The opposite of hostile architecture isn't pretty architecture, it's accessibility and comfort.
The point of hostile architecture is to drive undesirable people away from community areas, so. . . basically everyone. Hostile architecture isn't just rails separating benches into single seats, it's always lack of backrests, curved seats, narrow seats, slanted surfaces, etc. Basically anything to make people uncomfortable, so that they're leaving as quickly as possible.
Homeless people and disabled people are affected by this the most, but EVERYONE is a target of hostile architecture. These pieces are all very noticeably in public and FREE areas, like parks and plazas and the like, and that means that other places are losing money.
People are no longer allowed to exist in public areas for free anymore; our existence has become monetized and that means that every second a mother spends watching her kids from a bench at the park, every second a college student spends working at a table in the plaza, every second a disabled person spends resting on the edges of a fountain is "profit lost" for someone. Maybe that profit supposedly belongs to local businesses that charge for your presence, like cafes and indoor playgrounds, or maybe it's profit that's supposedly lost by "unattractive" presences (read: visibly disabled people, homeless people, black and brown people) driving away possible customers.
No matter what though, making an area prettier doesn't do shit to actually solve the issue when it's still massively inaccessible and still incredibly hard for anyone to stay there comfortably.
Sometime in the 90 a parkette in downtown Toronto, the only green spot between massive rental apartment buildings, “developed a homeless problem“. What the city counsellors did to solve the problem? In their wisdom, they razed the parkette to the ground.
