Documenting hostile architecture
Fellow fans and even the critics of Brutalist architecture know concrete can make a strong statement. It’s partially why some of us like it. However, the concrete blocks that have appeared in front of illegal cannabis dispensaries are taking concrete statements to a new level.
As if bylaw enforcement is being done via the blockish video game Minecraft, the city of Toronto has escalated its attempts to shut down rogue dispensaries that continued to reopen, as the CBC reported this week, by physically and dramatically blocking the doors.
Streetscapes in Toronto tend not to be so noticeably fortified, so the stark, massive blocks in front of these locations are jarring to see, disrupting the relative genteel urbanity of city streets.
Though this is quite obviously a temporary solution to the Wild West nature of the cannabis industry over the last few years, where unregulated pot shops were budding across Ontario, the concrete blocks can be seen as contributing to the defensive or hostile nature of our urban design and architecture.
One prominent, recent manifestation of this kind of thing came after last year’s North York van attack when ugly “jersey barriers” were placed around the plaza in front of Union Station. While preventing similar attacks is a good idea, a more elegant and permanent design solution needs to be found.
Other cities use strategically placed planters or even concrete benches, giving people a place to sit. Toronto has far too few places to sit in general, an absence that can also be seen as hostile.
“The lack of public amenities, what I call ghost amenities, also creates hostile environments for all,” says Cara Chellew, a researcher and public space advocate. “Amenities like benches, public washrooms, water fountains, and places of shelter that should be included in public spaces to make them more hospitable but are not, due to disrepair, reduced operation or intentional omission.”
Chellew began documenting defensive urban design while a master of environmental studies student at York University and has since gone on to create the DefensiveTO project that is categorizing and mapping the phenomenon in Toronto.
“DefensiveTO is the first of its kind to systematically map defensive urban design in Toronto’s public parks, squares and privately owned, publicly accessible spaces (POPS),” Chellew says. “Using a list of public parks and POPS from the city of Toronto website and with the help of volunteers, it is my hope to visit every public space listed.”
On the DefensiveTO website, the typology Chellew has put together includes examples in the form of seating, ledges, barriers, surfaces, light and sound, surveillance and the ghost amenities that Torontonians know, or rather don’t know, so well.
“A lot of people might not think about defensive architecture and urban design because it’s often hidden in plain sight. This is deliberate,” Chellew says.
“The coercive function of defensive amenities and space is often hidden within more socially acceptable ones, like a bench designed to keep people from lying down (that) still allows for the function of sitting, or a ledge embedded with anti-skateboard deterrents can still be used as a garden box.”
She says though defensive design often targets homeless people or youth activities such as skateboarding, it can have broader effects on the general public, especially people who are elderly, have a disability, are pregnant, ill or are young children.
“For society’s most vulnerable, defensive architecture and design can make navigating public space difficult or impossible,” she says.
“The addition of defensive elements on ledges and centre bars on benches can be hazardous if accidentally encountered by people who are blind or hard of seeing. They can be a tripping hazard for young children.”
Spikes along ledges might be the most obvious and deliberate hostile bits, but Chellew says ghost amenities often happen because it’s easier to remove a thing than build new.
It’s easier to try to erase a perceived problem than deal with it in a constructive way. There are even cases of disappearing benches around the city after people complained that other people were actually sitting on them.
To understand how extensive defensive and hostile architecture and urban design is in Toronto, Chellew has recently launched a project that will see volunteers fan out to the city to document and map it.
“I would like to inspire people to explore their neighbourhood public spaces and think about how they are designed and regulated,” she says.
“I would like to use the map to advocate for policy change. Currently, the city of Toronto has no guidelines regulating the use of defensive architecture and design in the city. I would like to see the prohibition of defensive architecture in publicly owned space and regulated in privately owned, publicly accessible spaces.”
Volunteers can attend an orientation session at the Centre for Social Innovation at 215 Spadina Ave. on Tuesday from 6 to 7:30 p.m. or contribute pictures via defensiveto.com.
“For society’s most vulnerable, defensive architecture and design can make navigating public space difficult or impossible.” CARA CHELLEW PUBLIC SPACE ADVOCATE