Defensive for whom? Rethinking value in urban public spaces

As researchers with extensive experience in urban design and planning, we have observed how cities use defensive urban design elements to shape public spaces, influencing who feels welcome and who is deterred. While defensive design features like anti-homeless benches and strategic lighting are often seen as exclusionary tools, our work has shown that these design choices are part of a complex, sometimes contradictory, process of valuation among diverse stakeholders.

Aims and Key Insights

Our paper, Defensive for whom: The valuation of users and uses in public space design in Gothenburg, Sweden, delves into how different groups—including city officials, designers, and community members—assess and assign value to users and activities in public spaces. Using a valuation studies framework, we examined the ways these evaluations shape both design and governance, revealing an array of perspectives that extend beyond simple exclusionary tactics.

We conducted detailed interviews and analysed public documents surrounding the redesign of Brunnsparken, Gothenburg’s central square, to trace how defensive design decisions are influenced by a wide range of valuations. Rather than presenting defensive urban design as purely exclusionary, our study shows that these spaces embody a spectrum of assessments, from safety concerns and social order to accessibility and aesthetic considerations.

For example, we found that certain design elements were implemented to discourage specific behaviours like loitering and open drug use. At the same time, these changes were also seen as opportunities to enhance accessibility and enjoyment for families, elderly residents, and commuters. This complex balancing act of values challenges the notion that defensive design exclusively targets marginalised groups. Instead, it demonstrates how defensive urban design reflects competing visions of what a public space should be, often resulting in design decisions that seek to accommodate multiple user groups while maintaining order.

The Broader Impact and Future Directions

While we acknowledge that defensive design can be used in ways that are morally objectionable and may lead to negative outcomes for the most vulnerable, our findings reveal that this is not always the case. Defensive urban design can also reflect more nuanced, context-dependent decisions that balance a range of social, safety, and accessibility considerations.

Our research highlights the importance of recognising these varied intentions and outcomes when assessing urban design. We see an opportunity to move beyond a purely exclusionary framework and consider how defensive design can be informed by broader, more inclusive social valuations. Moving forward, we envision a path toward equitable urban environments that balance safety with the complex ways people engage with public spaces.

This study invites urban planners and policymakers to rethink defensive design’s role in urban spaces. While vigilance is needed to prevent harmful impacts on vulnerable populations, embracing a spectrum of valuations in design decisions can lead to urban spaces that thoughtfully accommodate the needs of all city residents.

Read the full article here.