22 ms·

One of the most important paragraphs: > Most of these goals seem noble, but the overall effect is somewhat demoralizing, and follows a potentially dangerous lo

One of the most important paragraphs: > Most of these goals seem noble, but the overall effect is somewhat demoralizing, and follows a potentially dangerous logic with respect to designing for public spaces. When design solutions address the symptoms of a problem (like sleeping outside in public) rather than the cause of the problem (like the myriad societal shortcomings that lead to homelessness), that problem is simply pushed down the street. Can't agree more. It's so common in France and really depressing. On the linked video (which looks to be shot in Paris, actually), we see dozens of these contraptions right in front of metro ads which cost most than it does to feed and shelter homeless people for several weeks.

madeofpalk 10y ago
But isn't this just 'separation of concerns'? I'm not trying to say 'not my problem', but when the shopping centre is built, they're not primarily concerned about finding houses for the homeless - they want to make sure there are seats available for those who want to sit there temporarily. Lots of public areas, like parks, will be funded by the private sector as a condition of approval for a big apartment building or something - I don't see anything wrong with them spending a minimal amount of effort to prevent 'antisocial behaviour' as well.
- Mithaldu 10y ago
  It's wrong because it means to give up, to close your ears and eyes against the real problem. Anti-social behavior like "homeless sleeping in cavernous shop entries" does not come from nothing. People aren't normally like this. It comes from their environment being anti-social to them by refusing to aid fellow citizens in need. Being social means to actively try and be a society. By actions such as putting up these spikes, these companies are only being anti-social themselves.
  - skybrian 10y ago
    It seems like you're suggesting that as an alternative, we use collective punishment. City dwellers should be putting up with an unpleasant urban environment until someone fixes the homeless problem. Therefore any stopgap measures should be resisted. It's not clear whether this works. On the one hand it does keep the homeless visible. On the other hand it also punishes people who can't practically participate in local politics (tourists for example). And in general, politically powerful people aren't waiting at bus stops all that much, so this strategy doesn't seem all that well-targetted. It may also be counterproductive in that it makes people less rather than more willing to support measures that help the homeless and instead promote measures that punish them in return. That is, punishment may encourage more punishment in response. But I'm just speculating here. It seems like this is unlikely to be settled without actual evidence.
    - Kristine1975 10y ago
      > On the other hand it also punishes people who can't practically participate in local politics (tourists for example) Seeing homeless people is punishment?
      - skybrian 10y ago
        If homeless people are living in the park, other people aren't using it. (Edited)
        Mithaldu 10y ago
        Seeing homeless people can be worse than punishment?
        jerf 10y ago
        You keep calling for people to see the homeless as human, but you're not doing it yourself. You seem to have some infantalized, romantic image of them where they are not capable of doing any wrong and anything that happens to them is the result of external forces out of their control. But they are human. They may be wonderful people down on their luck. They are also capable of being horrible people, committing crimes without any particular excuse, and making bad decisions that are every bit as much their responsibility as it is mine when I make bad decisions. That is irreducibly part of what it means to be human, and if you take that from a group, you have dehumanized them. And in the aggregate, a group of them will inevitably contain some of the latter. You can't address the problem by neglecting that fact. Many have tried, and as always happens when the solution doesn't match the real problem in the real world, those solutions failed. If berating people about homelessness was the solution, the problem would be solved already. That solution has been tried a lot.
        JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        Maybe not 'every bit as much their responsibility'. People can be backed into a corner, and do things we cannot imagine sitting comfortably in our armchairs. See "Les Miserables" for an example.
  - coryfklein 10y ago
    > It's wrong because it means to give up, to close your ears and eyes against the real problem. These aren't mutually exclusive. A shop owner can simultaneously lobby for resolving the root problem of homelessness and lobby for homeless-deterrent benches in the public space in front of their store.
- hnal943 10y ago
  Correct. The article kept referring to "targeted individuals", but in fact it was behavior that was targeted by the design. Disallowing bad behavior is ethical and reasonable.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." -- Anatole France
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  >when the shopping centre is built, they're not primarily concerned about finding houses for the homeless // They're primarily concerned about making profits for the shareholders of the company leading the project, aren't they? No one is building shopping centres with the primary aim to give great shopping experiences - ensure shoppers have places to sit, etc. - that may become a part of the project if it aligns with making profit but if it's better not to have benches because you want people to shop and get out the way then you'll ditch the benches. I'm quite happy with demanding some social responsibility on big real estate developers - like fund a homeless shelter for 20 residents for the duration that the shopping centre is open.
  - Kalium 10y ago
    > I'm quite happy with demanding some social responsibility on big real estate developers - like fund a homeless shelter for 20 residents for the duration that the shopping centre is open. While perhaps a decent idea in the abstract, this can quickly become a problem when such things become regular and unpredictable demands. For instance, a community group in Chicago recently chased away a proposed museum by demanding an extra 5% gross receipts tax. In addition to any normal taxes that might apply. It can lead to really absurd situations. Another example is housing in SF, where some community groups routinely protest against large developments that are 40% subsidized housing on the basis that they're not 100% subsidized housing. Therefore, the logic runs, they should be stopped and a parking lot preserved. I suppose I'm saying it's easy to get carried away on what "some social responsibility" means. And that unreliability and unpredictability are major problems for businesses.
tmptmp 10y ago
>like the myriad societal shortcomings that lead to homelessness I think the author has oversimplified many important things related to the problem of homelessness. I want to point of some other aspects of this problem. Let me explain. How the homelessness of all the homeless people can be blamed on the societal shortcomings? What about the homeless person's shortcomings? Blaming everything on society and ignoring the personal shortcomings may gain political advantage but it sets very bad precedences and spoils the entire societal fabric. (The Marxists/socialists always use this as a tactic to sway public mood and that is more harmful for the free and humane society.) e.g. I may be homeless because I sold my house and spent all the money on drugs or in the casinos or on watching movies or on prostitutes or on the internet or on something else to derive various types of carnal/non-carnal pleasures. In this way, not only I became homeless but I made my entire family of 4 children and a wife homeless. This is just one example. The other major reason is immigration of huge number of people who are unskilled and/or are unwilling to work and migrate to cities which are more popular and hence are more costly and thus find themselves homeless. How exactly can such homelessness be blamed on the society? In the first example, the person, who enjoyed the freedom of choice, must face the consequences of his/her actions. In the other case: it is EU leaders' foolish (almost suicidal) decision to allow unchecked immigration to flood the European cities and make the life of the people already living there a hell. One of the very important reasons for Brexit is related to immigration, especially the immigration of people unwilling to integrate: i.e. people from Islamic countries. I don't deny that there are some people (especially children) who are homeless not because of their own but because of someone else's actions. Let's agree, for the sake of argument, that a more humane society must take responsibility of such homeless people. But even then, even if the homelessness of such people is partly due to some societal shortcomings, why the rest of people should suffer to provide space (e.g. public benches) for the homeless ones to sleep on?
- icebraining 10y ago
  Are you really using the outcomes of a decision by elected officials as a counter-example to the theory of homelessness as societal shortcomings?
  - 10y ago
VeejayRampay 10y ago
Ah the self-hating French... It's not any more common in France than it is elsewhere. If you've been to a major North American city, you'll see that the issue is sometimes way worse abroad, where the social net is literally nothing. You make it sound like the metro in Paris is somewhat extremely homeless-unfriendly, it's not, I take it every single day and most of the seats are normal ones and lots of homeless people sleep and panhandle there in a form of general laissez-faire. I'm not saying France is treating its homeless people well, it's simply not true, but please don't make it look like to the outside world that we're inhumane or particularly harsh in our treatment of the less fortunate.
- scrollaway 10y ago
  I've lived all over Europe and the anti-homeless "ambiance" is strongest in Paris of all places I've visited. I certainly don't compare my country to North America... that'd simply be unfair to north americans.
nine_k 10y ago
On the other hand, I don't think that it's the park bench designers who should directly address the problems of homelessness. It's like criticizing people for having locks on their doors. It would be great if people didn't need them. Unfortunately, certain "societal shortcomings" make them a necessary risk-mitigating measure. I, for one, very much like the design of the Camden bench. It's so less obtrusive and aggressive than e.g. spikes on a storefront. It's much harder to accidentally get hurt by it. These things, which are actually hazardous, not merely preventing unwanted usage, are "unpleasant design" to my eyes.
- everfree 10y ago
  One thing that hasn't been mentioned - in addition to the design features already discussed, the Camden bench makes each person sit facing away from each other, deterring conversation. It's like the ultimate bench for people who don't care about others.
  - nine_k 10y ago
    ...or a bench providing some privacy when you need to sit next to a stranger. A bigger problem I see is that such a bench is hard to position on a curb, next to a wall, etc, where both sides cannot be made accessible.
    - clort 10y ago
      Seems to me that the centre section of the camden bench is big enough for two - also, in one of the photos a lady is sat on the small side of the end section, so sharing a side is certainly possible - also, two people sat on opposite sides but at an angle could almost face each other, like a love seat? http://cyan-teak-furniture.com/acatalog/garden_bench_gift_ideas_contemporary_teak_love_seat.php http://cyan-teak-furniture.com/acatalog/garden_bench_gift_id...
- joesb 10y ago
  The argument is whether or not you view the homeless sleeping in the streets the same as someone breaking in to your house. The former is unpleasant to see, but not actively hurting you, the latter case scream clear malicious intent.
746F7475 10y ago
Simple cost-benefit. If your problem is that homeless people are sleeping in front of your ads and you can A) shelter some homeless people for several weeks or B) install spikes and keep every homeless person away (seemingly) forever.
- ranko 10y ago
  Installing the spikes moves, but doesn't solve the problem; the homeless people are still homeless. Of course, the people who install the spikes don't (at least directly) bear the societal cost of homelessness.
  - s_kilk 10y ago
    We're making the mistake of assuming that "move" is not the win-condition in this scenario. Corporations don't care about solving these problems. Simply moving the problem somewhere else counts as a win for them.
    - eutectic 10y ago
      It's more a lamentation than a mistake.
    - ranko 10y ago
      That's not "win-win" - the corporation wins, but nobody else really does.
      - PeterisP 10y ago
        It is a "win" condition for them. A "win-win" setup could be nice, but it doesn't mean that such result is possible or feasible, and in the absence of solid, realistic "win-win" proposals this is the best option for them.
        ranko 10y ago
        The comment I replied to used the term "win-win" when I replied, but it has since been edited.
ivanhoe 10y ago
Also quite often this design mindset hurts the legit users, too. For instance, lean-on bench costs the same as a normal bench, takes up almost the same space, but doesn't give (valid) users the same benefits. If you are old or obese or have varicose veins, etc. you would certainly prefer to be able to sit down while waiting. Leaning against a wall/bench is just not the same thing. Also if you have a bag you can't put it on the bench or in your lap, you have to keep it on the ground (this one really pisses me off, specially when it rains). If you really go into details and analyse all the angles I'm sure you'd find a dozens more of the little sacrifices that've been made just to keep some people off the benches.
- 746F7475 10y ago
  Quick hypothetical you have a choice between taking cover from rain in a small bus stop which sadly has only this lean-on bench; or you take cover from rain in the same small bus stop expect this time there's a homeless guy sleeping on the only bench.
  - Mithaldu 10y ago
    Good reminder to start voting in such a way that your government actually starts treating them as human beings. Where i'm from it's absolutely super easy to get a good apartment from the government, and i almost never see homeless, despite having lived in various cities with varying levels of affluence and density.
    - tmptmp 10y ago
      >>Where i'm from it's absolutely super easy to get a good apartment from the government, and i almost never see homeless, despite having lived in various cities with varying levels of affluence and density. Genuinely curious. Can you provide the name of your country?
      - Mithaldu 10y ago
        Germany.

madeofpalk 10y ago

But isn't this just 'separation of concerns'? I'm not trying to say 'not my problem', but when the shopping centre is built, they're not primarily concerned about finding houses for the homeless - they want to make sure there are seats available for those who want to sit there temporarily. Lots of public areas, like parks, will be funded by the private sector as a condition of approval for a big apartment building or something - I don't see anything wrong with them spending a minimal amount of effort to prevent 'antisocial behaviour' as well.

Mithaldu 10y ago
It's wrong because it means to give up, to close your ears and eyes against the real problem. Anti-social behavior like "homeless sleeping in cavernous shop entries" does not come from nothing. People aren't normally like this. It comes from their environment being anti-social to them by refusing to aid fellow citizens in need. Being social means to actively try and be a society. By actions such as putting up these spikes, these companies are only being anti-social themselves.
- skybrian 10y ago
  It seems like you're suggesting that as an alternative, we use collective punishment. City dwellers should be putting up with an unpleasant urban environment until someone fixes the homeless problem. Therefore any stopgap measures should be resisted. It's not clear whether this works. On the one hand it does keep the homeless visible. On the other hand it also punishes people who can't practically participate in local politics (tourists for example). And in general, politically powerful people aren't waiting at bus stops all that much, so this strategy doesn't seem all that well-targetted. It may also be counterproductive in that it makes people less rather than more willing to support measures that help the homeless and instead promote measures that punish them in return. That is, punishment may encourage more punishment in response. But I'm just speculating here. It seems like this is unlikely to be settled without actual evidence.
  - Kristine1975 10y ago
    > On the other hand it also punishes people who can't practically participate in local politics (tourists for example) Seeing homeless people is punishment?
    - skybrian 10y ago
      If homeless people are living in the park, other people aren't using it. (Edited)
      - Mithaldu 10y ago
        Seeing homeless people can be worse than punishment?
        jerf 10y ago
        You keep calling for people to see the homeless as human, but you're not doing it yourself. You seem to have some infantalized, romantic image of them where they are not capable of doing any wrong and anything that happens to them is the result of external forces out of their control. But they are human. They may be wonderful people down on their luck. They are also capable of being horrible people, committing crimes without any particular excuse, and making bad decisions that are every bit as much their responsibility as it is mine when I make bad decisions. That is irreducibly part of what it means to be human, and if you take that from a group, you have dehumanized them. And in the aggregate, a group of them will inevitably contain some of the latter. You can't address the problem by neglecting that fact. Many have tried, and as always happens when the solution doesn't match the real problem in the real world, those solutions failed. If berating people about homelessness was the solution, the problem would be solved already. That solution has been tried a lot.
        JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        Maybe not 'every bit as much their responsibility'. People can be backed into a corner, and do things we cannot imagine sitting comfortably in our armchairs. See "Les Miserables" for an example.
- coryfklein 10y ago
  > It's wrong because it means to give up, to close your ears and eyes against the real problem. These aren't mutually exclusive. A shop owner can simultaneously lobby for resolving the root problem of homelessness and lobby for homeless-deterrent benches in the public space in front of their store.
hnal943 10y ago
Correct. The article kept referring to "targeted individuals", but in fact it was behavior that was targeted by the design. Disallowing bad behavior is ethical and reasonable.
- icebraining 10y ago
  "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." -- Anatole France
pbhjpbhj 10y ago
>when the shopping centre is built, they're not primarily concerned about finding houses for the homeless // They're primarily concerned about making profits for the shareholders of the company leading the project, aren't they? No one is building shopping centres with the primary aim to give great shopping experiences - ensure shoppers have places to sit, etc. - that may become a part of the project if it aligns with making profit but if it's better not to have benches because you want people to shop and get out the way then you'll ditch the benches. I'm quite happy with demanding some social responsibility on big real estate developers - like fund a homeless shelter for 20 residents for the duration that the shopping centre is open.
- Kalium 10y ago
  > I'm quite happy with demanding some social responsibility on big real estate developers - like fund a homeless shelter for 20 residents for the duration that the shopping centre is open. While perhaps a decent idea in the abstract, this can quickly become a problem when such things become regular and unpredictable demands. For instance, a community group in Chicago recently chased away a proposed museum by demanding an extra 5% gross receipts tax. In addition to any normal taxes that might apply. It can lead to really absurd situations. Another example is housing in SF, where some community groups routinely protest against large developments that are 40% subsidized housing on the basis that they're not 100% subsidized housing. Therefore, the logic runs, they should be stopped and a parking lot preserved. I suppose I'm saying it's easy to get carried away on what "some social responsibility" means. And that unreliability and unpredictability are major problems for businesses.

tmptmp 10y ago

>like the myriad societal shortcomings that lead to homelessness I think the author has oversimplified many important things related to the problem of homelessness. I want to point of some other aspects of this problem. Let me explain. How the homelessness of all the homeless people can be blamed on the societal shortcomings? What about the homeless person's shortcomings? Blaming everything on society and ignoring the personal shortcomings may gain political advantage but it sets very bad precedences and spoils the entire societal fabric. (The Marxists/socialists always use this as a tactic to sway public mood and that is more harmful for the free and humane society.) e.g. I may be homeless because I sold my house and spent all the money on drugs or in the casinos or on watching movies or on prostitutes or on the internet or on something else to derive various types of carnal/non-carnal pleasures. In this way, not only I became homeless but I made my entire family of 4 children and a wife homeless. This is just one example. The other major reason is immigration of huge number of people who are unskilled and/or are unwilling to work and migrate to cities which are more popular and hence are more costly and thus find themselves homeless. How exactly can such homelessness be blamed on the society? In the first example, the person, who enjoyed the freedom of choice, must face the consequences of his/her actions. In the other case: it is EU leaders' foolish (almost suicidal) decision to allow unchecked immigration to flood the European cities and make the life of the people already living there a hell. One of the very important reasons for Brexit is related to immigration, especially the immigration of people unwilling to integrate: i.e. people from Islamic countries. I don't deny that there are some people (especially children) who are homeless not because of their own but because of someone else's actions. Let's agree, for the sake of argument, that a more humane society must take responsibility of such homeless people. But even then, even if the homelessness of such people is partly due to some societal shortcomings, why the rest of people should suffer to provide space (e.g. public benches) for the homeless ones to sleep on?

icebraining 10y ago
Are you really using the outcomes of a decision by elected officials as a counter-example to the theory of homelessness as societal shortcomings?
- 10y ago

VeejayRampay 10y ago

Ah the self-hating French... It's not any more common in France than it is elsewhere. If you've been to a major North American city, you'll see that the issue is sometimes way worse abroad, where the social net is literally nothing. You make it sound like the metro in Paris is somewhat extremely homeless-unfriendly, it's not, I take it every single day and most of the seats are normal ones and lots of homeless people sleep and panhandle there in a form of general laissez-faire. I'm not saying France is treating its homeless people well, it's simply not true, but please don't make it look like to the outside world that we're inhumane or particularly harsh in our treatment of the less fortunate.

scrollaway 10y ago
I've lived all over Europe and the anti-homeless "ambiance" is strongest in Paris of all places I've visited. I certainly don't compare my country to North America... that'd simply be unfair to north americans.

nine_k 10y ago

On the other hand, I don't think that it's the park bench designers who should directly address the problems of homelessness. It's like criticizing people for having locks on their doors. It would be great if people didn't need them. Unfortunately, certain "societal shortcomings" make them a necessary risk-mitigating measure. I, for one, very much like the design of the Camden bench. It's so less obtrusive and aggressive than e.g. spikes on a storefront. It's much harder to accidentally get hurt by it. These things, which are actually hazardous, not merely preventing unwanted usage, are "unpleasant design" to my eyes.

everfree 10y ago
One thing that hasn't been mentioned - in addition to the design features already discussed, the Camden bench makes each person sit facing away from each other, deterring conversation. It's like the ultimate bench for people who don't care about others.
- nine_k 10y ago
  ...or a bench providing some privacy when you need to sit next to a stranger. A bigger problem I see is that such a bench is hard to position on a curb, next to a wall, etc, where both sides cannot be made accessible.
  - clort 10y ago
    Seems to me that the centre section of the camden bench is big enough for two - also, in one of the photos a lady is sat on the small side of the end section, so sharing a side is certainly possible - also, two people sat on opposite sides but at an angle could almost face each other, like a love seat? http://cyan-teak-furniture.com/acatalog/garden_bench_gift_ideas_contemporary_teak_love_seat.php http://cyan-teak-furniture.com/acatalog/garden_bench_gift_id...
joesb 10y ago
The argument is whether or not you view the homeless sleeping in the streets the same as someone breaking in to your house. The former is unpleasant to see, but not actively hurting you, the latter case scream clear malicious intent.

746F7475 10y ago

Simple cost-benefit. If your problem is that homeless people are sleeping in front of your ads and you can A) shelter some homeless people for several weeks or B) install spikes and keep every homeless person away (seemingly) forever.

ranko 10y ago
Installing the spikes moves, but doesn't solve the problem; the homeless people are still homeless. Of course, the people who install the spikes don't (at least directly) bear the societal cost of homelessness.
- s_kilk 10y ago
  We're making the mistake of assuming that "move" is not the win-condition in this scenario. Corporations don't care about solving these problems. Simply moving the problem somewhere else counts as a win for them.
  - eutectic 10y ago
    It's more a lamentation than a mistake.
  - ranko 10y ago
    That's not "win-win" - the corporation wins, but nobody else really does.
    - PeterisP 10y ago
      It is a "win" condition for them. A "win-win" setup could be nice, but it doesn't mean that such result is possible or feasible, and in the absence of solid, realistic "win-win" proposals this is the best option for them.
      - ranko 10y ago
        The comment I replied to used the term "win-win" when I replied, but it has since been edited.

ivanhoe 10y ago

Also quite often this design mindset hurts the legit users, too. For instance, lean-on bench costs the same as a normal bench, takes up almost the same space, but doesn't give (valid) users the same benefits. If you are old or obese or have varicose veins, etc. you would certainly prefer to be able to sit down while waiting. Leaning against a wall/bench is just not the same thing. Also if you have a bag you can't put it on the bench or in your lap, you have to keep it on the ground (this one really pisses me off, specially when it rains). If you really go into details and analyse all the angles I'm sure you'd find a dozens more of the little sacrifices that've been made just to keep some people off the benches.

746F7475 10y ago
Quick hypothetical you have a choice between taking cover from rain in a small bus stop which sadly has only this lean-on bench; or you take cover from rain in the same small bus stop expect this time there's a homeless guy sleeping on the only bench.
- Mithaldu 10y ago
  Good reminder to start voting in such a way that your government actually starts treating them as human beings. Where i'm from it's absolutely super easy to get a good apartment from the government, and i almost never see homeless, despite having lived in various cities with varying levels of affluence and density.
  - tmptmp 10y ago
    >>Where i'm from it's absolutely super easy to get a good apartment from the government, and i almost never see homeless, despite having lived in various cities with varying levels of affluence and density. Genuinely curious. Can you provide the name of your country?
    - Mithaldu 10y ago
      Germany.