space more than others, such as youth, poor people, and homeless people, by restricting the physical behaviours they can engage in"
Thank you for the insights and for contributing to the debate. In our perspective, we tend to avoid dogmatic approaches. But as we said the fine line depends of the sporadical local dynamics. Maybe that was the best portrayed by Floor ( the narrators) when she was comparing hostile arcing with defensive, and when her doubts were expressed with the following words: I see this in a sort of different light. So what can we say, every thought is welcome and worth for considering.
In my old place we also had a lot of trouble with night life noise. We added some signs and just kept calling the cops if the noise levels were to bad. After a while people who frequented the bars regularily got the message and the problem got much better. This was done without destroying out public space. If we hade gone the hostile arcitecture route like these people we would have removed the best part of the area. Removing access to public areas is always hostile.
Yes, you also have a good point. We honestly don't know if the residnets here called authorities help in the beginning and if that was efficient. Also, I will note this even though each case is different. Calling the police is not always equally effective when called by different groups of people targeting other group of people. I am not saying this the case here or at your example I am just saying it is noted that police treat differently different people especially in respect to the race and financial power.
@@aidanwelch4763 Most pubs in the UK have been around for years. If the pub wants to movenear you then you have a say when the license is being considered. Don't move near pubs/clubs/racecourses then complain about the noise
@@roryr8 The impression I got is that a lot of the residents there were elderly and may have lived there for a long time. I don't know the situation of this specific area, but big nightlife areas change over the decades.
I don't really agree that it is significantly different. If this exact same thing were done by a corporation or the city urbanists would complain that the "defensive" architecture wouldn't be needed if they instead just put one or two benches there. But I don't think that would be done, because while it wasn't explicitly said the notion I got was that this was installed to prevent non-residents from "hanging out" there. Which is also the purpose of a lot of hostile architecture.
Hey there thank you so much for the input. To be honest we don't really understand your reflection, but that could be because of our messy English. However, we can say that we also struggled a bit to define the borders between these urban strategies and to create certain kind of definition. What is for sure, that really every case should be carefully and indepdentely observed. In that way for sure we are not going to agree on many aspects but at least we will be able to understand the nuances instead of impulsive reactions like we often see. We are so happy to see that people like you and other are interested to go between they layers of these subjects and think deeper about it.
I agree that the distinction seems arbitrary. Functionally it doesn't matter who installs spikes to keep people from sitting somewhere. Maybe this becomes clearer, if we look at a classic example of hostile architecture: The deliberately uncomfortable public bench. The intention is to keep people form lingering too long, which usually targets homeless people and other "undesirables". Arguing that there is a fundamental difference whether people living nearby put up spikes or whatever to make the benches uncomfortable, or the local government does it because local residents tell them to, does not make sense in my opinion. It actually rubs me the wrong way to use government=bad vs. residents=good framing, when ultimately it's the same thing, done for the same reason, to benefit the same people.
@@user-td3yi1mq7p I agree that this is hostile architecture, but I think this example shows how hostile architecture can be more complicated than just it being bad. The video brought up that this was created in direct response to people coming out of the bars at night, who would frequently use the alley as a hangout spot late at night, interrupting the residents' sleep. There are a lot of ways the residents could have responded to that, say by calling for the shutdown of bars or completely blocking off non-resident traffic to the pedestrian walkway (the full-NIMBY approach), talking to the bars to see if they can talk to patrons, leave a sign, etc (I have zero clue if they tried this or not), or the hostile architecture, which seems like a compromise between the two approaches.
@@stripping_architecture That's fair and thanks for the video. I do think it adds nuance to the conversation. I think I largely agree with what @user-td3yi1mq7p and @dalegaliniak607 are saying- that its not an entirely black and white thing, but I don't think the solution is having two terms that describe the same thing but one has a positive connotation and one a negative one. I think doing that can strip out the nuance
@@stripping_architecture Thanks for the video, I appreciate that it adds nuance. I just meant to say that I think creating a separate term for the same thing when it's "good" strips away nuance. It means that one becomes a compliment, and the other just becomes an insult- without really looking at the nuance of it in the first place.
It could be. Honestly worth differentiating these things. As it was mentioned in the video, we ( at least we ) can not find much literature about these topics, and all what we can do is to get educated on some research publications, blogs or short video formats. Therefore we are sure that this debate can be enlarged with the purpose of defining the ultimate values or principles.
@stripping_architecture It's definitely a complicated situation that's come around as a reaction to a somewhat floored layout. The foot traffic that empties out of nightclubs staying around a bit longer is the problem whereas the foot traffic in the day probably makes it feel much more pleasant and safe. Really the nightclubs are in the wrong place or should have something that disperses foot traffic somewhere else. I think nothing in life can be perfect and so the residents have made a decent solution to the problem.
I hate seeing all these in the netherlands. Targeting the problem instead of finding a solution. Guess what happens when people cant sit there, they sit in the next neighbourhood and so on. Just provide somewhere for people to relax. Het is verveland.
You are absolutely right. This is something to be further researched. What is interesting is that people who gather between the social housing blocks are mostly dependent on the surrounding bars. So by not sitting there they are kind a constrained to the general street. But we could be wrong.
Public space is "public" and belongs to everyone. I am disabled and I feel heavy pain when I have to stand too long, so I need to sit often. Whatever you call this, it is hostile to disabled people, old peole (for those who have the same needs as mine) and poor people, of course. Basically, it's some social cleaning. If you are not going well, you don't have the right to be in this "public space". The sentence "it is done by the people who live here" is an "argument from authority" and is not valid. They do not have the right to be harmful to people by putting illegaly made stuffs...
I general there is no bench there at all at this spot, so If you would liked to sit it won't have been possible. All the items are by the people living there. On the other hand yo lu are right they are illegally placed items that reflect some inequality. Probably the problem could be tackled in a different way, and while public space is to everyone, we must use it reasponsably and with respect towards others, especially towards those with more fragile state. At least that is our oppinion and it is open to be challenged or modified .
I understand your annoyance, but what solution would you propose? Those people shouldn't live there? Well it's social housing, so there's not a lot of choice in that aspect. They just have to deal with it if they live there? That would imply people not having the right to a full night of sleep because of their financial situation. Also how is this hostile to poor people? These people generally fall under the category "poor people", that's why they live there. They're making the best of the situation they're in, and that sadly means that compromises have to be made. And since the government isn't paying for a solution, their choices are limited.They can't realistically accommodate everyone, so the choices are between: A) accomodating the odd person that might need to sit down for a minute while walking through their street. and B) accomodating the hundreds of people living there, that need to not be woken up several times a week in the middle of the night so they can live their life normally. Don't be angry at these people, they're not the problem. Be angry at those that ruin it for people like you by hanging out in a residential street in the middle of the night, causing disturbance. Without them, there would be more benches and places to sit too.
@@cosmodewit I do not think that you understand my annoyance, unless you are living it too ;) In my city, the more there are benches and places to sit, the more there are people, such as old folks and so a sociocultural and age mix. I do not have to propose anything, I am not an architect ;) I, myself lived in social housing. I was even raised in a really poor district in France. Public spaces were used to share, have meal together. Public are for commons and the privatisation of public spaces are an environmental and social annoyance by the way. Who said they cannot live here, appart from you in your question ? Cause I never said this... The problem is taken totally backward... If "annoying people" people move from this place, the noise will be somewhere else. Why are some people here ? Where could they be instead without annoyance ? What else they could do ? Do they have needs not fullfilled ? Have they all been identified ? What have been done for this ? What to build or to put in place for this ? Every case is different, but there are pleny of different approaches... During the day, as I said disabled people, old folks and poor people are the victims. By poor people, I mean the poorest, homeless or undocumented people who are not welcomed anymore, . No bench, not even a small place to sit. By the way, I am poor considering the french standard, but I have not forget about solidarity. I am not angry and never said so. It seems you are making insinuation and speculation about quite a lot of things. The abundance of question, which I don't recognize myself in, looks like to me more like a "Gish gallop" variation. The same for giving only two choice with a topic you define by yourself, it's called a fallacy. We can easily find other ways (Thank to sociology, "new Urbanism", "Sustainable Business Strategy", communication...).
@@stripping_architecture in the Netherlands you can see a lot of proper hostile architecture, but there is indeed a difference if it's from locals and neighbourhoods with nightlife
This is an interesting term and batch of comments : it feels like the fact that desperate tenants turned to what is ostensibly DIY hostile architecture (I mean, how is a "defensive" position not a "hostile" one in any case) is obscuring the reasons why they had to do it in the first place. While they appear to have acted as a collective, this is very much "individual action" : it involves no mobilisation of local political actors or energies and is entirely unconcerned with broader considerations. To me, this is how the political right wants us to solve our problems : without bothering businesses, without treating users of the public space as legitimate actors by, for instance, redirecting loitering towards benches in a more isolated area, without mobilising as a broader community, and - god forbid - without upgrading tenant's windows, ventilation, wall insulation and general soundproofing. I don't blame the tenants themselves, but it should be understood that they are being coerced into implementing hostile architecture against their own best interests. "Defensive" action would probably involve a rent strike and demonstrations at their local council. This is just forwarding violence down the social ladder. I did enjoy the video though, thanks guys :)
@@aidanwelch4763 One avenue might be to petition their council to adapt nearby businesses' closing hours during the week and to redirect loitering towards more isolated areas (benches are a cheap and reliable way to do that). Also, if they owned their flats, they would be allowed to make any changes necessary to enhance soundproofing and would be more likely to be able to afford it. I'm pretty sure that the fact that this is social housing from the 80s has a lot to do with how much of an issue noise is, as modern or well renovated units in masonry buildings (the type you'd find in Europe) can block out loud traffic and voices almost entirely : noise, like most other forms of pollution, is mostly a poor people problem - thus making it a mostly political, and therefore collective, issue.
@@pacolibbrecht1262 1. Some residents in some areas shouldn't be able to control the hours of buisiness blocks away. 2. In dense multi-use areas there may be nowhere nearby more isolated where benches could go. Or there may already be benches in other people but not all people choose to go there. 3. While still having windows its difficult to attain perfect sound proofing. People may also not feel safe walking around their home at night with drunk people hanging around.
@@aidanwelch4763 1. Businesses should be held accountable for the externalities they produce. If no other compromise can be found, there is no reason to let them continue to benefit from bothering local residents for free. Bars don't necessarily have to be open late on weekdays to be profitable. 2. That may or may not be the case, I don't know that area. Possibilities for redirecting loitering and creating public spaces that are welcoming to all at all times should at least be considered rather than rejected outright. Some people see the public space as a place to move around and never to stop. I disagree with this vision. It's a place to meet, a place for the community to live together. Once again, this difference is directly tied to one's notion of the commons and how privatisable they should be, it's a left vs right thing. 3. I'm currently renovating an old town house in a European city centre and I disagree with this claim. Good double glazing windows work proper miracles when they are well installed. Not to mention triple glazing. The trick is to use a two-way ventilation system to avoid direct air intakes above windows, which bypass any other soundproofing you might have done. Mind you, this is just common practice in energy efficiency renovations in Europe, especially for multi-family housing. As for safety concerns, they were not raised in the video. A place is always safer when it is more lively, so if safety was the main concern, the tenants should actually be installing benches under their windows. Creating an empty dark alley seems like an easy way to get mugged really often if there are real safety issues in your area. If the only reason for installing hostile architecture is that the locals don't feel safe around "undesirables", and not noise or any other real, demonstrable disturbance that isn't a mere product of prejudice, I think the city council should send staff to dismantle the installations.
This might be a hot take, but, as an urban dweller, I think that some amount of hostile architecture, IN THE PRESENCE OF WELL EQUIPPED SOCIAL SAFETY NETS, is acceptable (I agree with all the comments that say "defensive architecture" is just hostile architecture whose motivations you agree with...). I think that public spaces are for everyone, but that doesn't mean that public spaces are fair game for every type of use. I honestly think that completely anti-hostile architecture people don't fully appreciate how certain uses of public spaces can lead to a crowding out of other uses. For example, a homeless person sleeping on a park bench potentially takes up multiple spots for sitting, that can be used by elderly or disabled people who might _also_ need the space, for multiple hours. (Ironically) hostile architecture can feel like a less confrontational way to guide certain uses over others, vs straight up confrontation by people like the police, which, when done well, can be _good_ architecture and design. It's also important to note that if the homeless person is sleeping in the park because no shelter is available, that is showing larger societal issues that is completely unrelated to park's architecture that probably needs to addressed first. But another frequently forgotten point is that sometimes homeless people prefer parks to shelters because they're less regulated spaces. I've done outreach and have met people who prefer to avoid shelters because, completely honestly, they would be unable to drink or do drugs there. While I'm sympathetic, I don't think we need to design parks with that use case in mind. That said, there is a fair bit of tension there. It's not a coincidence that it has a tendency to disenfranchise the least fortunate members of society, as well its proponents tend to be the same NIMBY people who fight things like homeless shelters or outreach in their neighborhoods, to keep the neighborhood exactly like them. So, any hostile architecture needs to be done in a conjunction with an understanding of how it will affect the larger area, every user of the public space, and explicit thought towards figuring out any unintended consequences that would alienate users of the public space. But, that too is just GOOD architecture.
Yeah exactly. And I don't agree with the notion that somewhere being unfenced automatically means its a public space for anyone to do what they want. It does become more complicated when its government owned.
@@aidanwelch4763 I don't think spaces being government own really do complicate things, at least not as far as the hostile architecture goes. A public space just means that the space is open for the use by members of the public, it doesn't mean that there are _no_ restrictions of that use, or that people can do whatever they want in the space. But I think people get upset when uses of public spaces by marginalized people get limited because we have internalized that this is the only place where they can go. But, honestly, we should be asking _why_ this is the only space we've left these people.
@@dalegaliniak607 Yeah my point about it being complicated when its government owned is a matter of whether a government should be involved managing spaces for exclusively specific people or even just specific purposes. Someone who gets drunk and wants to get loud in an area is still a tax payer just as the residents are.
@@aidanwelch4763 I get what you're trying to say, but I do think that it's less complicated than it seems. The government _already_ dictates the limits of fair use of shared spaces. Just, say, try to block off a couple lanes of a busy highway to play pickleball and see how quickly the police move you on, despite being a tax payer there as well. Governments, ideally, are trying to maximize the effectiveness of the use by all those involved. In this case, they are trying to balance the needs of the bar guests to have a walkway home, with the needs of the residents to have an expected level of quiet to sleep. They _could_ attack the problem by trying to, say, issue tickets to anybody being loud, but simply removing benches to discourage the walkway as a hangout is probably both more effective and less invasive.
@@dalegaliniak607 "The government already dictates the limits of fair use of shared spaces." Yeah, and those dictatotions aren't uncontroversial. Plenty of people aren't fans of how their houses got eminent domained to build a highway.
"while both of these promote exclusion" yes you literaly just said it. there is no difference, this is just people trying to exclude others from public spaces
I would argue defensive and hostile architecture are the same in the end. You may call it a different name, say that different people put it there, and say it is for a different purpose, but in the end, both accomplish the same thing, no? Wherher it is the primary or secondary purpose to prevent the homeless from sleeping in this area, it remains a purpose. I can understand the residents complaints, but this is not the way. Perhaps requesting extra patrols or a noise ordinance to prevent parties would be better. We should never bar off these safer areas to homeless people though, because they are people. They deserve dignity and respect. This type of architecture forces them to try to sleep in more dangerous, exposed areas, and does not solve the true problem. It merely hides it.
I agree the public space perhaps needs a bench. Or better a quiet place to rest outside the earshot of this private space. The private space needs a nice tall fence. unless it is not a private space at all in which case issue fines to the residents for defacing public property. hehe. I don't know what kind of characters live here, but clearly such things are placed to maintain some sort of internal order which is good and noble desire in its own right. Underlying the pleasantries of social idealism I suppose I would look for the simple idea that functionally living organisms discover, create, store, and protect different storehouses of wealth. Privacy, familiarity, and sanctity are necessary for human thriving. If you live in a place that you cannot protect, is it even a place worth living? The real issue here is the strange dispersion of public, and private spaces. Night life is rough and rowdy, how are you supposed to rest a child or feel at peace when any inebriated oaf can walk up to your porch? To some in the comments: Bleeding hearts struggle to separate the haves from the have nots, and that's all well and good, but I would push the idea that we should incentivize reaching up instead of pushing down. By the inevitable entropic nature of physics itself. Chaos theory in short. So again, what purpose is a space that is unable to be cultivated and refined by the people within it? Will it not fall into disrepair? Perhaps you seek out whalefalls in which to make your bed? To speak a little on the natural observable tensions that exists between young and old everywhere in the natural world.
As long as it's done by the people who live in the low income social housing, to defend their quality of life, it's ok. If this same thing were done by home owners it would be completely different and selfish.
Exactly, we have to say it is very nuanced and hard to differentiate. It really depends from case to case and we beleive that in the focus should be the group of people that needs understanding, compassion and sympathies. In this case the residents from the social housing units. Completely understand what you mean. If this was done by high income class defending their city-villa would have been different.
This video is one more reason to tell youtube to never show content from your channel to me ever again. Using a different name for the same bad thing doesn't change the fact that its bad. Learn from Adam or stop this bullshiting.
@SickEntertaining we are sorry for this , we don't say we master this but at least we tried to give our genuine thought. According to us the people who are trying to get some rest during the weekends are often being hindered by parting people enjoying the fruits of the consumerism. That is not OK in our perspective. Is this sollution the best, not really but is the people reaction in the moment
0:15 Bless her! She searched long and hard for a word but but nothing really describes those things better than what she ended up saying. :D
Hahhaha, we have to admit, while editing the video that was the cutest moment. Loved it.
Its hostile architecture, its just hostile architecture you agree with.
Most hostile architecture is done either by people who live there or with consent of the people who live there.
Its architecture done for no reason except to discourage people from gathering... thats hostile
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_architecture
"It often targets people who use or rely on public space more than others, such as youth, poor people, and homeless people, by restricting the physical behaviours they can engage in"
Thank you for the insights and for contributing to the debate. In our perspective, we tend to avoid dogmatic approaches. But as we said the fine line depends of the sporadical local dynamics. Maybe that was the best portrayed by Floor ( the narrators) when she was comparing hostile arcing with defensive, and when her doubts were expressed with the following words: I see this in a sort of different light. So what can we say, every thought is welcome and worth for considering.
In my old place we also had a lot of trouble with night life noise. We added some signs and just kept calling the cops if the noise levels were to bad. After a while people who frequented the bars regularily got the message and the problem got much better. This was done without destroying out public space. If we hade gone the hostile arcitecture route like these people we would have removed the best part of the area. Removing access to public areas is always hostile.
Yes, you also have a good point. We honestly don't know if the residnets here called authorities help in the beginning and if that was efficient. Also, I will note this even though each case is different. Calling the police is not always equally effective when called by different groups of people targeting other group of people. I am not saying this the case here or at your example I am just saying it is noted that police treat differently different people especially in respect to the race and financial power.
If you move near a pub don't complain about the noise, you moved there
@@roryr8 What if the pub moves near you?
@@aidanwelch4763 Most pubs in the UK have been around for years. If the pub wants to movenear you then you have a say when the license is being considered.
Don't move near pubs/clubs/racecourses then complain about the noise
@@roryr8 The impression I got is that a lot of the residents there were elderly and may have lived there for a long time. I don't know the situation of this specific area, but big nightlife areas change over the decades.
I don't really agree that it is significantly different. If this exact same thing were done by a corporation or the city urbanists would complain that the "defensive" architecture wouldn't be needed if they instead just put one or two benches there. But I don't think that would be done, because while it wasn't explicitly said the notion I got was that this was installed to prevent non-residents from "hanging out" there. Which is also the purpose of a lot of hostile architecture.
Hey there thank you so much for the input. To be honest we don't really understand your reflection, but that could be because of our messy English.
However, we can say that we also struggled a bit to define the borders between these urban strategies and to create certain kind of definition. What is for sure, that really every case should be carefully and indepdentely observed. In that way for sure we are not going to agree on many aspects but at least we will be able to understand the nuances instead of impulsive reactions like we often see.
We are so happy to see that people like you and other are interested to go between they layers of these subjects and think deeper about it.
I agree that the distinction seems arbitrary. Functionally it doesn't matter who installs spikes to keep people from sitting somewhere.
Maybe this becomes clearer, if we look at a classic example of hostile architecture: The deliberately uncomfortable public bench. The intention is to keep people form lingering too long, which usually targets homeless people and other "undesirables". Arguing that there is a fundamental difference whether people living nearby put up spikes or whatever to make the benches uncomfortable, or the local government does it because local residents tell them to, does not make sense in my opinion.
It actually rubs me the wrong way to use government=bad vs. residents=good framing, when ultimately it's the same thing, done for the same reason, to benefit the same people.
@@user-td3yi1mq7p I agree that this is hostile architecture, but I think this example shows how hostile architecture can be more complicated than just it being bad. The video brought up that this was created in direct response to people coming out of the bars at night, who would frequently use the alley as a hangout spot late at night, interrupting the residents' sleep.
There are a lot of ways the residents could have responded to that, say by calling for the shutdown of bars or completely blocking off non-resident traffic to the pedestrian walkway (the full-NIMBY approach), talking to the bars to see if they can talk to patrons, leave a sign, etc (I have zero clue if they tried this or not), or the hostile architecture, which seems like a compromise between the two approaches.
@@stripping_architecture That's fair and thanks for the video. I do think it adds nuance to the conversation. I think I largely agree with what @user-td3yi1mq7p and @dalegaliniak607 are saying- that its not an entirely black and white thing, but I don't think the solution is having two terms that describe the same thing but one has a positive connotation and one a negative one. I think doing that can strip out the nuance
@@stripping_architecture Thanks for the video, I appreciate that it adds nuance. I just meant to say that I think creating a separate term for the same thing when it's "good" strips away nuance. It means that one becomes a compliment, and the other just becomes an insult- without really looking at the nuance of it in the first place.
I would argue there is not much difference in what it does but only in who it targets.
It could be. Honestly worth differentiating these things. As it was mentioned in the video, we ( at least we ) can not find much literature about these topics, and all what we can do is to get educated on some research publications, blogs or short video formats. Therefore we are sure that this debate can be enlarged with the purpose of defining the ultimate values or principles.
@stripping_architecture It's definitely a complicated situation that's come around as a reaction to a somewhat floored layout. The foot traffic that empties out of nightclubs staying around a bit longer is the problem whereas the foot traffic in the day probably makes it feel much more pleasant and safe.
Really the nightclubs are in the wrong place or should have something that disperses foot traffic somewhere else.
I think nothing in life can be perfect and so the residents have made a decent solution to the problem.
I hate seeing all these in the netherlands. Targeting the problem instead of finding a solution. Guess what happens when people cant sit there, they sit in the next neighbourhood and so on. Just provide somewhere for people to relax. Het is verveland.
You are absolutely right. This is something to be further researched. What is interesting is that people who gather between the social housing blocks are mostly dependent on the surrounding bars. So by not sitting there they are kind a constrained to the general street. But we could be wrong.
Public space is "public" and belongs to everyone. I am disabled and I feel heavy pain when I have to stand too long, so I need to sit often. Whatever you call this, it is hostile to disabled people, old peole (for those who have the same needs as mine) and poor people, of course. Basically, it's some social cleaning. If you are not going well, you don't have the right to be in this "public space". The sentence "it is done by the people who live here" is an "argument from authority" and is not valid. They do not have the right to be harmful to people by putting illegaly made stuffs...
I general there is no bench there at all at this spot, so If you would liked to sit it won't have been possible. All the items are by the people living there. On the other hand yo lu are right they are illegally placed items that reflect some inequality. Probably the problem could be tackled in a different way, and while public space is to everyone, we must use it reasponsably and with respect towards others, especially towards those with more fragile state. At least that is our oppinion and it is open to be challenged or modified .
@@stripping_architecture There are less and less benches in the street. I would sit there, clearly. When it hurts, you sit where you can.
I understand your annoyance, but what solution would you propose? Those people shouldn't live there? Well it's social housing, so there's not a lot of choice in that aspect. They just have to deal with it if they live there? That would imply people not having the right to a full night of sleep because of their financial situation. Also how is this hostile to poor people? These people generally fall under the category "poor people", that's why they live there. They're making the best of the situation they're in, and that sadly means that compromises have to be made. And since the government isn't paying for a solution, their choices are limited.They can't realistically accommodate everyone, so the choices are between:
A) accomodating the odd person that might need to sit down for a minute while walking through their street.
and B) accomodating the hundreds of people living there, that need to not be woken up several times a week in the middle of the night so they can live their life normally.
Don't be angry at these people, they're not the problem. Be angry at those that ruin it for people like you by hanging out in a residential street in the middle of the night, causing disturbance. Without them, there would be more benches and places to sit too.
@Benlarcher49 this is not public space, this is behind peoples homes. Drunkards and druggies come here
@@cosmodewit I do not think that you understand my annoyance, unless you are living it too ;) In my city, the more there are benches and places to sit, the more there are people, such as old folks and so a sociocultural and age mix. I do not have to propose anything, I am not an architect ;) I, myself lived in social housing. I was even raised in a really poor district in France. Public spaces were used to share, have meal together. Public are for commons and the privatisation of public spaces are an environmental and social annoyance by the way. Who said they cannot live here, appart from you in your question ? Cause I never said this... The problem is taken totally backward... If "annoying people" people move from this place, the noise will be somewhere else. Why are some people here ? Where could they be instead without annoyance ? What else they could do ? Do they have needs not fullfilled ? Have they all been identified ? What have been done for this ? What to build or to put in place for this ? Every case is different, but there are pleny of different approaches... During the day, as I said disabled people, old folks and poor people are the victims. By poor people, I mean the poorest, homeless or undocumented people who are not welcomed anymore, . No bench, not even a small place to sit. By the way, I am poor considering the french standard, but I have not forget about solidarity.
I am not angry and never said so. It seems you are making insinuation and speculation about quite a lot of things. The abundance of question, which I don't recognize myself in, looks like to me more like a "Gish gallop" variation. The same for giving only two choice with a topic you define by yourself, it's called a fallacy. We can easily find other ways (Thank to sociology, "new Urbanism", "Sustainable Business Strategy", communication...).
What if I was a resident there and wanted to relax in the street below? It is very isolating, its hostile
Great video, you should totally have orders of magnitude more subscribers ^^
Hey thank you for the kind words, we are slowly getting there. We believe :)
Interesting!
As we always say, it worth considering these urban strategies throught different layers.
@@stripping_architecture in the Netherlands you can see a lot of proper hostile architecture, but there is indeed a difference if it's from locals and neighbourhoods with nightlife
This is an interesting term and batch of comments : it feels like the fact that desperate tenants turned to what is ostensibly DIY hostile architecture (I mean, how is a "defensive" position not a "hostile" one in any case) is obscuring the reasons why they had to do it in the first place. While they appear to have acted as a collective, this is very much "individual action" : it involves no mobilisation of local political actors or energies and is entirely unconcerned with broader considerations. To me, this is how the political right wants us to solve our problems : without bothering businesses, without treating users of the public space as legitimate actors by, for instance, redirecting loitering towards benches in a more isolated area, without mobilising as a broader community, and - god forbid - without upgrading tenant's windows, ventilation, wall insulation and general soundproofing. I don't blame the tenants themselves, but it should be understood that they are being coerced into implementing hostile architecture against their own best interests. "Defensive" action would probably involve a rent strike and demonstrations at their local council. This is just forwarding violence down the social ladder.
I did enjoy the video though, thanks guys :)
Many things you said here are so valid and helps very constructively the debate. Thank you for that much appreciated
Imagine they weren't tenants and instead had rented-to-own, or managed to buy their apartments. What would you say the solution is then?
@@aidanwelch4763 One avenue might be to petition their council to adapt nearby businesses' closing hours during the week and to redirect loitering towards more isolated areas (benches are a cheap and reliable way to do that). Also, if they owned their flats, they would be allowed to make any changes necessary to enhance soundproofing and would be more likely to be able to afford it. I'm pretty sure that the fact that this is social housing from the 80s has a lot to do with how much of an issue noise is, as modern or well renovated units in masonry buildings (the type you'd find in Europe) can block out loud traffic and voices almost entirely : noise, like most other forms of pollution, is mostly a poor people problem - thus making it a mostly political, and therefore collective, issue.
@@pacolibbrecht1262 1. Some residents in some areas shouldn't be able to control the hours of buisiness blocks away.
2. In dense multi-use areas there may be nowhere nearby more isolated where benches could go. Or there may already be benches in other people but not all people choose to go there.
3. While still having windows its difficult to attain perfect sound proofing. People may also not feel safe walking around their home at night with drunk people hanging around.
@@aidanwelch4763 1. Businesses should be held accountable for the externalities they produce. If no other compromise can be found, there is no reason to let them continue to benefit from bothering local residents for free. Bars don't necessarily have to be open late on weekdays to be profitable.
2. That may or may not be the case, I don't know that area. Possibilities for redirecting loitering and creating public spaces that are welcoming to all at all times should at least be considered rather than rejected outright. Some people see the public space as a place to move around and never to stop. I disagree with this vision. It's a place to meet, a place for the community to live together. Once again, this difference is directly tied to one's notion of the commons and how privatisable they should be, it's a left vs right thing.
3. I'm currently renovating an old town house in a European city centre and I disagree with this claim. Good double glazing windows work proper miracles when they are well installed. Not to mention triple glazing. The trick is to use a two-way ventilation system to avoid direct air intakes above windows, which bypass any other soundproofing you might have done. Mind you, this is just common practice in energy efficiency renovations in Europe, especially for multi-family housing.
As for safety concerns, they were not raised in the video. A place is always safer when it is more lively, so if safety was the main concern, the tenants should actually be installing benches under their windows. Creating an empty dark alley seems like an easy way to get mugged really often if there are real safety issues in your area. If the only reason for installing hostile architecture is that the locals don't feel safe around "undesirables", and not noise or any other real, demonstrable disturbance that isn't a mere product of prejudice, I think the city council should send staff to dismantle the installations.
This might be a hot take, but, as an urban dweller, I think that some amount of hostile architecture, IN THE PRESENCE OF WELL EQUIPPED SOCIAL SAFETY NETS, is acceptable (I agree with all the comments that say "defensive architecture" is just hostile architecture whose motivations you agree with...).
I think that public spaces are for everyone, but that doesn't mean that public spaces are fair game for every type of use. I honestly think that completely anti-hostile architecture people don't fully appreciate how certain uses of public spaces can lead to a crowding out of other uses. For example, a homeless person sleeping on a park bench potentially takes up multiple spots for sitting, that can be used by elderly or disabled people who might _also_ need the space, for multiple hours. (Ironically) hostile architecture can feel like a less confrontational way to guide certain uses over others, vs straight up confrontation by people like the police, which, when done well, can be _good_ architecture and design.
It's also important to note that if the homeless person is sleeping in the park because no shelter is available, that is showing larger societal issues that is completely unrelated to park's architecture that probably needs to addressed first. But another frequently forgotten point is that sometimes homeless people prefer parks to shelters because they're less regulated spaces. I've done outreach and have met people who prefer to avoid shelters because, completely honestly, they would be unable to drink or do drugs there. While I'm sympathetic, I don't think we need to design parks with that use case in mind.
That said, there is a fair bit of tension there. It's not a coincidence that it has a tendency to disenfranchise the least fortunate members of society, as well its proponents tend to be the same NIMBY people who fight things like homeless shelters or outreach in their neighborhoods, to keep the neighborhood exactly like them.
So, any hostile architecture needs to be done in a conjunction with an understanding of how it will affect the larger area, every user of the public space, and explicit thought towards figuring out any unintended consequences that would alienate users of the public space. But, that too is just GOOD architecture.
Yeah exactly. And I don't agree with the notion that somewhere being unfenced automatically means its a public space for anyone to do what they want. It does become more complicated when its government owned.
@@aidanwelch4763 I don't think spaces being government own really do complicate things, at least not as far as the hostile architecture goes. A public space just means that the space is open for the use by members of the public, it doesn't mean that there are _no_ restrictions of that use, or that people can do whatever they want in the space.
But I think people get upset when uses of public spaces by marginalized people get limited because we have internalized that this is the only place where they can go.
But, honestly, we should be asking _why_ this is the only space we've left these people.
@@dalegaliniak607 Yeah my point about it being complicated when its government owned is a matter of whether a government should be involved managing spaces for exclusively specific people or even just specific purposes. Someone who gets drunk and wants to get loud in an area is still a tax payer just as the residents are.
@@aidanwelch4763 I get what you're trying to say, but I do think that it's less complicated than it seems. The government _already_ dictates the limits of fair use of shared spaces. Just, say, try to block off a couple lanes of a busy highway to play pickleball and see how quickly the police move you on, despite being a tax payer there as well.
Governments, ideally, are trying to maximize the effectiveness of the use by all those involved. In this case, they are trying to balance the needs of the bar guests to have a walkway home, with the needs of the residents to have an expected level of quiet to sleep. They _could_ attack the problem by trying to, say, issue tickets to anybody being loud, but simply removing benches to discourage the walkway as a hangout is probably both more effective and less invasive.
@@dalegaliniak607 "The government already dictates the limits of fair use of shared spaces."
Yeah, and those dictatotions aren't uncontroversial. Plenty of people aren't fans of how their houses got eminent domained to build a highway.
"while both of these promote exclusion" yes you literaly just said it. there is no difference, this is just people trying to exclude others from public spaces
I would argue defensive and hostile architecture are the same in the end. You may call it a different name, say that different people put it there, and say it is for a different purpose, but in the end, both accomplish the same thing, no? Wherher it is the primary or secondary purpose to prevent the homeless from sleeping in this area, it remains a purpose.
I can understand the residents complaints, but this is not the way. Perhaps requesting extra patrols or a noise ordinance to prevent parties would be better. We should never bar off these safer areas to homeless people though, because they are people. They deserve dignity and respect. This type of architecture forces them to try to sleep in more dangerous, exposed areas, and does not solve the true problem. It merely hides it.
I agree the public space perhaps needs a bench. Or better a quiet place to rest outside the earshot of this private space. The private space needs a nice tall fence. unless it is not a private space at all in which case issue fines to the residents for defacing public property. hehe. I don't know what kind of characters live here, but clearly such things are placed to maintain some sort of internal order which is good and noble desire in its own right.
Underlying the pleasantries of social idealism I suppose I would look for the simple idea that functionally living organisms discover, create, store, and protect different storehouses of wealth.
Privacy, familiarity, and sanctity are necessary for human thriving. If you live in a place that you cannot protect, is it even a place worth living?
The real issue here is the strange dispersion of public, and private spaces. Night life is rough and rowdy, how are you supposed to rest a child or feel at peace when any inebriated oaf can walk up to your porch?
To some in the comments:
Bleeding hearts struggle to separate the haves from the have nots, and that's all well and good, but I would push the idea that we should incentivize reaching up instead of pushing down. By the inevitable entropic nature of physics itself. Chaos theory in short. So again, what purpose is a space that is unable to be cultivated and refined by the people within it? Will it not fall into disrepair?
Perhaps you seek out whalefalls in which to make your bed? To speak a little on the natural observable tensions that exists between young and old everywhere in the natural world.
Compared with empty cities with abandoned shops this appears as complaining on high level.
As long as it's done by the people who live in the low income social housing, to defend their quality of life, it's ok. If this same thing were done by home owners it would be completely different and selfish.
Exactly, we have to say it is very nuanced and hard to differentiate. It really depends from case to case and we beleive that in the focus should be the group of people that needs understanding, compassion and sympathies. In this case the residents from the social housing units. Completely understand what you mean. If this was done by high income class defending their city-villa would have been different.
Yeah.... Right....
This video is one more reason to tell youtube to never show content from your channel to me ever again. Using a different name for the same bad thing doesn't change the fact that its bad. Learn from Adam or stop this bullshiting.
@SickEntertaining we are sorry for this , we don't say we master this but at least we tried to give our genuine thought. According to us the people who are trying to get some rest during the weekends are often being hindered by parting people enjoying the fruits of the consumerism. That is not OK in our perspective. Is this sollution the best, not really but is the people reaction in the moment
They are just showing perspectives of people. Don't be biased.