Built to Exclude

How hostile design choices in public spaces shape cities and exclude vulnerable communities.

Architecture and design have always evolved around the core concept of shelter and safety. The human factor has guided construction and design, especially in public spaces, to expand into various nuances that address the needs of the masses. However, a crucial development in urban design has been the creation of spaces that either cater only to short-term needs or actively deter usage. Benches where you can sit, but not for too long, blue lighting in bathrooms, or designs that make negative spaces inaccessible, such as slanted or curved ledges that prevent sitting.

When did design become less about people?

Not surprisingly, hostility has long been part of design. Since medieval times, physical deterrents like spikes on walls were used for both offensive and defensive purposes. One of the earliest modern examples of overtly hostile design in public space came with the introduction of the Camden bench in London. The Camden benches were deliberately designed with dividers and slopes so the homeless could not lie down. Anti-vagrancy spikes were also installed outside shopfronts to stop people from sleeping in doorways.

Over time, as design attempted to address modern problems, hostile architecture became increasingly common, yet instead of tackling root issues like homelessness or the lack of safe gathering spaces, cities often relied on these hidden “design fixes” to push people out of sight. These designs don’t announce themselves; they quietly make public places unwelcoming. Hostile design raises big questions about who public space is really for. Cities are meant to be shared environments, yet these design choices prioritize control and appearance over inclusivity and dignity. Affordable housing, addiction, and community infrastructure are critical issues that are overlooked, while homelessness and loitering are merely targeted at the surface level.

As vulnerable people are pushed further to the margins, cities grow disconnected from their own communities and create deeper problems in the long run. While on the surface things may appear orderly, beneath that veneer, social fractures widen. While controversial, some view hostile architecture as a form of design apartheid, highlighting the inequalities embedded in the way our cities are built.

Urban designers can counter hostile architecture by prioritizing dignity over deterrence. Inclusive design must be a priority in public spaces. That means investing in public furniture that is comfortable without being exclusionary, adding shelters and shaded areas where people can rest, and designing parks and plazas that encourage community interaction rather than discourage presence. Engaging diverse communities in the design process ensures spaces reflect real needs, while reframing safety around openness and visibility, rather than exclusion, builds trust.

Design should go hand in hand with solutions like affordable housing, public bathrooms, and basic social services. Design is intended to make survival easier, not force people to fight for it. Over the years, various countries have shifted their focus to address the root cause, and also provide better solutions for vulnerable communities. Various NGOs have began advocating the need for better design practices, like the Project Raahat initiave in India. We may have started towards a better direction, yet there’s miles to go.