A study by the University of Westminster and Arup revealed some important information about LGBTQIA+ perspectives on inclusive public space. Public seating featured in many of the responses to survey questions along with design features everyone would like. Consequently, this study is a good example of how focusing on a marginalised group can improve the built environment for everyone.
“A legacy of Victorian design culture means that they continue to express institutionalisation, not inclusivity.”
Historically, buildings such as law courts were designed to express authority and to intimidate. This creates feelings of exclusion. Image from Historic England Blog
A survey found that LGBTQIA+ people had a lot to say about public space and buildings. For example, they regarded hospitals as uncomfortable places – they felt impersonal, soulless, and alienating. The most important factors shaping inclusivity were street furniture to relax on, green spaces, easy access to transportation and quality lighting.
Paradoxically, traditional security features such as CCTV felt like hostile architecture because they made the place uncomfortable. It’s all to do with the sense of what is being protected and who is being policed.
Gaybourhoods are discussed in the survey report with mixed thoughts on advantages and disadvantages.
“The prevalence of queer imagery such as the Pride flags were generally seen as welcoming features. However, some respondents raised concerns that there may be a greater risk of hate crime when leaving the space.” Image from report, Janet Echelman TED 2014 Sculpture.
Visibility and privacy
Seeing without being seen was a common theme. Respondents wanted places where they could see the whole area and the exits, but not be obviously viewed themselves. For example, street seating behind low walls or screened by shrubs. In effect, a cosy corner without feeling watched.
Busy and diverse spaces with lots of people where they could blend in without fear of being targeted was preferred over active surveillance.
What makes public space inclusive?
The survey respondents were far more receptive to sounds, smells and visual ambience of space than heterosexual men. It’s interesting to note that these factors are also mentioned by people who are neurodivergent. Underrepresentation of marginalised groups in public monuments and was highlighted by half the respondents. They felt more diverse representation would change street ambience to be less intimidating.
Bus stations and hospitals
To some degree the survey respondents were likely expressing similar design dislikes to many others. Bus stations with low roofs, noise and fumes, poor wayfinding were mentioned in the survey. Entry to hospitals with long blank concrete walls reinforced the messages that this place is about procedures, not people.
The title of the full report from Arup is Queer Perspectives on Public Space. Or you can read the shorter version from the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) titled LGBTQ+ perspectives on safety and inclusion in public space.