The Forbidden Existence: Anti-Homeless Architecture and the Regulation of Public Spaces

BY EZEQUIEL INDRIAGO PEREZ, University of Ottawa

Introduction

It is estimated that there are at least 235,000 homeless Canadians every year[1] Despite these large numbers, anti-homeless architecture is widespread across Canadian cities. For instance, the #DefensiveTO project has collected and mapped over 120 anti-homeless architectural structures in downtown Toronto alone.[2] Smith and Walters[3] explain that the construction of urban spaces is not a neutral act. From benches with unusual shapes to spikes on the ground, the planning and construction of public spaces are carefully designed and intentional.[4] As the public has become more aware of the oppressive character innate to anti-homeless structures, calls to action have motivated public officials to denounce and dismantle these structures. For example, in 2014 Montreal mayor, Denis Coderre, condemned the use of "anti-loitering" spikes in Montreal's streets and ordered their immediate removal after public outrage.[5] Although many applauded the mayor's effort, few failed to recognize the collusion between the local and provincial government and the construction of anti-homeless architecture. As such, the current research project will seek to answer: How are public architectural designs and legislations working together to prevent homeless people from seeking refuge in public spaces in Canada?  Research in this area will bridge the legal with the physical to fill a gap in the literature. Furthermore, the results from the current work will provide the general public with an analysis that can be used to better understand the phenomenon of anti-homeless architecture. Lastly, the current research will provide policy-makers with a relevant and contemporary analysis that addresses the State's role in marginalizing homeless communities to incite change in this area.  Results demonstrate that the neo-liberal conceptualization of the public and the private, the assumed exclusivity of public spaces and the societal conception of homeless people all play a role in the construction and maintenance of anti-homeless architecture.

Contextualization

            The origin of the term anti-homeless architecture and its varying denominations (hostile/ defensive architecture) is unclear. Little is known about when the terms were created and became extensively used to describe the historical phenomenon of public space regulation via physical architectural structures. Moreover, each of the terms used to define this phenomenon has often been conceptualized differently by different scholars depending on the purpose for its use. As such, there is no singular definition used to describe the anti-homeless architecture and its variations. For instance, Petty defines anti-homeless architecture as “various structures that are attached to or installed in spaces of public use in order to render them unusable in certain ways or by certain groups.” [6] Whereas De Fine Licht argues that anti-homeless architecture refers to “existing infrastructure [that has been] modified so that it becomes impossible to use it in the same way as before.”[7] Although varying definitions exist to define these structures, this work will use Smith and Walters anti-homeless architecture definition as “architecture designed to actively exclude particular categories of person.” [8] Unlike other interpretations, Smith and Walter’s conceptualization has a broader scope. They claim that hostile architecture is not solely physical structures such as park benches and spikes, but it can also include any form of non-physical deterrents such as CCTV surveillance cameras and ultraviolet lighting resulting in the systemic segregation of homeless people from public spaces.[9]  A more conservative definition that solely concentrates on physical structures fails to recognize the extent of anti-homeless legislation. In essence, anti-homeless architecture can be characterized as both systemic and physical including restricted mobility in public transportation and public spaces.

Furthermore, it should be noted that anti-homeless architecture is not a contemporary phenomenon. On the contrary, Legro details that anti-homeless architecture can be traced to 19th century England where anti-urinating structures plagued the streets of 1800s England. During this period, it was not unusual for the corners of buildings to be filled with stone mounds to deter people from relieving themselves in public spaces.[10] These structures were replicated worldwide in large cities such as New York.[11] Likewise, Legro illustrates a parallel and states that anti-roosting spikes have also been used for centuries to prevent birds from gathering in spaces where they are undesired. Although anti-roosting spikes are environmental deterrents for birds, the intent behind their creation is similar to that of anti-homeless architecture used to deter people from public spaces.[12]

            Although these structures have been existing in public spaces throughout the world for many years, their presence has evolved. For instance, in the early 1970s, the concept of crime prevention using the environment became very popular. In his work, Jeffrey claimed that the planning and construction of a city could serve as a deterrent to crime if designed correctly.[13] He argued that public spaces where people congregated needed to be planned to prevent rather than reinforce crime. He explained that the presence of deteriorating building facades, graffiti, broken windows, and dark, secluded areas would increase criminality as it seemed inviting for criminogenic behavior. Jeffrey suggested the planning and development of cities should include crime deterring elements such as better lighting and street distribution, uniformity, and overall cleaner environments. During this era, anti-homeless architecture underwent a redesign and began being implemented more often in downtown cores and areas deemed necessary for these structures. Alas, Jeffrey’s work did not acknowledge the inherent anti-homeless nature of his proposals.

            Later, in the early 1980s, Wilson and Kelling theorized that physical deterioration like graffiti, empty buildings, and broken windows, and disorder all resulted in increased levels of criminality.[14] This phenomenon was coined the Broken Windows theory, and during the late 1980s and 1990s, it became the guiding principle in the geographical and architectural design and construction of major cities across North America. It was during this time that anti-homeless architecture evolved to include non-physical deterrents such as surveillance cameras. In her work, Davis opposed the increased regulation and supervision present in cities and claimed that the emergence of ideas that public spaces had to be regulated to decrease criminality resulted in the militarization of streets, creating a public sphere inspired by warfare.[15] Today, the effects of these guiding frameworks can be seen in the widespread presence of anti-homeless architecture across large Canadian cities such as Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal.[16]  

The Private-Public Divide and Legislation of Public Spaces

            To analyze anti-homeless architecture as defined by Walter and Smiths, the following theoretical frameworks will be used: the private and public divide, jurisdiction, and public enemies. 

            First, the private and public divide, as defined by Hunter, states that the division of public spaces into private and public is "inherently political."[17] She explains that liberal political ideology has influenced how spaces are conceptualized. For instance, Hunter argues that in liberal societies, there is an underlying conception which states the private spheres are areas of "legal non-intervention."[18] Essentially, liberalism conceptualizes private spaces as areas that should be exempt from governmental intervention. The liberal ideology claims that the state should not be involved in people's private life and private affairs. Alternatively, public spaces are areas in which individuals are all presumably allowed to gather; however, these spaces are regulated by the state primarily through legislation. When examining anti-homeless architecture, it is essential to contextualize the phenomenon in the broader societal setting where it is present. Since Canada is a neo-liberal society, anti-homeless architecture can be analyzed through the public and private divide popularized in liberal societies, as Hunter explained. Secondly, Valverde defines jurisdiction as "the governance of legal governance."[19] In essence, jurisdiction determines and distributes state authority between various legal spheres. According to Valverde, the process of legal distribution avoids potential conflicts between different legal fields by carefully establishing who has legal power over a determined legal space.[20]  Thus, her concept of jurisdiction explains why there are several levels of governments within Canada and why by-laws exist and are enforced. Valverde's definition of jurisdiction helps understand why the government decides to designate specific laws to smaller government levels, such as the provincial government. When analyzing anti-homeless architecture, it is essential to recognize the legality of anti-homeless by-laws through the lens of jurisdiction as "the governance of legal governance." [21] Through Valverde's interpretation of jurisdiction, the legitimacy of anti-homeless architecture will be examined. 

            Lastly, Chesnay et al. offer a contemporary example of stigma related to homelessness. In their work, the term public enemies defines homeless people that “cannot be tolerated in public spaces, which justifies the use of legal enforcement to sanitize public spaces.”[22] Similar to Goffman,[23]  Chesnay et al. have acknowledged that specific populations often lose their humanity through the process of stigmatization.[24] However, they have applied the term specifically to homeless people and expanded on the idea that homelessness is often seen as dangerous and threatening to ‘regular’ communities. According to Chesnay et al., the state enforces legislation that protects the general middle class from the alleged dangers of homeless people since they have been deemed dangerous enemies.[25] Unlike the concept of Stigma by Goffman that primarily addresses self-construction, public enemies refers to the threat explicitly associated with homeless communities. This concept will be used in the current research because it offers a more specific conceptualization of homeless-related stigma. The construction of anti-homeless architecture would most likely be considered a legal recognition of the threat that public enemies pose when they penetrate public spaces. Therefore, the term public enemies can explain the interplay between concepts of public safety and legislation. 

Photo by Eldan titled “The anti-bench” licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Exclusivity of public spaces

            To begin, public spaces such as city parks are presumed to be accessible for everyone in a community.[26] However, Valverde[27] explains that the regulation of public spaces through legislation such as the Ontario Safe Streets Act and Ottawa by-laws render these public spaces quasi-private, as they are, in essence, owned and regulated by the provincial and municipal governments. For instance, the very restrictions imposed on Ottawa city parks, such as operational hours, codes of conduct, and permit regulation[28] illustrate that these presumed public spaces do not operate free of governmental regulations. Public city parks can be better understood as private governmentally owned city parks.[29] 

            Furthermore, considering that there are no explicit regulatory by-laws that prohibit individuals from accessing city parks, it is understood that anyone can access and utilize these spaces. However, Hunter explains that the private and public divide of public spaces may challenge the notion that the public sphere is inclusive for all residents.[30] Hunter asserts that liberal ideologies compartmentalize society into two major categories, the private and the public.[31] The reasoning behind this dichotomy is the liberal assumption that the government should only regulate public spaces and permit individuals to enjoy the deregulated private space.[32] Upon analyzing the Ottawa city park by-laws and the Ontario Safe Streets Act (1999), it is evident that the private and public divide as conceptualized by Hunter is the guiding principle behind the construction and preservation of anti-homeless architecture in Ontario. For example, section 7 of the Ottawa parks by-law states that no person is allowed to sell or offer "goods, wares or merchandise" in city parks.[33] Similarly, section 2 of the Ontario Safe Streets Act states that no person can solicit in public city areas.[34] These two examples are clear indicators of the criminalization of requesting money or selling goods publicly. Nevertheless, if an individual requests money from a stranger through a legitimate institutional mechanism such as bank transfers and donations to an organization from home (private space) there are virtually no legal impediments to doing so.[35] As such, the criminalization of certain acts in by-laws and legislation is significantly associated with said behavior's geographical location. Hence, the regulation of public spaces reinforces those certain behaviors must be done in a private setting to avoid being criminalized.

            The issue arises as homeless people are often forced to use public city spaces to engage in everyday activities that ought to be done in private spaces according to the liberal division of public and private spaces. However, many Canadian homeless individuals do not have access to private spaces due to their homeless status.[36] These activities include sleeping, showering, working, and engaging in sexual activity. As the government is attempting to enforce the public and private divide, these activities, when done in public, are criminalized by the Ottawa by-laws and the Ontario Safe Streets Act. For instance, section 3 of the Ottawa park bylaw states that no person is permitted in city parks between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m., indicating that sleeping is prohibited in parks.

            Additionally, section 2 of the Ontario Safe Streets Act prohibits anyone from disposing of condoms in outdoor public spaces. Moreover, anti-homeless architecture is used as a non-legal tool to remind individuals that public areas cannot be used as private spaces. For example, the extra armrest installed in the middle of many park benches throughout large Canadian city parks prevents anyone from sleeping on the bench.[37] Furthermore, beyond Canadian borders, the use of ultraviolet lighting in many public bathrooms in London prevents intravenous drug users from using public areas[38] clearly distinguishing what is acceptable and not in public spaces. Although these restrictions apply to everyone in the community equally, they disproportionately affect people that do not have access to private spaces to engage in these activities.

            As such, the public and private divide measures do not consider the needs of homeless people. The Ontario Safe Streets Act and the Ottawa park by-laws ensure that ordinary citizens feel safe while utilizing public spaces--that is, free of anyone engaging in private activities publicly. [39]  These governmental legislations assume that all residents can constantly switch between private and public spaces easily, which disregards the lived experiences of homeless individuals. Anti-homeless architecture functions as a non-legal tool employed by local governments to bolster the notion that certain people are not welcomed in public spaces.[40]

            Overall, there appears to be a misunderstanding that public spaces are inclusive of all residents and operate in the best interest of all community members, specifically when reinforcing the public and private divide. However, local and provincial governments use regulatory legislation and physical architectural obstacles to enforce the liberal division of private and public spheres. While anti-homeless architecture functions as a non-legal deterrent for those who engage in private affairs publicly, it should nonetheless be recognized as a state-initiated program that seeks to achieve similar objectives as the legislation does but more subtly.[41] Ultimately, the government uses both legislation and anti-homeless architecture to cement the exclusivity of public spaces. 

Jurisdiction and public exclusivity

            To understand how the government has enacted legal perimeters that restrict particular daily behavior, we must examine the division of governmental power used to produce and maintain anti-homeless architecture. As previously mentioned, anti-homeless architecture and anti-homeless legislation disproportionately affect homeless people.[42] It disrupts their daily activities such as sleeping, working, and engaging in sexual activity because they are not afforded a private space to engage in these activities.[43] The approximately 235,000 homeless Canadians that roam the streets of major Canadian cities are constant victims of regulatory laws that seek to displace these individuals from public spaces.[44] However, it is essential to note that the regulatory laws and architecture that have made this possible are enacted by municipal (by-laws) and provincial governments (Ontario Safe Streets Act). Federally, any law that prohibits or prevents someone from seeking refuge, eating, and engaging in sexual activity would be deemed unconstitutional as it infringes upon several sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. For example, in Victoria v. Adams[45] it was determined that the city of Victoria was violating section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by prohibiting homeless people from building temporary shelters in city parks. Moreover, in Abbotsford v. Shantz,[46] it was concluded that preventing homeless people from seeking refuge in public spaces when homeless shelters were full was unconstitutional as it violated section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"Aritistic Anti-homeless Bench" by lavocado@sbcglobal.net is licensed under CC BY 2.0

             Despite the court’s ruling that local governments' provisions to separate homeless people from city parks are unconstitutional, Ottawa park by-laws and the Ontario Safe Streets Act are still in effect. Furthermore, anti-homeless structures are still present in major Canadian cities[47]. Valverde explains that jurisdiction distributes governmental power between several actors, which explains this phenomenon.[48] For instance, the Constitution Act outlines the legal responsibility that each level of government (municipal, provincial, federal) holds. Section 91(27) of the Constitution Act states that all criminal law matters fall under the federal government's jurisdiction.[49] That is, the federal government is responsible for addressing any criminal law violations.

            Similarly, sections 92 and 93 of the Constitution Act detail the powers awarded to provincial governments.[50] For example, health care, education, and civil rights are all managed individually by each province. As such, Valverde states that the division of power through jurisdiction permits the federal government to withdraw from issues for which provincial and local governments would be responsible.[51] This division permits provincial and local governments to enact legislation that is more specific to the communities that they affect. For example, city by-laws serve as micro-level legislation pertaining to the specific needs of a community rather than the entire country.

            Therefore, in various instances, the federal government has upheld and justified provincial and municipal laws that prevent homeless people from seeking refuge in public spaces. For example, in Tanudjaja v. Canada,[52] the plaintiffs argued that the lack of and inadequate housing in Ontario was unconstitutional as it violated serval sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, the courts determined that there were no violations of sections 7 and 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the case as the right to housing was not justiciable. Similarly, in Henry v. Canada[53] the plaintiffs argued that it was unconstitutional for election polls to prevent citizens from voting if they could not present personal identification documentation. It was argued that many homeless people do have access to personal documentation, which would prohibit them from participating in elections. The courts determined that section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms justified voter identification requirements at the election polls. Both Tanudjaja v. Canada[54] and Henry v. Canada[55] illustrate the effects of jurisdiction on issues affecting homeless people in Canada. In both cases, the courts have dismissed seemly unconstitutional acts affecting homeless people using the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as justification. The division of power between provinces and the federal government allows legislation to be enacted at the local level, disproportionately affecting homeless people. The courts have demonstrated they uphold the division of power as laid out by the jurisdiction. 

            As has been remarked, the presence of anti-homeless architecture in large Canadian cities results from jurisdiction. Through court cases, the government has exemplified under which circumstances violations of Charter rights would be acceptable. Specifically, the federal government dissociates itself from provincial regulations such as by-laws that regulate parks as these public spaces belong to the provincial jurisdiction. This provision enables anti-homeless architecture to continue existing across Canadian cities as they are essentially deregulated by the federal government.  

Societal conception of homeless people

            Lastly, the conceptualization of homeless people can explain the prevalence of anti-homeless architecture. For example, Dej explains that historically, homeless people have been negatively conceptualized by the field of psychology.[56] Behaviors associated with homeless people have been pathologized and treated as illnesses that need treatment to encourage individuals to foster pro-social behaviors while diminishing attitudes associated with homelessness.[57] In a liberal society such as Canada, homeless individuals are often seen as failing to take ownership of their lives.[58] For instance, in a United States-based study assessing community attitudes towards homeless people, Dear and Gleeson noted a large group of respondents that engaged in victim-blaming towards homeless people.[59] In particular, a participant noted that “the homeless are homeless by choice, and therefore warrant no public sympathy.”[60] Furthermore, there was a general trend in the participants that conceptualized homeless people negatively and attributed their homeless status to personal actions that the individual had taken, leading them to homelessness rather than systematic barriers. 

            Similarly, in a United Kingdom based study, eight homeless individuals were interviewed to detail their experiences living on the streets of the United Kingdom. It was recorded that many participants felt stigmatized by non-homeless individuals and were victims of discrimination and harassment from the general population.[61] Furthermore, a participant expressed that as a homeless person, “you are not treated like a person, you are treated like a bit of trash.”[62] Similarly, another participant noted that he felt like an outcast and expressed that homeless people are “not on top of the public interest list.” [63] Finally, a participant mentioned being a victim of assault and humiliation from passersby's due to his homeless appearance and status. 

"Camden Council anti-homeless bench seating" by renaissancechambara is licensed under CC BY 2.0

            Due to the negative perception of homeless people, Dej explains that there is an increased reliance on psychological-based community intervention programs that strive to teach homeless people self-esteem and responsibilization skills to make them integrate into the Neoliberal model of what it means to be a good resident of a community, able to enjoy public spaces.[64] These intervention programs that focus solely on the individual and their responsibility to change perpetuate the idea that homeless people experience homelessness solely due to personal decisions, which overlooks the influence of systemic barriers that may lead to homelessness.[65] While these programs may be well-intentioned, they give the mainstream population a reason to continue victimizing homeless people for their lived experiences and fostering negative beliefs towards homeless populations.  Consequently, the pathologization of homeless people has led them to become enemies of society. Chesnay et al. demonstrate that as professionals and the general population have negatively conceptualized homeless individuals, they have become public enemies that deserve to be cleansed from public spaces.[66] Similarly, Gaetz explains that as homeless people began to be perceived as the reason for the issues in public city spaces such as vandalism and destruction, more mainstream attention was given to homeless people, and there was an increase "demand for politicians to do something"[67] which created a sense of moral panic among residents of Canadian communities. As such, Chesnay et al. attributes the criminalization of homelessness to the public enemy status given to homeless people.[68] For instance, the Ontario Safe Streets Act disproportionally impacts homeless people despite being a seeming neutral legislation. The clauses in the act criminalize behavior that would typically be associated with homelessness, such as soliciting (section 2) and engaging in sexual activity in public (section 4). Due to the conception of homeless people, the Ontario Safe Streets Act was enacted and received public support.[69] Similarly, Ottawa by-laws that regulate public spaces illustrate how local governments have conceptualized homeless people. Specifically, they have identified the cleansing of homeless people as a priority through legislation and non-legal avenues such as anti-homeless architecture.

            In the case of anti-homeless architecture, as there are widespread negative conceptions of homeless people leading the mainstream to pressure cities “into passing more restrictive park laws,”[70]  the presence of anti-homeless architecture in city parks and public areas in Canadian cities is a testament to the beliefs that are held about homelessness in the neo-liberal society. The rejection of homeless people through physical deterrents exemplifies the municipal attempt to reduce what is considered problematic populations from core areas. Homeless people becoming enemies of the public have led to the presence of legal and non-legal deterrents of homeless people.[71]

Conclusion

            Anti-homeless architecture has persisted over many years, and the current work aimed to uncover the role legislation has played in its perpetuation. The analysis conducted demonstrates that anti-homeless architecture allows major Canadian cities to reinforce and police the notion of the public and private divide as defined by Hunter. Furthermore, the building of anti-homeless architecture is possible through jurisdiction and the division of power imposed by it. Lastly, the conception of homeless people as public enemies is a leading cause of anti-homeless structures' perpetuation. It is essential to recognize that although anti-homeless architecture is not a legal actor or regulated by legislation, it functions similarly to any other legal deterrent of homeless people. For instance, several parallels are found in the Ontario Safe Streets Act, Ottawa by-laws, and the anti-homeless architecture construction. As such, equal attention must be given to the factors that enable society to continue marginalizing the homeless community through legislation and anti-homeless architecture. 

Endnotes

[1]Stephen Gaetz, “Safe Streets for Whom? Homeless Youth, Social Exclusion, and Criminal Victimization,” Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 46, no. 4 (2004): 423.

[2]DefensiveTO,  “Mapping #DefensiveTO,” Defensiveto, (n.d) https://www.defensiveto.com/map. 

[3]Naomi Smith and Peter Walters, “Desire Lines and Defensive Architecture in Modern Urban Environments,” Urban Studies 55, no. 13 (2018): 2981.

[4] Naomi Smith and Peter Walters, “Desire Lines and Defensive Architecture in Modern Urban Environments,” 2981.

[5] Lauren Pelley, “Ever wonder why you can't lie down on most city benches? It's thanks to 'defensive design,’”. cbc news. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/how-defensive-designleads-to-rigid-benches-metal-spikes-and-visual-violence-in-modern-cities-1.5192333, (2019).

[6] James Petty, “The London Spikes Controversy: Homelessness, Urban Securitisation and the Question of ‘Hostile Architecture,” International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 5, no. 1 (2016): 68

[7] Karl Persson De Fine Licht, “Hostile Urban Architecture: A Critical Discussion of the

Seemingly Offensive Art of Keeping People Away.” Etikk i Praksis 11, no. 2 (2017): 29.

[8] Naomi Smith and Peter Walters, “Desire Lines and Defensive Architecture in Modern Urban Environments,” 2984.

[9] Naomi Smith and Peter Walters, “Desire Lines and Defensive Architecture in Modern Urban Environments,” 2984.

[10] Michelle Legro, “The city that will never let you sleep,” Topic. https://www.topic.com/the-citythat-will-never-let-you-sleep. (2018)

[11] Michelle Legro, “The city that will never let you sleep,” Topic. https://www.topic.com/the-citythat-will-never-let-you-sleep, (2018).

[12] Michelle Legro, “The city that will never let you sleep,” Topic. https://www.topic.com/the-citythat-will-never-let-you-sleep, (2018).

[13] Ray C. Jeffery, “Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design.” The American Behavioral Scientist, 14. no. 4 (1971), 598.

[14] James Wilson and George Kelling, "Broken Windows: The police and neighborhood safety" The Atlantic,https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/03/brokenwindows/304465/, (1982).

[15] Angela Y. Davis, “Are Prisons Obsolete?” New York: Seven Stories Press, (2003).

[16] Lauren Pelley, “Ever wonder why you can't lie down on most city benches? It's thanks to 'defensive design,’”. cbc news. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/how-defensive-designleads-to-rigid-benches-metal-spikes-and-visual-violence-in-modern-cities-1.5192333, (2019).

[17] Rosemary Hunter, “Contesting the Dominant Paradigm: Feminist Critiques of Liberal Legalism,” Ashgate Research Companion in Feminist Legal Theory, (2016): 19.

[18] Rosemary Hunter, “Contesting the Dominant Paradigm: Feminist Critiques of Liberal Legalism,”: 19.

[19] Mariana Valverde, “Jurisdiction and Scale: Legal `Technicalities’ as Resources for Theory,” Social & Legal Studies 18, no. 2 (2009): 141.

[20] Mariana Valverde, “Jurisdiction and Scale: Legal `Technicalities’ as Resources for Theory,”: 151.

[21]Mariana Valverde, “Jurisdiction and Scale: Legal `Technicalities’ as Resources for Theory,” 141.

[22] Catherine T. Chesnay et al.,“Taming Disorderly People One Ticket at a Time: The Penalization of Homelessness in Ontario and British Columbia.” Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 55, no. 2 (2013): 164

[23] Erving Goffman, “Stigma Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity.” New York: J. Aronson, (1963).

[24] Catherine T. Chesnay et al.,“Taming Disorderly People One Ticket at a Time: The Penalization of Homelessness in Ontario and British Columbia.”

[25] Catherine T. Chesnay et al.,“Taming Disorderly People One Ticket at a Time: The Penalization of Homelessness in Ontario and British Columbia.”

[26] City of Ottawa, By-law No. 2004-276, Parks and Facilities.

[27] Mariana Valverde, “Everyday Law on the Street: City Governance in an Age of Diversity.” Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, (2012).

[28] City of Ottawa, By-law No. 2004-276, Parks and Facilities.

[29] Mariana Valverde, “Everyday Law on the Street: City Governance in an Age of Diversity.”

 [30] Rosemary Hunter, “Contesting the Dominant Paradigm: Feminist Critiques of Liberal Legalism,”: 13-30.

[31] Rosemary Hunter, “Contesting the Dominant Paradigm: Feminist Critiques of Liberal Legalism,”: 13-30.

[32] Rosemary Hunter, “Contesting the Dominant Paradigm: Feminist Critiques of Liberal Legalism,”: 13-30.

[33] City of Ottawa, By-law No. 2004-276, Parks and Facilities

[34] City of Ottawa, By-law No. 2004-276, Parks and Facilities

[35] Don Mitchell, “The Annihilation of Space by Law: The Roots and Implications of Anti-Homeless Laws in the United States.” Antipode 29, no. 3 (1997): 303–35.

[36] Stephen Gaetz, “Safe Streets for Whom? Homeless Youth, Social Exclusion, and Criminal Victimization,”: 423.

[37] James Petty, “The London Spikes Controversy: Homelessness, Urban Securitisation and the Question of ‘Hostile Architecture,”: 68

[38] James Petty, “The London Spikes Controversy: Homelessness, Urban Securitisation and the Question of ‘Hostile Architecture,”: 68

[39] Stephen Gaetz, “Safe Streets for Whom? Homeless Youth, Social Exclusion, and Criminal Victimization,”: 423..

[40] James Petty, “The London Spikes Controversy: Homelessness, Urban Securitisation and the Question of ‘Hostile Architecture,”: 67–81.

[41] James Petty, “The London Spikes Controversy: Homelessness, Urban Securitisation and the Question of ‘Hostile Architecture,”: 67–81.

[42] James Petty, “The London Spikes Controversy: Homelessness, Urban Securitisation and the Question of ‘Hostile Architecture,”: 67–81.

[43] Don Mitchell, “The Annihilation of Space by Law: The Roots and Implications of Anti-Homeless Laws in the United States.”: 303–35.

[44] Catherine T. Chesnay et al.,“Taming Disorderly People One Ticket at a Time: The Penalization of Homelessness in Ontario and British Columbia.”: 161–85.

[45] Victoria (City) v. Adams. BCCA 563, (2009). 

[46] Abbotsford (City) v. Shantz. BCSC 1909, (2015).

[47] DefensiveTO,  “Mapping #DefensiveTO,” Defensiveto, (n.d) https://www.defensiveto.com/map. 

 [48] Mariana Valverde, “Jurisdiction and Scale: Legal `Technicalities’ as Resources for Theory.” Social & Legal Studies 18, no. 2 (2009): 139–57.

[49] Constitution Act, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), c 11 (1982). 

[50] Constitution Act, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), c 11 (1982). 

[51] Mariana Valverde, “Jurisdiction and Scale: Legal `Technicalities’ as Resources for Theory.”: 139–57. 

[52] Tanudjaja v. Canada (Attorney General), ONCA 852. (2014).   

[53] Henry v. British Columbia (Attorney General), SCC 24. (2015).

[54] Tanudjaja v. Canada (Attorney General), ONCA 852. (2014). 

[55] Henry v. British Columbia (Attorney General), SCC 24. (2015).  

[56] Erin Dej, “Psychocentrism and Homelessness: The Pathologization/Responsibilization Paradox.” Studies in Social Justice 10, no. 1 (2016): 117–35. https://doi.org/10.26522/ ssj.v10i1.1349.

[57] Erin Dej, “Psychocentrism and Homelessness: The Pathologization/Responsibilization Paradox.”: 117–35. https://doi.org/10.26522/ ssj.v10i1.1349.

[58] Erin Dej, “Psychocentrism and Homelessness: The Pathologization/Responsibilization Paradox.”: 117–35. https://doi.org/10.26522/ ssj.v10i1.1349.

[59] Michael Dear and Brendan Gleeson, “Community Attitudes Toward The Homeless.” Urban Geography 12, no. 2 (1991): 155–76.   

[60] Michael Dear and Brendan Gleeson, “Community Attitudes Toward The Homeless.”: 166 

[61] S Williams and T Stickley, “Stories from the Streets: People’s Experiences of Homelessness: Stories from the Streets,” Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing 18, no. 5 (2011): 432–39. 

[62] S Williams and T Stickley, “Stories from the Streets: People’s Experiences of Homelessness: Stories from the Streets”: 436.   

[63] S Williams and T Stickley, “Stories from the Streets: People’s Experiences of Homelessness: Stories from the Streets”: 436..   

[64] Erin Dej, “Psychocentrism and Homelessness: The Pathologization/Responsibilization Paradox.”: 117–35. https://doi.org/10.26522/ ssj.v10i1.1349.

[65] Don Mitchell, “The Annihilation of Space by Law: The Roots and Implications of Anti-Homeless Laws in the United States.”: 303–35; Stephen Gaetz, “Safe Streets for Whom? Homeless Youth, Social Exclusion, and Criminal Victimization,”: 423; Erin Dej, “Psychocentrism and Homelessness: The Pathologization/Responsibilization Paradox.”: 117–3.; Fran Klodawsky, “Landscapes on the Margins: Gender and Homelessness in Canada.” Gender, Place and Culture : a Journal of Feminist Geography 13, no. 4 (2006): 365–81.

[66] Catherine T. Chesnay et al.,“Taming Disorderly People One Ticket at a Time: The Penalization of Homelessness in Ontario and British Columbia.”: 161–85.

[67] Stephen Gaetz, “The Struggle to End Homelessness in Canada: How we Created the Crisis, and How We Can End it.” The Open Health Services and Policy Journal, 3. no. 1 (2010): 23. 

[68] Catherine T. Chesnay et al.,“Taming Disorderly People One Ticket at a Time: The Penalization of Homelessness in Ontario and British Columbia.”: 161–85. 

[69] Catherine T. Chesnay et al.,“Taming Disorderly People One Ticket at a Time: The Penalization of Homelessness in Ontario and British Columbia.”: 161–85.

[70] Davud Purnell, “Public Parks: Third Places or Places Eliciting Moral Panic?” Qualitative Inquiry 25, no. 6 (2019): 531–34. 

[71] Catherine T. Chesnay et al.,“Taming Disorderly People One Ticket at a Time: The Penalization of Homelessness in Ontario and British Columbia.”: 161–85. 

Bibliography

Abbotsford (City) v. Shantz. BCSC 1909. (2015).

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act. (1982). Being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11, s 91(24).

Chesnay, Catherine T, Céline Bellot, and Marie-Eve Sylvestre. “Taming Disorderly People One Ticket at a Time: The Penalization of Homelessness in Ontario and British Columbia.” Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 55, no. 2 (2013), 161–85.

City of Ottawa, By-law No. 2004-276, Parks and Facilities.

Constitution Act. being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), c 11 (1982). 

Davis, Angela Y. “Are Prisons Obsolete?” New York: Seven Stories Press, 2003.

Dear, Michael, and Brendan Gleeson. “Community Attitudes Toward The Homeless.” Urban Geography 12, no. 2 (1991): 155–76. 

De Fine Licht, Karl Persson. “Hostile Urban Architecture: A Critical Discussion of the

Seemingly Offensive Art of Keeping People Away.” Etikk i Praksis 11, no. 2 (2017): 27–.

DefensiveTO.  “Mapping #DefensiveTO”. Defensiveto. (n.d) https://www.defensiveto.com/map. 

Dej, Erin. “Psychocentrism and Homelessness: The Pathologization/Responsibilization Paradox.” Studies in Social Justice 10, no. 1 (2016): 117–35. https://doi.org/10.26522/ ssj.v10i1.1349.

Gaetz, Stephen. “Safe Streets for Whom? Homeless Youth, Social Exclusion, and Criminal Victimization.” Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 46, no. 4 (2004): 423– 56.

Gaetz, Stephen. “The Struggle to End Homelessness in Canada: How we Created the Crisis, and How We Can End it.” The Open Health Services and Policy Journal, 3. no. 1 (2010) , 21-26 

Gaetz, Stephen., Erin. Dej, and Tim. Richter. “Homelessness Canada in the State of 2016”. Canadian Observatory on Homelessness Press, 2016.

Goffman, Erving. “Stigma Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity.” New York: J. Aronson, 1963.

Henry v. British Columbia (Attorney General). SCC 24. (2015).

Hunter, Rosemary. “Contesting the Dominant Paradigm: Feminist Critiques of Liberal Legalism.” Ashgate Research Companion in Feminist Legal Theory, (2016) 13-30. London: Routledge.

Jeffery, C. Ray. “Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design.” The American Behavioral Scientist, 14. no. 4 (1971), 598–598.

Klodawsky, Fran. “Landscapes on the Margins: Gender and Homelessness in Canada.” Gender, Place and Culture : a Journal of Feminist Geography 13, no. 4 (2006), 365–81.

Legro, M. The city that will never let you sleep. Topic. https://www.topic.com/the-citythat-will-never-let-you-sleep, (2018).

Mitchell, Don. “The Annihilation of Space by Law: The Roots and Implications of Anti-Homeless Laws in the United States.” Antipode 29, no. 3 (1997), 303–35.

Ontario Safe Streets Act, S.O. c. 8, (1999) 

Pelley, L, Ever wonder why you can't lie down on most city benches? It's thanks to 'defensive design’. cbc news. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/how-defensive-designleads-to-rigid-benches-metal-spikes-and-visual-violence-in-modern-cities-1.5192333.  (2019)

Petty, James. “The London Spikes Controversy: Homelessness, Urban Securitisation and the Question of ‘Hostile Architecture.” International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 5, no. 1 (2016), 67–81.

Purnell, David. “Public Parks: Third Places or Places Eliciting Moral Panic?” Qualitative Inquiry 25, no. 6 (2019), 531–34. 

Smith, Naomi, and Peter Walters. “Desire Lines and Defensive Architecture in Modern Urban Environments.” Urban Studies (Edinburgh, Scotland) 55, no. 13 (2018), 2980–95.

Tanudjaja v. Canada (Attorney General). ONCA 852. (2014). 

Valverde, Mariana. “Jurisdiction and Scale: Legal `Technicalities’ as Resources for Theory.” Social & Legal Studies 18, no. 2 (2009), 139–57.

Valverde, Mariana. “Everyday Law on the Street: City Governance in an Age of Diversity.” The University of Chicago Press, (2012).

Victoria (City) v. Adams. BCCA 563. (2009). 

Williams, S, And T Stickley. “Stories from the Streets: People’s Experiences of Homelessness: Stories from the Streets.” Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing 18, no. 5 (2011), 432–39. 

Wilson, James, and Kelling, George. "Broken Windows: The police and neighborhood safety" The Atlantic. (1982). https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/03/brokenwindows/304465/.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

 Ezequiel Indriago Perez is a fourth year honors Criminology student at the University of Ottawa with a minor in psychology. He is expected to graduate in June 2021. His areas of interest include the criminal justice system, public perception of crime and law & immigration.