Behavioral designs defined: how to understand and why it is important to differentiate between defensive, hostile, disciplinary, and other designs in the urban landscape

In recent years, a growing discussion about how we should design our cities has emerged, particularly for the more controversial modes of design such as defensive, hostile, or disciplinary architecture (i.e., benches on which one cannot sleep, or metal studs on which one cannot skate). Although this debate is relatively mature, many studies have argued that these design notions are undertheorized and are, thus, challenging to study from an empirical and normative perspective. In this paper, I will define the most common terms used in the literature and show how they are interconnected by utilizing a set of conditions of adequacy from philosophy to facilitate a more transparent and well-grounded discussion of them. Terms such as hostile and defensive design are underlined by several different phenomena, not just one as is sometimes commonly assumed. I will also show that these phenomena and their conceptualizations require-and sometimes force us to use-different moral reasons when justifying the utilization of different designs.

Automated summary

In recent years, there has been an increasing discussion on the design of cities, particularly regarding controversial modes such as defensive, hostile, or disciplinary architecture. Many studies argue that these design concepts lack theoretical grounding, making it challenging to study them from an empirical and normative perspective. This paper aims to define the commonly used terms in the literature and demonstrate their interconnectedness by utilizing a set of philosophical conditions. It also highlights the need for different moral justifications when considering different designs and their corresponding phenomena and conceptualizations.