The Concrete Lego Blocks of Paris: A Brutal Display of Hostile Architecture and the Olympics’ Shadow
Days before the 2024 Paris Olympics, a curious sight materialized on the graffiti-stained sidewalks of Aubervilliers: rows of massive, cement blocks, resembling oversized Lego bricks, sprawled beneath the Pont de Stains. These stark concrete monoliths, strategically placed just outside two of the Games’ main venues, the Stade de France and the Parc des Nations, were a jarring testament to the city’s efforts to sanitize its public spaces for the international spotlight. However, their real purpose lay in a darker reality—they were designed to deter hostile architecture, a term used to describe urban design elements intended to discourage the presence of homeless people, migrants, and other marginalized groups.
The concrete blocks were erected following a forceful eviction of a homeless encampment on July 17th. Around 100 individuals, many of whom were migrants, were forcibly removed from their tents and transported to other cities, such as Bordeaux and Toulouse. This "cleanup operation," as authorities described it, sparked widespread condemnation, with activists denouncing it as "social cleansing," a practice of removing inconvenient populations from view, often disguised as urban renewal or crime prevention.
The concrete blocks, activists argue, symbolize a chillingly blatant example of hostile architecture, a phenomenon that has increasingly become a feature of modern urban landscapes. These design elements – ranging from strategically angled benches to spikes embedded in walls – aim to make uncomfortable or even dangerous public spaces for those deemed undesirable.
"This is not new, but it has been intensified in a very specific way during the Olympics," explains Antoine de Clerck, a member of Le Revers de la Médaille, an activist group monitoring the treatment of marginalized communities during the Games. "We do not advocate for encampments and squats and shantytowns," he adds, "but to eradicate them, you have to find alternative long-term solutions."
The use of the concrete blocks in Paris, however, is particularly controversial, even among those familiar with hostile architecture, due to its sheer scale and apparent permanence. "I haven’t seen anything quite like this," remarks Jules Boykoff, a professor and former professional soccer player who studies the Olympics’ impact on marginalized communities. "Typically, hostile architecture is more subtle," he observes, "like a curved bus bench that makes it less comfortable for somebody to sleep."
The widespread use of hostile architecture, particularly in the context of major events like the Olympics, raises crucial questions about the ethics and legality of manipulating public spaces to exclude certain populations. While cities often cite security concerns and aesthetics as reasons for employing these tactics, critics maintain that they are ultimately about control and exclusion, pushing vulnerable individuals out of sight and out of mind.
Here is a closer look at some key aspects of hostile architecture and the Olympics:
1. A Global Trend:
Hostile architecture is an international phenomenon, witnessed across cities worldwide. In London, for example, spikes have been installed across benches, doorways, and railings of banks, shops, and luxury housing complexes to discourage sleeping, while other cities have employed designs that make it difficult to sit or rest on public benches, such as metal rods protruding from seats or angled surfaces.
2. A Disproportionate Impact on Vulnerable Groups:
The most significant victims of hostile architecture are homeless individuals, migrants, and marginalized communities. These groups often lack access to safe and affordable housing, and are forced to rely on public spaces for shelter, rest, and a sense of community. They bear the brunt of the consequences of hostile architecture, which not only renders public spaces inaccessible but also stigmatizes and ostracizes them further.
3. The Olympics’ Shadow:
The Olympics, often hailed as a celebration of global unity and athletic achievement, have unfortunately been implicated in a rise of hostile architecture in host cities. As cities strive to present a polished, welcoming image for visiting athletes and spectators, they often prioritize aesthetic uniformity and public safety at the expense of the rights and dignity of marginalized communities. The Games are seen as an opportunity to "clean up" cities, often resulting in evictions, displacement, and the implementation of hostile architectural measures.
4. The Ethical Debate:
The ethical implications of hostile architecture are fiercely debated. While some argue that it is a necessary tool for maintaining public order and preventing crime, others contend that it is a form of discrimination and cruelty. Critics point out that hostile architecture often operates under the guise of security or aesthetics, while its true purpose is to intimidate and exclude certain groups from public spaces.
5. Legal Challenges:
The legality of hostile architecture is also subject to debate, with varying legal interpretations in different countries. Some nations have introduced legislation explicitly prohibiting or regulating the use of hostile architecture, while others lack codified regulations on these design features. Human rights organizations argue that hostile architecture violates the rights to freedom of movement, freedom from discrimination, and the right to adequate housing for all.
6. The Importance of Alternative Solutions:
The focus should shift from creating spaces that discourage the presence of marginalized groups to addressing the root causes of homelessness, poverty, and social exclusion. This involves investing in affordable housing, social services, mental health support, job training, and other initiatives that promote social inclusion and alleviate the conditions that drive individuals to seek shelter in public spaces.
The concrete blocks of Paris serve as a stark reminder of the insidious impact of hostile architecture. While the city may be spruced up for the Olympics, its social fabric remains deeply fractured. As the Games conclude, it will be crucial to hold authorities accountable for their actions and demand a more just and equitable approach to urban planning and inclusivity. Perhaps then, the city will not only be ready for its global guests, but truly prepared to welcome all its citizens back into its public spaces.
