Waiting for the orange line metro at Berri- Uqam, there is not a single bench in sight. In fact, the only option is a leaning bar, which patrons can rest against, but not put their weight upon. This is defensive design, also known as hostile architecture, a form of mediating how bodies can use a space and limiting the ways in which public property can be used. Hostile architecture tends to go unquestioned, and frequently unnoticed: sidewalks covered in bumps to provide “traction,” or lampposts which encourage nightlife (and all the economic implications of that) are two rather benign examples. Hostile architecture can also be much more aggressive, with benches that have “armrests” in the middle and short backs, rendering sleeping impossible and sitting for a prolonged period of time uncomfortable; or spikes in alcoves for the sole purpose of keeping homeless people from sleeping there. It also includes sounds. Many businesses play music or strident, high pitched noises overnight for the sole purpose of discouraging people from sleeping nearby.

Hostile architecture can also be much more aggressive, with benches that have “armrests” in the middle and short backs, rendering sleeping impossible and sitting for a prolonged period of time uncomfortable.

Hostile architecture is designed with specific bodies and people in mind. It is by no means a “failed design;” it is a very successful plan to limit certain groups’ access to public spaces. Its negative impacts disproportionately affect people experiencing homelessness who rely on public spaces as refuge, and it makes navigating spaces more difficult for people with disabilities. It is not a new phenomenon, but it has started to garner some attention. As architect James Furzer puts it, “with the rise in homelessness, it becomes more noticeable when you see spikes in areas that people would be sleeping in.”

Defensive design is an overt, systematic, and deliberate decision to push certain groups out of public spaces. By using architectural designs to define who gets to use these spaces, and how, architects are further marginalizing groups who already facing discrimination. “If we’re looking for a solution to people experiencing homelessness, putting up a third railing on a bench so someone can’t take a nap in a park isn’t a solution to that problem,” says Jake Tobin Garrett, manager of policy and planning at Park People. Excluding certain groups from public spheres does nothing to acknowledge or combat structural inadequacies. By focusing on keeping people out of sight, decision-makers get to ignore housing problems and issues of income inequality.

The problem of defensive design is prominent in the city of Toronto, where people are being pushed out of both the housing market and public spaces. The Greater Toronto Area (GTA) is a victim of its success, with fewer housing options than people wanting to live in the region. Over the past decade, this has caused an inflation of the prices of housing – and limited opportunities for social housing to develop.

With limited housing options, a larger population is faced with the possibility of homelessness. Far from acknowledging these structural issues, instances of defensive design have multiplied in Toronto, effectively barring people from public spaces, leaving them more vulnerable to violence.

To bring attention to these issues, researcher and public space advocate Cara Chellew launched #defensiveTO. The project aims at mapping and photographing every instance of hostile architecture in the GTA. In slightly over a week, a dozen volunteers working on the project documented over a hundred instances of hostile design, proving the prevalence of this architecture.

It is by no means a “failed design;” it is a very successful plan to limit certain groups’ access to public spaces.

Unfortunately, Toronto is not the only city employing defensive design. Montreal similarly implements defensive design which is exponentially more harmful considering its harsher winters. The metro stations, much like some of the underground tunnels, are warmer and safer for people experiencing homelessness. During the long winters, these areas are used as a retreat, and are often the only places available for people experiencing homelessness. At the time of this article (mid-November 2019), many shelters are already struggling to provide adequate resources for everyone in need. Another challenge arises when trying to access these services: of the homeless shelters accessible across Montreal, only Open Door allows people who have used drugs and consumed alcohol to enter, and the first wet shelter in Montreal is not expected to open until spring 2020. Faced with this lack of resources, people experiencing homelessness are pushed into the streets, where spaces they could be (relatively) safe in are taken away through hostile architecture.

Unfortunately, defensive design has moved faster through the Montreal metro stations than their trains do.

Metro systems are particularly problematic when it comes to hostile architecture, and the reflection of who can use a public space. They play an important role in connecting various areas of the city, while also reflecting broad societal beliefs concerning what an “average” or “normal” body looks like. The architecture of metro systems around the world continuously marginalize people with disabilities. In Montreal, only 15 of the 73 stations are wheelchair accessible. In New York City, benches are being replaced with leaning bars, so people needing to rest have nowhere to sit. In Paris, benches are replaced with individual seats, which are spread apart, making it impossible for anyone to lie down and sleep. Because most people living in cities use public transportation to get around, these defensive design push “unwanted” bodies out of the public sphere, further alienating and isolating them.

Unfortunately, defensive design has moved faster through the Montreal metro stations than their trains do. An extension of the blue line of the metro was recently approved and is set to open in 2026. This will offer more convenience for commuters to travel safely, but could also bring more defensive design into the metro. Five new stations will be added to the line. These stations will be open to the public, but if defensive design is implemented, it would make these public spaces open only to specific types of people, therefore excluding homeless people and those who are seeking refuge.

Defensive design keeps people out of public transportation. This is unacceptable in a system which is so widely used and should be an inclusive and accessible space.

The first contract to design the stations was signed in November 2019, and preliminary drafts of the project are expected to be

released by Spring 2020. Lemay Architecture, which currently has a contract to design Laval’s migrant detention centers, is among the companies designing these future stations. As the new architects begin planning and designing these new metro stations, they must strive to create inclusive public spaces and not include defensive design. We should be ready to challenge any plan that contributes to the marginalization of vulnerable groups.

Hostile architecture is not a solution to homelessness. It pushes people out of safe spaces, and refuses refuge and warmth for those who rely on public spaces for such. Homelessness is a problem that needs government, and local action to alleviate. It is an issue of systematic housing and income inequality, not of public space. People experiencing homelessness need shelters and places of refuge, they need to be allowed to use public spaces as members of the public, and not be pushed out by design.

City planners and the general public need to question who is invited to use public spaces – and who gets left out.

Defensive design makes spaces inaccessible and difficult to navigate. For many, including people in wheelchairs, or pushing strollers, the lack of elevators keeps them from safely entering the metro. For other people with disabilities, the unavailability of benches, or resting points makes waiting for a metro challenging. Defensive design keeps people out of public transportation. This is unacceptable in a system which is so widely used and should be an inclusive and accessible space.

Defensive design as a strategy keeps vulnerable and marginalized people out of public view but does not address any structural issues. People come before property, and while some new designs offer positive features, they largely aim to “protect public property.” City planners and the general public need to question who is invited to use public spaces – and who gets left out.

Shelters across Montreal are looking for both financial and volunteer support. Several ways in which you can contribute are listed at the bottom of The McGill Daily’s editorial “Sensitive Coverage, Accessible Support.”

This article is a part of our joint issue with Le Délit on Labour, Body, & Care. To read their pieces, visit delitfrancais.com

The post Hostile Architecture appeared first on The McGill Daily.

On November 14, American legislators introduced bills in the House and Senate that aim to put pressure on the Trump administration to condemn Chinese detention camps. These camps currently house up to one million Uighur Muslims, as well as other Chinese Muslims. The legislation would impose sanctions targeting the sale of Chinese goods, but have no direct impact on individual members of the Chinese government. Canada, France, Germany, and other countries have written to the Communist Party leader of Xinjiang, Chen Quanguo, asking him to explain the detention camps.

In response to accusations of massive internment camps in Xinjiang, a western region of China, a Chinese Communist Party official said, “there is no arbitrary detention. […] There is no such a thing as re-education centers.”

However, over one million ethnic Uighur Muslims are being detained in what the government presents as “re-education schools,” aimed at “combating religious extremism” through legal theory and language learning. Abdusalam Muhemet, who was arrested in 2014, describes the facility in which he was detained as “not a place for getting rid of extremism, [but] a place that will breed vengeful feelings and erase Uighur identity.”

Roughly one tenth of the Uighur population of Xinjiang has been sent to these camps. These detentions target Muslim minority members exclusively. These camps are a result of a crackdown on the Uighur Muslim minority that has grown in the past four years, including a broader context of policies to erase, or at least conceal, Uighur Muslim identity in China.

Legislation prohibits wearing headscarves and long beards, as well as religious instruction. Islamic-sounding names have also been banned. Uighur Muslims face extremely strict travel restrictions and have to relinquish their passports to authorities for “safe-keeping.” Specific prohibitions further target Uighur government officials, who are prohibited from practicing Islam. The expansion of security services and surveillance in Xinjiang have been described by BBC News as “some of the most restrictive and comprehensive security measures ever deployed by a state against its own people.”

Wildfires in California

Over 1,000 people remain missing and at least 81 have died as a result of recent California wildfires. Recovery crews in Paradise, California, are still searching for victims, while disaster relief organizations have set up sites for crisis relief.

The fires in northern California, considered to be the deadliest in the state’s history, erupted on November 8, causing thousands to flee their homes. An estimated 13,000 homes and another 15,000 buildings have been destroyed.

In addition to work by disaster and recovery crews, firefighting efforts have been underway for several weeks. Civilian firefighters have been joined by over 200 prisoners in California’s Conservation Camp program. Inmates are compensated $1.45 a day on average. California has a longstanding history of relying on its prison population to assist with firefighting, dating back to World War II. It is estimated that 40 per cent of firefighters are inmates from these working programs.

Private firefighters have been employed by insurance companies and celebrities, such as Kim Kardashian and Kanye West, to salvage expensive homes in the area. The use of private firefighting services, in contrast to the use of prison labour to quell fires, has called into question how divisions of labour exacerbate inequalities in the face of natural disasters.

Rain storms this past week have brought deadly “Camp Fire” close to containment after several weeks of burning. With some relief, authorities are pushing evacuees out of tent cities, telling them to seek refuge in shelters that are already full. However the struggle is not over yet as the rainfall is also warranting flash flood advisories for about one million people in the area of Paradise.

The post Outside the Bubble appeared first on The McGill Daily.

At an increase of 1.5°C, the UNIPCC expects a mere 1% of coral to survive.  At an increase of 2°C, this percentage is multiplied by ten. What’s more, this figure does not even capture the impact on broader marine ecosystems, in which corals play a vital role. 25% of all marine species are supported by coral. The consequences of corals going extinct would be devastating.

Unsurprisingly, the Arctic will also be gravely affected by temperatures rising, making ice-free summers in the Arctic a much more prevalent occurrence. The exact frequency will be determined by our ability to limit the temperature increase. Reaching a 2°C increase would cause this phenomenon to happen every 10 years, as opposed to every 100 years, if we keep it under 1.5°C. 

The destruction of this ecosystem is dramatic in and of itself. Many endangered species would be further threatened. Moreover, the Arctic is distinct from other ecosystems on the planet. It plays a vital role in global climate regulation via the cooling effect it creates in both sea and air currents. Its destruction would cause climate deregulation, intensifying and increasing the frequency of floods, droughts, and heat waves more so than ever. With the volume of Arctic sea ice decreased by 70% compared to 40 years ago, we have already caused far-reaching damage. 

The direct impact of melting Arctic icebergs on humans is a rise in sea levels. This would have devastating  impacts on our coastal cities; Shanghai, for example, would be flooded and entirely submerged with a 3°C temperature increase. The half a degree difference would impact double the amount of people simply from water stress alone. Furthermore, an  estimated 420 million people more would be exposed to extreme heat waves in the case of a 2°C increase compared to the 1.5°C.  

Johan Rockström, co-author of the “Hothouse Earth” report published in August 2018, explains that “[The UNIPCC] report is really important. It has a scientific robustness that shows 1.5°C is not just a political concession. There is a growing recognition that 2°C is dangerous.”  

The “Hothouse Earth” report explores the impact of a 2°C increase. One of the possible outcomes put forth is  the establishment of a ‘hothouse Earth’ climate. Here, global temperatures stabilize at 4°C or 5°C above pre-industrial levels and sea levels are 10 metres to 60 metres higher than they are today. The authors argue that this will happen through “feedbacks” – Earth system processes that may be triggered by global warming. A 2°C increase might already be too much, as it may prompt these processes, taking global warming beyond human control and past the point of no return. “Places on Earth will become uninhabitable if ‘hothouse Earth’ becomes a reality,” says Rockström.   

The UNIPCC and “Hothouse Earth” reports both stress the urgency of taking action. We have already reached a 1°C increase compared to pre-industrial temperatures, and with the current levels of commitment, we are headed towards a 3°C rise in temperatures by 2100. Any escalation past the 2°C increase explored in these reports becomes increasingly dangerous.  

To prevent any further increase, both reports underscore the importance of cutting our carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions as fast as possible. Will Steffen, the lead author of the “Hothouse Earth” report, stresses the importance of doing so; he explains that feedbacks will come into effect and cause temperatures to rise even without any additional emissions.  

We need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions much faster than initially believed– we have less than 12 years to make an impact. This means imposing much stricter and much lower limits than the ones provided at the Paris Agreement, ratified in 2016. It may also include exploring faster ways of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This can include the protection and expansion of forests and vegetation, as well as the development of carbon capture and storage techniques.  

It can be done, but governments need to push forth policies and take a hard stance on the matter. As Jim Skea, a co-chair of the working group on mitigation for the UNIPCC report, said, “We show it can be done within the laws of physics and chemistry. Then the final tick box is political will. We cannot answer that. Only our audience can– and that is the governments that receive it.” 

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, another co-author of the “Hothouse Earth” report, criticized political leaders’ statements concerning what is achievable, blaming their lack of motivation on their interest in short-term goals, for which they can take credit.  

In Amsterdam, while the  appeals court did not agree with this explanation, it did support the argument that more could, and should, be done in the way of limiting greenhouse gas emissions. On 0ctober 9, the court upheld a previous ruling demanding the Dutch government to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 25% before 2020. The main argument for appeal was the fact that a court was deciding on government policy. This claim was dismissed on the basis that courts have to hold the government accountable to both local and international laws and regulations.  

The Dutch court ruling is a great example of what needs to be done. If politicians are going to be complacent, it is up to other areas of society to step up and show their support for environmental issues. Debra Roberts, a co-chair of the working group in the UNIPCC report, referred to the report as “the largest clarion bell from the science community,” and hopes that “it mobilizes people and dents the mood of complacency.”  

This just might be the case within the McGill community. This Monday October 22,  Divest McGill organized a rally for divestment, demanding the university to stop supporting the fossil fuel industry. Schellnhuber commented,  “I think that in the future people will look back on 2018 as the year when climate reality hit. This is the moment when people start to realize that global warming is not a problem for future generations, but for us now.”

There is still some hope left within the scientific community, linked to the recent and recurring heatwaves. With abnormally hot temperatures expected to last until at least 2022, citizens across the globe will experience the impact of global warming for themselves. A silver lining lies in the hope that this first-hand experience will spark a desire for change and push people to action. With a bit of luck, it won’t be too late.

The post Zero Point Five appeared first on The McGill Daily.