WITH modern architectural designs come some incomprehensible elements. Some of those elements are good, some are bad, and it also depends on your perspective. There is a concept of hostile or defensive architectural designs. It promotes antisocial, uncomfortable and limited use of public spaces. Some people will say this is necessary to prevent loitering, crime or uncleanliness. ‘Hostile architecture’ is where there are braces to lean on instead of benches to sit on. It is where spikes or bumps exist on sheltered surfaces. It is where seating is uncomfortable and not spacious. These aren’t coincidently designed this way. They are deliberately designed to deter the destitute and homeless from dwelling in these spaces. Why do developers label these spaces as “public spaces” if they are not for the entire public? Clearly, it is meant only for some individuals and is a false advertisement.

These designs of public spaces might be built as a deterrent for the destitute, but do you know they can also affect other people? Take into consideration the famous leaning bars in developed countries. A physically disabled person will be unable to sit if they cannot stand for prolonged periods because of the leaning bars. What about the elderly and children when they cannot sit in a comfortable public seat? How about when seats are deliberately made thinner in width or when deliberate hand-bars are placed so no one lays there? How can plus-sized individuals sit on these seats? Guyana is currently undergoing rapid transformation with the development of more public spaces in the mix. As such, I am writing this column to raise awareness of this architectural trend. I hope that Guyanese developers, architects, engineers, and the relevant authorities will make better decisions related to the design of public spaces.

The phenomenon of homelessness is no stranger to Guyanese streets. Many people will argue that our public spaces should be free of the destitute. Some might say that it will deter tourists and further development. I do agree that the destitute do not belong in public spaces, but in the same breath—they should not be living in any public space to begin with. These arguments deflect from the actual burning issue of homelessness and its impact on our society. This architectural design should have no place in Guyana’s modern development. The issue is not the destitute finding a home in these spaces—the real issue is a lack of shelters, increasing rates of drug abuse, untreated mental illnesses and a limited amount of mental health services. All of these underlying issues and more are not holistically addressed.

So, instead of our developers being concerned about deterring the homeless, how about we develop more affordable housing, mental hospitals and care facilities? How about we holistically reduce the unemployment rates even more? How about we introduce homeless shelters in all ten regions of Guyana? This architectural design is the complete opposite of what a public space should be. Let’s holistically address homelessness and all its causes. I have not observed any such design in Guyana, and I hope it remains that way. It will be absolutely heartbreaking if that ever happens, but I can assure you that I will continue my advocacy against it if that ever happens.