A city should give its best to all those who reside in it. They might be the rich enjoying a fantastic view of the skyline from their balconies, or the poor who settle themselves under the flyovers for a night or two. Apart from all the living classes, a city can be completely accepted as livable only when it welcomes the homeless and those in need of a small shelter. In recent years, public architecture has involved both negative and positive issues of having homeless within the city. Some cities across the globe aspiring to build ‘less-ugly’ public spaces introduced the concept of ‘defensive architecture’, but in reality, these ideas turned out to be unkind actions against the homeless. Defensive architecture involves gating off the doorways and left-over urban spaces, which provide some refuge for those who have to sleep rough in cities, yet these spaces, are made uninhabitable for them. These concepts that are considered as a step forward to a better and high standard living prove to be a blot on humanity. In this paper, defensive architecture is explained as a hostile practice that creates a devastating psychological effect on the homeless. It further argues how an intention to make the cities’ investors and consumers feel safe in turn actually created hostile environments and that much more empirical research is needed on this topic.