Abstract
This article examines an ostensibly new feature of the securitised urban landscape: ‘hostile architecture’. Following controversy in 2014 London over ‘anti-homeless spikes’– metal studs implanted at ground level designed to discourage the homeless from sleeping in otherwise unrestricted spaces – certain visible methods of environmental social control were temporarily subject to intense public scrutiny and debate. While contests over public and urban spaces are not new, the spikes controversy emerged in the context of broader socio-political and governmental shifts toward neoliberal arrangements. Using the spikes issue as a case study, I contextualise hostile architecture within these broader processes and in wider patterns of urban securitisation. The article then offers an explanatory framework for understanding the controversy itself. Ultimately the article questions whether the public backlash against the use of spikes indicates genuine resistance to patterns of urban securitisation or, counterintuitively, a broader public distaste for both the homeless and the mechanisms that regulate them.
Highlights
In June 2014 controversy erupted on social media about intermittently spaced, inch‐high metal studs installed in an alcove of a high‐end apartment building in South London
This example is not taken as representative of processes of urban securitisation happening around the world nor indicative of public attitudes towards such regimes
It provides an interesting case study through which to consider certain social, cultural and political dimensions relating to public space within cities
Summary
In June 2014 controversy erupted on social media about intermittently spaced, inch‐high metal studs installed in an alcove of a high‐end apartment building in South London. The public outcry against these particular spikes temporarily highlighted two facets of urban life that go largely ignored in mainstream popular discourse: homelessness; and the intentional ‘designing out’ of certain identities, behaviours and categories of people from urban and public spaces.2 This example is not taken as representative of processes of urban securitisation happening around the world nor indicative of public attitudes towards such regimes. Various other forms of environmental social control exist and have longer histories of use: for example, use of ultraviolet lights in public toilets which prevent intravenous drug users from sighting veins and ‘shooting up’; installation of CCTV cameras in public spaces; and even urban planning and design models aimed at orchestrating or limiting the size of crowds (see Fussey et al 2012). The article offers a modest explanatory framework for better understanding the spikes issue and the responses it elicited
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
