Hostile Architecture in the UK: Definitions, History and What the Evidence Shows
Zöe Rucker
10 October 2026
People gather, rest, wait and meet in shared places. Stations, shopping streets, parks and public squares are where we shelter, sit together or simply spend time.
Certain social details can stand out once noticed: a bench divided by armrests so no one can lie down, spikes placed beneath a sheltered overhang, seating replaced with ledges designed so people move through rather than stop.
When these features are recognised as defensive or exclusionary design, controversy often follows. Southwark’s anti-homeless spikes and London’s Camden Bench helped bring national attention to what is now commonly called hostile architecture. But what is it, where did it come from, and what does the evidence show about why it exists in Britain today?
What Is Hostile Architecture?
Hostile architecture describes the use of design to discourage particular uses of shared space. Rather than stopping people entering a place altogether, it changes what people can comfortably do once they are there¹.
A key debate is whether these measures target people or behaviours. Councils, transport operators, retailers and property owners often argue they are discouraging rough sleeping, loitering, obstruction or anti-social behaviour, not particular groups of people.
Homelessness organisations, researchers and campaigners argue that when sleeping or sheltering are discouraged, the distinction becomes harder to separate from the realities of people with nowhere private to go².
Intent can be difficult to prove. Supporters may justify a design decision through safety, maintenance or public order, while the effects may fall disproportionately on people experiencing homelessness or other forms of vulnerability².
A widely cited academic definition comes from James Petty in 2016, who describes hostile architecture as structures placed in public spaces to render them “unusable in certain ways or by certain groups”. Hostile architecture is less about appearance than what people can do in a place³.
Related terms include ‘defensive architecture’, usually linked to protection or crime prevention, ‘exclusionary design’, which emphasises who or what is prevented from using a space, and ‘anti-homeless architecture’, which focuses more directly on discouraging rough sleeping or sheltering⁴.
A Brief History: When Did Hostile Architecture Emerge?
It did not suddenly appear in modern cities. The ideas behind what is now called hostile architecture grew out of attempts to reduce crime, manage disorder and influence how shared places were used⁵.
Late 1960s–1970s: Designing Out Crime
By the 1970s, concerns about vandalism, theft and personal safety increasingly influenced how planners, councils and police thought about streets, estates and shared spaces⁸. Poor lighting, hidden walkways and neglected communal areas were often seen as places where crime could take hold⁶.
Architects and criminologists began asking whether behaviour could be influenced through design⁸. Oscar Newman’s idea of ‘defensible space’ argued that visibility, clearer boundaries and informal oversight could reduce opportunities for crime⁵.
Around the same time, approaches later grouped under crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) encouraged better lighting, clearer sightlines and spaces that felt easier to oversee⁶.
The concern was not homelessness. It was crime, vandalism and public order⁵.
1990s–2000s: Managing Behaviour in Town Centres
By the 1990s and early 2000s, high streets, transport hubs and shopping areas increasingly became places to manage movement, behaviour and safety¹⁰. CCTV expanded, anti-social behaviour became a political concern and councils, transport operators and retailers increasingly treated lingering, obstruction or damage as management problems⁷.
Skateboarding became one of the clearest flashpoints. At London’s Southbank Undercroft, skateboarders fought redevelopment plans they believed would push them out of one of Britain’s best-known skating spaces¹¹. Developers and planners described the issue in terms of competing uses and safety. Campaigners argued it raised wider questions about belonging and who gets to remain in public places⁸.
2010s: The Spikes That Changed the Conversation
Although deterrent design had existed for decades, public attention sharpened in 2014 when metal studs installed outside a residential block in Southwark, near a Tesco store, triggered backlash and extensive media coverage⁹.
Campaigners, homelessness charities and many members of the public described the spikes as anti-homeless architecture intended to deter rough sleeping. Those responsible said they were introduced to discourage loitering¹². Following petitions, protests and public pressure, the spikes were removed⁹.
For many people, this was the moment hostile architecture became something difficult to ignore⁹.
Why Does Hostile Architecture Exist and Who Installs It?
People often want different things from the same place¹⁰.
To Stop Crime or Make People Feel Safer?
Complaints about blocked entrances, people sleeping in sheltered spaces, repeated damage to seating, litter, drug use or long periods of lingering may lead councils, transport operators or retailers to rethink how a place is used¹⁰.
One of the UK’s best-known examples is the Camden Bench, introduced in London in the early 2010s¹⁸. Its sloped concrete design was intended to discourage sleeping rough, skateboarding, littering, hidden drug dealing and vandalism. Designers and local authorities described it as durable, practical and resistant to damage, while researchers, campaigners and homelessness advocates argued it reflected a growing tendency to manage difficult social issues through design rather than support¹¹.
Not every divided bench or redesigned public space is intended to exclude. Accessibility and transport guidance has long encouraged seating, resting points and safer movement through busy environments, particularly for older people, disabled people and those with limited mobility¹².
The difficulty is that similar features can serve very different purposes depending on where they appear, why they are introduced and who is affected¹².
Why Are Cities Trying to Move People On?
Hostile architecture appears most often in places under pressure: transport hubs, shopping areas, city centres and privately managed public spaces¹⁵. A bench divider outside a station, seating removed from a shopping area or planters blocking a sheltered corner may all look similar, but responsibility lies with different groups¹⁴.
Councils and highways authorities may redesign seating, remove benches or alter public waiting areas²⁰. Transport operators manage stations designed for movement rather than staying²¹. Developers and landlords oversee spaces that appear public but operate under private rules²². Retailers and Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) support changes intended to reduce complaints, improve cleanliness or make commercial areas feel safer¹⁸.
A divided bench can seem ordinary until someone asks who can no longer comfortably use it¹⁰.
Is It Also About Money?
Managing shared places costs money¹⁷. Cleaning, repairs, staffing, security and outreach all require resources, while councils, transport operators, retailers and landlords often face pressure to respond quickly to complaints or disruption¹⁹.
Some researchers, homelessness organisations and campaigners argue redesigned spaces or physical barriers can become cheaper ways of responding to problems that would otherwise require staff, supervision or support¹⁷. Those responsible for installing them are more likely to describe such measures as practical ways to balance access, safety and competing demands on busy places¹⁰.
Hostile architecture is not unique to Britain. Similar forms of exclusionary design have attracted attention elsewhere in Europe, including Denmark. Although this article focuses on the UK, the photographs below illustrate that debates about who public spaces are designed for extend beyond national borders.
Is Hostile Architecture Increasing in the UK?
No single city tells the whole story. London, Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol and Leeds each reveal different pressures around rough sleeping, visibility and the use of shared public space²⁰.
London: Visibility at Its Sharpest
In London, hostile architecture has repeatedly entered public attention through controversy. Southwark’s anti-homeless spikes and the Camden Bench both emerged in places marked by heavy footfall, commercial pressure and visible inequality¹². Westminster recorded 360 people sleeping rough on a single night in autumn 2025, the highest local authority figure in England²⁰.
Manchester: Pushback and Alternatives
Manchester has seen similar tensions. In 2015, metal studs installed outside a Selfridges staff entrance drew criticism after campaigners argued they targeted people experiencing homelessness. The retailer said they followed complaints about littering and smoking²¹.
Greater Manchester recorded 154 people sleeping rough on a single night in autumn 2024³³. At the same time, the region has trialled Housing First approaches intended to reduce homelessness through long-term support rather than displacement²³.
Birmingham: When Support Falls Away
Birmingham shows how quickly visible homelessness can change. During the pandemic-era “Everyone In” programme, rough sleeping reportedly fell sharply as emergency accommodation expanded³⁵. After those interventions ended, numbers rose again, with Birmingham among English local authorities recording higher rough sleeping figures²⁰.
Bristol: Visible and Hidden Homelessness
Bristol highlights another difficulty: what people see may not tell the whole story. Research linked to a city-led women’s rough sleeping census suggested homelessness among women was substantially underestimated by official counts²⁵.
Beyond London
The issue is not confined to major cities. Leeds remained among English local authorities recording relatively high rough sleeping figures in autumn 2025. Across England, transport hubs, shopping districts and city-centre regeneration continue to raise difficult questions about who public places are designed for²⁰.
There is no official national database showing whether hostile architecture itself is increasing²⁶. Yet people experiencing homelessness report encountering deterrent design in everyday life, suggesting absence of measurement is not the same as absence of experience²⁶.
Conclusion
A gated alcove may prevent sheltering in one doorway, but evidence suggests hostile architecture is often better at moving people on than resolving why they are there²⁷.
Once noticed, hostile architecture can become difficult to stop seeing.
References:
James Petty. The London Spikes Controversy: Homelessness, Urban Securitisation and the Question of ‘Hostile Architecture’. Academic discussion of hostile architecture, behaviour management and exclusion in public space. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 2016.
James Petty. The London Spikes Controversy: Homelessness, Urban Securitisation and the Question of ‘Hostile Architecture’. Discussion of behaviour management, homelessness and disproportionate impacts on people relying on public space. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 2016.
James Petty. The London Spikes Controversy: Homelessness, Urban Securitisation and the Question of ‘Hostile Architecture’. Analysis of hostile architecture as rendering public space “unusable in certain ways or by certain groups”. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 2016.
James Petty. The London Spikes Controversy: Homelessness, Urban Securitisation and the Question of ‘Hostile Architecture’. Discussion of defensive, exclusionary and anti-homeless architecture terminology and public debate around deterrent design. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 2016.
Oscar Newman. Defensible Space: Crime Prevention Through Urban Design. Foundational work arguing crime prevention can be influenced through visibility, territorial control and environmental design. Macmillan, 1972.
College of Policing. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). UK policing guidance on reducing crime and fear of crime through layout, surveillance, lighting and visibility in public places. College of Policing, UK.
Home Office. Respect and Responsibility: Taking a Stand Against Anti-Social Behaviour. Government framework responding to nuisance, disorder and anti-social behaviour in public environments. UK Government, 2003.
Long Live Southbank Campaign. Campaign to Protect the Southbank Undercroft Skate Space. Campaign material and reporting on redevelopment, skateboarding culture and disputes over access to public space. Long Live Southbank.
BBC News and The Guardian. Reporting on the Southwark/Tesco Anti-Homeless Spikes Controversy. Coverage of public backlash, petitions and removal of the spikes. BBC News and The Guardian, 2014.
College of Policing. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). Guidance on safety, movement, access and competing uses of public space. College of Policing, UK.
Factory Furniture. The Camden Bench. Design intentions and stated purposes of the Camden Bench, including resistance to sleeping, vandalism and anti-social behaviour. Factory Furniture.
Department for Transport. Inclusive Mobility: A Guide to Best Practice on Access to Pedestrian and Transport Infrastructure. Guidance on seating, resting points and access needs for disabled people, older people and people with limited mobility in public and transport spaces. UK Government, 2022.
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Rough Sleeping Snapshot in England. Official statistics on rough sleeping patterns, urban concentration and local authority reporting. UK Government.
Local Government Association. Guidance and Reporting on Local Authority Responsibilities for Public Spaces, Transport Interchanges and Street Environments. Local Government Association.
Local Government Association. Guidance on Highways, Public Seating, Town-Centre Management and Public Realm Responsibilities. Local Government Association.
Network Rail. Station Design Guidance Relating to Movement, Waiting Areas, Access and Passenger Flow in Railway Environments. Network Rail.
Matthew Carmona. Public Places Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design. Research on privately owned public space, urban governance and access in city environments. Routledge.
British BIDs / Institute of Place Management. Guidance and Commentary on Business Improvement Districts. Town-centre management, cleanliness, safety and commercial public space. British BIDs / Institute of Place Management.
National Audit Office. Local Government Financial Sustainability. Examination of spending pressures, public service delivery and financial constraints affecting English local authorities. National Audit Office, 2021.
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Rough Sleeping Snapshot in England: Autumn 2025. Official statistics on rough sleeping estimates across English local authorities, including Westminster, Birmingham, Bristol and Leeds. UK Government, 2026.
ITV News Granada. Petition Launched Against ‘Anti-Homeless’ Studs Near Department Store. Reporting on metal studs outside Selfridges Manchester, campaign criticism and Selfridges’ explanation that the studs followed complaints about littering and smoking. ITV News, 2015.
Greater Manchester Combined Authority. Greater Manchester Sees Slight Increase in Single-Night Rough Sleeping as Local Services Continue to Face Financial Pressure. Official regional statement recording 154 people sleeping rough on a single night in autumn 2024. Greater Manchester Combined Authority, 2025.
The Guardian. Manchester Turns to ‘Housing First’ Scheme to Eradicate Rough Sleeping. Reporting on Greater Manchester’s Housing First approach and long-term support for people experiencing homelessness. The Guardian, 2024.
Birmingham City Council. Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Prevention Strategy 2024–2029. Local authority strategy describing homelessness pressures, rough sleeping trends and emergency accommodation responses including the “Everyone In” programme. Birmingham City Council, 2024.
Solace Women’s Aid; Single Homeless Project; Crisis; Change Grow Live. Women’s Rough Sleeping Census. Research showing women experiencing rough sleeping are frequently undercounted in official statistics and more likely to experience hidden homelessness. 2024.
Crisis. Crisis Uncovers Dehumanising Effects of Defensive Architecture. Research based on responses from people using homelessness services in England and Wales reporting encounters with deterrent design in everyday life. Crisis, 2016.
James Petty. The London Spikes Controversy: Homelessness, Urban Securitisation and the Question of ‘Hostile Architecture’. Discussion of displacement, exclusion and the limits of hostile architecture in addressing underlying causes. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 2016.