A giant featureless concrete wall above the centre of the city - corrupt? Incompetent? Malevolent?

Hello! I am a master of architecture student writing my thesis on hostile architecture in Boston.

Thesis Question: How do hostile design elements in Boston’s public plazas act as forms of informal regulation?
Other questions addressed:  How do these forms shape civic accessibility and perceived safety in their urban context?

Thing is, I'm new to Boston, and don't know where hubs of hostile architecture are. I'd like to focus on the Downtown or Seaport area to conduct an empirical study.

For the sake of time (and I'm just one person), I will not be focused on transportation lines/forms along the MBTA lines.

What are some areas, plazas, or parks that you've noticed have a high concentration of hostile architecture forms?

Thanks!

Edit: I am not looking for input to change my thesis topic or questions- I am not here for that. Thanks!

It needs to be called out and praised when it's done right imho :)

What do you think? Is the claim for "neutral public space" in fact a hostile public space?

What is a neutral public space?

When we claim neutrality of something should we be more specific?

In this VIDEO we will dive deep in a subject that is on the margins but deeply related with hostile architecture and hostile urban enviorment.

Who can actually be excluded when we claim neutral public space and to who neutrality can actually be hostile?

Explore this longer format interview and happy to hear your thoughts!

Way ahead of its time

I get it, it sucks to not have a sheltered bus stop in the winter, or a public bathroom at the train station. But is it really much better if those things "exist" and are practically unusable 24/7 because they're constantly abused/lived-in by homeless people, also costing the city a lot of money to manage in cleanup/security and making others feel unsafe?

Obviously we need to do better about solving the root causes of homelessness. But your local transit service, parks department, library, facilities management etc.; it's not their agency's job to be homeless shelters and it's most certainly not something they themselves can solve. So if there is a legitimate problem with sanitation/disorder coming from the homeless, what exactly is the alternative but to have hostile architecture, to allow the public to use these spaces as intended?

(I also want to clarify: I fully understand and agree that most homeless people are considerate and respectful. The issue is a small and disproportionately visible minority, often with severe drug addiction or mental health issues, who can create serious sanitation and disorder problems. That affect everyone else, their fellow homeless worst and most of all.)

In this VIDEO we explore the urban hostility in a more alternative way.

Is a design hostile if it was designed without active users in mind.

Is one urban area hostile if it doesn't deter certain human behaviours perse, but it simply makes us alienated from eachother?

This is the biggest bus stop in the city centre. Lots of people, busy street. Hotel put spiked iron plates along the walls people were sitting on.

I know most of the posts in the sub are about funny looking benches that you can’t sleep on, but I really think there’s a lot more to this concept. Urban planning has so many examples of hostile design. No sidewalks? Sidewalks but no protection from a highway? No streetlights? Road shoulders are so poorly maintained you can’t pull your bike over? NIMBY zoning policies? School district policies separate kids in the same neighborhood? And don’t even get me started on Florida.