But it has a middle separator, perfect example of hostile architecture. For the uninitiated: the armrest in the middle’s only function is to stop people lying on the bench. Homeless people can’t sleep here, we finally solved the problem of homelessness, hurray!
Removing it and having a homeless person sleep on it ALSO does not solve homelessness.
You are right. But that does not mean we have to make it even harder for them
But it does solve sleeping on the wet ground
deleted by creator
Only hostile if overweight and homeless. Otherwise it’s just a handy restraint to keep you from rolling off then bench whilst napping.
Why can’t we build things which are not deliberately hostile to someone? Why we should make someone’s life even more miserable? It’s a bench. It’s purpose should be to give some rest for ANY people, regardless of financial status or weight.
To see it in context the opposite of hostile architecture is called universal design.
I’d argue there’s nothing wrong with it being be hostile to “misuse” whatever that would be. Like how traffic calming works; “hostile” to traffic in order to make it better for pedestrians etc.
For the bench, you could make the case that laying on a bench means one person occupies it for a long period of time instead of it being open for several people to use when needed for shorter periods. It’s not necessarily anti homeless, just anti bench hogging (even if it’s typically homeless “misusing” the bench).
Traffic calming has another reason, it makes the street more accessible to pedestrians. They build speed bumps where there is already pedestrian traffic, and they require some assistance. The car equivalent of this would be a speed bump on a high speed motorway, it’s only reason is to annoy some users, without really benefiting anyone else. Or building a roundabout with only 2 exits.
one person occupies it for a long period of time
You just said “a homeless person” with different words. Remember, this is at a train stop. Everyone will leave with the next train. But they add things like this on benches in parks as well, where not just the homeless would like to lie down. But they sacrifice the comfort of other users just to mess up with the unlucky.
for several people to use when needed for shorter periods.
Yes, that’s a legit reason, but the problem is not just this. Why this thing exists at all? Why would anyone want to sleep on a bench on a train station? Because they can’t find a better place to sleep. So there is a much more complex social problem behind the scenes, and solutions exist to mitigate it to an acceptable level, but they are expensive and won’t get you votes, so nobody cares.
This armrest is an epitome of not dealing with the problem just making it look like it doesn’t exist, because homelesses now sleep somewhere else. And you just payed for something which is not a solution, but moves the problem from one part of the city to the other part. What will happen if all benches and horizontal places will get some anti homeless details? Homeless will magically disappear from the world?
What will happen if all benches and horizontal places will get some anti homeless details? Homeless will magically disappear from the world?
If I’m being charitable, it’s less about magically making homelessness disappear but forcing them out if unacceptable places/behaviors. Of course, very typically the same people most in favour of hostile architecture are also against giving people the help they need so maybe there’s some magical thinking there after all lol.
I’m the weird one who wants tons of support and isn’t against certain hostile architecture, but I get why I’m often lumped in with the magical thinking ones you alluded to.
I want nobody to have to sleep on a bench, but also nobody to be able to choose to do it either as that’s not what the bench is for! Go sleep somewhere that’s meant for sleeping and leave the bench for those who need to sit down.
for all the bad rap chicago gets, it is a very clean city.
Oh hey! Thats my stop :)
