“Let’s stop calling teenagers ‘antisocial’,” says Christopher Martin

by Holly Chapman | 22 Sep 25 | From the Mag, Landscape Architecture, Long Reads, Opinion

Loitering or left out? Placemaking over hostile design could turn our public realms into places of belonging, community, and connection. 

Teenagers loitering in a park: a sight that sets off alarm bells in the hearts of some. But before we reach for the dreaded label of “antisocial behaviour,” let’s pause and ask ourselves—what’s truly at fault here? Often, it’s not the teens but the way we’ve built the world they inhabit. 

Adolescence is not merely biology—it’s a headlong flight toward identity, autonomy and belonging. Yet public spaces are habitually designed for the “legitimate” user: families, adults with predictable routines, those whose behaviour we instinctively approve. Gendered norms mean teenage girls struggle doubly—spaces are often unsafe, unwelcoming, and little thought has gone into creating for them what they need. As Susannah Walker observes, public realm designs frequently reinforce male-dominated uses—skateparks, courts—that alienate girls and convey: “not for you.”  

We treat public space like a museum: observe, don’t touch. But teenagers don’t want to hover politely—they want to hang out, experiment, test the city’s boundaries. As Herrington et al. argue: teens are a distinct “landscape user group with specific spatial needs,” yet they’re frequently excluded from design and policy, prevented from connecting with communities, civic life, even nature 

This omission isn’t innocent. We usher teens into nowhere—then scowl when they create a place out of thin air, even if it’s a graffiti-stained corner or a skate-worn plaza. Myra Taylor’s work on skateparks shows a recurring theme: adults cast skateboarders as antisocial deviants, and proposals for skate facilities are often shoved into quiet, out-of-the-way spaces. That drives a wedge between youth and the city, rather than bringing them in. 

Scottish research echoes this: it’s boredom and a lack of open, affordable hang-out zones—not some intrinsic delinquency—that leads teens to roam or, occasionally, scruff things up. Worse, adults generalise: “all teenagers are antisocial,” the report says—even though, in truth, a vocal minority cause the bother, and prejudiced treatment often reinforces it.  Teenage girls, in particular, feel unsafe unless in a group, and purpose-free spaces only contribute to a sense of disconnection. 

The antidote to hostile design is placemaking—not defensive architecture aiming to shoo undesirable bodies away. Hostile architecture treats public space like crime scenes: “anti-loitering,” “anti-homeless,” “anti-skateboarding” features proliferate.

These are intentional cues that readers of social behaviors will absorb as: “You’re not welcome here.”  In contrast, true placemaking encourages co-presence—mixing ages, groups, activities—through thoughtful layout, triangulated amenities, and flexible, inviting form. 

Instead of reflexively calling teens antisocial, we should enable them to design the places they inhabit. Let them feel their town includes them, rather than writes them off. 

So let’s use fewer lazy labels, and look harder at groups we don’t instantly understand. Teenagers aren’t the problem—we have simply failed them with barren, uninviting spaces. So before condemning teen hangouts as deviant, ask how your public spaces might instead amplify community, connection, and belonging. 

Read Pro Landscaper’s Public Spaces Special here.