A recent trend in my research has also
been a recent trend in my news feed on social media. My thesis has to do with
housing those who do not have a home and focuses on a place where they can go
in their time of need. This is just a natural thought to me. You need a home?
You should be able to find one. However, there is a way of thinking that I had
not thought of… designing a place that people cannot lay their head.
This trend of uncomfortable ‘defensive architecture’ is a
burden to everyone that uses a space, in my opinion. Rather than using design
and creating a solution people are thinking in the other direction… an
anti-design. They are identifying a problem and just moving it somewhere else
rather than solving it. They make it someone else’s problem, the problem of the
people they are designing against.
What is it that I am referring to? In this particular
instance it is the so called “homeless spikes” which are like the spikes set on
perches to keep birds from roosting. Many people that I have seen post about
this have taken a stance of “this is inhumane” and complained of how cruel the ideas
behind these spikes are to the homeless. However, I would like to take another,
less obvious look at this…. It is not design… it is not comfortable for anyone.
Why would you ‘design’ something for a purpose that it cannot be used for? A
bench that doesn’t work as a bench? What is the point in the ‘bench’ even
existing? I can’t say it any better than Dan Lockton did in this article, “One
of the problems with architectures of control is that they don’t discriminate.
An uncomfortable bench is as uncomfortable for a homeless person as it is for a
tired passerby or for someone looking for a place to read.” http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/jun/12/anti-homeless-spikes-latest-defensive-urban-architecture
I have been aware of defensive architecture in the past. I
have seen benches in cities across the US that are made for only sitting, from
Chicago to Miami, Denver to DC, and even in my home city of St. Louis. As an
aggressive skater I have encountered objects with ‘skate caps’ that prevent
sliding on ledges and rails and doing tricks. You even see defensive
architecture in things as simple as the arm that comes down to prevent you from
going onto the tracks when a train is coming. But at what point do functional
things become just things to prevent a certain behavior? When does over
designing something as a precaution override the purpose of the item all
together? Why not make public spaces functional for everyone? Design a park
bench that a tired business man can take a nap on during his break after
pulling long hours at the office the night before. Or design a bench that is
relaxing in any way… not just a hard confined surface that is designed to
prevent certain actions. Come to think of it, that sounds like I just described
a prison cell. Are we designing prison cells or public spaces? To quote Ocean Howell from the same
article, “When you’re designed against, you know it,” he says. “Other people
might not see it but you will. The message is clear: you are not a member of
the public, at least not of the public that is welcome here.”
Let’s remember to design, to problem solve, to think of that
quote we all heard early on… “Form follows function”. If you design something
to not function for one person then it won’t function for anyone.
anti-homeless-spik
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment