Hostile Architecture, Human Edition: How Europe Designs Discomfort
Hostile Architecture, Human Edition: How Europe Designs Discomfort
Op-ed by Leah Lee, ed. Ines Massaloux
In 2023, the desire for stability from crises and hopes for opportunity saw 4.3 million individuals from non-EU countries migrating to Europe (Eurostat 2025). Yet, mounting frustration over inflation, a worsening housing crisis, and rising xenophobia has turned this movement into a source of unrest.
Riots, marches, and violence flood the streets of Europe, and they loom over our communities. Anti-immigration protests in The Hague on September 20th and in Amsterdam on October 12th rallied under the slogans to “defend the Netherlands” (Dutch News 2025) and protect “Dutch values, security and traditions” (Stroobants 2025). Now, these voices have reached the Dutch cabinet, manifesting as a political will. The Council of Ministers has endorsed the pleas, approving the extension of the naturalization period from five to ten years, as proposed by State Secretary Arno Rutte (Rijksoverheid 2025). Rutte, in his defense, stated that: “by extending the naturalization period from 5 to 10 years, we ensure that people have a stronger connection with our Kingdom and are really well established and can participate fully in society, before they become Dutch” (Rijksoverheid 2025).
Rutte's statement rests on a powerful but contested ideal: integration. As the name suggests, integration is the process that often involves prerequisites such as acquiring the language, learning the history, and embracing cultural values. However, with the rise of extreme anti-immigration sentiments in Europe, immigrants – specifically Muslim asylum seekers – are instead seen as those who threaten “European values,” supporting a one-way assimilation of the immigrants (Koenig 2023, 124). Integration, to begin with, is a concept laden with value, and can be understood via studies into relational social processes. Viewed this way, integration does not translate to a ‘one-way understanding’ limited to what the outsiders ought to do, with benchmarks established by insiders regarding what they must achieve (Klarenbeek 2021, 7). Once integration becomes a one-way process, it no longer serves its original purpose. Rather, it becomes assimilation, where one's original cultural background needs to give way to the new one. In other words, a “one-way” integration merely implies conformity, not mutual adaptation.
So, how should integration be defined then? Klarenbeek offers an alternative approach: understanding integration as a ‘two-way’ process. Seen this way, integration is relational: insiders and outsiders mutually adjust, shaping a shared social space rather than a hierarchy of cultures (Klarenbeek 2021, 11). A successful integration, hence, could only be achieved with cooperation from both outsiders and insiders. Nevertheless, across Europe, integration still presents itself as one-way, creating a division between legitimate and non-legitimate members where notions of foreignness delegitimize members for being “too foreign” to enjoy the status of a “real citizen” (Klarenbeek 2021, 4). This theoretical distinction gains urgency when viewed against how European secularism is practiced.
Rising anti-immigrant sentiments render integration and assimilation interchangeable—assimilation now masquerades as ‘virtuous’ integration. Different rules, customs, and bureaucratic gestures framed to foster equality and cohesion instead build a subtle but hostile environment that forces immigrants – oftentimes, Muslims – to assimilate. Most anti-immigration sentiments are fuelled by a sense of fear of losing their "Western" values to perceived antagonistic Islamic values (Koenig 2023, 124). Most of these deterrences are subtle; just as hostile architecture polices public space, civic design polices cultural belonging. While referencing the importance of integration and Western values, these policies orchestrate a particular environment that deters undesired groups. In some countries, this openly manifests into the criminalization of public spaces: Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni's new proposal seeks to fine anyone wearing a burka or niqab in public spaces, explicitly targeting the Muslim community (Ketrin and Giordano 2025). Simultaneously, mandatory handshakes in Denmark, Switzerland, and France during citizenship ceremonies indirectly target Muslims who refuse on religious grounds to touch members of the opposite sex. As a result, this not only discourages further citizenship applications but also helps officials justify their rejection of citizenship to those who refuse to shake hands with them for “lack of assimilation” (Sorensen 2018). These principles of secularism demonstrate how integration can become a zero-sum game where an immigrant must discard those aspects of his or her cultural background that do not conform to those of the dominant culture.
Beyond legislation and ceremonies, this logic extends into Europe’s cultural infrastructure. Framed as equality, these systems often encode cultural dominance. As a result, integration becomes a one-way process, where “European” identity is fixed, and immigrants must continually prove proximity to it. However, real integration is dialogic: it requires host societies to accept pluralism, not demand cultural surrender. It asks Europeans to see how comfort—whose accents, foods, and clothes feel “normal”—silently structures inclusion. Like spikes on ledges or armrests on benches that deter rest, Europe’s civic design now discourages certain forms of belonging. The question is no longer whether people can adapt, but whether Europe can be a home for forms of life it did not design.
