By Bob Katzen

A proposal heard by the State Administration and Regulatory Oversight Committee would prohibit the state, the MBTA and cities and towns from constructing “hostile architecture” that supporters of the ban say targets the homeless and tries to push them out of certain areas. The bill defines hostile architecture as “any building or structure that is designed or intended to prevent unhoused individuals from sitting or lying on the building or structure at street level.”

“Designing public spaces that are hostile to people experiencing homelessness does nothing to address the problem of homelessness,” said sponsor Rep. Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge). “In fact, designing public spaces with hostile architecture merely sends the issue further away from public view making it more dangerous for those who need both short-term help and longer-term policy.”

Supporters say that family homelessness in Greater Boston has doubled over the last decade, shelters are overcrowded and waiting lists for affordable housing are in the tens of thousands. They note that policies that sterilize the homelessness crisis in public spaces are not only inhumane, but they also only serve to mask the problem.

According to Robert Rosenberger, an associate professor of philosophy at Georgia Institute of Technology, who has studied and written extensively on the subject, hostile architecture includes armrests that divide benches so that the bench is not long enough to sleep on, sprinklers that are turned on at night and certain trash cans. “Garbage cans … serve several functions for people living unhoused,” said Rosenberger. “Some people use garbage cans as a source of recyclable materials [which] can often be exchanged for a small sum of money. Garbage cans are also sometimes approached as a source of discarded food.” He notes that many newer garbage cans are built so that people cannot reach inside them to obtain recycled bottles or cans or leftover food.