That armrest isn't what you think
June 27, 2019 5:37 PM Subscribe
When is the last time you saw a flat bench? No armrest breaking up the middle? That's by design and the design is to prevent homeless people from using the bench to sleep. Welcome to the world of hostile architecture. From window spikes to "modern art" sculptures over exhaust grates, hostile architecture is everywhere, if you know where to look. Of course, once you start seeing it, it's impossible to miss just how wide spread it is.
I learned about this while reading City of Quartz years ago and yeah, once you see it you can't unsee it. These links are good because they give lots of concrete examples so that people can better gauge if a design feature they see is hostile without having to read a 400 page book, even if it is a book they should read.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 5:58 PM on June 27, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 5:58 PM on June 27, 2019 [6 favorites]
And there's the related (sometimes overlapping) world of skate stoppers. Which a designer in Budapest made a little more creative.
posted by Drab_Parts at 6:18 PM on June 27, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by Drab_Parts at 6:18 PM on June 27, 2019 [3 favorites]
one of the greenbelts along the embarcadero in san francisco has a low concrete wall that is intermittently studded with cute little bronze sculptures of turtles and starfish… about two feet apart so no one can stretch out. i don’t know why they bothered, since they just sleep on the grass below.
disheartening that so many cities’ response to people with nowhere to sleep is “make sure they sleep somewhere where we don’t have to look at them”
posted by murphy slaw at 6:19 PM on June 27, 2019 [15 favorites]
disheartening that so many cities’ response to people with nowhere to sleep is “make sure they sleep somewhere where we don’t have to look at them”
posted by murphy slaw at 6:19 PM on June 27, 2019 [15 favorites]
The 99 Percent Invisible blog has a half-dozen entries about hostile architecture, four of them are also podcast episodes.
posted by ardgedee at 6:24 PM on June 27, 2019 [14 favorites]
posted by ardgedee at 6:24 PM on June 27, 2019 [14 favorites]
from my comment the last time we talked about this:
Everytime “hostile architecture” comes up as a subject, it seems like people think the problem being solved is “I don’t want to look at homeless people”. It’s not a bunch of latte sipping Tesla drivers that can’t sit at that bench and wait for the bus.
I live in Echo Park [note: I have since moved to Irvine], and some of the pederisan [sic] routes to other parts of town are effectively blocked by encampments. I don’t mean I’m scared because there are few homeless people around, the sidewalks on both sides of the street are full of semi-permanent structures.
Someone like me can take a Lyft to get past the encampments and into Westlake or whatever, but someone who can only afford to walk would just to never go from here to there.
So, I have since moved to Irvine, and ironically there is no more hostile architecture. However, the difference is the police are called by my neighbors the second some vaguely homeless looking person crosses the city limits.
posted by sideshow at 6:32 PM on June 27, 2019 [12 favorites]
Everytime “hostile architecture” comes up as a subject, it seems like people think the problem being solved is “I don’t want to look at homeless people”. It’s not a bunch of latte sipping Tesla drivers that can’t sit at that bench and wait for the bus.
I live in Echo Park [note: I have since moved to Irvine], and some of the pederisan [sic] routes to other parts of town are effectively blocked by encampments. I don’t mean I’m scared because there are few homeless people around, the sidewalks on both sides of the street are full of semi-permanent structures.
Someone like me can take a Lyft to get past the encampments and into Westlake or whatever, but someone who can only afford to walk would just to never go from here to there.
So, I have since moved to Irvine, and ironically there is no more hostile architecture. However, the difference is the police are called by my neighbors the second some vaguely homeless looking person crosses the city limits.
posted by sideshow at 6:32 PM on June 27, 2019 [12 favorites]
one of the greenbelts along the embarcadero in san francisco has a low concrete wall that is intermittently studded with cute little bronze sculptures of turtles and starfish… about two feet apart so no one can stretch out. i don’t know why they bothered, since they just sleep on the grass below.
Those are there to stop skateboarders, not sleeping homeless.
The homeless are deterred by nighttime sprinklers.
posted by Insert Clever Name Here at 6:48 PM on June 27, 2019 [12 favorites]
Those are there to stop skateboarders, not sleeping homeless.
The homeless are deterred by nighttime sprinklers.
posted by Insert Clever Name Here at 6:48 PM on June 27, 2019 [12 favorites]
A year and a half ago Minneapolis debuted some new bus shelters on Nicollet mall that look nice but are kind of horrible as a place to be in for more than five minutes in cold weather. The walls are essentially two spaced out L shapes so the wind whips through them, and while there are technically heat lamps, they can't heat anything more than maybe one or two degrees (and I noticed that the one closest to the library - and with a lot of homeless - was missing its lamps for half the winter). There's sort of a bench - facing away from the road, for whatever reason, but yeah, it's straight metal with bars and not long enough for an adult to lay on.
Unsurprisingly, Minneapolis can get cold. There's something especially cruel about discouraging people from seeking warmth when it's deadly cold outside.
posted by dinty_moore at 6:53 PM on June 27, 2019 [10 favorites]
Unsurprisingly, Minneapolis can get cold. There's something especially cruel about discouraging people from seeking warmth when it's deadly cold outside.
posted by dinty_moore at 6:53 PM on June 27, 2019 [10 favorites]
I thought it was encouraged to water grass at night to reduce evaporation and conserve water?
posted by nestor_makhno at 7:18 PM on June 27, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by nestor_makhno at 7:18 PM on June 27, 2019 [2 favorites]
I was actually thinking of writing an Ask about this - does anyone have examples of parks or public spaces that aren't hostile to the homeless but are well used by other groups of people as well? Rittenhouse Square in Philadelphia is the only one I can think of. Same question for skateboarding.
posted by sepviva at 7:20 PM on June 27, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by sepviva at 7:20 PM on June 27, 2019 [2 favorites]
In answer to the above question, Gleisdreick park in Berlin. Also has a skatepark.
On one of the more clickbaity parts of the internet I recently saw that these "armrests" are sometimes only held on with easily-accessible screws, if you're the sort to carry a multi-tool.
posted by runincircles at 7:29 PM on June 27, 2019 [5 favorites]
On one of the more clickbaity parts of the internet I recently saw that these "armrests" are sometimes only held on with easily-accessible screws, if you're the sort to carry a multi-tool.
posted by runincircles at 7:29 PM on June 27, 2019 [5 favorites]
I thought it was encouraged to water grass at night to reduce evaporation and conserve water?
It is. Running sprinklers from 10:30pm to 11pm and running sprinklers for two minutes every half hour from 10pm to 6am are not exactly the same. I am not familiar with SF but have seen both of these in other places.
posted by bagel at 7:31 PM on June 27, 2019 [16 favorites]
It is. Running sprinklers from 10:30pm to 11pm and running sprinklers for two minutes every half hour from 10pm to 6am are not exactly the same. I am not familiar with SF but have seen both of these in other places.
posted by bagel at 7:31 PM on June 27, 2019 [16 favorites]
SF previously ran sprinklers on sidewalks at night to keep out homeless people. Also the neighborhood around the Embarcadero just fought very hard (and lost, yay!) to keep a homeless shelter resource center out of their neighborhood.
posted by lazuli at 7:35 PM on June 27, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by lazuli at 7:35 PM on June 27, 2019 [6 favorites]
Last week it was raining and the women's collective had a picnic scheduled, so the convenor had some of us looking out for a park with a covered area
We checked all the closest parks and found nothing, and decided that it wasn't a coincidence, we're pretty certain that there's no shelter for picnics so there's no shelter for anyone.
posted by AnhydrousLove at 7:40 PM on June 27, 2019 [22 favorites]
We checked all the closest parks and found nothing, and decided that it wasn't a coincidence, we're pretty certain that there's no shelter for picnics so there's no shelter for anyone.
posted by AnhydrousLove at 7:40 PM on June 27, 2019 [22 favorites]
Oregon's Department of Transportation has been dumping a lot of massive rocks along the onramps to I-405 in order to discourage camping near the freeway.
The cost of that, special anti-sleep benches, anti-skateboard stops, and constant police overtime sweeping from one area of the city to another, it all adds up. It would be cheaper and more effective to just give people housing, but somehow that will never fly because it isn't cruel enough.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 7:40 PM on June 27, 2019 [66 favorites]
The cost of that, special anti-sleep benches, anti-skateboard stops, and constant police overtime sweeping from one area of the city to another, it all adds up. It would be cheaper and more effective to just give people housing, but somehow that will never fly because it isn't cruel enough.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 7:40 PM on June 27, 2019 [66 favorites]
A long time ago I lived in a little cottage just up the hill from an apartment building, and one day I overheard the couple who owned the apartment building talking about a homeless man who'd been sleeping under some shrubbery for a couple of weeks. I'd seen him there myself.
"A little beauty bark will take care of that", the husband of the couple said.
Beauty bark appeared, but the homeless man slept there anyway. For one last night.
Through my kitchen window the next morning, I heard him coughing his lungs out.
When I happened to see him again a couple of years later in the parking lot of a nearby 7-11, he had a cough that sounded exactly the same.
posted by jamjam at 8:12 PM on June 27, 2019 [4 favorites]
"A little beauty bark will take care of that", the husband of the couple said.
Beauty bark appeared, but the homeless man slept there anyway. For one last night.
Through my kitchen window the next morning, I heard him coughing his lungs out.
When I happened to see him again a couple of years later in the parking lot of a nearby 7-11, he had a cough that sounded exactly the same.
posted by jamjam at 8:12 PM on June 27, 2019 [4 favorites]
A little help, jamjam -- I am not 100% sure what "beauty bark" is. Is it this stuff?
posted by ricochet biscuit at 8:19 PM on June 27, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by ricochet biscuit at 8:19 PM on June 27, 2019 [1 favorite]
Once again, I call bullshit on the way the concept of hostile architecture is typically framed here. I'll just repeat what I wrote previously:
Design that is friendly to slumbering or skateboard grinding or other even more obnoxious behavior is fine and dandy, until it's actually used for those activities. At which point those design features become hostile to everyone else.
What's really shitty is that advocating for benches and architectural features that allow, for example, sleeping, might assuage one's sense of homeless empathy. But it does nothing substantial to actually alleviate homelessness and the accompanying misery. Unless one thinks unemcumbered benches and cozy grates are satisfactory foundations for habitations or sleeping quarters.
So called hostile architecture isn't close to being a problem. And sadly, nobody has a fucking clue how to solve for the homeless problem, as if homelessness can even be classified as a singular problem.
posted by 2N2222 at 8:22 PM on June 27, 2019 [47 favorites]
Design that is friendly to slumbering or skateboard grinding or other even more obnoxious behavior is fine and dandy, until it's actually used for those activities. At which point those design features become hostile to everyone else.
What's really shitty is that advocating for benches and architectural features that allow, for example, sleeping, might assuage one's sense of homeless empathy. But it does nothing substantial to actually alleviate homelessness and the accompanying misery. Unless one thinks unemcumbered benches and cozy grates are satisfactory foundations for habitations or sleeping quarters.
So called hostile architecture isn't close to being a problem. And sadly, nobody has a fucking clue how to solve for the homeless problem, as if homelessness can even be classified as a singular problem.
posted by 2N2222 at 8:22 PM on June 27, 2019 [47 favorites]
A coarse variety, yes, ricochet biscuit. But here in the Northwest it's loaded with synthetic pesticides and smells awful.
posted by jamjam at 8:23 PM on June 27, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by jamjam at 8:23 PM on June 27, 2019 [1 favorite]
Yeah, solving homelessness is hard. I'll settle for harm reduction until we decide to just house people. So fuck hostile architecture. Hard.
posted by j_curiouser at 8:34 PM on June 27, 2019 [47 favorites]
posted by j_curiouser at 8:34 PM on June 27, 2019 [47 favorites]
Got it. The stuff I see in these parts (Great Lakes area) is usually deployed as ground cover in playgrounds. I admit I have never lay down in it, but it looks reasonably comfy (I guess if it is used to cushion the impact of toddlers leaping off the playground equipment, it can't be too unfriendly).
posted by ricochet biscuit at 8:44 PM on June 27, 2019
posted by ricochet biscuit at 8:44 PM on June 27, 2019
It's not even that hard. You solve homelessness by giving people homes.
But people need to exercise their petty cruelties on the powerless, so lets put spikes every three feet on every flat surface instead.
posted by JDHarper at 8:52 PM on June 27, 2019 [48 favorites]
But people need to exercise their petty cruelties on the powerless, so lets put spikes every three feet on every flat surface instead.
posted by JDHarper at 8:52 PM on June 27, 2019 [48 favorites]
The deepest irony is how frequently these features are deployed to protect the property values of empty condos.
posted by Reyturner at 8:54 PM on June 27, 2019 [28 favorites]
posted by Reyturner at 8:54 PM on June 27, 2019 [28 favorites]
This is all over Tokyo. Spikes, armrests, etc. The worst is when they do this at airports. Really, airports? When jet-lagged folks have to rest between flights?
posted by zardoz at 8:57 PM on June 27, 2019 [13 favorites]
posted by zardoz at 8:57 PM on June 27, 2019 [13 favorites]
2N222 well said. As a homeless services provider, I agree completely. Bus benches are no solution, and complaining about “hostile architecture” is an egregious example of liberal guilt pointing at the wrong problem.
posted by johngumbo at 9:00 PM on June 27, 2019 [13 favorites]
posted by johngumbo at 9:00 PM on June 27, 2019 [13 favorites]
I can simultaneously hold the positions that homeless people deserve good homes and that hostile infrastructure is evil.
posted by JDHarper at 9:10 PM on June 27, 2019 [85 favorites]
posted by JDHarper at 9:10 PM on June 27, 2019 [85 favorites]
does anyone have examples of parks or public spaces that aren't hostile to the homeless but are well used by other groups of people as well?
The new park at the University of Melbourne has posted signs claiming to be skateboarder friendly and I see that there are indeed none of the usual metal dividers or spikes for deterring skateboarding or sleeping.
It's not even that hard. You solve homelessness by giving people homes.
Victoria has a population of about 2.3 million households and there are roughly 75,000 units worth of public housing (rent controlled to a max of 25% of your declared income). On one hand, 75,000 units seems like a lot when you're living among them, with some areas having a density as high as 15%-20% of all dwellings dedicated to housing the otherwise homeless. It's actually a very impressive public works project, you stand there and marvel that the government could be so generous to build endless acres of free housing. But at a state level it's barely 3.4% of all housing stock.
posted by xdvesper at 9:11 PM on June 27, 2019 [5 favorites]
The new park at the University of Melbourne has posted signs claiming to be skateboarder friendly and I see that there are indeed none of the usual metal dividers or spikes for deterring skateboarding or sleeping.
It's not even that hard. You solve homelessness by giving people homes.
Victoria has a population of about 2.3 million households and there are roughly 75,000 units worth of public housing (rent controlled to a max of 25% of your declared income). On one hand, 75,000 units seems like a lot when you're living among them, with some areas having a density as high as 15%-20% of all dwellings dedicated to housing the otherwise homeless. It's actually a very impressive public works project, you stand there and marvel that the government could be so generous to build endless acres of free housing. But at a state level it's barely 3.4% of all housing stock.
posted by xdvesper at 9:11 PM on June 27, 2019 [5 favorites]
I just want bus shelters that actually provide shade and shelter from wind, rain, and snow. Making them useless for one group has the not-unsurprising side effect of making them useless for everyone.
posted by asperity at 9:16 PM on June 27, 2019 [45 favorites]
posted by asperity at 9:16 PM on June 27, 2019 [45 favorites]
People are making it their mission to dismantle the midbench arm when they can.
posted by BrotherCaine at 9:35 PM on June 27, 2019 [12 favorites]
posted by BrotherCaine at 9:35 PM on June 27, 2019 [12 favorites]
Two concrete reasons why hostile architecture isn't just a distraction:
1. Visibility. Hostile architecture has a tendency to make homelessness less visible, so people don't realize exactly how widespread the issue is and are less likely to take action. Likewise, one of the reasons why measures that were designed to help keep housing affordable in Minneapolis passed were at least in part because of a large, very visible tent city that sprung up earlier that same summer.
2. Methods to discourage public homelessness also discourage public poverty. Think about where you can spend time outside of your home for free and whether or not there have been measures placed to discourage anyone from becoming comfortable there. Or if you've ever tried to figure out where you can hang out for half an hour without buying a cup of coffee.
If, in theory, you gave everyone a house but kept all of the hostile architecture, impoverished people will still suffer, because they'll have limited ability to be able to go in public - decreased ability to make social connections, which also means poorer health overall.
posted by dinty_moore at 9:41 PM on June 27, 2019 [53 favorites]
1. Visibility. Hostile architecture has a tendency to make homelessness less visible, so people don't realize exactly how widespread the issue is and are less likely to take action. Likewise, one of the reasons why measures that were designed to help keep housing affordable in Minneapolis passed were at least in part because of a large, very visible tent city that sprung up earlier that same summer.
2. Methods to discourage public homelessness also discourage public poverty. Think about where you can spend time outside of your home for free and whether or not there have been measures placed to discourage anyone from becoming comfortable there. Or if you've ever tried to figure out where you can hang out for half an hour without buying a cup of coffee.
If, in theory, you gave everyone a house but kept all of the hostile architecture, impoverished people will still suffer, because they'll have limited ability to be able to go in public - decreased ability to make social connections, which also means poorer health overall.
posted by dinty_moore at 9:41 PM on June 27, 2019 [53 favorites]
The new park at the University of Melbourne has posted signs claiming to be skateboarder friendly and I see that there are indeed none of the usual metal dividers or spikes for deterring skateboarding or sleeping.
It's very popular with skateboarders.
I'd also add Lincoln Square, just around the corner which has very pleasant old-school wooden benches. It's getting revamped now - I do hope the benches stay. Skaters like it too, though I think there are some anti-skating fixtures.
posted by pompomtom at 9:59 PM on June 27, 2019
It's very popular with skateboarders.
I'd also add Lincoln Square, just around the corner which has very pleasant old-school wooden benches. It's getting revamped now - I do hope the benches stay. Skaters like it too, though I think there are some anti-skating fixtures.
posted by pompomtom at 9:59 PM on June 27, 2019
Bus benches are no solution
Yes, because bus benches won't end homelessness altogether, it's definitely pointless to be concerned about where people are going to sleep tonight.
posted by praemunire at 10:04 PM on June 27, 2019 [25 favorites]
Yes, because bus benches won't end homelessness altogether, it's definitely pointless to be concerned about where people are going to sleep tonight.
posted by praemunire at 10:04 PM on June 27, 2019 [25 favorites]
The other day I was walking around one of those campuses owned by a 150 billion corporation.
Just outside that building people live on the floor, in any nook they can find, on tents they put up on the sidewalks and on bus benches. I noticed you can wrap yourself in a blanket in a fetal position, tight against the armrest, and tie the blanket to the back so that it holds your legs, and, if you are tired enough, you will sleep.
Solving homelessness must be possible, other "poorer" countries have cracked it. But it is expensive and requires an investment on common property.
posted by haemanu at 10:25 PM on June 27, 2019 [5 favorites]
Just outside that building people live on the floor, in any nook they can find, on tents they put up on the sidewalks and on bus benches. I noticed you can wrap yourself in a blanket in a fetal position, tight against the armrest, and tie the blanket to the back so that it holds your legs, and, if you are tired enough, you will sleep.
Solving homelessness must be possible, other "poorer" countries have cracked it. But it is expensive and requires an investment on common property.
posted by haemanu at 10:25 PM on June 27, 2019 [5 favorites]
Warsaw has been moving away from hostile architecture - new bus shelters have benches you can actually sit on rather than horizontal poles you can barely lean on, there are actual programs to put in benches along streets and parks, and a new apartment block near me has 4! benches in front of the main entrance. Mind you, the main driver for avoiding them in the 90s was congregations of non-homeless drunk people who'd be aggressive at passers-by.
There's enough abandoned allotments and industrial buildings in the city still that homeless people tend to live there, which is a kind of housing stock repurposing that actually works. Thank heavens, we have less than three thousand homeless in a city of nearly two million, and that's counting people in state-run shelters.
posted by I claim sanctuary at 10:36 PM on June 27, 2019 [2 favorites]
There's enough abandoned allotments and industrial buildings in the city still that homeless people tend to live there, which is a kind of housing stock repurposing that actually works. Thank heavens, we have less than three thousand homeless in a city of nearly two million, and that's counting people in state-run shelters.
posted by I claim sanctuary at 10:36 PM on June 27, 2019 [2 favorites]
as noted in comments above, homelessness is not one problem, but many. in a small to midsize town with a homeless population of a few hundred, hostile architecture may damn well be unnecessarily cruel. but in, say, downtown LA, with a homeless population in the tens of thousands, with significant mental health issues, allowing people to sleep on benches and set up camps in public parks would make the city center unliveable for anyone else, of all socioeconomic classes. and i'm not talking about the megarich-- they take uber black and dont walk anywhere.
i understand that some people think this would nevertheless be a fair tradeoff or that it might spur action on a bigger solution, but unliveability is what it would mean. and i get really frustrated when people from smaller towns utterly fail to get that.
posted by wibari at 11:46 PM on June 27, 2019 [5 favorites]
i understand that some people think this would nevertheless be a fair tradeoff or that it might spur action on a bigger solution, but unliveability is what it would mean. and i get really frustrated when people from smaller towns utterly fail to get that.
posted by wibari at 11:46 PM on June 27, 2019 [5 favorites]
Homelessness acts as yet another tax on the working poor, in addition to being a tremendous problem in itself for those without a place to sleep. Bus shelters are needed by those who don't have cars. Both having homeless people use them for sleep and designing them to be hostile for people waiting for a bus creates a hardship for those who rely on buses for transport.
The latter is the problem addressed by the posts, but the former is not any better since there is a real issue with having people using bus shelters as their living space, particularly when many of the homeless have untreated mental illness or are drug users. Human waste, dirty needles, and people who are sometimes aggressive and/or unstable makes the use of bus benches and shelters difficult especially in the early morning and late night hours when there isn't much other traffic around. I've been accosted, screamed at and threatened numerous times by people with presumably mental illness simply for being near them at a stop.
The same issues make businesses less likely to stay in an area where there is a heavy homeless population and thus leave those who live in those areas have to travel farther to get the goods they need if businesses leave, or have to pay much higher prices for goods with the few businesses that remain as they'll be able to raise prices for lack of other options. That's part of the reason why poor areas often have worse goods and higher prices on standard items due to the area being seen as otherwise uninviting.
There are practical issues as well. One of the apartments I lived in had a pair of inset entry ways, covered enough where people could use them to escape bad weather and foot traffic. A homeless person used one of those for their shelter one night, building a sleeping area of cardboard and other stuff they'd collected. They weren't there when the fire alarm went off, but their items blocked the door from being able to be opened meaning a bunch of people were caught behind the stuff jammed in the doorway and had to go back up to go to the other entrance to get out. It was a false alarm, but it could have been something much worse. Those same entrances were regularly used as places for people to relieve themselves, which isn't as dire a problem, but deeply unpleasant and not entirely without more serious risk as well. There have also been several fires that were likely caused by homeless people, one burning down a building just next door to where I lived.
Just living in areas where the homeless end up congregating can be a challenge for the constant noise and troubles that arise when a bunch of people are all essentially living together in a small area with lots of booze, drug use and anger issues. Police are often called, but also often just let things play out since there is no better place for the people to be, all of which makes living in the areas more difficult than people seem to understand when looking at the problem from the distance wealth provides. It isn't that all homeless people are a problem, most aren't, they are just trying to get by, but the ones that are problems can really take a huge toll on the area making it less livable for everyone.
Homelessness, like so many problems, is dumped on those without much resources to deal with even though for those with training and resources the problems are difficult to overcome. IN my job, for example, many of the biggest problems come from dealing with the homeless, even though that has nothing to do with my job directly at all. It isn't just a lack of housing, though having housing of course would be a major help for many, but a problems that come from mental illness and inability to fit into society in non-destructive ways. Hostile architecture can make an area slightly more easy to move through and live in to some degree, but also makes it more difficult to in other ways as the discomforts created make basic existence more onerous for all.
posted by gusottertrout at 11:55 PM on June 27, 2019 [22 favorites]
The latter is the problem addressed by the posts, but the former is not any better since there is a real issue with having people using bus shelters as their living space, particularly when many of the homeless have untreated mental illness or are drug users. Human waste, dirty needles, and people who are sometimes aggressive and/or unstable makes the use of bus benches and shelters difficult especially in the early morning and late night hours when there isn't much other traffic around. I've been accosted, screamed at and threatened numerous times by people with presumably mental illness simply for being near them at a stop.
The same issues make businesses less likely to stay in an area where there is a heavy homeless population and thus leave those who live in those areas have to travel farther to get the goods they need if businesses leave, or have to pay much higher prices for goods with the few businesses that remain as they'll be able to raise prices for lack of other options. That's part of the reason why poor areas often have worse goods and higher prices on standard items due to the area being seen as otherwise uninviting.
There are practical issues as well. One of the apartments I lived in had a pair of inset entry ways, covered enough where people could use them to escape bad weather and foot traffic. A homeless person used one of those for their shelter one night, building a sleeping area of cardboard and other stuff they'd collected. They weren't there when the fire alarm went off, but their items blocked the door from being able to be opened meaning a bunch of people were caught behind the stuff jammed in the doorway and had to go back up to go to the other entrance to get out. It was a false alarm, but it could have been something much worse. Those same entrances were regularly used as places for people to relieve themselves, which isn't as dire a problem, but deeply unpleasant and not entirely without more serious risk as well. There have also been several fires that were likely caused by homeless people, one burning down a building just next door to where I lived.
Just living in areas where the homeless end up congregating can be a challenge for the constant noise and troubles that arise when a bunch of people are all essentially living together in a small area with lots of booze, drug use and anger issues. Police are often called, but also often just let things play out since there is no better place for the people to be, all of which makes living in the areas more difficult than people seem to understand when looking at the problem from the distance wealth provides. It isn't that all homeless people are a problem, most aren't, they are just trying to get by, but the ones that are problems can really take a huge toll on the area making it less livable for everyone.
Homelessness, like so many problems, is dumped on those without much resources to deal with even though for those with training and resources the problems are difficult to overcome. IN my job, for example, many of the biggest problems come from dealing with the homeless, even though that has nothing to do with my job directly at all. It isn't just a lack of housing, though having housing of course would be a major help for many, but a problems that come from mental illness and inability to fit into society in non-destructive ways. Hostile architecture can make an area slightly more easy to move through and live in to some degree, but also makes it more difficult to in other ways as the discomforts created make basic existence more onerous for all.
posted by gusottertrout at 11:55 PM on June 27, 2019 [22 favorites]
allowing people to sleep on benches and set up camps in public parks would make the city center unliveable for anyone else, of all socioeconomic classes.
As a former resident of LA, what this points to is maybe needing to address homelessness. Like, if you can’t make parks welcoming because they’ll be full of people sleeping, maybe comfortable parks aren’t the problem.
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 12:22 AM on June 28, 2019 [47 favorites]
As a former resident of LA, what this points to is maybe needing to address homelessness. Like, if you can’t make parks welcoming because they’ll be full of people sleeping, maybe comfortable parks aren’t the problem.
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 12:22 AM on June 28, 2019 [47 favorites]
I find the positioning of anti-skate and anti-homeless features as effectively the same to be somewhat odious. Unless you build for it, skaters grinding edges of concrete things wrecks them pretty damn quickly. It can create crumbling and unsafe kerbs, for example, and isn't going to be much better on most cast concrete benches, for example. There are legitimate reasons not want skaters grinding across every available bit of architecture.
The anti-homeless stuff though, which is very much a feature even in my small Midlands town, which is in no danger of being overrun to the point of being unlivable? Different story. There is a growing homeless problem here, and council is equal parts unwilling and unable to address it at all. So they declare "no loitering" zones, declare the town centre - full of pubs - to be an area where you'll be fined substantially for public drinking, and put some, armrests, etc, etc on everything. Nobody is using the park at night anyway - it's shut. Why would it be such a problem to let a dude sleep on the bench there? The police are making their rounds moving people on in the morning anyway (can't entirely make shop doorways homeless hostile without impacting their functionality) so why not let them have the damn bench overnight?
This is all over Tokyo. Spikes, armrests, etc. The worst is when they do this at airports. Really, airports? When jet-lagged folks have to rest between flights?
Wouldn't want to undercut the airport hotels, or fancy airport lounges where you can pay for a comfy seat or bed by the hour.
posted by Dysk at 2:04 AM on June 28, 2019 [10 favorites]
The anti-homeless stuff though, which is very much a feature even in my small Midlands town, which is in no danger of being overrun to the point of being unlivable? Different story. There is a growing homeless problem here, and council is equal parts unwilling and unable to address it at all. So they declare "no loitering" zones, declare the town centre - full of pubs - to be an area where you'll be fined substantially for public drinking, and put some, armrests, etc, etc on everything. Nobody is using the park at night anyway - it's shut. Why would it be such a problem to let a dude sleep on the bench there? The police are making their rounds moving people on in the morning anyway (can't entirely make shop doorways homeless hostile without impacting their functionality) so why not let them have the damn bench overnight?
This is all over Tokyo. Spikes, armrests, etc. The worst is when they do this at airports. Really, airports? When jet-lagged folks have to rest between flights?
Wouldn't want to undercut the airport hotels, or fancy airport lounges where you can pay for a comfy seat or bed by the hour.
posted by Dysk at 2:04 AM on June 28, 2019 [10 favorites]
they give lots of concrete examples
I see what you did there...
posted by 43rdAnd9th at 2:32 AM on June 28, 2019 [1 favorite]
I see what you did there...
posted by 43rdAnd9th at 2:32 AM on June 28, 2019 [1 favorite]
I think there may be places and cultures where using public benches etc to sleep on sort of works OK as a pragmatic thing. But it can also go badly. I think of the bullring in London, now occupied by the IMAX, which was gradually turned into a filthy camp that many were justifiably afraid of walking through in the evening. So many fires were lit against the structural concrete pillars they began to suffer significant damage. I don’t think discouraging people from sleeping there in the first place would have been evil.
posted by Segundus at 2:41 AM on June 28, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by Segundus at 2:41 AM on June 28, 2019 [4 favorites]
Round here, it's not like the benches being unusable means that there aren't visible homeless people on the streets. It just means they're sleeping less comfortably, on the cold ground, next to the awful benches. It really solves nothing other than spitefully making the lives of homeless people worse. Removing the anti-homeless features from benches won't solve homelessness, no; but putting them in isn't going to make the homelessness go away either. Why be evil?
posted by Dysk at 3:36 AM on June 28, 2019 [23 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 3:36 AM on June 28, 2019 [23 favorites]
Because phrases like, "there but for the grace of God, go I" exist. Phrases and thought processes that allow people to think they're blessed, or chosen, or some way superior to people who are less fortunate than they are. So that they don't have to feel bad about not helping. So they can smugly walk on and think, "oh, that's just the way it is." Or, "It's their fault." Or the most noxious phrase of all, "if you'd only ..."
It's because capitalism reinforces scarcity, so we're all more concerned about our next meal or next car or next diamond brooch, rather than the welfare of our fellows, of our society.
I'm going to stop this rant here because I'm already having anxiety attacks this week, but I think you can write it yourself anyway. And if you'd like to argue (rude gesture).
posted by seanmpuckett at 4:36 AM on June 28, 2019 [1 favorite]
It's because capitalism reinforces scarcity, so we're all more concerned about our next meal or next car or next diamond brooch, rather than the welfare of our fellows, of our society.
I'm going to stop this rant here because I'm already having anxiety attacks this week, but I think you can write it yourself anyway. And if you'd like to argue (rude gesture).
posted by seanmpuckett at 4:36 AM on June 28, 2019 [1 favorite]
i understand that some people think this would nevertheless be a fair tradeoff or that it might spur action on a bigger solution, but unliveability is what it would mean. and i get really frustrated when people from smaller towns utterly fail to get that.
You, uh, might want to consider your wording more carefully in the context of this particular topic. "I have a home to go back to but feel like I can't use this public park" is not "unliveability", at least not when placed alongside "there is literally nowhere for me to sleep".
posted by eviemath at 4:53 AM on June 28, 2019 [15 favorites]
You, uh, might want to consider your wording more carefully in the context of this particular topic. "I have a home to go back to but feel like I can't use this public park" is not "unliveability", at least not when placed alongside "there is literally nowhere for me to sleep".
posted by eviemath at 4:53 AM on June 28, 2019 [15 favorites]
complaining about “hostile architecture” is an egregious example of liberal guilt pointing at the wrong problem.
No, it isn't. It's an example of complaining about the adding a problem onto an existing problem, instead of addressing the existing one.
because capitalism reinforces scarcity
I'll go farther, and say capitalism creates scarcities to allow profit-taking. See: the attack on public schooling.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:16 AM on June 28, 2019 [24 favorites]
No, it isn't. It's an example of complaining about the adding a problem onto an existing problem, instead of addressing the existing one.
because capitalism reinforces scarcity
I'll go farther, and say capitalism creates scarcities to allow profit-taking. See: the attack on public schooling.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:16 AM on June 28, 2019 [24 favorites]
In general, I always wonder a bit at claims that homeless encampments - that are not literally blocking fire escapes or sidewalks, at least - prevent passage through a space. In my experience (in a mix of different sized cities), homeless people are slightly less hostile than your average rate of catcallers and such, so long as one isn't a hostile jerk first. I have witnessed numerous instances of people being real assholes to someone they perceive as homeless, then getting upset and fearful when the other person says something snippy or rude back at them. I've witnessed numerous instances of people being scared of neighborhoods based on reputation (which is based on stereotypes and ignorance) rather than fact or personal experience. Yes, I also know people who have had bad experiences on the street from homeless folks through absolutely no fault of their own - but not at greater rates relative to bad experiences that people have from other homed people. In other words, we have some society-wide issues around catcalling and, to a far lesser extent these days than in the past, street violence. This is not in any way caused by homelessness (although homelessness is a huge risk factor for being a victim of violence).
What I have seen effectively mitigate street violence and hatassment is having broad community use of public spaces throughout the day and night. I feel way more comfortable walking through an area that has a large presence of different homeless folks (varying ages and genders) than walking down an empty street or one where there's just one group of buddies hanging out in one spot. More importantly (like everyone, my personal biases will affect my own comfort level in not necessarily rational ways), data from US cities of varying sizes shows that I am statistically safer in the first scenario regardless of the socioeconomic profile of the neighborhoods.
posted by eviemath at 5:18 AM on June 28, 2019 [11 favorites]
What I have seen effectively mitigate street violence and hatassment is having broad community use of public spaces throughout the day and night. I feel way more comfortable walking through an area that has a large presence of different homeless folks (varying ages and genders) than walking down an empty street or one where there's just one group of buddies hanging out in one spot. More importantly (like everyone, my personal biases will affect my own comfort level in not necessarily rational ways), data from US cities of varying sizes shows that I am statistically safer in the first scenario regardless of the socioeconomic profile of the neighborhoods.
posted by eviemath at 5:18 AM on June 28, 2019 [11 favorites]
I actually think a couple of the college towns I've lived in handle the situation fairly well. They have some hostile architecture features around places where there is some expectation of regular traffic or routine purposeful use, but don't take it to the level of making all areas of the city and surrounding areas hostile as they accept the homeless population will need to be somewhere, and that somewhere will be necessarily near the downtown area. There is something like a set of unwritten rules people are expected to follow as to how and where they congregate and behave, but the rules aren't designed to drive them out so much as to try and manage the competing needs of businesses and residents, both with homes and without.
In Missoula, back around the turn of the century, the situation was so standardized that there was almost a feeling of ownership among the homeless population regarding new comers who didn't follow the expected routine and tried to do their own thing.
I also agree that there can be as much aggression directed at the homeless as there is from some of the less stable members of that community depending on the city and area, so it isn't at all a one way street.
posted by gusottertrout at 5:30 AM on June 28, 2019 [1 favorite]
In Missoula, back around the turn of the century, the situation was so standardized that there was almost a feeling of ownership among the homeless population regarding new comers who didn't follow the expected routine and tried to do their own thing.
I also agree that there can be as much aggression directed at the homeless as there is from some of the less stable members of that community depending on the city and area, so it isn't at all a one way street.
posted by gusottertrout at 5:30 AM on June 28, 2019 [1 favorite]
does anyone have examples of parks or public spaces that aren't hostile to the homeless but are well used by other groups of people as well?
Dupont Circle in Washington, DC. We don’t deal with our housing crisis well overall but this park is used by everyone from people who need a place to sleep to tourists to kids, buskers, old locals playing chess, bike groups, yoga, hippies sleeping outside just because the weather’s nice, and more. It seems like every time we get a new park there’s a lot of hand wringing about oh gosh, how could we possibly create a public greenspace that’s usable by everyone regardless of background? And I just say, look at one of the oldest parks in our city.
posted by capricorn at 5:37 AM on June 28, 2019 [3 favorites]
Dupont Circle in Washington, DC. We don’t deal with our housing crisis well overall but this park is used by everyone from people who need a place to sleep to tourists to kids, buskers, old locals playing chess, bike groups, yoga, hippies sleeping outside just because the weather’s nice, and more. It seems like every time we get a new park there’s a lot of hand wringing about oh gosh, how could we possibly create a public greenspace that’s usable by everyone regardless of background? And I just say, look at one of the oldest parks in our city.
posted by capricorn at 5:37 AM on June 28, 2019 [3 favorites]
But at a state level it's barely 3.4% of all housing stock.
Your analysis takes this as a constant.
posted by PMdixon at 5:44 AM on June 28, 2019
Your analysis takes this as a constant.
posted by PMdixon at 5:44 AM on June 28, 2019
Hostile architecture can make an area slightly more easy to move through and live in to some degree, but also makes it more difficult to in other ways as the discomforts created make basic existence more onerous for all.
This captures the complications perfectly. If someone is using the bus shelter as a bedroom and a bathroom, it makes it harder/impossible for others to use the bus shelter for its intended purpose. But an uncomfortable bench makes waiting for the bus worse for everyone, and might prevent some people from using it entirely (eg, people who are large, people with mobility issues, etc).
Societally, at least in the US, we've made a long series of really immoral choices that have resulted in such large numbers of people not having access to homes, sanitation, mental health and addiction services, and so on.
The US hasn't always had such large numbers of people without access to housing. I am old enough to remember before the homeless population exploded, and how different the downtowns were just a few years later, never mind now with the tent encampments and so on. The hostile architecture is an unsurprising outcome, but really it shouldn't be necessary at all.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:06 AM on June 28, 2019 [12 favorites]
This captures the complications perfectly. If someone is using the bus shelter as a bedroom and a bathroom, it makes it harder/impossible for others to use the bus shelter for its intended purpose. But an uncomfortable bench makes waiting for the bus worse for everyone, and might prevent some people from using it entirely (eg, people who are large, people with mobility issues, etc).
Societally, at least in the US, we've made a long series of really immoral choices that have resulted in such large numbers of people not having access to homes, sanitation, mental health and addiction services, and so on.
The US hasn't always had such large numbers of people without access to housing. I am old enough to remember before the homeless population exploded, and how different the downtowns were just a few years later, never mind now with the tent encampments and so on. The hostile architecture is an unsurprising outcome, but really it shouldn't be necessary at all.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:06 AM on June 28, 2019 [12 favorites]
I think it's important to note that we're not talking about removing hostile architecture as a solution to homelessness (much less the solution to homelessness, obviously other actions need to be taken), it's that hostile architecture (and loitering laws, and bus tickets elsewhere) itself is enacted as a solution to homelessness. The money spent putting up new park benches that nobody can sit on could be better used to ethically address housing and mental health concerns.
posted by dinty_moore at 6:14 AM on June 28, 2019 [18 favorites]
posted by dinty_moore at 6:14 AM on June 28, 2019 [18 favorites]
Hostile architecture doesn't just discriminate against homeless people and poor people. It is ableist and works to keep disabled and chronically ill people out of public spaces. And because some populations - like the elderly and the poor (and the homeless) - have more disability and chronic illness - than others, it compounds the difficulty of their lives.
Things that well people don't notice or that makes them a little uncomfortable can make a place inaccessible to a disabled person. The built environment is already quite hostile to disabled people. In fact, the built environment *creates* disability in many ways (car-centric design that reduces physical activity and makes so many people weak and sick in so many ways, stairs that reduce mobility for wheelchair users, etc).
My city just straight up removes benches in parts of the city. Some seating designed to be hostile is very hard or impossible for a disabled person to sit on at all. A lot of folks need rest while running errands or taking an evening stroll or on the walk between the train and your house. Making it hard for us to do so means that errands and evening strolls and commuting with public transit is hard or impossible.
A lot of hostile architecture is a tripping hazard or makes taking a fall way more dangerous. Those metal bumps (used to keep people from resting under awnings) are mostly ok for folks who can walk without difficulty, but pose a real problem for people with walkers and wheelchairs.
The spikes everywhere are flat out evil. I once saw a man fall and end up with a spike through his knee - it took the EMTs an hour and a half to get him off the sidewalk and it required an angle grinder. He wasn't someone most people would describe as disabled - just unfit enough to have a little trouble with balance and reflexes and overweight enough to hit the (blunt) spike with enough force to drive it into his knee. But that's what I mean by our built design making people disabled.
Even if you want to deter homeless people and don't care if disabled people are getting shafted as well, it's just not really possible to design hostile architecture that doesn't have side effects for others. Like a spike thru the knee, or - For example, water features are used a lot here to make it too cold and unpleasant for homeless folks to sleep nearby, but many of them are loud. (Gotta generate that cold waterfall mist!) The one near my building is so loud that it covers the sound of my alarm clock if the windows are open and is audible all the time. Noise isn't good for folks and this water feature is harming the health of the literally hundreds of folks who have to listen to it all night.
posted by congen at 6:21 AM on June 28, 2019 [43 favorites]
Things that well people don't notice or that makes them a little uncomfortable can make a place inaccessible to a disabled person. The built environment is already quite hostile to disabled people. In fact, the built environment *creates* disability in many ways (car-centric design that reduces physical activity and makes so many people weak and sick in so many ways, stairs that reduce mobility for wheelchair users, etc).
My city just straight up removes benches in parts of the city. Some seating designed to be hostile is very hard or impossible for a disabled person to sit on at all. A lot of folks need rest while running errands or taking an evening stroll or on the walk between the train and your house. Making it hard for us to do so means that errands and evening strolls and commuting with public transit is hard or impossible.
A lot of hostile architecture is a tripping hazard or makes taking a fall way more dangerous. Those metal bumps (used to keep people from resting under awnings) are mostly ok for folks who can walk without difficulty, but pose a real problem for people with walkers and wheelchairs.
The spikes everywhere are flat out evil. I once saw a man fall and end up with a spike through his knee - it took the EMTs an hour and a half to get him off the sidewalk and it required an angle grinder. He wasn't someone most people would describe as disabled - just unfit enough to have a little trouble with balance and reflexes and overweight enough to hit the (blunt) spike with enough force to drive it into his knee. But that's what I mean by our built design making people disabled.
Even if you want to deter homeless people and don't care if disabled people are getting shafted as well, it's just not really possible to design hostile architecture that doesn't have side effects for others. Like a spike thru the knee, or - For example, water features are used a lot here to make it too cold and unpleasant for homeless folks to sleep nearby, but many of them are loud. (Gotta generate that cold waterfall mist!) The one near my building is so loud that it covers the sound of my alarm clock if the windows are open and is audible all the time. Noise isn't good for folks and this water feature is harming the health of the literally hundreds of folks who have to listen to it all night.
posted by congen at 6:21 AM on June 28, 2019 [43 favorites]
The other day I was walking around one of those campuses owned by a 150 billion corporation.
Just outside that building people live on the floor, in any nook they can find, on tents they put up on the sidewalks and on bus benches.
Googleplex, that is, the main massing of the original stone, taken by itself would have displayed a certain ponderous architectural quality were it possible to have ignored the circumfusion of those mean dwellings that swarmed like an epidemic around its outer walls. They sprawled over the sloping arch, each one half way over its neighbour until, held back by the castle ramparts, the innermost of these hovels laid hold on the great walls, clamping themselves thereto like limpets to a rock. These dwellings, by ancient law, were granted this chill intimacy with the stronghold that loomed above them. Over their irregular roofs would fall throughout the seasons, the shadows of time-eaten buttresses, of broken and lofty turrets, and, most enormous of all, the shadow of the Tower of Flints. This tower, patched unevenly with black ivy, arose like a mutilated finger from among the fists of knuckled masonry and pointed blasphemously at heaven. At night the owls made of it an echoing throat; by day it stood voiceless and cast its long shadow.
posted by flabdablet at 6:45 AM on June 28, 2019 [11 favorites]
Just outside that building people live on the floor, in any nook they can find, on tents they put up on the sidewalks and on bus benches.
Googleplex, that is, the main massing of the original stone, taken by itself would have displayed a certain ponderous architectural quality were it possible to have ignored the circumfusion of those mean dwellings that swarmed like an epidemic around its outer walls. They sprawled over the sloping arch, each one half way over its neighbour until, held back by the castle ramparts, the innermost of these hovels laid hold on the great walls, clamping themselves thereto like limpets to a rock. These dwellings, by ancient law, were granted this chill intimacy with the stronghold that loomed above them. Over their irregular roofs would fall throughout the seasons, the shadows of time-eaten buttresses, of broken and lofty turrets, and, most enormous of all, the shadow of the Tower of Flints. This tower, patched unevenly with black ivy, arose like a mutilated finger from among the fists of knuckled masonry and pointed blasphemously at heaven. At night the owls made of it an echoing throat; by day it stood voiceless and cast its long shadow.
posted by flabdablet at 6:45 AM on June 28, 2019 [11 favorites]
My park has never had any homeless people sleep in it that I've ever seen, but it still has benches that are too uncomfortable for people to actually sit on, so people sit on the ground next to them.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:22 AM on June 28, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:22 AM on June 28, 2019 [3 favorites]
Following on to that Australia's largest homeless supercenter just opened near to where I live.
"As well as housing for 134 people, including 60 short-term crisis accommodation units, the building will have a range of drop-in health services, including dentistry, optometry and alcohol and drug intervention.
There is also a tech hub, with free wi-fi, cloud storage and a place to recharge phones. A gym, laundry and library are also available, while a cafe will provide meals.
Design choices were made to project a calm environment, with lots of natural light, timber panelling and warm colours."
posted by xdvesper at 7:34 AM on June 28, 2019 [9 favorites]
"As well as housing for 134 people, including 60 short-term crisis accommodation units, the building will have a range of drop-in health services, including dentistry, optometry and alcohol and drug intervention.
There is also a tech hub, with free wi-fi, cloud storage and a place to recharge phones. A gym, laundry and library are also available, while a cafe will provide meals.
Design choices were made to project a calm environment, with lots of natural light, timber panelling and warm colours."
posted by xdvesper at 7:34 AM on June 28, 2019 [9 favorites]
Hostile architecture is also the lack of safe and clean public restrooms.
-signed a well hydrated New Yorker who has more than once had a real issue finding somewhere to go quickly, and lives somewhere I routinely see people pissing in doorways/alleys mostly bc there arent adequate alternatives.
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 7:45 AM on June 28, 2019 [22 favorites]
-signed a well hydrated New Yorker who has more than once had a real issue finding somewhere to go quickly, and lives somewhere I routinely see people pissing in doorways/alleys mostly bc there arent adequate alternatives.
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 7:45 AM on June 28, 2019 [22 favorites]
I just want bus shelters that actually provide shade and shelter from wind, rain, and snow. Making them useless for one group has the not-unsurprising side effect of making them useless for everyone.
Our local bus shelters are useless for anyone who doesn't want to spend their wait time breathing in huge clouds of second-hand smoke or standing on a carpet of butts and spittle. All the "No Smoking Within 20 Feet of This Structure" signs in the world aren't going to do a thing if the cops aren't going to enforce it and you got spat on or threatened with violence if you politely ask smokers to follow the rules.
And yes, there is no contradiction whatsoever between wanting homeless people to be housed and not wanting uncomfortable benches and spiked pavement. There's also no hypocrisy in pointing out that authorities who won't provide adequate public housing and also chase people out of public areas when they have no place else to go are a degree worse than authorities who just won't provide adequate public housing.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 7:58 AM on June 28, 2019 [9 favorites]
Our local bus shelters are useless for anyone who doesn't want to spend their wait time breathing in huge clouds of second-hand smoke or standing on a carpet of butts and spittle. All the "No Smoking Within 20 Feet of This Structure" signs in the world aren't going to do a thing if the cops aren't going to enforce it and you got spat on or threatened with violence if you politely ask smokers to follow the rules.
And yes, there is no contradiction whatsoever between wanting homeless people to be housed and not wanting uncomfortable benches and spiked pavement. There's also no hypocrisy in pointing out that authorities who won't provide adequate public housing and also chase people out of public areas when they have no place else to go are a degree worse than authorities who just won't provide adequate public housing.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 7:58 AM on June 28, 2019 [9 favorites]
Related: Train to nowhere: Twin Cities light rail becomes home for the homeless
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:16 AM on June 28, 2019
posted by ZeusHumms at 8:16 AM on June 28, 2019
> Hostile architecture doesn't just discriminate against homeless people and poor people. It is ableist and works to keep disabled and chronically ill people out of public spaces. And because some populations - like the elderly and the poor (and the homeless) - have more disability and chronic illness - than others, it compounds the difficulty of their lives.
Agreed. And it's a weird sort of anti-urbanism as well; it makes using public spaces less comfortable for even the most able-bodied and financially-stable. As if these pretty parks or plazas or sidewalks are only for tourists to admire on a visit, or to serve as a specific intentional destination. That's not how living in a city works for the residents; our houses are smaller because we use public spaces during our ordinary day-to-day lives.
posted by desuetude at 8:22 AM on June 28, 2019 [18 favorites]
Agreed. And it's a weird sort of anti-urbanism as well; it makes using public spaces less comfortable for even the most able-bodied and financially-stable. As if these pretty parks or plazas or sidewalks are only for tourists to admire on a visit, or to serve as a specific intentional destination. That's not how living in a city works for the residents; our houses are smaller because we use public spaces during our ordinary day-to-day lives.
posted by desuetude at 8:22 AM on June 28, 2019 [18 favorites]
Hostile architecture doesn't just discriminate against homeless people and poor people. It is ableist and works to keep disabled and chronically ill people out of public spaces. And because some populations - like the elderly and the poor (and the homeless) - have more disability and chronic illness - than others, it compounds the difficulty of their lives.
Yes, yes, yes. Have you ever tried to find a place to just SIT DOWN in NYC? Some places have seating... a LITTLE seating... but in the majority of places it's the filthy ground or nothing.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:20 AM on June 28, 2019 [13 favorites]
Yes, yes, yes. Have you ever tried to find a place to just SIT DOWN in NYC? Some places have seating... a LITTLE seating... but in the majority of places it's the filthy ground or nothing.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:20 AM on June 28, 2019 [13 favorites]
Round here, it's not like the benches being unusable means that there aren't visible homeless people on the streets. It just means they're sleeping less comfortably, on the cold ground, next to the awful benches.
Rob Cockerham noticed this issue in Anaheim and Sacramento and tried a small experiment.
posted by JDC8 at 9:31 AM on June 28, 2019 [9 favorites]
Rob Cockerham noticed this issue in Anaheim and Sacramento and tried a small experiment.
posted by JDC8 at 9:31 AM on June 28, 2019 [9 favorites]
Can the people in this thread who think people will only care about this issue as a weird displacement of "liberal guilt," a harmless way to divert activism energy, or an expression of wide-eyed small-town naivete please stop projecting on the rest of us? Thanks.
posted by praemunire at 9:36 AM on June 28, 2019 [11 favorites]
posted by praemunire at 9:36 AM on June 28, 2019 [11 favorites]
99 Percent Invisible had an episode on social infrastructure that really ties into what a lot of us are talking about regarding the downsides of hostile architecture - it's focusing on libraries, but the episode is based on a book on how giving people a chance to go out and interact with people really does improve health outcomes. For one thing, if you're on a stoop or playing chess at a park every morning, someone might notice if you're not there one day.
posted by dinty_moore at 9:53 AM on June 28, 2019 [13 favorites]
posted by dinty_moore at 9:53 AM on June 28, 2019 [13 favorites]
FYI, the center bar on most benches is held on with a simple bolt and nut that be can be detached in seconds with a small adjustable wrench.
posted by EarBucket at 10:30 AM on June 28, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by EarBucket at 10:30 AM on June 28, 2019 [3 favorites]
I feel as if this is a "plastic straw" discussion. Benches are horrible places to sleep, even though they are better than sleeping directly on the freezing ground (unless you have good cardboard and some blankets). It's false charity to try to make benches available to people who need a safe, clean, comfortable place to sleep that is sheltered from the elements.
posted by Peach at 10:48 AM on June 28, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by Peach at 10:48 AM on June 28, 2019 [2 favorites]
In the US, at least, in every major metropolitan area I've spent a few minutes researching, there are more vacant units than there are homeless people.
Why we don't have high, brutal, ruinous vacancy taxes in cities with profound affordability problems is beyond me. Affordability is much easier to achieve when a landlord spends a few sleepless weeks searching for tenants.
This clearly doesn't solve the issue entirely, particularly for those who are homeless due to mental illness, or other long-term executive function disabilities that prevent them from meeting their own basic needs, but it would probably be the single most context-changing reform we could make.
posted by tclark at 11:01 AM on June 28, 2019 [12 favorites]
Why we don't have high, brutal, ruinous vacancy taxes in cities with profound affordability problems is beyond me. Affordability is much easier to achieve when a landlord spends a few sleepless weeks searching for tenants.
This clearly doesn't solve the issue entirely, particularly for those who are homeless due to mental illness, or other long-term executive function disabilities that prevent them from meeting their own basic needs, but it would probably be the single most context-changing reform we could make.
posted by tclark at 11:01 AM on June 28, 2019 [12 favorites]
I wish I were surprised to see multiple photos of Oakland on the linked Vice page. Sadly, hostile architecture is still very much current policy here. We just got a new public plaza (Snow Park); the project design was progressive in some ways (it was accompanied by roadway changes to protect cyclists and pedestrians), but one of the first things I noticed about the actual plaza was that the benches have those damn center barriers.
Meanwhile, bus shelters keep getting removed from my neighborhood, often soon after a person starts sleeping in them. Nothing replaces them -- now you just have to stand on the curb in any weather. At least with the center-armrest benches, a case could be made that preventing people from lying down on them allows others to sit. With the bus shelters, there's no fig leaf: everyone loses, just to make sure homeless people can't have anything.
On the positive side, the city recently placed a bunch of portable toilets around Lake Merritt, which is good for everybody. Some city departments are trying to implement humane policy, others aren't, and it's frustrating to watch the city give with one hand while it takes away with the other.
posted by aws17576 at 11:12 AM on June 28, 2019 [4 favorites]
Meanwhile, bus shelters keep getting removed from my neighborhood, often soon after a person starts sleeping in them. Nothing replaces them -- now you just have to stand on the curb in any weather. At least with the center-armrest benches, a case could be made that preventing people from lying down on them allows others to sit. With the bus shelters, there's no fig leaf: everyone loses, just to make sure homeless people can't have anything.
On the positive side, the city recently placed a bunch of portable toilets around Lake Merritt, which is good for everybody. Some city departments are trying to implement humane policy, others aren't, and it's frustrating to watch the city give with one hand while it takes away with the other.
posted by aws17576 at 11:12 AM on June 28, 2019 [4 favorites]
If you really want to do something about it and resist this, I recommend taking a bolt remover and removing those center dividers. I can't find the link but it was circulating around my circles a while ago.
posted by yueliang at 11:28 AM on June 28, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by yueliang at 11:28 AM on June 28, 2019 [1 favorite]
Metafilter: I can't find the link but it was circulating around my circles a while ago.
posted by Melismata at 11:31 AM on June 28, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by Melismata at 11:31 AM on June 28, 2019 [5 favorites]
Why we don't have high, brutal, ruinous vacancy taxes in cities with profound affordability problems is beyond me.
My guess is because the core foundation of the current government on this land was to benefit white, male landowners solely. Every "gain" for people since then, has never been to the cost of that benefit as they have always been the supermajority enfranchised.
posted by avalonian at 11:44 AM on June 28, 2019 [4 favorites]
My guess is because the core foundation of the current government on this land was to benefit white, male landowners solely. Every "gain" for people since then, has never been to the cost of that benefit as they have always been the supermajority enfranchised.
posted by avalonian at 11:44 AM on June 28, 2019 [4 favorites]
It's false charity to try to make benches available to people who need a safe, clean, comfortable place to sleep that is sheltered from the elements.
And it's utter cruelty to take them away from people who don't have that.
posted by praemunire at 12:17 PM on June 28, 2019 [21 favorites]
And it's utter cruelty to take them away from people who don't have that.
posted by praemunire at 12:17 PM on June 28, 2019 [21 favorites]
Meanwhile in England, the opposite of hostile architecture: English Towns Are Installing ‘Chat Benches’ to Combat Loneliness
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 12:36 PM on June 28, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 12:36 PM on June 28, 2019 [3 favorites]
You, uh, might want to consider your wording more carefully in the context of this particular topic. "I have a home to go back to but feel like I can't use this public park" is not "unliveability", at least not when placed alongside "there is literally nowhere for me to sleep".
with all due respect, i considered my wording quite carefully and dont need you to police it. i'm not saying the problem is not being able to use a park. i'm talking about things like TB and typhus and whooping cough outbreaks.
posted by wibari at 12:48 PM on June 28, 2019 [2 favorites]
with all due respect, i considered my wording quite carefully and dont need you to police it. i'm not saying the problem is not being able to use a park. i'm talking about things like TB and typhus and whooping cough outbreaks.
posted by wibari at 12:48 PM on June 28, 2019 [2 favorites]
with all due respect, i considered my wording quite carefully and dont need you to police it. i'm not saying the problem is not being able to use a park. i'm talking about things like TB and typhus and whooping cough outbreaks.
Honestly your answers just sound like textbook NIMBYism. You're more likely to get whooping cough from the wealth anti-vaxxers than homeless people. The homeless populations have and will suffer more than your collective city no matter what policies are implemented. I don't take their pain as secondary to others.
If your city can't mitigate the issues of homelessness without making hostile the urban centers that provide necessary resources for living, then you're not a viable city, and that's more important than "making it work" through cruelty.
posted by avalonian at 1:11 PM on June 28, 2019 [12 favorites]
Honestly your answers just sound like textbook NIMBYism. You're more likely to get whooping cough from the wealth anti-vaxxers than homeless people. The homeless populations have and will suffer more than your collective city no matter what policies are implemented. I don't take their pain as secondary to others.
If your city can't mitigate the issues of homelessness without making hostile the urban centers that provide necessary resources for living, then you're not a viable city, and that's more important than "making it work" through cruelty.
posted by avalonian at 1:11 PM on June 28, 2019 [12 favorites]
Honestly your answers just sound like textbook NIMBYism
no. nimbyism in this area would be opposition to building services and resources in one's neighborhood. i support that. what i dont support are policies that turn public streets into encampments.
jeez, having a reasonable conversation about this topic (between people who probably agree on 90% of it) is like trying to solve mideast peace.
posted by wibari at 1:21 PM on June 28, 2019 [1 favorite]
no. nimbyism in this area would be opposition to building services and resources in one's neighborhood. i support that. what i dont support are policies that turn public streets into encampments.
jeez, having a reasonable conversation about this topic (between people who probably agree on 90% of it) is like trying to solve mideast peace.
posted by wibari at 1:21 PM on June 28, 2019 [1 favorite]
i'm not saying the problem is not being able to use a park. i'm talking about things like TB and typhus and whooping cough outbreaks.
Do you think those things don't happen just because all of those people will have to sleep in a vacant lot rather than a park?
posted by Etrigan at 1:26 PM on June 28, 2019 [7 favorites]
Do you think those things don't happen just because all of those people will have to sleep in a vacant lot rather than a park?
posted by Etrigan at 1:26 PM on June 28, 2019 [7 favorites]
nimbyism in this area would be opposition to building services and resources in one's neighborhood. i support that. what i dont support are policies that turn public streets into encampments.
Apologies if I'm misunderstanding, but unless you're contributing in some way to a tenable solution, the sentiment is identical.
having a reasonable conversation about this topic
You literally brought up fear of whooping cough as a justification for making life cruel enough for homeless people so as to keep them away from urban centers.
posted by avalonian at 1:32 PM on June 28, 2019 [8 favorites]
Apologies if I'm misunderstanding, but unless you're contributing in some way to a tenable solution, the sentiment is identical.
having a reasonable conversation about this topic
You literally brought up fear of whooping cough as a justification for making life cruel enough for homeless people so as to keep them away from urban centers.
posted by avalonian at 1:32 PM on June 28, 2019 [8 favorites]
Yeah, you cannot have a "reasonable conversation" with people based on the assumption that very poor people are filthy and disease-ridden.
policies that turn public streets into encampments
Those policies exist, but they are not the ones you think they are.
posted by praemunire at 1:36 PM on June 28, 2019 [7 favorites]
policies that turn public streets into encampments
Those policies exist, but they are not the ones you think they are.
posted by praemunire at 1:36 PM on June 28, 2019 [7 favorites]
There are certainly health risks associated with public defecation, drug use, and a lack of healthcare. HOWEVER, the people who are really affected are the homeless themselves. I have never heard of a random pedestrian catching TB or typhus because they walked past a homeless encampment. That's what seems to me like using homeless people's poor health against them: people with no place to sleep are corralled into close quarters in unsanitary conditions, and those conditions are then pointed to as reasons to further corral them. They're treated like disease vectors, first and foremost, like vermin.
If we are concerned about disease among homeless people, I'd rather advocate for more free and mobile health clinics, not against comfortable park benches. If the concern is with public sanitation, let's advocate for more public bathrooms, not against bus shelters. If the concern is with people shooting up in public places, let's work on getting safe shelters and needle exchanges, not sharp spikes on low walls.
I understand the concern that in talking about hostile architecture, people might be limiting themselves to a weak liberal tolerance of homeless people, instead of trying to help them. But I'm not seeing any indication that anyone advocating for hostile architecture is any more concerned for the homeless people themselves than the critics are. Does every purchase of an unusable bench come with a matched donation to the local free clinic? Is a strip of metal spikes offset by more beds at a local shelter? Are we pushing people out of parks and into the open arms of caring providers? I see no indication that any this is the case, and besides that, I'm not sure it would be enough. This kind of architecture harms everyone, not only the intended targets, and it only serves to make our homeless cousins more invisible.
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 2:47 PM on June 28, 2019 [20 favorites]
If we are concerned about disease among homeless people, I'd rather advocate for more free and mobile health clinics, not against comfortable park benches. If the concern is with public sanitation, let's advocate for more public bathrooms, not against bus shelters. If the concern is with people shooting up in public places, let's work on getting safe shelters and needle exchanges, not sharp spikes on low walls.
I understand the concern that in talking about hostile architecture, people might be limiting themselves to a weak liberal tolerance of homeless people, instead of trying to help them. But I'm not seeing any indication that anyone advocating for hostile architecture is any more concerned for the homeless people themselves than the critics are. Does every purchase of an unusable bench come with a matched donation to the local free clinic? Is a strip of metal spikes offset by more beds at a local shelter? Are we pushing people out of parks and into the open arms of caring providers? I see no indication that any this is the case, and besides that, I'm not sure it would be enough. This kind of architecture harms everyone, not only the intended targets, and it only serves to make our homeless cousins more invisible.
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 2:47 PM on June 28, 2019 [20 favorites]
I'll say all that, and also acknowledge that I'm frustrated with cities like Berkeley that pride themselves on their tolerance, but seem to offer little else to their homeless residents. It's not doing enough. I didn't like walking past human shit on my way to work, but I don't think the solution is to shoo people away. As frustrating as a lack of action can be, I'd rather be frustrated by a lack of action for homeless people than be angry about actions being taken against them. That's what hostile architecture is: not only does it fail to help anyone, it's a use of money and energy that serves only to target human bodies.
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 2:55 PM on June 28, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 2:55 PM on June 28, 2019 [4 favorites]
You literally brought up fear of whooping cough as a justification for making life cruel enough for homeless people so as to keep them away from urban centers.
when residents live within a block or two of large encampments, the sanitation and health risks are shared by everyone. yes, mainly the homeless population but also others nearby.
both a police station and city hall in LA were recently closed due to infectious disease risk. and i'm not blaming the homeless for being poor, i'm saying the sanitation issue generally caused by lack of resources and encampments is the problem.
Housing First is the answer! encampments are not.
but in the meantime, if it makes you feel morally superior to accuse me of being cruel, then go for it.
posted by wibari at 4:37 PM on June 28, 2019 [4 favorites]
when residents live within a block or two of large encampments, the sanitation and health risks are shared by everyone. yes, mainly the homeless population but also others nearby.
both a police station and city hall in LA were recently closed due to infectious disease risk. and i'm not blaming the homeless for being poor, i'm saying the sanitation issue generally caused by lack of resources and encampments is the problem.
Housing First is the answer! encampments are not.
but in the meantime, if it makes you feel morally superior to accuse me of being cruel, then go for it.
posted by wibari at 4:37 PM on June 28, 2019 [4 favorites]
Mostly, I'm confused as to why you think that hostile architecture prevents encampments from forming at all, instead of having the homeless move to a different site. What do you think the homeless do instead?
All hostile architecture does is say 'not here' (or at least 'not comfortably here'). It doesn't give an alternative, and it certainly doesn't prevent encampments from forming anyway. It's hard to see support for that as anything but NIMBYism.
posted by dinty_moore at 5:47 PM on June 28, 2019 [8 favorites]
All hostile architecture does is say 'not here' (or at least 'not comfortably here'). It doesn't give an alternative, and it certainly doesn't prevent encampments from forming anyway. It's hard to see support for that as anything but NIMBYism.
posted by dinty_moore at 5:47 PM on June 28, 2019 [8 favorites]
both a police station and city hall in LA were recently closed due to infectious disease risk.
Because, I note reading those articles, of rats, which require zero homeless population to sustain. The third article quoted a prominent epidemiologist: "“That’s not what’s going on in Los Angeles,” Brewer says. “The problem is not the presence of the homeless people that’s causing the murine typhus outbreaks. It’s the presence of the rat-infected fleas.”"
If you are an educated adult purportedly liberal citizen who literally does not know the implications of rhetoric that equates other human beings with disease-ridden rats...I don't know what to tell you, because that's a choice.
Nobody likes walking by human shit, but, until everyone is housed, that human shit is gonna be somewhere. You just don't want to have to see it. That's all that hostile architecture does for you. Spare you having to look at the vermin.
posted by praemunire at 6:22 PM on June 28, 2019 [16 favorites]
Because, I note reading those articles, of rats, which require zero homeless population to sustain. The third article quoted a prominent epidemiologist: "“That’s not what’s going on in Los Angeles,” Brewer says. “The problem is not the presence of the homeless people that’s causing the murine typhus outbreaks. It’s the presence of the rat-infected fleas.”"
If you are an educated adult purportedly liberal citizen who literally does not know the implications of rhetoric that equates other human beings with disease-ridden rats...I don't know what to tell you, because that's a choice.
Nobody likes walking by human shit, but, until everyone is housed, that human shit is gonna be somewhere. You just don't want to have to see it. That's all that hostile architecture does for you. Spare you having to look at the vermin.
posted by praemunire at 6:22 PM on June 28, 2019 [16 favorites]
jeez, having a reasonable conversation about this topic (between people who probably agree on 90% of it) is like trying to solve mideast peace.
You deploy the word "reasonable," implying that your opponents are being unreasonable. They are being emotional. Look at how angry they are!
But injustice should make you angry.
And hostile infrastructure is an injustice. To look at a man who has next to nothing and say "I will take away even the flat place he would lie down upon, because he is inconvenient for the rest of us" is unjust.
You cannot reason your way out of the immorality: You would rob the most vulnerable members of our society.
posted by JDHarper at 11:20 PM on June 28, 2019 [11 favorites]
You deploy the word "reasonable," implying that your opponents are being unreasonable. They are being emotional. Look at how angry they are!
But injustice should make you angry.
And hostile infrastructure is an injustice. To look at a man who has next to nothing and say "I will take away even the flat place he would lie down upon, because he is inconvenient for the rest of us" is unjust.
You cannot reason your way out of the immorality: You would rob the most vulnerable members of our society.
posted by JDHarper at 11:20 PM on June 28, 2019 [11 favorites]
I feel as if this is a "plastic straw" discussion.
As the approximately ten comments immediately preceding this comment pointed out, hostile architecture negatively impacts many people and is a concern far beyond its effects on homeless populations. Specifically, multiple commenters pointed out the negative effects of hostile architecture on disabled people, which makes support for hostile architecture the equivalent of banning plastic straws, in this analogy.
posted by eviemath at 1:17 AM on June 29, 2019 [8 favorites]
As the approximately ten comments immediately preceding this comment pointed out, hostile architecture negatively impacts many people and is a concern far beyond its effects on homeless populations. Specifically, multiple commenters pointed out the negative effects of hostile architecture on disabled people, which makes support for hostile architecture the equivalent of banning plastic straws, in this analogy.
posted by eviemath at 1:17 AM on June 29, 2019 [8 favorites]
I always wonder a bit at claims that homeless encampments - that are not literally blocking fire escapes or sidewalks, at least - prevent passage through a space.
Often they don’t, but sometimes they do. In the example I mentioned three female acquaintances told me they no longer went that way. I couldn’t say they were unreasonable, because it was dirty and unpleasant and you did get big drunk men looming out of the dark and demanding money pretty aggressively. In fact my friends were angry about it and said that the authorities’ failure to do anything about was (further) evidence that they viewed women’s safety with contempt.
Some seating designed to be hostile is very hard or impossible for a disabled person to sit on at all.
Good point, but disabled people can’t use a bench a homeless person is sleeping on, either.
posted by Segundus at 9:39 AM on June 29, 2019 [4 favorites]
Often they don’t, but sometimes they do. In the example I mentioned three female acquaintances told me they no longer went that way. I couldn’t say they were unreasonable, because it was dirty and unpleasant and you did get big drunk men looming out of the dark and demanding money pretty aggressively. In fact my friends were angry about it and said that the authorities’ failure to do anything about was (further) evidence that they viewed women’s safety with contempt.
Some seating designed to be hostile is very hard or impossible for a disabled person to sit on at all.
Good point, but disabled people can’t use a bench a homeless person is sleeping on, either.
posted by Segundus at 9:39 AM on June 29, 2019 [4 favorites]
In fact my friends were angry about it and said that the authorities’ failure to do anything about was (further) evidence that they viewed women’s safety with contempt.
There are a lot of things that fall under the “anything” umbrella that aren’t just “Move the problem somewhere that you can’t see it”, though.
Good point, but disabled people can’t use a bench a homeless person is sleeping on, either.
So it’s better that neither of them be able to use it?
posted by Etrigan at 9:58 AM on June 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
There are a lot of things that fall under the “anything” umbrella that aren’t just “Move the problem somewhere that you can’t see it”, though.
Good point, but disabled people can’t use a bench a homeless person is sleeping on, either.
So it’s better that neither of them be able to use it?
posted by Etrigan at 9:58 AM on June 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
> Good point, but disabled people can’t use a bench a homeless person is sleeping on, either.
That's a category violation. A disabled person's need to sit is most likely transient and not life threatening. A homeless person's need for a safe place to sleep is a matter of survival. The disabled homeless are even more fucked.
posted by seanmpuckett at 10:08 AM on June 29, 2019 [5 favorites]
That's a category violation. A disabled person's need to sit is most likely transient and not life threatening. A homeless person's need for a safe place to sleep is a matter of survival. The disabled homeless are even more fucked.
posted by seanmpuckett at 10:08 AM on June 29, 2019 [5 favorites]
So how does that work? If we "give them homes" the way I have a home, they'll have to pay a bunch of fixed costs every month, including upkeep. So maybe we use some kind of "public housing" model instead. In that case, we're paying the fixed costs. Now what about the people who are actually humping it to pay for their own housing?
It's not even that hard. You solve homelessness by giving people homes.
But people need to exercise their petty cruelties on the powerless, so lets put spikes every three feet on every flat surface instead.
I had a discussion the other day at work with an extremely liberal coworker. He was outraged at the idea of forgiving student loan debt because it was "unfair" to people that already paid their loans off. Unfortunately, you can only do things in a democracy if you can get wide enough support, and I don't think "giving people homes" is going to fly. Maybe "giving people free dormitory space" is sellable, but I think the people doing the paying need to think they're not just getting the shaft.
By the way, I am in favor of student loan forgiveness even though I and my kids all paid ours off. Starting people off in life in the hole is ridiculous. I'm also happy to pay to reduce homelessness, but I want to feel like it's fixing things, not just bandaging an oozing wound.
posted by Gilgamesh's Chauffeur at 10:37 AM on June 29, 2019 [1 favorite]
The cheapest way to deal with homelessness is to give them homes.
Policing and processing the homeless for nonviolent crimes, paying for emergency room visits, simply cleaning up shit - all of this is both expensive and inhumane.
But the important part is that it's inhumane.
posted by dinty_moore at 10:47 AM on June 29, 2019 [14 favorites]
Policing and processing the homeless for nonviolent crimes, paying for emergency room visits, simply cleaning up shit - all of this is both expensive and inhumane.
But the important part is that it's inhumane.
posted by dinty_moore at 10:47 AM on June 29, 2019 [14 favorites]
I don't know what the answer here is, honestly. I live beside a train station in a major European city, with public space around without any hostile measures. Long benches, trees for shade, lots of sheltered corners, nearby access to food and alcohol. There is even a charity that comes around to provide support for the homeless there. The result is a large group of people spend their days and nights in this area, which in theory is fine. Except I walk through this area every day, along with my toddler and other children who go to a nearby school. The entire area is often full of broken glass, piss, shit, garbage, vomit. Along with regular fights, attacks and harassment. Someone there spit directly in my face a few weeks ago as I was passing through. Hostile architecture is not the solution to homelessness, neither is actively encouraging encampments that negatively affect everyone else in the area. I honestly don’t know what the solution is.
posted by exquisite_deluxe at 12:39 PM on June 29, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by exquisite_deluxe at 12:39 PM on June 29, 2019 [7 favorites]
Low-cost housing and rent control (to prevent homelessness) and affordable housing for people who currently do not have housing are the solutions.
posted by lazuli at 5:51 PM on June 29, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by lazuli at 5:51 PM on June 29, 2019 [7 favorites]
Other solutions include funding the employment of enough social workers to actually get out on the ground and form meaningful relationships with homeless people face to face and case by case. Homeless people are first and foremost people rather than first and foremost homeless; they are not a monolithic Problem that calls for a one-size-fits-all policy Solution. The reasons for homelessness and the appropriate response to it in each case are as varied as people are, and that's pretty damn varied.
Hostile architecture completely ignores this principle. It doesn't make anything better for anybody, and nobody should ever fund it.
posted by flabdablet at 8:13 PM on June 29, 2019 [13 favorites]
Hostile architecture completely ignores this principle. It doesn't make anything better for anybody, and nobody should ever fund it.
posted by flabdablet at 8:13 PM on June 29, 2019 [13 favorites]
"there but for the grace of God, go I" exist. Phrases and thought processes that allow people to think they're blessed, or chosen, or some way superior to people who are less fortunate than they are
Uh... that's like the opposite of what that phrase means.
posted by Hal Mumkin at 10:50 AM on June 30, 2019 [12 favorites]
Uh... that's like the opposite of what that phrase means.
posted by Hal Mumkin at 10:50 AM on June 30, 2019 [12 favorites]
@Melismata: why did you write this? Can you clarify? Feeling really weird about having part of a sincere statement I made to be made as part of a meme that I have no clue what it means. "Metafilter: I can't find the link but it was circulating around my circles a while ago."
posted by yueliang at 8:33 PM on July 1, 2019
posted by yueliang at 8:33 PM on July 1, 2019
Mod note: Yeah this can be a confusing in-joke thing. Here's a thread about the "Metafilter: [partial quoted text]" thing. It's not meant as a commentary about the original comment or commenter, but as some flavor of joke about Metafilter, often pretty much totally meaningless. In this case, I would guess it's just a joke about Metafilter being a place where we make front page posts that link to something ... but sometimes we also argue whether the the quality of the link in the post is more important or if the discussion even from a not-great link is more important. I can delete this bit of confusion from this thread if folks would prefer, but let's not do a "Metafilter: ..." riff here as a follow-up. Thanks.
posted by taz (staff) at 4:36 AM on July 2, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by taz (staff) at 4:36 AM on July 2, 2019 [1 favorite]
I'm noodling over the idea of creating a "walking tour of hostile architecture" for the downtown DC area using guerrilla signage and maybe QR codes? Still trying to figure out the best way of doing this. I'd like to include social commentary and anecdotes about how some activists have responded creatively to hostile architecture (e.g. removing the center armrest of benches). Anyway, if you're in the DC area and are interested in collaborating, hit me up. I'll also be looking to interview & possibly collaborate with some of the local homeless population about their experiences.
posted by duffell at 6:00 AM on July 2, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by duffell at 6:00 AM on July 2, 2019 [2 favorites]
The entire area is often full of broken glass, piss, shit, garbage, vomit. Along with regular fights, attacks and harassment.
Anyone with either income or social connections enough to split a room with four other people or crash on someone's couch, is not in the encampments. Providing cheap-or-free dorm-style housing would go a long way towards breaking those up, because many people who've found something just marginally better than the camps would be happy to have a room of their own with a real bed.
Part of why they're filthy is lack of resources - no public toilets, no access to bathing or laundry, no place to put bottles and boxes and all the damn plastic wrap. Cities don't want to acknowledge that there are people living in the parks, so they don't increase the garbage capacity for that; it's only intended to cover "a few visitors a day, some of whom want to throw away a soda can or bag of fast-food containers."
Part of the harassment and fights is caused by mental illnesses not getting treatment. Part is caused by people who are desperate and terrified: they know that, at any moment, the city could decide to arrest them for the crime of not having enough resources to put a roof over their head, and then destroy all their meager belongings and throw them on the street, a miles away, with even less than the basically nothing they have. So you wind up with a lot of depression, a lot of misdirected anger (it's not like they can punch the city planners in the face), and a lot of weird coping mechanisms.
The solutions need to start with, "These are residents of the city who have the same rights as the people who pay $1800 a month for a studio apartment. How can we make the city safe and comfortable for them?" Starting with, "What kind of housing could we make that's in budget for most of them" gets very different answers from the starting point of, "Where can we send them that they can afford the existing housing options?"
We have extra-bonus-problems from some of the people paying $1800+ for studio apartments, who think they've bought a pack of legal rights and protections along with a safe space to store their laptops, including the "right" not to see people who haven't won the Tech Job Lottery.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 8:52 AM on July 2, 2019 [17 favorites]
Anyone with either income or social connections enough to split a room with four other people or crash on someone's couch, is not in the encampments. Providing cheap-or-free dorm-style housing would go a long way towards breaking those up, because many people who've found something just marginally better than the camps would be happy to have a room of their own with a real bed.
Part of why they're filthy is lack of resources - no public toilets, no access to bathing or laundry, no place to put bottles and boxes and all the damn plastic wrap. Cities don't want to acknowledge that there are people living in the parks, so they don't increase the garbage capacity for that; it's only intended to cover "a few visitors a day, some of whom want to throw away a soda can or bag of fast-food containers."
Part of the harassment and fights is caused by mental illnesses not getting treatment. Part is caused by people who are desperate and terrified: they know that, at any moment, the city could decide to arrest them for the crime of not having enough resources to put a roof over their head, and then destroy all their meager belongings and throw them on the street, a miles away, with even less than the basically nothing they have. So you wind up with a lot of depression, a lot of misdirected anger (it's not like they can punch the city planners in the face), and a lot of weird coping mechanisms.
The solutions need to start with, "These are residents of the city who have the same rights as the people who pay $1800 a month for a studio apartment. How can we make the city safe and comfortable for them?" Starting with, "What kind of housing could we make that's in budget for most of them" gets very different answers from the starting point of, "Where can we send them that they can afford the existing housing options?"
We have extra-bonus-problems from some of the people paying $1800+ for studio apartments, who think they've bought a pack of legal rights and protections along with a safe space to store their laptops, including the "right" not to see people who haven't won the Tech Job Lottery.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 8:52 AM on July 2, 2019 [17 favorites]
You just don't want to have to see it. That's all that hostile architecture does for you. Spare you having to look at the vermin.
praemunire, the next time you spend 6 years living a block away from skid row in LA , and all of the things that entails, then i'll accept you "sparing" me having to "look at the vermin." my issue is not what i have to look at or not look at, or your condescension, but what is safe for the community. feel free to move here anytime, thanks.
posted by wibari at 11:10 PM on July 2, 2019 [1 favorite]
praemunire, the next time you spend 6 years living a block away from skid row in LA , and all of the things that entails, then i'll accept you "sparing" me having to "look at the vermin." my issue is not what i have to look at or not look at, or your condescension, but what is safe for the community. feel free to move here anytime, thanks.
posted by wibari at 11:10 PM on July 2, 2019 [1 favorite]
what is safe for the community
I guess "the community" doesn't include the homeless, then?
Regardless, I don't see how the presence of hostile architecture would make anyone safer.
posted by Dysk at 2:22 AM on July 3, 2019 [14 favorites]
I guess "the community" doesn't include the homeless, then?
Regardless, I don't see how the presence of hostile architecture would make anyone safer.
posted by Dysk at 2:22 AM on July 3, 2019 [14 favorites]
tbh, I was walking around Dupont Circle yesterday and puzzling over what made it such a good community space, and I realized part of it is that the park service pays people to throw out trash. So I think it's easier to clean up spaces and make them liveable than try and make spaces hostile to people trying to live there. Doing the latter is how you get DC's worst park, which I have never seen anyone use for any purpose whatsoever.
posted by capricorn at 8:53 AM on July 3, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by capricorn at 8:53 AM on July 3, 2019 [5 favorites]
DC's worst park, which I have never seen anyone use for any purpose whatsoever
lol wtf is this
posted by duffell at 9:07 AM on July 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
lol wtf is this
posted by duffell at 9:07 AM on July 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
duffell: "lol wtf is this"
omg it sucks so much. it's at 14th and Oak and it's the stupidest thing
posted by capricorn at 12:04 PM on July 3, 2019 [3 favorites]
omg it sucks so much. it's at 14th and Oak and it's the stupidest thing
posted by capricorn at 12:04 PM on July 3, 2019 [3 favorites]
Birb takes direct action against hostile architecture (facebook link, swear word in the user's provided title/description of the video, for those who worry about that or who are reading metafilter at work)
posted by eviemath at 9:34 AM on July 4, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 9:34 AM on July 4, 2019 [6 favorites]
I really love that cockatoo. What makes the video is that you think that oh, well, the bird has just pulled up one piece... and then the video pans down and to the left and you see that he or she has been working their way down a quite long wall. Viva the anarchist cockatoo!
posted by tavella at 2:21 PM on July 9, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by tavella at 2:21 PM on July 9, 2019 [2 favorites]
Cockatoos have always been punk af.
posted by BrotherCaine at 2:46 PM on July 9, 2019
posted by BrotherCaine at 2:46 PM on July 9, 2019
« Older Let's Get Dirty | Naval Readiness and the 5th Fleet Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by MrJM at 5:46 PM on June 27, 2019 [4 favorites]