Landscape architects use the term ‘hostile design’ to describe elements that stop anti-social behaviour. They could be armrests along a lengthy bench aren’t for the comfort of the people who choose to sit there, but to break up the space and make it impossible for someone to lie down and sleep rough. Little studs running along the edge of the bench stop skateboards. Cruder examples include spikes around air vents: not only do these stop rough sleepers from lying down in the warmer space, they also send a very loud message about who is welcome and who isn’t.
Subtle or not, armrests and spikes don’t stop rough sleeping. They just move it on elsewhere: the landscape architect isn’t generally moonlighting as a policymaker in homelessness, so it’s not a problem they created, or one they want on their client’s doorstep.
Presumably arms of the state would have a case to answer
But this weekend, Suella Braverman adopted the political equivalent of hostile design when she took aim at ‘rows of tents, occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice’.
Britain’s best politics newsletters
You get two free articles each week when you sign up to The Spectator’s emails.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in