Socially Inclusive Design
Cameron Glasgow2021
Figure 2: Lemay Architecture and Design. 2018. Place Vauquelin Restoration. Concrete pathways and steps, with metal railing and bench seating. Montreal, Canada.
Figure 3: Lemay Architecture and Design. 2018. Place Vauquelin Restoration. Concrete pathways and steps, with metal railing and bench seating. Montreal, Canada.
Figure 4: Lemay Architecture and Design. 2018. Place Vauquelin Restoration. Concrete pathways and steps, with metal railing and bench seating. Montreal, Canada.
Figure 5: Lemay Architecture and Design. 2018. Place Vauquelin Restoration. Concrete pathways and steps, with metal railing and bench seating. Montreal, Canada.
Practices of socially inclusive design as well as socially exclusive design in the context of public spaces have emerged broadly in the past 50 years (Keates and Clarkson 2004, 51-74). Attributing to the emergence of socially inclusive design is the growing trend of socially conscious rhetoric from the public sphere as well as government bodies, described as a recent shift into ‘neoliberal governments, policy makers, and public’. (Concilio and Rizzo 2016, 101-118) Key questions that inclusive design seeks to address are ‘how cities are assumed to function and how its functions are distributed,’ as well as ‘what and whose interests are foregrounded and in what patterns of governance’ (Concilio and Rizzo 2016, 101-118). Historically, socially inclusive design has been ‘rooted in conceptualisations of disability and accessibility’, with its aim to ‘identify and remediate barriers that persons with disabilities experience accessing and using public spaces’ (Langdon et al. 2020, 13-20). In contemporary practices of inclusive design, this philosophy is expanded to include ‘social equality and non-discrimination’, designing spaces that can used by persons of varying body shapes, sizes, and abilities (Langdon et al. 2020, 13-20). In public spaces specifically, inclusion is sought through designing for accessibility. Catering for individuals with physical, auditory, or visual impairments, can be exemplified by; ramp access into buildings or up stairs, standardised door widths to allow for wheelchairs, haptic feedback on touch points, and/or colour assorted signage (Iancofano and Malhotra 2019, 101-115). These provocations into ownership and ‘membership in society’ relate to a universal aspiration to be included in design, and the subsequent power that design holds to ‘include or exclude individuals or groups within society’ (Fortier 2010, 17-30 cited in Concilio and Rizzo 2016, 102). Hostile design describes various structures that are attached or implemented in places of public use to render them ‘unusable in certain ways or by certain groups’ (Petty 2016). This expresses an ideology that is at ‘opposite extremes with design citizenship [socially inclusive] in the conceptualisation, decision-making and lived experience of territory’ (Concilio and Rizzo 2016, 101-118). The opposing methodology behind these disciplines brings to the forefront the issue of whom do these areas serve? In the case of hostile and offensive design of public spaces, often is the case that development is done on the behalf of private commission and legislature. The design serves business owners, and stakeholders, members who wholly or partly own the property, yet do not exclusively use the space. Although the line between practices of hostile design and other forms of environmental social control is ill defined, mechanised of spatial control in contested urban space is certainly a utilisation of power that design holds to exclude.
Designer one’s work is the ‘Place Vauquelin Restoration’ and urban redesign by Lemay – Architecture and Design in Vauquelin square, Montreal, Canada (see figure 1). Constructed with a mixture of concrete, used on pathways, steps, and bench seating, and stainless steel used on railing, and bench seating, along with greenery and plantation used in organised green beds, the restoration of the square aims to reimagine the land use from the previous design toward a more human-centric and inclusive space. In Human Smart Cities inclusive design is characterised as a ‘person-centred, results-driven approach that looks to the most efficient outcome in public sector service delivery,’ and one that ‘challenges traditional bureaucracies and spatial arrangements’ (Concilio and Rizzo 2016, 101-118). Being a restoration of the original spatial arrangements, Place Vauqelin identifies a few key areas that needed change to bring the space to contemporary standards of urban use. One being the redesigns prioritisation of human traffic throughout and amongst the square. The previous court access for cars was removed and, in its place, a new fountain and bench seats installed (see figures 2 & 3). A major key to enacting vibrancy in a space is enticing foot traffic and having the space and public elements to facilitate that (Starolis 2020). The prioritisation of human movement throughout the square over cars is conceptually strong and belonging to an urban inclusive space. A secondary element of the redesign is the staircase on the west side of the site leading up to the square. The multi-purpose staircase integrates traditional stairs adorned by railing leading up the rise to the square, a zigzag patterned access ramp also with railing, and in between, green plantations to facilitate a natural element in a predominantly urban space (see figure 4). Similarly to the square, the design of the staircase embodies a human-centric philosophy. The integration of an access ramp demonstrates inclusivity in the design process for persons with physical impairments and disabilities. Additionally, a much-overlooked element to development in urban areas is the incorporation of natural elements, specifically plantations of trees and greenery (see figure 5). Necessary to a space feeling inviting, natural, and importantly, capturing the ‘benefits to stress and anxiety that nature provides,’ the integration of trees and plants into an urban area is a key element in the creation of an inclusive space, and an important feature to the restoration of Place Vauquelin (Langdon et al. 2018, 34-48). In contrast to areas of the design mentioned prior, the work includes design elements of social control. Featured on seating and railing of Place Vauquelin are metal protrusions known as ‘pig ears’, a common method for deterring skateboarders and homeless (Petty 2016). This raises the debate on what can be considered designing for safer spaces, and hostile architecture. The application of these features in Place Vauquelin can be considered mild, yet in the vein of true inclusive design, it exhibits a form of social regulation. ‘Hostile architecture may deter teenagers from skateboarding on benches, but it won't prevent them from trying other illicit activities. Yes, hostile architecture deters the homeless from loitering on main streets, but it won't keep them from all streets’ (Bader 2020). However committed to inclusion a design may be, an apparent trade-off is made. Place Vauquelin has integrated thoughtful processes to facilitate use by most members of society, as well as addressing a key issue of greenery in urban areas. However, for some groups, the root cause for exclusion remains unaddressed (Bader 2020).
The Second design work is from Leeds Beckett University graduate James Hughes, who has designed a park bench to show the ‘ugly side of hostile urban design’ (see figure 6). Hughes has created his design piece called ‘Hostile Bench’ out of concrete foundation and framework, with the addition of metal spikes situated on the seat. Hughes completed his work and exhibited the bench in mid-2018. Hughes details in a piece written by Gunseli Yalcinkaya for dezeen.com, ‘Hostile architecture is most typically associated with aggression against the homeless in the form of anti-homeless spikes, it often targets the city's most vulnerable, both intentionally through anti-loitering and anti-skateboarding measures and unintentionally by making the cityscape hostile to all parts of the public, seniors, people with disabilities, and children especially’ (Yalcinkaya 2018). Hostile Bench
exhibits many visual markers of hostile design whilst remaining useable, an important concept to his design being the exhibition of hostile design techniques. Covering the spikes is a sheet of clear Perspex, enabling the bench to still be used as a seat (see figure 7). A strength in Hughes design is the visibility of the spikes, considered by Hughes as ‘the most vulgar method of deterring activities,’ and one that ‘further impedes individuals who must seek temporary shelter at night’ (Yalcinkaya 2018). The prominence of the spikes is a visually confronting feature that serves as a provocation into the humanity behind these design techniques. The design work also features slanted, or low-slung back rests, designed to create a sub-optimal seating experience. The un-ergonomic quality of the bench prevents extended use and loitering thus to create an illusion of public seating that is not designed for the best service to the public, rather just an occupation of sight and space. In an article published in the American Institute of Architecture journal, Aubrey Bader writes, ‘no place to sit, no place to be’, The exclusionary nature of design akin to Hughes’ Hostile bench exemplifies ‘regulations that sanction certain ways that public space can be used,’ and contributing to the notion that public spaces are for use by select groups only (Bader 2020) (Petty 2016). In Comparison to Place Vauquelin, Hughes’ Hostile Bench poses a design that is far more aggressive in the execution of selective spatial design, however, in philosophy the two works are not entirely dissimilar.
Examining works, both from Place Vauquelin Restoration by Lemay Architecture and Design and James Hughes’ Hostile Bench, the notion of a completely sound demonstration of socially inclusive design or hostile design is not one that is completely true. Each design work incorporates a blend of elements that can be considered cross-disciplinary. leaning toward inclusion is Place Vauquelin and leaning toward exclusion is Hostile Bench. It is the balance of which the design works included minorities, and persons additional needs, as well as an effort to provide a safe useable space that defines their success to the cause or highlights its perceived flaws. The design work of Place Vauquelin incorporates elements of accessibility, nature, as well as instances of social control through its design. Contrastingly, the work of Hostile Bench exhibits aggressive measures of hostility and exclusion through its incorporation of metal spikes, and un-ergonomic back rests. The addition of clear Perspex to Hughes’ bench is an additional conceptual layer to the design that helps further the raising of awareness around the ‘ugly side’ of hostile design whilst remaining usable. The topic of homelessness is often central to the debate about hostile architecture, this should also include non-able-bodied persons, and cultural minorities. Highlighted in this text has been the recurring theme that the distinction between socially inclusive design, and what that truly represents, and hostile design, with its mild application in social control, is ill-defined at best. Therefor in the pursuit of improved public spaces, the conclusive consensus must be that design should first and foremost serve the people, and specifically all the people. Spatial individuality should also be considered, as varying degrees of social control decide the success to which a space can be inclusive. Finally, an unresolved issue that either design work does not address Is the root cause of homelessness, and the shirking of responsibility for this issue that design often plays. Whether the persistent ignorance and unwillingness to resolve this issue in urban design is acceptable or not is ultimately up the individuals and collective that live in these communities.
Figure 6: Hughes, James. 2018. Hostile Bench. Concrete body with metal protruding spikes.
Figure 7: Hughes, James. 2018. Hostile Bench. Concrete body with metal protruding spikes.