Defensive landscape architecture in modern public spaces

Abstract


 
 
 
 By 2030, we should have universal access to safe, inclusive, and accessible green and public places, especially for women and children, the elderly, and people with disabilities, according to the Sustainable Development Goals. However, the increasing privatisation of land and gentrification of the urban landscape is putting a limit on the amount of public space available for people to express themselves and use the city as they desire. This paper investigates and reviews the literature on defensive architecture, as well as its historical foundations, definitions, implementation, and reason for existence. The findings provide a clear reflection on the growing awareness of extreme defensive landscape architecture typologies such as spikes and other aggressive measures. Finally, the paper offers worldwide best-practice examples and recommendations for ensuring inclusion and safety in public spaces. We argue that in order to design sustainable public spaces, a holistic approach that considers both intangible values and social inclusion is required.
 
 
 

Unveiling the Trajectories and Trends in Women-Inclusive City Related Studies: Insights from a Bibliometric Exploration

“…Access to urban public places is critical for city democracy, as it represents the expansion of democratic rights. For public spaces to be genuinely democratic, two principles must be recognized: first, the city must be inclusive of all its inhabitants, with human rights as a fundamental requirement; and second, these spaces must provide a variety of values and qualities to meet the diverse needs of their diverse users [133][134][135][136]. Some authors discussed the importance of user-friendliness [137], safety [138], and participation in decision making [139] in the built environment.…”

A Classification Scheme for Hostile Design

“…The notion of "hostile architecture" or "hostile design" has become important within contemporary research and criticism on the politics of urban spaces, especially in online journalism, blogging, and social media. An academic discussion is also beginning to emerge, one that is widely interdisciplinary and still largely fragmented and exploratory (e.g., Savicic & Savic, 2013;Rosenberger, 2014;Schindler, 2015;Chellew, 2016;Petty, 2016;Armborst et al, 2017;de Fine Licht, 2017;Jensen, 2017;Rosenberger, 2017a;Stevens, 2017;Smith & Walters, 2018;Chellew, 2019;de Fine Licht, 2020;Eggersglüß, 2020;Crippen & Klement, 2020;Jensen, 2020;Lorini & Moroni, 2020;Rosenberger, 2020b;Binnington & Russo, 2021;Lynch, 2021;Nitrato Izzo, 2022;Giamariano et al, 2023;Kullman, 2023;Moatasim, 2023). The fledgling status of this discussion is reflected in the variety of terms used in different writings to refer to similar phenomena, which, in addition to "hostile architecture" and "hostile design, " include "unpleasant design, " "disciplinary architecture, " "architectural exclusion, " "defensive architecture, " and others.…”