3 ms·

See also the Camden Bench, a bench that was painstakingly designed to have literally no other function than being a bench. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camden

See also the Camden Bench, a bench that was painstakingly designed to have literally no other function than being a bench. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camden_bench https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camden_bench

mysterypie 8y ago
There's a lesson in Public Relations here. The designers were criticized for their anti-homeless, hostile architecture. If I were the designer, I was thinking to myself as to how I'd respond. My initial thoughts on what I could say: 1. "I was given a set of requirements and this is what meets the requirements." 2. "No comment. Please address your complaints to the city council who commissioned the benches." 3. "You don't want to sit on a urine-soaked bench, do you?" 4. "I'm sorry but I can't solve the homelessness problem." They all sound defensive. What the designers actually said is excellent. It could be a lesson in Public Relations: The designers said that: "Homelessness should never be tolerated in any society and if we start designing in to accommodate homeless then we have totally failed as a society. Close proximity to homelessness unfortunately makes us uncomfortable so perhaps it is good that we feel that and recognise homelessness as a problem rather than design to accommodate it."
- icebraining 8y ago
  That's curious, I find that statement so slimy I'm afraid to slip on it. It tries to misdirect the conversation by painting the criticism as "not design to accommodate the homeless", when it actually was "don't design to purposefully exclude the homeless", which their design does at the expense of being worse for non-homeless people too (everyone may need to lie down sometimes). It also indirectly portraits anything done to ameliorate a social ill negatively, which is a shitty thing to do. Fuck me, that statement makes me angry. At least "just doing my job" is honest, now I'm hoping they go bankrupt.
  - lobotryas 8y ago
    I think your thought process is taking you for a ride. The designer’s answer (as self-serving as it may be) says that we should work to fix the root causes of homelessness and not just empower it.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - icebraining 8y ago
      Which is the whole misdirection I'm talking. Nobody criticized them for not "empowering homelessness".
- ajuc 8y ago
  > Close proximity to homelessness unfortunately makes us uncomfortable so perhaps it is good that we feel that and recognise homelessness as a problem rather than design to accommodate it But they are designing benches so that homeless people don't bother others by sleeping on them. That reduces "proximity with homelessness" far more, than regular benches do.
LyndsySimon 8y ago
Those actually look significantly better to me than the ones I regularly see in the US, with several "armrests" placed on a traditional bench in an attempt to prevent someone from using it as a place to sleep.

mysterypie 8y ago

There's a lesson in Public Relations here. The designers were criticized for their anti-homeless, hostile architecture. If I were the designer, I was thinking to myself as to how I'd respond. My initial thoughts on what I could say: 1. "I was given a set of requirements and this is what meets the requirements." 2. "No comment. Please address your complaints to the city council who commissioned the benches." 3. "You don't want to sit on a urine-soaked bench, do you?" 4. "I'm sorry but I can't solve the homelessness problem." They all sound defensive. What the designers actually said is excellent. It could be a lesson in Public Relations: The designers said that: "Homelessness should never be tolerated in any society and if we start designing in to accommodate homeless then we have totally failed as a society. Close proximity to homelessness unfortunately makes us uncomfortable so perhaps it is good that we feel that and recognise homelessness as a problem rather than design to accommodate it."

icebraining 8y ago
That's curious, I find that statement so slimy I'm afraid to slip on it. It tries to misdirect the conversation by painting the criticism as "not design to accommodate the homeless", when it actually was "don't design to purposefully exclude the homeless", which their design does at the expense of being worse for non-homeless people too (everyone may need to lie down sometimes). It also indirectly portraits anything done to ameliorate a social ill negatively, which is a shitty thing to do. Fuck me, that statement makes me angry. At least "just doing my job" is honest, now I'm hoping they go bankrupt.
- lobotryas 8y ago
  I think your thought process is taking you for a ride. The designer’s answer (as self-serving as it may be) says that we should work to fix the root causes of homelessness and not just empower it.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - icebraining 8y ago
    Which is the whole misdirection I'm talking. Nobody criticized them for not "empowering homelessness".
ajuc 8y ago
> Close proximity to homelessness unfortunately makes us uncomfortable so perhaps it is good that we feel that and recognise homelessness as a problem rather than design to accommodate it But they are designing benches so that homeless people don't bother others by sleeping on them. That reduces "proximity with homelessness" far more, than regular benches do.

LyndsySimon 8y ago

Those actually look significantly better to me than the ones I regularly see in the US, with several "armrests" placed on a traditional bench in an attempt to prevent someone from using it as a place to sleep.