4 ms·

> The Camden Bench is virtually impossible to sleep on. It is anti-dealer and anti-litter because it features no slots or crevices in which to stash drugs or in

> The Camden Bench is virtually impossible to sleep on. It is anti-dealer and anti-litter because it features no slots or crevices in which to stash drugs or into which trash could slip. It is anti-theft because the recesses near the ground allow people to store bags behind their legs and away from would be criminals. It is anti-skateboard because the edges on the bench fluctuate in height to make grinding difficult. It is anti-graffiti because it has a special coating to repel paint. It's a bench for sitting on, I don't understand how anyone gave this a second thought. And are they treating the anti-skate/anti-graffiti as negatives? Why would the city not want to protect their property and make keep the tear to a minimum.

chriswarbo 10y ago
The words are negative ("anti-", "hostile", etc.), and that seems gives the article a slight bias against these things, but overall it seems to be mostly trying to call attention to these things. For example, the concluding remarks: > Whether handed down by the establishment or created in response to official interventions, there is always an aspect of coercion to design. Usability design, for instance, is used to get people to buy things and use their smartphones in certain ways, often without the user even being aware of it. Fundamentally, works of unpleasant design, hostile architecture and street furniture in general are no different. > The reason we need a critical theory of unpleasant design is so we can recognize the coercion that is taking place in our public spaces. We need to know when we are replacing human interaction, nuance and empathy with hard, physical and non-negotiable solutions. > Whether you think a certain form of design is exclusionary but serves a greater good, or believe it is just hostile and offensive, it is important to be aware of the decisions that are being made for you. Designs that are unpleasant to some are put into place to make things more pleasant for others, and that latter category might just include you. They mostly seem to be against the public being coerced unknowingly. For example, many people might think the purpose of segmenting a bench with arm rests is for the seater's convenience/comfort, or that 'leaning benches' are just a way to save on materials cost. Regardless of whether public opinion agrees or disagrees with the main reasons for these trends (e.g. anti-sleeping), we can't know what that opinion is until these reasons are commonly known.
- coryfklein 10y ago
  > overall it seems to be mostly trying to call attention to these things. Thanks for pointing this out. For me, items like the Camden bench immediately stood out as having that coercive element, so I assumed the article had an axe to grind against them by focusing on their negative effects. It seems that these kinds of coercive design elements are not equally transparent to everyone. In that light, the article would definitely enlightening to the unaware.
pimlottc 10y ago
Consider it this way. The Camden Bench has a clear dictum - thou shalt only sit. It's pretty clear that this object has been placed by a rigid authority with strong opinions on the right and wrong way to use their bench. A "standard" bench is more neutral - here is a bench. Do with it what you like. The user is invited to exercise their own preferences in how to use it. It acknowledges that the user may have their own valid ideas about how to use it. Consequently, the user feels more respected. It's like using a locked-down phone vs one where the user is free to install their own firmware. The former may be adequate for many and more straightforward to use, but it may not serve all users and many would bristle just at the suggestion that they are being limited in what they can do.
- cturner 10y ago
  "It's pretty clear that this object has been placed by a rigid authority with strong opinions on the right and wrong way to use their bench." Should benches even be fixed in place? That is an expression of authority also. What if we were to built it out of modular components, and place it, without it being bolted in place? There would be problems from doing this. Are some of the same problems true of the multi-use bench you describe? There are problems with your analogy to phones. Phones are private property. The benches in this thread are public property. We could quibble about what those terms mean, but it's clear that they are affected by different priorities and dynamics.
  - pimlottc 10y ago
    It's a rough analogy, I admit. But the meaning of "public" vs "private", that's one of the central issues here. What rights does a random person have over an object in the public space? They don't own it, but somehow they should have some say. Maybe that's a bad question; this is not just about legal rights. Does the object suggest a sense of partnership, of shared ownership, of community? If I feel engaged in my city, I'll respect it, I'll take care of it, I'll help it develop. If not, I won't bother. Maybe it'll get littered, broken, tagged. Design plays a role here in forming that impression.
    - 10y ago
anonred 10y ago
The issue I took away from the article is that the bench's unique design actually inhibits its primary function: sitting. The slanted seats make for poor resting areas and require a sizable open space for installation. Not to mention it causes people to sit in opposite directions from each other, making typical conversations near impossible. The other features like anti-(skate|graffiti) are interesting, but designing for a particular aim always requires tradeoffs. In this case, I'm not sure it's really worth it.
icebraining 10y ago
It's a bench for sitting on, I don't understand how anyone gave this a second thought. It's almost a copy-paste of the brochure: https://web.archive.org/web/20140903121925/http://www.factoryfurniture.co.uk/products-camden-bench.php https://web.archive.org/web/20140903121925/http://www.factor... The bench was specifically designed to have those "features", it's not an incidental property.
- wingerlang 10y ago
  My question is why people are upset about it, why are you quoting features? It is a bench - for sitting on. Not for sleeping, skating, dealing drugs, littering on or spraying graffiti. So why is it bad that it deters those things?
  - zelos 10y ago
    I guess because in skewing the design to prevent those things, it makes it less good at actually being a bench. It's less comfortable, you can't lean back on it and it's extremely ugly. Whether that's a worthwhile trade-off or not is another question, but it is a trade-off.
  - Kristine1975 10y ago
    Because a public bench should also be for sleeping and skating.
    - wingerlang 10y ago
      ...since when?
      - Kristine1975 10y ago
        Since always. Public property should be usable by the public in any way they see fit, as long as they don't damage it.
        10y ago

chriswarbo 10y ago

The words are negative ("anti-", "hostile", etc.), and that seems gives the article a slight bias against these things, but overall it seems to be mostly trying to call attention to these things. For example, the concluding remarks: > Whether handed down by the establishment or created in response to official interventions, there is always an aspect of coercion to design. Usability design, for instance, is used to get people to buy things and use their smartphones in certain ways, often without the user even being aware of it. Fundamentally, works of unpleasant design, hostile architecture and street furniture in general are no different. > The reason we need a critical theory of unpleasant design is so we can recognize the coercion that is taking place in our public spaces. We need to know when we are replacing human interaction, nuance and empathy with hard, physical and non-negotiable solutions. > Whether you think a certain form of design is exclusionary but serves a greater good, or believe it is just hostile and offensive, it is important to be aware of the decisions that are being made for you. Designs that are unpleasant to some are put into place to make things more pleasant for others, and that latter category might just include you. They mostly seem to be against the public being coerced unknowingly. For example, many people might think the purpose of segmenting a bench with arm rests is for the seater's convenience/comfort, or that 'leaning benches' are just a way to save on materials cost. Regardless of whether public opinion agrees or disagrees with the main reasons for these trends (e.g. anti-sleeping), we can't know what that opinion is until these reasons are commonly known.

coryfklein 10y ago
> overall it seems to be mostly trying to call attention to these things. Thanks for pointing this out. For me, items like the Camden bench immediately stood out as having that coercive element, so I assumed the article had an axe to grind against them by focusing on their negative effects. It seems that these kinds of coercive design elements are not equally transparent to everyone. In that light, the article would definitely enlightening to the unaware.

pimlottc 10y ago

Consider it this way. The Camden Bench has a clear dictum - thou shalt only sit. It's pretty clear that this object has been placed by a rigid authority with strong opinions on the right and wrong way to use their bench. A "standard" bench is more neutral - here is a bench. Do with it what you like. The user is invited to exercise their own preferences in how to use it. It acknowledges that the user may have their own valid ideas about how to use it. Consequently, the user feels more respected. It's like using a locked-down phone vs one where the user is free to install their own firmware. The former may be adequate for many and more straightforward to use, but it may not serve all users and many would bristle just at the suggestion that they are being limited in what they can do.

cturner 10y ago
"It's pretty clear that this object has been placed by a rigid authority with strong opinions on the right and wrong way to use their bench." Should benches even be fixed in place? That is an expression of authority also. What if we were to built it out of modular components, and place it, without it being bolted in place? There would be problems from doing this. Are some of the same problems true of the multi-use bench you describe? There are problems with your analogy to phones. Phones are private property. The benches in this thread are public property. We could quibble about what those terms mean, but it's clear that they are affected by different priorities and dynamics.
- pimlottc 10y ago
  It's a rough analogy, I admit. But the meaning of "public" vs "private", that's one of the central issues here. What rights does a random person have over an object in the public space? They don't own it, but somehow they should have some say. Maybe that's a bad question; this is not just about legal rights. Does the object suggest a sense of partnership, of shared ownership, of community? If I feel engaged in my city, I'll respect it, I'll take care of it, I'll help it develop. If not, I won't bother. Maybe it'll get littered, broken, tagged. Design plays a role here in forming that impression.
  - 10y ago

anonred 10y ago

The issue I took away from the article is that the bench's unique design actually inhibits its primary function: sitting. The slanted seats make for poor resting areas and require a sizable open space for installation. Not to mention it causes people to sit in opposite directions from each other, making typical conversations near impossible. The other features like anti-(skate|graffiti) are interesting, but designing for a particular aim always requires tradeoffs. In this case, I'm not sure it's really worth it.

icebraining 10y ago

It's a bench for sitting on, I don't understand how anyone gave this a second thought. It's almost a copy-paste of the brochure: https://web.archive.org/web/20140903121925/http://www.factoryfurniture.co.uk/products-camden-bench.php https://web.archive.org/web/20140903121925/http://www.factor... The bench was specifically designed to have those "features", it's not an incidental property.

wingerlang 10y ago
My question is why people are upset about it, why are you quoting features? It is a bench - for sitting on. Not for sleeping, skating, dealing drugs, littering on or spraying graffiti. So why is it bad that it deters those things?
- zelos 10y ago
  I guess because in skewing the design to prevent those things, it makes it less good at actually being a bench. It's less comfortable, you can't lean back on it and it's extremely ugly. Whether that's a worthwhile trade-off or not is another question, but it is a trade-off.
- Kristine1975 10y ago
  Because a public bench should also be for sleeping and skating.
  - wingerlang 10y ago
    ...since when?
    - Kristine1975 10y ago
      Since always. Public property should be usable by the public in any way they see fit, as long as they don't damage it.
      - 10y ago