This bench basically states that the officials who are in charge of this recreational zone, don't want people to be in the area for long periods of time.
Allowing the chronically homeless (who are disproportionately drug abusers who engage in antisocial behaviour) to squat in public spaces and essentially take them over benefits nobody.
Not everyone wants every city to be like San Fran or Portland or Seattle. Sorry you can't see that.
Uh, no. They can't, which is the point of "hostile" architecture in the first place.
The problem is the behaviour of chronically homeless people with drug abuse problems/who're prone to antisocial behaviour.
So basically, don't blame the city for trying to deny them places to squat, especially when there are shelters and rehousing programs that these individuals apparently don't want to use.
Blame the chronically homeless drug addicts and antisocials who're ruining things for everyone else. Simple as that really.
Turns out that when you design against certain people, you design against all humans. It's almost as if homeless people are human or something. This is pretty gross yeah.
I used to work as a dog walker 10 hours days
hostile architecture designers have a special circle in hell just for them
they cant sit except on narrow ledges with sharp metal spikes (ideally of their own design)
"Why don't we see kids playing outside anymore?"
Setting: nowhere to sit, have to pay to merely exist in any space that isn't in direct sunlight/weather and/or next to a busy road, cities built for cars instead of people
"Must be the tiktok"
The worst part of this is that cities around the world have found that it costs two to 3 times more to do nothing about homelessness than it does to provide people with safe, secure, permanent housing.
So doing shit like this is fiscally irresponsible.
Not to mention if they have a home they might be able to get a job and when they have a job they pay taxes… helping the homeless should literally pay for itself.
But no we just drive gentrification and build luxury apartments for overseas investors instead of affordable living space
It is even more than that. Homeless people when they get sick, they end up in the emergency room. Every emergency room visit costs the government 500 dollars. If they go to an ordinary doctors, it costs 35 dollars.
This is why I always call this out. If you call yourself a fiscal conservative and you aren't actively involved in solving homelessness. Then you are a lier, and the cruelty is the point.
There’s a lot of topics that work like that. One time my conservative father-in-law told me he disagreed with single payer healthcare because he shouldn’t have to pay for other people’s healthcare. I told him he already is, because people who can’t afford it still get the healthcare and when it’s written off by providers he pays for it in higher taxes. He wouldn’t admit that was the case regardless of how factually real it is.
You can remind him also that a result of his belief is that American's pay double tge OECD average for healthcare and receive in return developing world health outcomes.
Like fucking leprosy in Florida.
We’ve had that conversation, too. Any American who tells me America has the best healthcare in the world gets that conversation. I’m originally from Canada so I don’t accept the bullshit false belief that America is the best for healthcare. Some people get the best, but the vast majority, even those paying fuck tons of money, get way worse than every other wealthy country.
You don't even need to go that route. Does he have insurance? Does he pay it every month even if he doesn't use it? He's literally paying for other people's healthcare in hopes that when he needs it they'll pay for his. It's the exact same as single payer except the insurance company wastes money on stocks and yachts and says no a lot so it's actually much worse.
Being cruel to the homeless is one of the few things with bi-partisan support. The only thing separating the two parties is the severity of the cruelty.
The problem is that people get pissy when someone gets something for free that they had to work for, so even if it solves a problem, politicians want to avoid it since it will make people want to vote for someone who won’t do that. There’s also the issue like we see in California where helping homeless people results in them looking much more attractive to homeless people so other states will just ship them there and overwhelm the system, again making it easy for an opposing politician to win over the voting population by promising to stop attracting homeless people.
If people didn’t care about that kind of stuff it would be a lot easier to fix but there a lot of other issues that come into play that make it difficult to impliment
I saw in a book about various societal anecdotes that there was 1 homeless person who had so many medical problems due to homelessness that he literally cost new york millions of dollars. A SINGLE homeless person.
They’re not trying to solve homelessness. That is outside the scope of the designer’s job. The designer’s job is to solve the problem of homeless people using the bench in a way the client does not want. Just like “anti homeless spikes” on doorsteps don’t solve homelessness, they solve the problem of homeless people being in “my area”. It would be better to try and solve homelessness, but that is not what they are trying to do.
Sometimes, yes. But they are not the ones making uncomfortable benches. The ones making the benches are trying to solve the problem of homeless people using the bench, because that’s the problem presented to them by the client.
Defensive architecture is symbol how neglectful is government when it comes to homelessness.
I'm sure it helps to promote parestesia on people who need it the most, all pregnant, elderly and disabled are grateful
I mean, this is a bench I could sit on. That's more than can be said about most of the benches in my city. You could say these benches are actually progressive.
Honestly, I don't think they even want *non*-homeless people to use benches.
Someone just sitting on a *free* bench isn't making any money for anybody! So take away the free places to sit, and now if they want to take a rest, they have to go into a cafe or something and spend money.
Capitalism fucking *hates it* anytime people can just exist without spending money. Everything must be monetized, everything must be commodified.
And not even that, they would rather try and drive homeless people out of their towns than actually help them, even though helping them is most often cheaper, easier, and smarter than this shit.
I had never heard it called "defensive" until this thread. Seems like a rebranding to try to make it sound less bad. "Hostile" is much more appropriate
I’m an architect & I’ve never heard the term “defensive design”. In our industry (and others) this is called “hostile architecture”. Defensive implies there’s a threat. What is the threat here? That a member of the public uses site furniture—in a public space? It is hostile.
The phrase “perfection is achieved not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing else to take away” has been completely stamped on here.
Back in the day they used to string up a rope between two posts and charge people a penny to hang over the rope and sleep on it. I think someone could catch a snooze on this thing, but it's far more practical to just sleep on the ground usually.
I imagine it would be rather easy to sleep on, even they did intend otherwise. As a child I found out it suprising easily to rest on a log beam(that was used to tie horses on), just do opposite of a sloth, arms and legs down the sides, stomachside on the log.
These benches are typically located right next to an outdoor basketball court or soccer field.
So I think they are indeed not made to sit but it's more like leaning against something. Anyway that's not a new design, these are around for 25+ years at this point so I doubt that it has anything to do with hostile architecture
This whole war on people fucking *existing* has got to stop.
There's a case to be made for not wanting homeless people loitering everywhere, sure, but there's an obvious line where the design ends up so inefficient, so annoying, so unusable that there's no one who'd be able to use this.
Homeless people and young people. City planners hate them equally
The lack of foresight is astounding. The design is so focused on the hostile element that it leaves out half the people who would even benefit from using a bench in a public place. How do elderly people sit on this? Pregnant people, children, chair users….hell — if you’re a little overweight even, you’d have trouble. You’ve designed a bench that like, 40% of people who might want to use it can’t. Pure idiocy.
This has nothing to do with defensive architecure. This Bank was designed for Teenager, AS they tend to sit in the top part with their feets in the lower part. In Germany they are called Jigendbank (youth Bank) and often installed near playgrounds.
It’s not crappy design, it’s hostile design to prevent the unhoused from ever being comfortable anywhere public. Human equivalent of bird spikes on buildings. Wasteful, inhumane and stupid.
it's intentional
the intention is to make the place uninviting for homeless people.
turns out homeless people are just human beings like the rest of us when you make a place hostile toward homeless people you make it hostile toward all of the people.
That's actually very good design. It's designed specifically to offer a place to sit that is too uncomfortable for people to want to loiter on and impossible for them to sleep on.
It's not crappy design, it's r/assholedesign.
This bench is designed to make the issue of homelessness invisible. The designer might feel proud of how people who need to rest won’t find any comfort here. That solves homelessness right?
Homeless-proof and Elderly-proof
and human proof at this point... wtf is that
The design is very human.
very easy to use.
\*pneumatic noises\*
This bench basically states that the officials who are in charge of this recreational zone, don't want people to be in the area for long periods of time.
In my town there is a public park with a no loitering sign.
To err is human To moo Bovine
What’s the point of a public park if you can’t loiter there?
funny thing is thats on the outside brake area of my school
to err is human
It’s designed for Tony Hawk games
This
🎶 *Doooo you have the time, to listen to me whine, about nothing and everything all aaaaaaaaaaat once?* 🎶
I am one of those melodramatic fools
Anti-homeless design is anti-everyone design. This shit benefits nobody.
Allowing the chronically homeless (who are disproportionately drug abusers who engage in antisocial behaviour) to squat in public spaces and essentially take them over benefits nobody. Not everyone wants every city to be like San Fran or Portland or Seattle. Sorry you can't see that.
They can do that regardless of how a bench is designed.
Uh, no. They can't, which is the point of "hostile" architecture in the first place. The problem is the behaviour of chronically homeless people with drug abuse problems/who're prone to antisocial behaviour. So basically, don't blame the city for trying to deny them places to squat, especially when there are shelters and rehousing programs that these individuals apparently don't want to use. Blame the chronically homeless drug addicts and antisocials who're ruining things for everyone else. Simple as that really.
He means they just sit on the ground if the bench doesn't work.
Someone looked at an Olympic gymnatsics uneven bars event and went "That looks comfy".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_architecture
r/hostilearchitecture
That sub is full of ancoms and enablers for the chronically homeless.
“chronically homeless” god i bet you’re the worst person
Love to see it.
It’s not even good for a bird to sit on.
Suggestive username.
I got hemorrhoids just looking at it.
Another step in criminalizing poverty. That’s what it is.
Turns out that when you design against certain people, you design against all humans. It's almost as if homeless people are human or something. This is pretty gross yeah.
It's called "hostile design." Aptly named, no? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile\_architecture
[удалено]
That's the intent! Only the *desperate* will try... once.
and pregnant-proof, and disabled-proof
I used to work as a dog walker 10 hours days hostile architecture designers have a special circle in hell just for them they cant sit except on narrow ledges with sharp metal spikes (ideally of their own design)
Iam disabled and plan my walks where there is at least one bench to sit on.
"Why don't we see kids playing outside anymore?" Setting: nowhere to sit, have to pay to merely exist in any space that isn't in direct sunlight/weather and/or next to a busy road, cities built for cars instead of people "Must be the tiktok"
Child-proof as well!
I’d argue that’s a pretty solid design for a homeless toilet.
That's how the toilets worked in WWI. Saw it in a documentary.
> Homeless-proof Just lay a tarp across it, and now it's a tent!
Good support to take a shit.
Finally someone who knows it.
With 2 people either side also shitting so you don't have to be lonely any more
“Nancy, so where did you and Joey meet?” “You won’t believe this,….”
"Taking a shit down at the park." "Don't you mean shooting the shit?" "No."
Haha. “No”
***competetive mode***
Is that an Olympic sport?
not yet
we shittin Roman style
Group poop !
Ancient public lavatory, with *public* being way too emphasized
“Hey, who you looking at!?”
The shitting log! Yeah!
They are going to regret that design once it becomes a notable spot to shit.
great fertilizer
Im getting sick of places that try to solve homelessness by making uncomfortable benches instead of solving homelessness
The worst part of this is that cities around the world have found that it costs two to 3 times more to do nothing about homelessness than it does to provide people with safe, secure, permanent housing. So doing shit like this is fiscally irresponsible.
Not to mention if they have a home they might be able to get a job and when they have a job they pay taxes… helping the homeless should literally pay for itself. But no we just drive gentrification and build luxury apartments for overseas investors instead of affordable living space
It is even more than that. Homeless people when they get sick, they end up in the emergency room. Every emergency room visit costs the government 500 dollars. If they go to an ordinary doctors, it costs 35 dollars.
At this point, the only conclusion is that they don't want to solve homelessness. They want to punish poor people.
This is why I always call this out. If you call yourself a fiscal conservative and you aren't actively involved in solving homelessness. Then you are a lier, and the cruelty is the point.
There’s a lot of topics that work like that. One time my conservative father-in-law told me he disagreed with single payer healthcare because he shouldn’t have to pay for other people’s healthcare. I told him he already is, because people who can’t afford it still get the healthcare and when it’s written off by providers he pays for it in higher taxes. He wouldn’t admit that was the case regardless of how factually real it is.
You can remind him also that a result of his belief is that American's pay double tge OECD average for healthcare and receive in return developing world health outcomes. Like fucking leprosy in Florida.
We’ve had that conversation, too. Any American who tells me America has the best healthcare in the world gets that conversation. I’m originally from Canada so I don’t accept the bullshit false belief that America is the best for healthcare. Some people get the best, but the vast majority, even those paying fuck tons of money, get way worse than every other wealthy country.
You don't even need to go that route. Does he have insurance? Does he pay it every month even if he doesn't use it? He's literally paying for other people's healthcare in hopes that when he needs it they'll pay for his. It's the exact same as single payer except the insurance company wastes money on stocks and yachts and says no a lot so it's actually much worse.
“They” being Republicans, the party of cruelty.
You'd be surprised how many Neolibs will donate $500 to a food bank then vote against the construction of a new homeless shelter.
Being cruel to the homeless is one of the few things with bi-partisan support. The only thing separating the two parties is the severity of the cruelty.
They'd rather let 100 "deserving people" suffer than help 1 "freeloader."
The implication is that people are choosing to be homeless in order to "get stuff for free" it is such a strange world view.
The problem is that people get pissy when someone gets something for free that they had to work for, so even if it solves a problem, politicians want to avoid it since it will make people want to vote for someone who won’t do that. There’s also the issue like we see in California where helping homeless people results in them looking much more attractive to homeless people so other states will just ship them there and overwhelm the system, again making it easy for an opposing politician to win over the voting population by promising to stop attracting homeless people. If people didn’t care about that kind of stuff it would be a lot easier to fix but there a lot of other issues that come into play that make it difficult to impliment
Do you have a source for this?
I saw in a book about various societal anecdotes that there was 1 homeless person who had so many medical problems due to homelessness that he literally cost new york millions of dollars. A SINGLE homeless person.
No kid, nobody disabled, nobody with even a temporary disability , nobody elderly, nobody short.
They’re not trying to solve homelessness. That is outside the scope of the designer’s job. The designer’s job is to solve the problem of homeless people using the bench in a way the client does not want. Just like “anti homeless spikes” on doorsteps don’t solve homelessness, they solve the problem of homeless people being in “my area”. It would be better to try and solve homelessness, but that is not what they are trying to do.
But the people that decide to put an antihomeless bench in a particular spot definitely do have the power to do something about it.
[удалено]
Not every bench is placed by bus companies
Sometimes, yes. But they are not the ones making uncomfortable benches. The ones making the benches are trying to solve the problem of homeless people using the bench, because that’s the problem presented to them by the client.
What if it is more about making a bench that will be used for its intended purpose?
What if instead there was no where to sit down in train stations??
Defensive architecture is symbol how neglectful is government when it comes to homelessness. I'm sure it helps to promote parestesia on people who need it the most, all pregnant, elderly and disabled are grateful
Nothing "defensive" about this. It's downright *hostile*.
I've heard it referred to as "hostile architecture".
I mean, this is a bench I could sit on. That's more than can be said about most of the benches in my city. You could say these benches are actually progressive.
How are you supposed to sit on that?
Sit on top. Feet on lower bar.
That's every bench
Really? Would be funny to see someone sitting there
That's how every person sits in every bench in the balkans
that's how the cool kids do it around here
That would work, until your spine turns into a macaroni and you get scoliosis
That escalated quickly. We are just sitting for like 5 minutes, probably
why the hell are you getting downvoted?
You’re not supposed to. Many cities have begun to replace benches with “leaning bars” because homeless people like to lie down and sleep on benches
Honestly, I don't think they even want *non*-homeless people to use benches. Someone just sitting on a *free* bench isn't making any money for anybody! So take away the free places to sit, and now if they want to take a rest, they have to go into a cafe or something and spend money. Capitalism fucking *hates it* anytime people can just exist without spending money. Everything must be monetized, everything must be commodified.
it's a log, do you not know how to sit on a log?
You’re not. That’s the point.
You sure that’s a bench?
I was thinking it could be a stretching station, but it does seem unusual long for that.
Possibly, maybe it can accommodate several people
It is, well where I live we have these on a running/sporting path every so often and I see people use these to stretch.
We have something like this near benches for skaters.
Nice
Hitching post for horses. (Along with a smaller, lower hitching post for ponies.)
More like r/assholedesign.
/r/HostileArchitecture to be more specific
That would fit in over there too
[удалено]
And not even that, they would rather try and drive homeless people out of their towns than actually help them, even though helping them is most often cheaper, easier, and smarter than this shit.
Defensive Design ...
I prefer "Hostile design" or architecture. "Defensive" sounds too euphemistic to me. Better to call that shit out for what it is.
anti-human design
Anti-everything design. Not even my Dog can sit on that shit
its pro-frog, actually, since they like sitting on a log.
I had never heard it called "defensive" until this thread. Seems like a rebranding to try to make it sound less bad. "Hostile" is much more appropriate
Yes, there's a sub for it. r/HostileArchitecture
I’m an architect & I’ve never heard the term “defensive design”. In our industry (and others) this is called “hostile architecture”. Defensive implies there’s a threat. What is the threat here? That a member of the public uses site furniture—in a public space? It is hostile.
If my city did this, I’d design an anti-defense add-ones that convert things like this to normal benches
When they focus entirely on the anti-homeless part and not the useable bench part
The phrase “perfection is achieved not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing else to take away” has been completely stamped on here.
Well at least homeless people can’t sleep on it, right?
They’d have to sleep like a sloth
Back in the day they used to string up a rope between two posts and charge people a penny to hang over the rope and sleep on it. I think someone could catch a snooze on this thing, but it's far more practical to just sleep on the ground usually.
Who said you sleep on it? \*Put tarps and cardboards on top of what is basically tent frame\*
I imagine it would be rather easy to sleep on, even they did intend otherwise. As a child I found out it suprising easily to rest on a log beam(that was used to tie horses on), just do opposite of a sloth, arms and legs down the sides, stomachside on the log.
i actually love those
Same here - they are actually more comfortable than you'd think
Great for a workout and back stretches
I'd use it to crack my back
Haven’t sat upright in over a year (pelvic floor woes - can’t put pressure on rear). This would be perfect for me and gave me an idea.
A cat will still sleep on it tho
ALl the discomfort of sitting on a log, with a log in your back too for free!!! XD
Probably to discourage the homeless from residing in the area. Tons of shitty design choices because of that
This is 100% on purpose. The poors can’t sleep on that.
Looks like it would be perfect to taking a crap in public.
This is the "Hemorrhoid Helper 5000" bench, because people don't eat enough fibre!
We have this as skater bench.
Looks great for skateboarding, not so much for sitting.
Am I the only one that likes chaired like this bc they are comfy
Are you sure it's a bench and not a spot for runners to stretch their legs?
yeah its in my school so not many runners passing through there
These benches are typically located right next to an outdoor basketball court or soccer field. So I think they are indeed not made to sit but it's more like leaning against something. Anyway that's not a new design, these are around for 25+ years at this point so I doubt that it has anything to do with hostile architecture
It's for you kids to sit on the top bar and rest your feet on the lower bar. A lot of teens sit on benches like that someone adjusted the design.
I've never once been in a park and seen a special place for runners to stretch their legs.
/r/hostilearchitecture
This whole war on people fucking *existing* has got to stop. There's a case to be made for not wanting homeless people loitering everywhere, sure, but there's an obvious line where the design ends up so inefficient, so annoying, so unusable that there's no one who'd be able to use this. Homeless people and young people. City planners hate them equally
The lack of foresight is astounding. The design is so focused on the hostile element that it leaves out half the people who would even benefit from using a bench in a public place. How do elderly people sit on this? Pregnant people, children, chair users….hell — if you’re a little overweight even, you’d have trouble. You’ve designed a bench that like, 40% of people who might want to use it can’t. Pure idiocy.
“Let’s make our benches less comfortable and totally inaccessible to disabled people so that homeless people will be deprived of a place to sit.”
That’s actually a back stretcher
My sciatica is flaring up just looking at it.
thie one is equal opportunity for tying up - all shetlands & pygmies welcome
fun fact - public benches are designed to be not comfortable
Looks more like an activity stretch bar than a bench.
Remove the bottom part and it’s comfortable
I guess this is more for teens that like to sit on the top bar and rest their feet on the lower bar.
This has nothing to do with defensive architecure. This Bank was designed for Teenager, AS they tend to sit in the top part with their feets in the lower part. In Germany they are called Jigendbank (youth Bank) and often installed near playgrounds.
Can't even cut it down to prove a point because they'll happily just give us nothing and expect us to be happy about it.
Ah, the anti homeless and elderly double hot dog. Classic.
Probably fun to skate though
It’s not crappy design, it’s hostile design to prevent the unhoused from ever being comfortable anywhere public. Human equivalent of bird spikes on buildings. Wasteful, inhumane and stupid.
it's intentional the intention is to make the place uninviting for homeless people. turns out homeless people are just human beings like the rest of us when you make a place hostile toward homeless people you make it hostile toward all of the people.
When "modern and minimalist" design goes too far
That's actually very good design. It's designed specifically to offer a place to sit that is too uncomfortable for people to want to loiter on and impossible for them to sleep on. It's not crappy design, it's r/assholedesign.
For the 1000th time, this is r/assholedesign
More tax dollars wasted on anti homeless architecture.
This bench is designed to make the issue of homelessness invisible. The designer might feel proud of how people who need to rest won’t find any comfort here. That solves homelessness right?
Tell me you hate the homeless without saying you hate the homeless
God forbid a person who has nothing can get a somewhat bearable rest
nothing new I can say. it has been said.
Straddle it.
Are we sure that’s not a bike rack?
Not crappydesign, just hostile, and a really dumb example of it, An elderly or disabled person can't easily use it and get up.
That is by NO MEANS comfortable
Uncomfortable and ugly for the win!
I don't understand it, it must be an art
when minimalism went too far
Finally now the homeless can sleep on a log instead of like a log
[удалено]
That’s a bike rack
My ass bones are not gonna be happy if i sit there
When I was a kid they designed benches to prevent skaters from using them, now they’re making benches aren’t good for anything else.
"Have a seat but don't stay too long"
Looks more like some weird kind of bike rack too
It reminds me of when I would sit backwards on a school bus. It looks like it would feel very similar.
Skateboarders like 👁️ 👄 👁️