18.05.16

Isobel

Wickham

Approaches to dealing with visible homelessness in Amsterdam; is

Defensive Architecture a dominant and or popular approach?

2

Isobel Wickham isobelwickham@me.com Erasmus exchange student at The University of Amsterdam 2015-2016. Student of Social Policy with Social and Political Studies at The University of Edinburgh 2013-2017. Course supervisor Amsterdam: David Bos Pages:30 Date of Issue: 18.05.16

3

Index Introduction….p.4 Homelessness in Amsterdam….p.5 Homelessness in England….p.7 Defensive Architecture....p.7 Image bank of Defensive Architecture in England….p.9 Academic contributions ….p.12 Research question ….p.13 Methodology….p.14 Photos and observations….p.15 Findings….p.20 Survey….p.21 Survey results….p.23

Conclusion….p.24 Appendix….p.26 Bibliography….p.28 Summary In this essay we will discuss the emergence of ‘Defensive Architecture’ as an approach to dealing with the visible homeless population by looking at examples of Defensive Architecture in England and Amsterdam. Through making observations of public spaces across the city of Amsterdam, and by collecting opinions from survey questions, I provide here an informative study into the measures used to prevent visible homelessness in Amsterdam and England, to ask whether Defensive Architecture is a dominant and or popular approach used in Amsterdam.

4

Approaches to dealing with visible homelessness in Amsterdam; is Defensive Architecture a dominant and or popular approach?

Homelessness is often framed as a public order and safety issue (FEANTSA, 2014), making sleeping, begging or drinking in the public space often made illegal by local authorities, with hostile and defensive measures taken to deter such behaviour. In this essay we will discuss this approach towards homelessness by looking at the emergence of ‘Defensive Architecture’ in England and Amsterdam. Through making observations of public spaces across the city of Amsterdam, and by collecting opinions from survey questions, I provide here an informative study into the measures used to prevent visible homelessness in Amsterdam and England, to ask whether Defensive Architecture is a dominant and or popular approach used in Amsterdam. Before we discuss the concept of Defensive Architecture, it is important we first discuss the emerging trends of homelessness seen across England and Amsterdam that has lead to this design. Firstly, homelessness is best understood and defined on a continuum, categorised as someone who is “roofless, houseless, living in insecure accommodation or living in inadequate accommodation,”

(Busch-Geertsema, 2010, p.22i). The identification and definition of the homeless population is difficult due to the hidden, marginalized and constantly changing nature of homelessness. “Homelessness can come with poverty in disguise, maybe not visible to the public,” (Van Laere, 2016), which is an aspect of homelessness we will discuss in further detail.

5

Homelessness in Amsterdam

CBS reported that in 2012, over 27,000 people were homeless in the Netherlands aged between 18 and 65, with over 80% men, and 40 % have a non-western background (CBS, 2013). The table below summarises the findings of the CBS.

Van Leares’ study into the long-term homeless population found the main pathways into homelessness to be, “relationship problems (28-31%), evictions (21-37%), leaving prison (8-23%), alcohol addiction (18-26%), drug addiction (29-37%), mental health problems (21-61%), and physical conditions (51-76%) (Van Leare, 2010, p.50). Services provided to the homeless in the Netherlands include non-governmental and private organizations, which until 1994, had been subsidized by the central government. The Welfare Act (Welzijnswet) of 1994 decentralized homelessness policies (and drug addiction services) meaning only a small number of larger municipalities receive subsidies from the central government to support homeless people in their region (Hermans, 2012). In 2003, health and social service ministers were unable to provide sufficient data on the trends or numbers of homeless in the Netherlands, resulting in the implementation of the inter-departmental policy research study (IBO 2013) into homelessness in the Netherlands. The study’s findings highlighted problems homeless people face; including a lack of access to health and social care, lack of aftercare for ex-prisoners, shortage of sufficient housing, and discrimination

6

towards the homeless in the housing market, resulting in the implementation of a national action plan to combat homelessness (Hermans, 2012). In 2006, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Utrecht, The Hague and the national government agreed to develop a common long-term strategy to combat homelessness. It was based on a vision in which “a structural approach to ameliorate the situation of homeless people was combined with a more hidden paternalistic approach, which involved cleaning the streets and curbing public nuisance,” (Hermans, 2012, p.102). The G4 Homelessness Action Plan 2006-2013 consisted of 4 main aims: ii

1.To provide living accommodation, care programs, income and employment for the homeless.

2.To reduce the number of evictions. 3. To prevent homelessness as a result of leaving residential care institutions. 4.To reduce public nuisance caused by homelessness.

(Hermans, 2012, p.104. See appendix for details)

These goals were both met and exceeded by 2010 with a rapid reduction in the number of homeless people sleeping rough. In Amsterdam, this number fell from 160 in 2006 to 80 in 2009 (FEANTSA, 2014). Van Leare described how “the stereotypical homeless person; skinny drug addict, mental health person pushing or carrying waste, has disappeared from most Dutch cities, at least much less than 15-25 years ago,” (Van Laere, 2016). Furthermore, the program led to an increase in possibilities for supported housing, increase in homeless-led initiatives and participation, and a shift from the use of night shelters to the use of housing with support from 40% to 47% of the total number of housing support service users (FEANTSA, 2014). This demonstrates an effective approach used by the national government to tackle homelessness in the Netherlands. However the motivations behind the action plan were criticized for being unclear; whether it was implemented as a structural approach to ‘end’ homelessness, or rather was it intended to decrease public nuisance as a form of social ‘cleansing’ (Hermans, 2012). The 2008 economic crisis undoubtedly had a harmful effect on government spending on services for the homeless; with the number of evictions increasing as well as the number of forced sales of owner occupied housing (FEANTSA, 2014).

7

Homelessness in England

In England, government statistics in 2015 indicate a dramatic rise in homelessness that can be linked to budget cuts and increasing austerity measures. CRISIS revealed that 54,000 were accepted as homeless in 2015, compared with 27,000 in Amsterdam 2012. Furthermore the number of people sleeping rough on any one night in England has doubled since 2010 (CRISIS, 2016), similarly in London there has been increase in rough sleepers by over 50% since 2009; (CHAIN, 2015). Approaches to dealing with homelessness in England vary; from state funded housing, rehabilitation, and healthcare programs to private initiatives, and as we will soon discuss, Defensive Architecture. The services of care provided to the homeless in England include the provision of 1,253 ‘accommodation projects’ in 2015; which have reduced in

number by 14% since 2010, illustrating the impact of budget cuts to the

provision of care to the homeless (Homeless Link, 2015). 208 homeless day centres can be found across England, which have increased by 11% since 2010 (Homeless Link, 2015), highlighting some of the different approaches of dealing with homelessness in England. As well as the provision of healthcare, social care and temporary housing shelters, another approach towards dealing with the homeless population known as ‘Defensive Architecture’ has developed over the past decade; where we see structural measures used in cities to reduce and prevent visible public homelessness, and or make sleeping on the streets nearly impossible.

Defensive Architecture

“City planners work very hard to keep homelessness outside our field of vision,”(Andreou, 2015) which can be seen through the use of Defensive Architecture as a means to deter the homeless from sleeping in public spaces. Artist Nils Norman argues that “city space is quietly altered to maximise its control and circulation,” with Defensive Architecture a method to keep poverty unseen. Defensive Architecture involves various forms of design intended to make sleeping in public spaces difficult or impossible. Measures taken by local authorities to prevent benches from being slept on include:

Curved benches; “ to create a surface more appropriate for ‘perching’”, benches that lack a back rest, and making users feel exposed, “socially and environmentally,” (Spradley, 2012), dividing the bench into segments, the use of armrests, narrow or short bench size, a slippery surface or sloping angle downwards.

This type of design can be seen all over England with bus stop benches that are thin and slope downwards, making sleeping on them under the shelter of the bus stop impossible (Fig.1). Quinn highlights the use of The Camden bench (Fig.2) commissioned by the local authority in London to deter both sleeping and skateboarding on them as “part of a recent generation of urban architecture designed to influence public behaviour” (Quinn, 2014). This is an example of a hostile approach widely used to tackle public homelessness in England.

8

Andreou criticizes the phenomenon, claiming “from ubiquitous protrusions on window ledges to bus-shelter seats that pivot forward, from water sprinklers to metal park benches with solid dividers, and pointed cement bollards under bridges, urban spaces are aggressively rejecting soft, human bodies” (Andreou, 2015). Van Leare contributed to my research, supporting Andreou by suggesting “the number of free seats in a city reflects the hospitality and how public space is considered to be used in general” (Van Laere, 2016). Howell claims that for the homeless these urban planning measures make the message clear to the

homeless that they are not welcome. This approach is both designed, approved and funded by local governments as a hostile measure to prevent the homeless from sleeping rough (Andreou, 2015). Other defensive measures seen globally include the use of tubular benches in Japan that are either too hot in summer or too cold in winter (Omidi,2014) the instillation of circular stools at bus stops in Honolulu(Lockton, 2008), and a ‘pay per minute’ scheme in Yantai Park in Shandong China where a series of studs emerge from the seat if you overstay your seating there (Omidi, 2014). Other measures to discourage sleeping in public spaces include paying for timed public toilets, and the use of pavement sprinklers. A more controversial example is the use of spikes, a preventative approach to deter the homeless from sleeping in doorways and ledges. A similar measure is used in many cities to prevent pigeons from sleeping or resting on roofs or window ledges, raising an unattractive comparison between the homeless and pigeons as pests needing to be deterred through such hostile measures. In June 2014 there was public outcry at the use of these ‘anti-homeless studs’ outside a block of residential flats on Southwark Bridge Road in London that emerged in the context of dramatically increasing rates of homelessness, with an online petition gaining over 1000,000 signatures in opposition (Hohenadal, 2014). Atkinson, suggests these spikes and related Defensive Architecture design are part of a broader pattern of hostility and indifference towards social difference and poverty produced within cities (Quinn, 2014). Defensive Architecture also raises the question of contested ‘public’ space, whereby controlling the public space is a means of social control. Graham discusses the concept of military urbanism; describing governments approaches to dealing with social problems as military ‘wars’,”(Graham, 2010). Fundamental to this is “the paradigmatic shift that renders cities' communal and private spaces a source of targets and threats,”(Graham, 2010, p.3). Defensive Architecture therefore is an architectural response to the ‘threats’ to public security of social problems such as homelessness. An interesting comparison to the Defensive Architecture we have discussed so far can be seen in Vancouver with the use of transforming bench shelters; where a tray folds out above the bench to create a temporary night shelter, whilst raising awareness of homelessness (Jones, 2014).

9

Image bank of Defensive Architecture in England Below are some examples of Defensive Architecture design found across England:

Figure: 1. Typical thin sloping bus stop bench (Bus stop design guide 2005).

Figure: 2. The Camden Bench in London has been designed to prevent rough sleeping; a sloping edge makes resting on it uncomfortable (Nils Norman, 2015).

10

Figure: 3. Bars installed on bus stop bench in York (BBC news, 2015).

Figure: 4. Benches installed outside Royal Court of Justice, London made of stone, with metal ridges installed to break up the bench surface (Photograph: Linda Nylind for the Guardian 2015).

11

Figure: 5. Seating on Euston Road; sloping with metal ridges making sleeping here impossible (Photograph: Linda Nylind for the Guardian 2015).

Figure: 6. Armrests obstructing bench from being slept on. Leys Garden, Letchworth Garden City (Image: Factory Furniture).

Figure: 7. Armrests placed down middle of bench to prevent sleeping, Canal walk Swindon (Image: Factory Furniture).

Figure: 8. Bench found on High Street Bromley. As stated on the bench designer website, the design “deters rough sleeping – the ridged top and curved surfaces make it difficult to lie on with any comfort,” (Image: Factory Furniture).

12

Figure: 9. Spikes to prevent sitting in Euston, central London. (Photograph: Linda Nylind for The Guardian 2015).

Academic Contributions

I was fortunate enough to collect responses from Dr Van Laereiii and Harm Wilzing, academics with experience researching and working with the homeless. Van Laereiv, founder of the Netherlands Street Doctors Group (NSG) suggests, “defensive architecture aims to keep away the poor, to protect the rich and increase consumption,”(Van Laere, 2016). He added, “with wealth comes mobility and options where to sit or sleep. Poverty comes with limitations in mobility and unhealthy options, such as physical pain provoked by public furniture or spaces,”(Van Laere,2016).

Wilzing expressed his concern regarding defensive architecture in Amsterdam;

“When I see benches in public spaces: I think ‘would a homeless person be able to rest at this bench?’, stating ,“ I actually think benches should be designed to rest on, for everybody. When the amount of homeless people

Figure 10: Metal studs found outside private apartments on Southwark Bridge Road London (Photograph: Guy Corbishley/Demotix/Corbis 2015).

13

sleeping on public benches becomes a big of problem, it is a sign that states/governments aren't putting enough effort in creating homeless shelters. Just making benches uncomfortable to sleep on, suggests we should just 'move and look away' from the problem of homelessness, instead of really making an effort to solve it,” (Wilzing, 2016).

His responses reflect those found in my survey, that prevention of homelessness itself should be the focus rather than on developing preventative bench design. He added;

“To me it doesn’t feel right to design society/public spaces in a hostile way. Firstly, we aren't talking about private property here, but about a space and objects that should be strived for to be there for every member of society. Secondly, people have the inevitable need to rest. So if you don't have the means to sleep on a bed somewhere and the welfare state doesn't lend you a helping hand in any sort of way, you feel pretty damn shitty when even public spaces are designed to deter you. It's not the act of a humane society,”(Wilzing,2016).

Both Wilzing and Van Leare’s contributions illustrated the significance of The G4 Homelessness Action Plan 2006-2013 as an effective approach to dealing with homelessness in Amsterdam, explaining how since its implementation visible homelessness appeared to have decreased in the city. They also recognised how hostile measures were increasingly used as an approach to dealing with homelessness.

Research Question My research explores this trend of Defensive Architecture that we have discussed so far; aiming to assess how this form of hostile urban planning has been used in Amsterdam as an approach to prevent rough sleeping, and whether it is a dominant and or popular approach. By collecting evidence and making observations across the city in fieldwork conducted during May 2016, I present descriptions of my findings alongside an image bank to illustrate the measures of Defensive Architecture that I encountered across Amsterdam. Alongside my observational fieldwork, I have collected responses from the public using a short survey; so my research consists of photographs, observations and survey responses. The aim of my research is to then assess whether Defensive Architecture is a dominant approach to prevent rough sleeping in Amsterdam, and discover whether this approach is popular with the public.

14

Methodology

From the 1st-16th May, I made several outings on my bike to record examples of Defensive Architecture that I found in the city, continually capturing examples of hostile architecture that I noticed when passing throughout this period. In my fieldwork, I made sure to systematically cover the main areas of the city by bike to try and capture a range of pubic space design strategies used across the city. The areas I explored included:

Centrum; entrances and exit of Central station, surrounding areas leading into De Wallen, Nieuwmarkt, Waterlooplein, , Amstel , De Pipj.

Oost; Plantage, Oosterpark, Dappermarkt, Javastraat and surrounding area.

West; Jordaan, Oud-West, Westerpark, and edges of the Nieuw-West

Below is collection of these images; an image bank of Defensive Architecture found in Amsterdam, focusing on bench design.

15

.

Figure:11. Benches found along the river Amstel; with metal armrests built in breaking up the bench design making sleeping horizontally on these benches impossible.

Figure: 12. Modern, recently built slippery granite benches found by the Huddekade, Amstel area.

Figure: 13.Modern, recently built flat slippery granite benches found on Marnixstraat.

Figure: 14. Similar slippery flat granite bench found in Frederik Hendrik Plantsoen park. Bench surface of these modern bench designs is very cold, hard and uncomfortable, presumably to deter the homeless from sleeping in the park.

Photos and Observations

16

Figure:15. Benches found all along the Houtmankade – these modern looking benches are shortened in length meaning a whole body stretched out horizontally would be unable to fit. There is just enough room for two people to sit closely on these benches.

Figure: 16. Example of standard ‘Municipal’ Amsterdam bench found in J.W. Siebbeleshof. This bench design was found in all parts of Amsterdam and is an example of bench design that accommodates both sitting and sleeping on.

Figure: 17. Old design wooden bench found by Zuiderkerk with built in metal armrests.

17

Figure: 18. More old design wooden bench found surrounding the Zuiderkerk with built in armrests, indicating rough sleeping in this square had been a problem requiring these arm rests to be installed into the benches here.

Figure: 19. Thin and uncomfortable bench found outside Slotterdijk train station.

Figure: 20. Modern bench design found inside entrance to Amsterdam Central station; hard and slippery surface and positioned in center of entrance to remain in public view.

Figure: 21. Benches outside the Roeterseiland campus of the University of Amsterdam; narrow stone design not wide enough to sleep on. Designed to enable perching, but to deter individuals from sleeping or loitering in the area for too long.

18

Figure: 22.Newly built flat granite bench at the Niewmarkt main square, built next to a line of older municipal benches, indicating a development of defensive architecture in this area.

Figure: 23. Modern bench design found in Mercatoplein; large backrest built in center of stone bench to break up the bench shape making sleeping on it impossible.

Examples of curved benches that make sleeping uncomfortable both found in open public squares, suggesting defensive architecture has been used in public space to prevent public nuisance.

Figure: 26. Curved benches found in Javaplein around fountain.

Figure: 24. Bench found in Mecatoplien

Figure: 25. Contrasting old design wooden panel municipal bench found across the city.

19

Figure: 27. Newly built metal benches outside entrance to Amsterdam Central Station; with built in metal bars to prevent sleeping and skateboarding on these benches in this busy part of the city.

Figure: 29. Similar bench design found in Amsterdam Oost; short length metal benches with built in armrests.

Figure: 28. Bench found on Javastraat.

Figure: 30. Examples of typical ‘municipal’ benches found inside Oosterpark.

20

Artist Nils Norman has been photographing examples of Defensive Architecture found in cities around the world since the 1990s , generating an ongoing photo

archive documenting this phenomenon› (Hoehandel, 2014) similar to my

documentation of Defensive Architecture I found across Amsterdam.

Findings

In general, the bench design I found most frequently across the city was a standardized green wooden or metal bench with deep seat and slightly curved backrest, which I refer to as a municipal bench design (Figure 16). This design was found in all areas of my study, used repeatedly in Oosterpark, Westerpark and around Warerlooplein in particular. Interestingly this municipal bench design does not fit the Defensive Architecture model we have seen previously in other cities. In fact, the bench could be slept on without any obvious restrictions; whilst not comfortable to sleep on it certainly does not appear to have been designed to discourage or prevent someone from sleeping on it at all. I also encountered standard green panel benches across the city (Figure 25); whilst they wouldn’t be an obvious place to sleep, they also cannot be characterised as defensive as they have none of the hostile features we have discussed so far. Rather it is a simple, standard bench design providing basic resting place for the public. From my observations therefore it appears Defensive Architecture is not dominant in Amsterdam, since the majority of benches I encountered fit these municipal designs. Arguably, this could suggest other approaches to reducing visible homelessness are more dominant and prioritized in Amsterdam, such as the provision of care and accommodation over defensive bench design. Furthermore it is worth noting that metal armrests , found particularly alongside the river Amstel, Nieewmarkt and areas of Oost, whilst characterized in this study as a feature of defensive architecture, do not necessarily indicate hostility towards the homeless, since armrests have a another function to provide comfort when sitting on the bench.

Figure: 31. Examples of defensive architecture in Dappermarkt; both benches recently built with metal armrests to make bench impossible to sleep on.

21

Other benches I frequently encountered included recently built benches shaped and designed the same as the municipal bench design, yet built shorter in length; so a horizontal body would be unable to fit along it ( Figure 15) . Newer bench designs I encountered were more likely to have characteristic features of defensive architecture; for instance newly built modern granite stone benches (Figures 12, 20, 21, 23), table like benches without backrests (Figure 13,14, 22), and metal bars incorporated to designs (Figures 18, 27, 28, 29, 31).This indicates a shift towards more punitive architectural design in the new developments in the city, compared to the dated, standardized municipal bench design found in all areas of Amsterdam. Also areas with the most dominant Defensive Architecture were the areas that attract most visitors, “such as the red light district, Damstraat, Waterlooplein, Amstelstraat” and Nieuwmarkt (Nijman, 1999). This suggests deterrence is used as an approach where tourists are most likely to be found, keeping homelessness ‘out of sight out of mind’ (Van Laere, 2016). Nijman explains this phenomenon as similar to other gentrification schemes, notably the gentrification of Tompkins square park New York 1988, The G4 Homelessness Action Plan 2006-2013 and 1012 Project in Amsterdam 2007. Where new seating is required in public spaces, Defensive Architecture appears to be the dominant design approach, indicating an increased preference by councils to use hostile architecture in urban planning, instead of accommodating bench design towards the homeless. Another observation was the visibility of homelessness itself; I did not see a single homeless person sleeping throughout my observations and encountered only a very small number of homeless individuals. As Van Leare and Hermans describe, compared with other cities Amsterdam appears to have a less visible homeless population, with fewer people sleeping on the streets. However Wilzing argues ;

“ If you know where to look, it becomes visible. For example, the Soup-bus, when they're handing out food at night, you'll probably see more homeless people than you'd expect. However, when you compare the problem of homelessness in Amsterdam to the majority of other cities in the world, it is of course lower than countries with less strong welfare state arrangements. Therefore it naturally is less visible,”(Wilzing, 2016).

Survey

My survey was designed to indicate the publics’ awareness and perception of Defensive Architecture as a response to homelessness in Amsterdam. Using SurveyMonkey I designed and created a short survey asking 7 questions which I then shared with peers, friends, work colleagues and other contacts living in Amsterdam contacting them through email and study forums.

22

The questions asked in the survey consisted of:

1. Nationality:

2. Age:

3. Occupation:

4. Have you ever considered how this bench design could affect a homeless

person? (Benches found on Huddekade, Amsterdam 1018HC)

-No, I have never thought about this before.

-Yes, I have thought of this before.

5. Do you think benches should be designed to accommodate or deter

homeless people from sleeping on them?

-Design should deter homeless people from sleeping on them.

-Design should be accommodating for homeless people to sleep on.

6. What is your opinion of Defensive Architecture as a whole? (This is where

measures are taken to prevent the homeless from sleeping on the streets.

For example sloping, slippery surfaces on benches, metal studs in doorways

to prevent individuals from sleeping there)

7. Do you think homelessness is a visible problem in Amsterdam?

23

Survey Results

I asked 26 respondents to indicate their nationality, age and occupation to

provide insight to the participant’s demographics+. Participant ages ranged from 19-58 years, which can be explained by the high number of students responding to my survey, with 65% of respondents’ occupation described as student. We must here recognize a limitation of the survey due to a selection bias of the survey; whereby participants were inadvertently selected depending on the forums they were contacted by to participate in the survey. Therefore the survey cannot be used as an indicator of the general public as a whole, rather as an indication of attitudes held by students and those individuals participating in this study. 76% of respondents had not thought of how bench design could affect the homeless before, with only 24% previously considering this, indicating that Defensive Architecture is a relatively unknown concept. Supporting this argument is the apparent invisibility of homelessness in Amsterdam. 73% of respondants felt homelessness was not a visible problem in Amsterdam, with just 11% suggesting homelssness was a visible problem in some areas. If homelessness is so “invisible” in the city, it is unsurprising that respondants had not previously considered bench design in relation to the homeless population. If Defensive Architecture was more dominant in Amsterdam, perhaps then we would see greater awareness of the phenomenon than found here. These figures support my argument that in general Defensive Architecture is not dominant in Amsterdam, since it seemed unfamiliar to the majority of the respondents, with few considering how bench design could affect the homeless. However, once introduced to the concept of Defensive Architecture, described to

them in the question, the results presented a negative response to the phenomenon, suggesting it is an unpopular approach. Interestingly, 84% of respondents felt bench design should be designed to accommodate people sleeping on them, with only 16 % agreeing that bench design should deter people from sleeping on them. Whatsmore, only 15% of respondents supported the use of defensive architecture, but the remaining 85% responses described it in a negative way. Full responses to the survey can be found as an attachment, however it is interesting to analyze responses to question 6: What is your opinion of Defensive Architecture as a whole? 85% of these responses demonstrated how Defensive Architecture was an unpopular approach to dealing with the issue of homelessness. One Dutch participant responded stating;

“I don't like it; it scares me what it reflects about the growing hostility in my city towards the vulnerable. It's the same thing we are seeing towards refugees - making measures to not help those in need.”

24

Further demonstrating the unpopularity of Defensive Architecture of the respondents is the use of emotive language, describing it as ““cruel and unnecessary”, “terrible”, “horrible,” “deliberately unkind and mean”, “insulting,” “inhumane,” and “unfair” to name a few. Many responses indicated a need for greater provision of support for the homeless through improving social care, housing and shelters. For example, one participant suggested, “more measures should be taken to tackle the cause of the problem. No one should have to sleep rough in the first place.” Others suggested;

“More money be put into shelters to keep them off the streets, rather than literally putting up spikes to stop them which is a very negative approach that seems to look at them as an inferior species/excludes them from society, which is not what we should be trying to do.”

The belief that there “needs to be wider government/local council level effort to find homeless people a place to sleep” seemed to dominate responses, with one respondent claiming, “I think it is unfair to target those that are already some of the most vulnerable people in the population, and the least we can do as a society is provide them with somewhere safe or comfortable to sleep at night”. Another respondent suggested “more shelters and rehab is needed for homeless so they don't need to resort to doorways.” These responses suggested that Defensive Architecture was unpopular, and furthermore, alternative approaches to dealing with the problem of homelessness like increasing accommodation and care for the homeless were more favourable. To a limited extent we can see some support for Defensive Architecture, with 11.5 % of responses reflecting positive attitudes towards this approach, interestingly all from Dutch participants. One respondent stated;

“It seems an effective way to keep the city clean and free from problems with drug users and crime; so if the way something is designed is going to help keep Amsterdam cleaner and safer, then to me it seems a sensible idea.”

This argument supports the general theory guiding the phenomenon, to keep public space clear from social problems. Another stated, “I don’t think outdoor furniture should be designed for homeless people,” referring to William H. Whyte famous urban planning theory of the 1980s. He suggests that if benches were designed to accommodate sleeping, it would further encourage the homeless from sleeping rough, since “people like to sit where there are places for them to sit,”( Whyte, 1980); in this case sleep, where there are places for them.

Conclusion

My observations and survey results collectively lead me to conclude that Defensive Architecture is not dominant in Amsterdam. My observations indicated that newly built benches appeared to increasingly adopt more hostile designs, and in busy areas aspects of Defensive Architecture could also be found.

25

However the dominant bench design found in the city was not characterised by defensive design, suggesting the dominant approach towards dealing with homelessness in Amsterdam remains the provision of care and accommodation implemented in the G4 Action Plan 2006. The survey further highlighted a lack of public awareness of the phenomenon, and strong criticisms of this approach. My study therefore indicates that in Amsterdam, alternate approaches towards dealing with the homeless such as the provision of care, shelter and rehabilitation are both more widely used, and used with greater popularity than Defensive Architecture as an approach to deal with visible homelessness.

26

Appendix Methodology extended: Literature searches involved searching for threads encompassing homelessness, social problems, prevention of homelessness and provisions for the homeless in general, and in England and Amsterdam specifically. Further research into urban planning, the use of public space, contested and trends in public architecture design developed further my understanding on defensive architecture and its significance regarding approaches towards the homeless. i According to Dirks, homeless people can be divided into several groups; people without a house, people without a home, those that are marginally housed who stay in temporary housing for up to 4 weeks, the changing homeless who move between temporary accommodation, and suggests a distinction between voluntary and involuntary homeless people (Dirks, 2012) ii G4 Action plain main aims:

“1. To provide the current 10000 homeless persons with incomes, structural forms of living accommodation suited to the individuals concerned, evidence-based care programmes (temporary if possible, structural where necessary) and, as far as possible, realistic forms of employment. 2. To render homelessness as a result of eviction almost non-existent, with the number of evictions to be reduced by 30%. To the extent that evictions still take place, alternative and suitable living accommodation has to be offered. 3. To render homelessness as a result of detention or leaving residential care institutions almost non-existent. 4. To reduce significantly the level of public nuisance caused by homeless people.” (Hermans, 2012, p.104)

The services of care provided to the homeless in England include the provision of 1,253 ‘accommodation projects’ in 2015; which have reduced in number by 14% since 2010, with bed space numbers falling by 16% since 2010, illustrating the impact of budget cuts to the provision of care to the homeless (Homeless Link, 2015). Dan Lockton of the Helen Hamlyn Centre for Design argues that defensive architecture doesn't address the underlying problem of homelessness, rather it simply shifts homelessness from one area to another, or worst, reduces its visibility (Omidi,2014). Ellin claims that this defensive urbanism approach only ‘hides’ social problems rather than dealing with them effectively, (Ellin, 2003, p. 39).

27

iv Igor van Laere- Founder of the Netherlands Street Doctors Group (NSG) has been providing care to the homeless through community outreach social medical care, addiction healthcare and palliative care schemes for 23 years, and has been involved in various HIV prevention programs. His responses to my questions about Defensive architecture therefore proved invaluable insight to my research. Harm Wilzing; a sociology and masters graduate from the University of Amsterdam who wrote his thesis on homelessness in Amsterdam further contributed to my research. › Nils Normans ‘The Contemporary Picturesque’ (2001) reflects the underlying

persistent tension about what constitutes public space and private property, (Hoehandel, 2014) opening a debate around moral and immoral design of the public space. + The respondents consisted of 10 British, 9 Dutch, 4 Americans, 1 Australian, 1 Canadian, and 1 Peruvian. Participants average age of 30.

Question 6. What is your opinion of Defensive architecture as a whole? (This is

where measures are taken to prevent the homeless from sleeping on the streets. For

example sloping, slippery surfaces on benches, metal studs in doorways to prevent

individuals from sleeping there)

28

Bibliography

Andreou, A. (2015, February, 2015). Anti-homeless spikes. The Guardian. Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/18/defensive-architecture-keeps-poverty-undeen-and-makes-us-more-hostile.

Bogard, C. (2003). Seasons Such As These: How Homelessness Took Shape in America. New York: de Gruyter.

BBC News. (2015 October 12). City of York Council to keep 'anti-homeless' bus stop benches. Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-34506268

CBS. (2013). 27 thousand homeless in the Netherlands. Retrieved May 6,2016 from: https://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/bevolking/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2013/2013-4016-wm.htm.

Crisis. (2016). Definition and numbers. Retrieved May 10, 2016 from: http://www.crisis.org.uk/pages/homeless-def-numbers.html.

Dirks, D., & Van den Berg, D. (2012). Application for increasing awareness of social exclusions movement. Social Exclusion of Homeless People in the Netherlands, 3-23.

Factory Furniture. (2016). Retrieved May 18, 16 from: http://www.factoryfurniture.co.uk/. Franck, K ., and N,Ellin. (2003). Architecture of Fear. 355-357.

FEANTSA. (2014) . Homelessness Research in Europe. Retrieved from: www.feantsa.org/spip.php%3Faction%3Dacceder_document%26arg%3D2048%26cle%3Da1344f37e47d3a7c59ac44b7ddfcc9c6bbc3d21b%26file%3Dpdf%252Fnetherlands_final.pdf+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk.

Graham, S. (2010). Cities Under Siege. London: Verso.

Hermans, K. (2012) The Dutch Strategy to Combat Homelessness: From Ambition to Window Dressing?: European Journal of Homelessness, 6:2, 101-118.

29

Homeless Link. (2015), Single homelessness support in England: Annual Review. Retrieved May 9, 2016 from: http://www.homeless.org.uk/sites/default/files/site-attachments/Summary%20-%20Single%20homelessness%20support%20in%20England%202015.pdf. I.R.A.L. van Laere. (2010). Social medical care before and during homelessness in Amsterdam (PhD Thesis). Retrieved from:

http://dare.uva.nl/document/2/71836. J. Nijman. (1999). Cultural globalization and the identity of place: the reconstruction of Amsterdam, Cultural Geographies, 6: (146).DOI: 10.1177/096746089900600202. K. Hohenadel. (2014). Are Anti-Homeless Sidewalk Spikes Immoral? Slate. Retreived May 10,206 from: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2014/06/12/artist_nils_norman_documents_anti_homeless_spikes_and_other_defensive_architecture.html Planije, M., and Tuynman, M. (2013). Homelessness Policy in the Netherlands: Nationwide Access to Shelter under Pressure from Local Connection Criteria, European Journal of Homelessness ,7(2) .

Omidi, M. (2014, June 12). Anti-homeless spikes are just the latest in 'defensive urban architecture'. The Guardian. Retreived from: http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/jun/12/anti-homeless-spikes-latest-defensive-urban-architecture.

Jones, R. (2014 June, 26). Antidote to anti-homeless spikes – instant bench shelters. The Telegraph. Retrieved from:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/canada/1092685

5/Antidote-to-anti-homeless-spikes-instant-bench-shelters.html

Oxfam. (2013). The True cost of Austerity and Inequality in The Netherlands: Case study. Retrieved from: https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/cs-true-cost-austerity-inequality-netherlands-120913-en.pdf .

Przybylinski, S. (2015). The Right to Dream: Assessing the Spatiality of a Homeless Rest Site in Portland, Oregon( Dissertations and Theses). Paper 2199. Regional Development. (2005). Bus stop design Guide. Retrieved from: http://www.planningni.gov.uk/downloads/busstop-designguide.pdf

30

Royal College of Art. (2008). Anti Homeless Stools. Retrieved May 10, 16 from: http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2008/12/18/anti-homeless-stools/

Spradley, J. (2012) . The Homeless as Terrorists. Available from: https://jacobspradley.wordpress.com/the-homeless-as-terrorists/

The Faculty for Homeless and Inclusion Health. (2013). Standards for commissioners and service providers Version 2.0 Revised. Retrieved May 12,2016 from: http://www.pathway.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Standards-for-commissioners-providers-v2.0-INTERACTIVE.pdf .

W, Whyte. (1982). The Social Life Of Small Urban Spaces, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 10(4) p.466-468, doi: 10.1177/089124168201000411.

Zimmerman, L. J. (2016). Homeless, home-making, and archaeology.Elements of Architecture: Assembling Archaeology, Atmosphere and the Performance of Building Spaces, 256.