| Abstrakt: |
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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
Full text from SpringerLink