Talk:Hostile architecture

Page Critique and Revision Plan
While the information currently in the article is undeniably insightful, I think there's certainly a lot more room for growth. Primarily, while there are numerous subsections that present different forms of disciplinary/hostile architecture, there is close to no presentation on the impacts this architecture has had on cities that have implemented them. What have this design style quantifiably done to homeless citizens, or the other disadvantaged groups mentioned like the elderly and pregnant women? Some scope would also be very much appreciated: how common is hostile architecture across the globe today?--Hunerwithat (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Upon further analysis, I believe that this article could be greatly improved by expanding upon the background section, to justify why nations outside of the United States have implemented hostile architecture. Additionally, there should be a section added to cover the discourse surrounding how the term should be defined, considering there are a wide variety of differing interpretations over what is entailed by the term hostile architecture. Lastly, the "additional effects" section should be replaced by a more encompassing section surrounding the "impacts of hostile architecture." For more details on potential sources, please check out my sandbox page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hunerwithat/sandbox --Hunerwithat (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Found more sources
I found some more sources for this with a Google search:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PrussianOwl (talk • contribs) 04:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Is this source or external link too political?
. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 07:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Political?? what makes you think that? The subject itself is controversial, yes, but political? Wittylama 10:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Are there secondary sources that discuss the positive aspects of hostile architecture, such as when it has necessary function?
Article Evaluation:
 * In the article there is not really much information present. What is present seems to be phrased strangely and disorganized, and it is obvious the article could use a lot of improvement. The phrasing seems to incorrectly define what hostile architecture is, and what it is used for in specific. Overall the article seems to be biased towards the negative aspect of hostile architecture, although it should be known that hostile architecture is not just meant to keep people away. It does serve a function that can help society in some variety of situations. In the article besides maybe one example, all of the rest of the information seems to be on the negative aspect of the architecture. This is only evident in the fact that most examples show how it repels people, but in all actuality, it can also be used in a positive effect as well. There are a few examples of this that could be added, as well as some varying perspective from more secondary sources. The article could also be organized into separate categories such as summary, history, and list of examples. This would help not only to make all of the information more digestible, but also ensure that other users could find the information they need on the subject. The summary would encompass the definition and uses of hostile architecture, as well as how and why it is used. The history presents the information that does not seem to be present. After all hostile architecture is not truly all that new. Also, the list of example could be greatly expanded as there are currently a lot more examples of hostile architecture than most people know about. Also, it could use some extra information to help update it on the true variety of hostile architecture. With a good balance of examples that show both negative and positive examples of hostile architecture the article would become less biased. Especially since there is a lot of tension against hostile architecture in general, since it is used to specifically manipulate certain behaviors. Luckily it seems that the links are all working and the sources all support their claims. It seems to me that with a lot of touching up to the work, it can be remastered into a much more useful article on the subject of hostile architecture.

Nicoocasio (talk) 04:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)nicoocasio

Is there a neutral term?
Obviously, no urban planner would call such measures "hostile architecture". What is the neutral term used in official documents? Though sounding euphemistic, "defensive architecture" also seems to originate from sources critical of the phenomenon. Also, there should be a technical term for what media call "anti-homeless spikes" – any ideas where to look?--ChickSR (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as Wikipedia policy goes, we usually go with the name most commonly used by reliable sources, though there can sometimes be exceptions where we deem the common name not to be neutral (see WP:POVNAME) and so don't use it. I think I most commonly see "defensive architecture/design" or "hostile architecture/design", and rarely "unpleasant design", but I don't think either "hostile" or "defensive" are non-neutral enough (in the sense of WP:NPOV) for us to worry about it too much, though an argument could possibly be made regarding "hostile" architecture. I think "defensive" is probably actually used more and so I would be okay if this article was moved to "defensive architecture".
 * Regarding technical terms, I'm not sure if there is actually a specific technical term not used by the media, but even if there was we'd still just use the common name. I think if you were to sit in a university lecture or talk to an advocate of the design they would just call it "defensive architecture", and a critic would be more likely to call it "hostile architecture". I also doubt that urban planners/architects/whoever would call what they are designing "anti-homeless spikes", they probably just call them spikes. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer. I couldn't find any urban planning source that would use "defensive architecture/design" as a neutral term, it originates from critical sources like this 1983 exhibition. I guess there should be more technical terminology in material science, but I don't know where to look.--ChickSR (talk) 09:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi see the above discussion – we use the WP:COMMOMNAME of the subject of an article, but can sometimes use a lesser-known name if we deem the common one to be non-neutral as per WP:POVNAME. The names most commonly used, as far as I can tell, are "hostile architecture" or "defensive architecture". I personally don't think either "hostile architecture" or "defensive architecture/design" would meet that threshold, though I could definitely understand the argument against the word "hostile", so would be fine moving it to e.g. "defensive architecture". "Exclusionary design" is far rarer in common parlence, and I really don't think we need to stretch this far down on the list of commonly used terms when the terms used more commonly than it are perfectly fine. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed that "defensive architecture" is a neutral term. I changed the title to that. Note that the term "hostile design" is found almost exclusively in critical editorials, or in direct quotes by critics.Abrothman (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The reverted edits about "homeless activity" were not justified. The spikes exist for a single purpose: to prevent someone from lying down. "Homeless activities" is far too broad. Abrothman (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

. Please revert the recent bold page moves in favour of WP:RM. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * - Do you have a link to the WP:RM discussion? PhilKnight (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There was no RM. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅; I've also reverted the page content back to the version that matches the previous title, and I've applied a 3-day move protection as well, since I see in teh hsitory this is not the first time this page move has been attempted. Anyone should feel free to override or release the protection if a consensus to move the page is reached (through RM or otherwise). Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Defensive Architecture vs Hostile Architecture
Defensive Architecture vs Hostile Architecture: Google Ngram is persuasive,

But, these are not the same topics. Defensive Architecture is a very old and established term, and Hostile Architecture is subtopic of it, dating from 1953, but having exploded since 2010. example sources.

This article, as written in Feb 2015 and every since, has been about the new concept of Hostile Architecture, and the old broader article Defensive Architecture was a missing article. Maybe there should be two articles? Maybe Hostile Architecture should be a major topic within Defensive Architecture. However, they are not simply synonyms to be blurred together. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Pretty clearly, "defensive architecture" is the common term. "Hostile architecture" comes from an activist movement, and does not in itself represent a different concept. It's not a factual term, any more than "pro-abortion" or "anti-choice." If there were to be a section or a page about "hostile architecture," it would need to be limited to that movement. Abrothman (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I think I disagree. It is a related but distinct concept.  Possibly a subtopic.  Yes, it is negative, but that does not mean it is a bad title.  The history of this article is entirely Hostile Architecture. I recommend creation of the broader article on Defensive architecture. For a long time there were sources on defensive architecture in the absence of hostile architecture. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * As the original and primary editor of this article, yes, the intention is to cover the [relatively] modern concept of urban design that is built to stop certain [kinds of] people using the space in a way that the owner doesn't like. There are many synonyms for the idea, hence the list of bolded-terms in the first paragraph. However, that is indeed distinct - as SmokeyJoe says - from the much older and broader concept of buildings whose whole purpose is defensive against attack. Castles, city-walls, and military architecture of all kinds fit into that latter description. Perhaps a hatnote on this article disambiguating it from Fortification would be useful? e.g. "defensive architecture redirects here, for buildings designed to defend against attack see 'fortification'"? Wittylama 13:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wittylama. Also fortified manor and fortified house. Having been reading up on defensive architecture, I am surprised at the amount of coverage over several decades of what has become well known recently as Hostile architecture. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Defensive architecture" in the military sense is much older, but would be a different article requiring a disambiguation. I'm still not convinced whether "defensive architecture/design" is a term actually used by sources not criticizing but implementing measures. Haven't found a single source. The manufacturer of the Camden Bench uses neither of the terms.--ChickSR (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @SmokeyJoe and others: We also have an article on Disciplinary architecture.  I wonder if these are the same thing?  Or if this is a subset of that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Disciplinary architecture looks like exactly Hostile architecture, but I’ve never seen that term before and I don’t think it is common enough to use. Hostile architecture is much more common, but sounds POV. Defensive architecture is passively worded, slightly inaccurate, and ambiguous with historic military defensive fortifications.Disciplinary architecture SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've tagged the pages for merging. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Happy to chat benches
Just another example for the absence of neutral terminology: When a "happy to chat bench" looks like this or this, it is hostile architecture in disguise. Haven't found a source linking the two phenomena, so this is my OR for the time being.--ChickSR (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My OR says those are pre-existing benches, following a long-established philosophy of constructing public seating so as to be unsuitable for lying down, that happen to have been designated as "chat benches" at a later date. Also, if scroll down a bit, you'll see one (in Brentwood) that seems rather less hostile. I don't think you'll find that source. 62.64.208.226 (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. So where would I find a source on the "long-established philosophy of constructing public seating so as to be unsuitable for lying down"?--ChickSR (talk) 09:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

This one in London. Canada doesn't even pretend their lie-down blocker is a center armrest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keovar (talk • contribs) 03:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Disciplinary architecture into Hostile architecture
These appear to be exactly the same subject, so these two pages should be merged. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the merge proposal. Gusfriend (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I have redirected it for now (if someone disagrees, feel free to revert and we can have a longer discussion, but this article seems low-traffic and it seems like the merge was uncontested.) I'm not sure how much salvageable there is in that to merge into this one that isn't already here - most of the sourcing there is weak (drafts, primary police sources, and stuff only tangentially connected to the topic under either term.) I pulled in a few things that seemed clearly useful, though. --Aquillion (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Nuclear Waste Warning Hostile Architecture
I'm sorry, I'm not an editor, but I thought as a user, maybe this might be useful for y'all to be a bit (more?) aware of...?

I was redirected to the Hostile Architecture page from (this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-time_nuclear_waste_warning) one about leaving messages for far future humans about nuclear waste sites and trying to find as many ways to communicate danger as possible.

But there was nothing on the page about it.

That said, when I first got to the Hostile Architecture page, I knew what it was and didn't expect it to say anything about the nuclear waste sites, because too my mind, hostile architecture absolutely is a term for more modern actions taken to discourage disadvantaged groups from access, versus discouraging active aggression/danger. As a random nobody wiki user, I agree with the people who say that stuff should have redirects. Hostile Architecture is its own thing.

Hostile architecture/design, imho, is a very well delineated subgroup OF "defensive architecture/design," they are someone's used interchangeably but they aren't synonyms. All hostile architecture is some kind of defensive, but not all defensive design is hostile.

To those who've argued that the article term should be neutral because those who order and create these things don't use the term "hostile" ... Well of course they don't. Coca Cola doesn't use "addictive" in their sales terms either, that doesn't mean their products aren't addictive, or that said addictiveness isn't intentionally baked into the end product. Same with hostile architecture.

Also, the nuclear waste stuff really should be included in another article somewhere. But not the hostile architecture one.

I hope this has been helpful in some way. --AnonymooseTaco 1/3/22 2601:C2:8301:21A0:80A3:C8A5:115C:97F1 (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Secured by Design
In England the police are Removing benches, blocking cycle paths. To “prevent antisocial behaviour in hotspot areas”. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/02/police-public-spaces-secured-by-design-uk-cities 194.207.86.26 (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities, Section 1
— Assignment last updated by Avamcclung (talk) 03:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Evaluation of the article
The article has a concise lead and is well-organized. It does a great job of explaining what the term means and providing numerous examples to help the public understand its applications in real life. I also like how the author explains the controversy surrounding the definition of the term. It also discusses the consequences of hostile architecture and how the public receives it. However, the article can be improved by including more scholarly research on the topic, especially in the “Public reception,” “Artistic response” and “Impacts of hostile architecture” sections so that the readers will have a better sense of the significance of the topic. The article will also benefit from adding illustrations under the examples provided by the article. KellyL09 (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review
This article is comprehensive and easy to understand. It has multiple images that help illustrate the architecture discussed, and I especially liked the section on definition controversy because I thought it was informative and I didn't previously know that information. I think this article really just needs a few more blue links in the sections that are lacking them. Great work! Avamcclung (talk) 05:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The term is inaccurate and unprofessional
The term “Hostile” architecture is a slang term used by activists and is not recognized in the architecture profession. The correct term is defensive architecture. 216.19.183.106 (talk) 09:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please provide reliable sources to back up the claim that "defensive architecture" is the correct term. In addition, hostile architecture would not be "slang" even if that were true. Slang is informal vocabulary that's used mainly in spoken conversation; "hostile architecture" isn't slang in any sense of the word. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Non-sequitur in "Impacts of hostile architecture"
From the article: This is nonsense, at best: whether homeless shelters are safer or not is not what's being questioned. Rather, the point that should be proven is whether exclusionary infrastructure encourages those experiencing homelessness to seek out homeless shelters. The sources provided for the first, and second claims aren't related or reference each other. I think this is OR. 213.60.17.63 (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

New section on Anti-skate architecture?
Looking at the Anti-skate devices and steaming from the current re-direct discussion, I was looking at this article and thought that there could be an entire section dedicated to skateboarding. Not sure if Anti-skate architecture is the exact term but it's as close as I can think of at the moment. - Wil540 art (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Fire Semester 3
— Assignment last updated by Worm Insurrection (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Robert Moses 'low bridges strategy' is probably bunk
A 2021 Washington Post article reaches this conclusion (with receipts):

"Caro quotes one of Moses’s top aides as saying the height of the bridges was done for racist reasons, but increasingly that story has been questioned as not credible." Skepticaltogether (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing, it does seem like the article should reflect the variety of analyses represented in this survey. Remsense  留  00:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)