For example benches like these that make it uncomfortable/impossible for people to lay down
Sometimes there are two sides of the story i guess
Hello there
Yeah same, I can't stand without help from handles or arms on chairs etc
I get what you're saying, but couldn't they be at the end of the bench and not in the middle and still help you stand and sit?
Some people require a handle in a reachable distance from both sides to sit and stand. I work in healthcare and a lot of our elderly patients can have ahard time getting in or off chairs with only 1 armrest.
not an ideal fix for the issue, but maybe a longer bench with two double handled seats on each end and then a long bench area in the middle with no handles..? I have no idea, just a thought
This would require the city to not only do less effort to annoy the homeless, but actually put in effort to help them? Are we living in the same world?
Have it come from the back and over the top so u could still lay
Why do they need to be at the ends? Aren’t the benches for sitting?
Yeah, but this design is often considered to be anti-homeless people, done to prevent them from sleeping on the bench
Well homeless people arent supposed to sleep on benches, especially in cph there is ample services to help
Also,we don't really have a homeless problem like that. U.S standards most defintly ain't ours.
It would help you just as much if they were on the side of the bench instead of the middle though, right?
Not personally, but the "stand-benches" in the metro stations are a bit like that.
They're really good for taking some of the load off one's feet (if you can get one; each metro station only has a few), but you can't lie down or even sit in the normal waty.
So not truly hostile, but still designed to not be useful for people who want to lie down to sleep.
Just the fact that you can't sit down in the station is honestly a travesty. Not everyone can handle standing or leaning
Yeah there could easily be a few benches along some of the walls. Though you will rarely be standing more than 5 minutes
I sit on the metal side thing of the escalators 😂
They also really suck if you are a short person. They're too tall for me to use them.
True. They’re probably designed for Scandinavians, whom are quite tall (I myself am around 180 cm)
Not true. If you walk towards the end of the platform you will find benches
In Copenhagen I find there’s generally a lack of benches :(
Don't the metro come every 2-3 minutes?
Not during the night, you can wait 20-25mn for your next metro if you need to go through a specific line.
Inconvenience the many ( people with chronic pain, elderly, pregnant, bad backs ) just so the homeless can go get fucked!
Rahhhh capitalism baby.
Everything I don’t like is capitalism!
Capitalism on the public metro system? What the fuck are you talking about?
DSB doesn't build the station itself, the state does. And the state is capitalist.
Uhh
The state hires private companies to do the work so there is no "uhh" about it
What else do you want them to do? Hire experts and builders and run the whole project themselves? It would be a catastrophe in terms of wasted money and expired deadlines.
To be fair, this does sound like socialism, which they might be in favor of, considering the intense critique of capitalism...
Not that I agree in any way though
I didn't really say that though did I? I just refuted that there was any uncertainty about the state's current capitalist mode of governance.
Most of the time you'll only be standing for five minutes until the next train arrives.
From my understanding it's also a sort of compromise between allowing more comfortable options and allowing space in areas that often experience a huge influx of people.
In that regard I can understand not having benches that require more space and lend themselves to people also spreading themselves out more.
I can't tell you how many times I've tripped over people with their feet out at train stations with seating existing in places that don't truly allow the room for it.
Having said that though, it's also possible that's just their good excuse for hostile design. 😅
It’s not hostile design. It’s an intentional decision to avoid people lingering. There are also no shops in the Copenhagen Metro for the same reason.
In both cases, it’s a trade-off. I don’t know if they reached the right balance. But they really did succeed in designing stations where it’s easy to get in and out, you don’t have to walk very much (in contrast to the London underground for instance) and the system is very efficient at transporting people.
so … class example of passive hostility? ir might i say “hygge hostility”? 🥲
It would be hostile design if it served no purpose other than to annoy people, but it does serve another purpose. If they had to add benches, the stations would need to be bigger which would make construction and maintenance more expensive. More space also means it now takes longer to traverse the station. Having more people linger means it is harder to get through the crowd of people. People getting up from the benches and going to the train takes longer than if people stand right next to the door, so it would probably have to stop at each station for longer. Each of these makes it hard as it gets through the station and add travel time.
Also, with the current design, people don’t have to walk a lot which makes it more accessible to people with mobility issues.
As I said, it’s a trade-off and just because they didn’t reach the result you would like does not mean, malicious intent.
A.k.a. hostile design
It would be hostile design if it served no purpose other than to annoy people, but it does serve another purpose. If they had to add benches, the stations would need to be bigger which would make construction and maintenance more expensive. More space also means it now takes longer to traverse the station. Having more people linger means it is harder to get through the crowd of people. People getting up from the benches and going to the train takes longer than if people stand right next to the door, so it would probably have to stop at each station for longer. Each of these makes it hard as it gets through the station and add travel time.
Also, with the current design, people don’t have to walk a lot which makes it more accessible to people with mobility issues.
As I said, it’s a trade-off and just because they didn’t reach the result you would like does not mean, malicious intent.
I am sorry, I think you are misinformed of what hostile architecture is. Here are quote of the first sentence from wiki "Hostile architecture[a] is an urban-design strategy that uses elements of the built environment to purposefully guide behavior."
Now if you don't like wiki here are the first sentence from the paper "On hostile design: Theoretical and empirical prospects"'s abstract
"Instances of ‘hostile design’ appear across urban space, aimed at pushing particular behaviour – and, ultimately, particular people – out of public areas. "
And thus it is not hostile architecture, if it servers no purpose other than annoy people.
I am. Clearly. The phrase leads itself to different connotations and the comment I originally replied to also misused the term. It’s really hard to have a conversation on the Internet if we’re having it on two different levels because someone initially misuses the term.
The metro is designed so no one wants to "hang out" in the metro. The Metro wants people to only go down, take the metro to their destination and go up and away. That's why they don't have benches And it doesn't matter if you are homeless, young party drinkers, business men, or Hr & Fru. Danmark. Metro doesn't want people to hang out down there
I talked to one of the architects that designed the metro stations. The stand benches are designed like that as a nudging message: “don’t sit down the next train will arrive in a minute”.
Sounds very off. In Japan where there were literally 3 minutes between each train, they have benches you can sit on. You don't make sitting areas for many you make it for the few who need it. Actually all of east Asia has benches. This is hostile architecture, no matter if it was intended to be so or not. Intention is irrelevant. :-)
Japan has a shit ton of older people, way more than in Europe, so possible it's design that way to help older commuters.
Are you unaware of the increase in elderly people in Western Europe? The current average age in Denmark is 42. 2.4 million people are above 60. Soon we will hit 50%, but yeah it is an issue in Japan
that is simply not true. Just came back from Japan and used the train a lot. Very few seats that people gladly give up for elderly, pregnant and other, precisely because there are few. Lots of icons on the floor or where to stand instead. And lines, lots of floor designed lines ;) so you don't walk or stand in the middle of a flow. ;)
Just telling you what the man said. Seems you have made up your mind, based on your Japanese experience 🤷🏻♂️
"The purpose of a system is what it does"
They felt hostile back when I was pregnant.
That is hostile
Haha yes if you are 170cm or above... no resting for short people 🥲
Yeah, although I kind of understand it. They don't want drunk people to sleep at the stations every night. However, I feel like there should be some nice medium than the current solution.
They are truly hostile.
They are absolutely hostile to young children. My sons can't sit on these benches. I can't properly sit on them with my children on my lap either. And it's of course absolutely impossible to breastfeed on these benches.
You are meant to place your buttocks between the bars and not directly on them.
Don't tell me what to do
Speak for yourself
The bar sits betwixt me cheeks
Don’t rationalize with a lefty American trying to bring politics into every conversation
You can sleep there fine, even with inbuilt protection from falling stuff 😉
Have you tried?
Ground gets really fucking cold compared to a free floating bench when your only source of heat is yourself.
Sorry If it's obvious but your will wink smiley made me doubt the angle of your post
They mean someone can fit through the handles and actually sleep a little snug with protection.
Like a bug in a rug 🍿
It looks old people friendly to me. Handrails for helping get on your feet.
Place them at the ends of the bench instead of directly in the middle. :-) ow wait, then people can sleep there without much discomfort...... It is a freaking shame how people who sleep outside get treated.
So the person in the middle can't get up or what about the person who only has strength in one side. The bench is for sitting and made helpful for people sitting.
What a silly comment. The bench is for more than 2 people, if you have an elderly person in the middle they can’t reach the ends??
My grandma is quite old (close to 80) and have trouble standing up or sitting down. Architecture like this helps her a lot. Furthermore Denmark has a lot of places and opportunities to help homeless people and spends a lot of money on it, personally I would prefer if those services would be continued and not being angry at a bench.
That is a good post, because it brings out an honest reflection about different topics; hostile architecture for sure, but also why Denmark doesn’t have so many homeless people (13,000 in 2017), and why is it so prevalent in the USA. Also about the Metro, and design of public spaces… I really appreciate living here. And this discussion.
I did anthropological research on how we treat and talk about people who are sleeping outside. It was terrible. Det er skammeligt. We are using the same narratives about people who sleep outside as we use about suicide.... "Det er en epidemi". What does that say? It removes the self-determination that people have and reduces them to victims of circumstances. They might very well be victims of circumstances, but it is none the less dehumanising.
That was just a single example of narratives that I researched. It is disgusting the way that our narratives are constructed around people in those situations, no matter they are suicidal or are living outside.
epidemi
But it is. An epidemic is a very large problem.
Do you think homelessness is desirable?
Or maybe it's just more ergonomic, so older people have something to lean on when sitting up and down? Also doesn't look like an afterthought, rather as an intentional part of the bench - all 3 seats have a handle rather than just the sides.
Hostile? What?
Many disabled people actually need BOTH handrails to get up, not just one. An object can be more then just one thing. In is case I see it as both hostile to homeless people and inclusive towards old and handicapped people.
I'm curious to whether there has been conducted any research on design that both makes it easy if elderly and disabled people to get up as well as not taking anything away from homeless people that only have access to sleeping outside.
How do you fit an American on that bench?
That's exactly who it's hostile towards
sad McEagle noises
LOL
It's hostile towards homeless people. There are a lot of places in Copenhagen where they take initiative to make the least uncomfortable places for people without homes to sleep inaccessible.
Nothing more American than body shaming!
Best comment
You got a point.
You can look at it from two perspectives.
The soft perspective where you feel a bench in a public area should always be designed so a homeless can sleep there during the night. In theory we could all be homeless at one point in our lives and from a humanitarian standpoint we should not design public places so that they can’t be used by the most vulnerable people in our society.
The cold perspective where you simply don’t want public benches to be occupied by homeless people sleeping there and staying there throughout the night and sometimes also through the entire day. Let’s be honest - most homeless staying in the street are either mentally ill or have just chosen to be on the streets and they have very little control over what they’re doing, because most of them are either intoxicated or high on drugs and use the public areas surrounding to piss and shit in. The smell alone from them and their belongings is enough to scare people away from feeling comfortable near the homeless. Benches are there for people to sit in, not for homeless people to build their home around the bench making it impossible for other people to use the bench or even feeling comfortable just being in the area around the bench. That’s why we see more and more of these hostile public designs.
Anyone remember the waiting rooms at the train stations ? For instance the one at Norrebro S train station. It has been locked up for years now. It used to attract homeless drug addicts and alcoholic’s who made the entire waiting room into their private homeless living room. They puked, took a dump and pissed in there and in the escalator near by. People were scared or felt uncomfortable just walking nearby that waiting room. You can’t have that behaviour on a public train station. You simply just can’t.
That’s why we see more and more hostile public designs. The people in charge of these areas are not the people who should help and take care of our homeless.
Another example. The wooden benches in front of the new house for martial arts close to Norrebro station were very nice to sit in for a few minutes after doing one’s shopping. That is until the gypsies/romanies took over all the benches and pissed and took dumps nearby and left all their garbage on the benches and on the ground nearby. I almost never use the benches anymore. They are simply either overcrowded with screaming gypsies or the benches are so filthy that I don’t want to sit on them.
This is an example of what happens to public areas, when we let the fragile people have it their way, because they often have no other choice. But it’s also a good example of why we can’t invite the entire world to Copenhagen and not set up some standards for the people we allow to come to our country. The local area around Norrebro station is a public shithole, full of dozens of romans/gypsies who piss, shit and drinks throughout the entire day.
To all you guys, who feel we should allow these vulnerable people the right to occupy these public areas, why don’t you invite a few of them to sleep on your couch 365 days a year, if a couple of 1000 of you did that, that would definitely solve the problem.
Sit or lay down the f at home or on the grass.
How is that hostile? Benches are meant for sitting... You'd be more of a public nuisance by taking up all of the bench. I have seen some hostile architecture but calling that bench hostile architecture is a stretch...
I don't understand why people are so hostile agains these benches.
Yes they are to deter homeless people from sleeping in them and thus being drawn to the area at night.
And to be honest, that romantic idea of a homeless person just being a poor soul in need of a place to sleep is stupid and doesn't reflect reality.
Those in the comments who want to remove the handrails or just oppose the idea of "hostile architecture" you should just do one better and invite homeless people to stay on you couch, in you garden or if you live in an appartment, you probably have a nice and cosy "baggård" you can let them stay in for the night.
Problem solved, right? But you don't do that, so why is it a problem if a bench meant for sitting is constructed in a way that deters them from being used as a sleeping implement?
Most people dont want to have homeless people hanging around in S train Bus, train or metro stations, and not because they are homeless but because they most often have a behaviour that is asocial, antisocial, hostile and destructive and even when they leave again, it's rare to see them cleaning up after them. So seeing puke piss shit broken bottles or used needles is not a rare sight in places where they hang out.
If that is really your fetish, you are free to go to Mariakirken or Mændenes hjem in Istedgade and then you can let the rest of us use a bench without having to have that experience.
Yeah. I remember last summer when I visited friends in Vanløse for 2 weeks. In those 2 weeks, there were consistently always (I assume) homeless people sitting on those concrete benches and were either drunk or drugged up, yelling at bypassers and spitting at them. What's even sadder is that there's a perfectly fine Hus Forbi not even 200m down the street with a backyard they can chill in and a place they can eat and sleep.
Thank you for expressing my thoughts so elloquently. Policies that attract the dregs have worked so well in places like Portland, Seattle and SF.
The real problem however is when the measures taken to deter the objects from sleeping homeless people is not the only outcome. So the bench in the picture is in fact good for some people, I too agree that it could just have the armrest on the ends.
Where the real problem is, is when the eagerness to keep homeless people away render the benches unusable. Quite a few benches have a leaning angle so that if someone were to lie on it they would fall off, this particular model of bench is horrendous to sit on as well. So they have in fact managed to install a bench that is just taking up space and is unusable to everyone. I feel that that is just plain wrong.
I dont think there is anything romantic about a homeless person sleeping in a certain public space to avoid getting mugged or freeze to death. I also dont think it is because our politicians are anti-romantic that they have criminalized sleeping in groups, which homeless people do for their own safety.
I get that you see the world from your own perspective and want surroundings that suit your needs and dont disgust. But that is not how our society should work. We need to consider everyone’s needs, especially the most vulnerable.
But that is not how our society should work. We need to consider everyone’s needs, especially the most vulnerable.
I really think that homeless and other vulnerable people should get the help they need if they want to, but on the other hand, it shouldn't be at the expense of the safety of other people.
I'm really opposed to make e.g. train/metro stations more accessible to them, because the primary people who would experience a more unsafe environment would be low income groups and a decision to remove hostile architecture would be elitist.
But why is it unsafe? of course your experience may differ from mine, but most of the homeless people I meet do not seem threatening.
I remember a group we used to pass by rather often. They would usually say hello to our young children and yes, it takes a bit of courage to allow the kids to come within a few meters, but when we returned the smile and let our kids come a bit closer, it did not feel threatening, quite the opposite. This was of course in broad daylight.
But then again, I'm a guy, larger than the average male and my life has brought me to some actually shady places back in the day, so it takes a bit (or a lot) to shock me.
So because people don't invite homeless people into their property, we should actively take sleeping options away from them?
What?
How you understand what I wrote is your problem, but i never made that conclusion.
First of all - being homeless in Denmark requires some skill and devotion.
With the amount of social benefits, help and places to stay - you REALLY need to be devoted to being on the street.
So yes, in Denmark, usually the homeless are people who don't want to change anything, don't want to improve their lives and are often drug and alcohol abusers.
This is different from let's say USA - where being homeless is not as hard and can literally happen to anyone in matter of weeks.
Tell me you know nothing about mental illness without telling me.
I actually know quite a few people with mental illnesses. And they are far from homeless because of the danish state and health care system.
Most of the homeless people I talked to in CPH are homeless by choice. They don't want to "live by the rules" and "adhere to things like schedules" that are required in homeless shelters etc.
Have you talked with any of those people? Because honestly I could not find anyone being really mentally ill, unless you call all anarchists mentally ill.
Alcoholics - yes. Drug abusers - yes.
Spot on, and many people refuse to accept this due to lack of exposure and actually talking to these people. I’ve worked with many homeless people and for every one person who needs a leg up or somewhere to stay, there are five more who love the freedom of just being homeless and don’t want well-meaning yuppies telling them what to do
It's a part of the illness to not recognize the illness and not to want any help and also not being able to want/can't abide by the schedulea and rules. Mentally ill people really struggle with systems, being on time and rigid rules that's why our system which is based on very fixed rules can't help them. For the system which should help them don't see the disease and are not built to handle the disease. That's why they end up on the streets.
I'm happy that your friend got help. Unfortunately not everybody is that lucky because our system is quite rigid which can be hard/impossible to navigate if you are ill and dysfunctional but not ill enough to be hospitalized. Our system only helps the ones which are "healthy" enough to navigate it or who has people who can help them.
It's a part of the illness to not recognize the illness and not to want any help and also not being able to want/can't abide by the schedulea and rules. Mentally ill people really struggle with systems, being on time and rigid rules that's why our system which is based on very fixed rules can't help them
and do you have anything to support that claim other than youtube movies? I refer to the schedule and rules part of course.
Sorry but for a lot of mentally ill people routines and schedules are actually what calm them down and make life bearable. They often go into panic modes and shut down if days are unpredictable and chaotic. Schedules and routines are actually calming them down.
Ill person not knowing it is ill - is kind of true for things like addictions and heavy paranoia. Although more often it is 'knowing we have problem, we just dont think it is that big of a deal'.
Again, go and talk to those people on the street in CPH. You will very quickly change your mind, I promise.
How ignorant
that romantic idea of a homeless person just being a poor soul in need of a place to sleep is stupid and doesn't reflect reality
Do you agree that prisoners deserve to have shelter, clothing, and food?
What does that have to do with my comment? Are you trying to set up a straw man argument?
Because if you answer yes then why do you have such a negative view on homeless people who deserve the same and don't receive it?
See, you were setting up a straw man argument.
In my comment you will not find anywhere where i state that homeless people do not have a right to housing.
That is something that you assume, and you are trying to build a false narrative, instead of arguing the points i actually made.
In my comment you will not find anywhere where i state that homeless people do not have a right to housing.
I didn't say you said they dont have a right housing, I said why do you have such a negative view on homeless people who deserve the same and don't receive it.
I hope the irony of you telling me I setup a strawman is not lost on you here lol.
Being homeless and being in prison are two completely different things. And they have nothing in common.
And therein lies the straw man that you are building. The debate here has nothing to do with prisons, it has to do with benches designed to deter homeless people from setting up camp around them.
And your question about if a prisoner has a right to shelter and food makes no sense as you cannot imprison someone without providing shelter to them at the same time.
You are building something up that you feel you can argue against and ignoring the original theme of my comment, which is that it makes sense to deter homeless people from sleeping on benches placed in parks, squares, areas connected to public transportation etc etc.
I have worked with homeless people for the past three years, so I feel I have some experience with who becomes homeless, why they become homeless and more important, why they continue to be homeless. And it has very little to do with available opportunities for help, and more to do with their behaviour.
Being homeless and being in prison are two completely different things. And they have nothing in common.
Being at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder has nothing in common?
And your question about if a prisoner has a right to shelter and food makes no sense as you cannot imprison someone without providing shelter to them at the same time.
You absolutely can...just because Denmark doesn't doesn't mean it isn't possible or does not occur elsewhere in the world.
The point I'm building up to is if you think those imprisoned deserve food, shelter, and clothing, then surely a homeless person, whatever misdeeds they may have committed (big emphasis on may), they also deserve the same. And you seem more upset at people being against anti homeless architecture than the fact that homeless people exist in the first place (it's their behavior is a pretty good tell).
You should read what a straw man argument is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man?wprov=sfla1
Being in prison doesn't mean that you are at the "socio-economic bottom" it means you committed a crime. Strawman
What other countries provide when they imprison people has nothing to do with hostile architecture here in Denmark. Strawman.
And lastly. Hostile architecture has nothing to do with offering shelter and help to combat homelessness. There are many ways to get help with homelessness in Denmark. And armrests on benches have nothing to do with that. Strawman.
I'd suggest taking a course on logical fallacies so you can understand what they mean rather than shouting strawman over and over again, then you'd be able to participate in a discussion.
Hope you have a good one mate.
"doesn't reflect reality" 😔 hvad ved du om det? :-) Seriously. I have done my fair share of academic research into this. Ow yeah Mændenea hjem ah yeah of course, because they are all men right? Right??? Do you know the percentage of women who sleep outside that have been sexually assaulted in Herberg in Denmark? Of course not, because you don't care 😘 because your life is fine, therefore their life is not fine must be a them problem. Nothing to think about! 😔 Du er for meget. Tag et bad fordi du er for klam man!
3 years working at two different homeless shelters might have given me a bit of insight into the subject.
And try to make an argument instead of just attacking me with assumptions.
Incredible how this is the only comment you’ve struggled to write in English.
I like it
This thread is crazy.
I’ve never been somewhere with less homelessness than Denmark. I saw maybe 2? homeless people in my whole time in the country, and one of them was in Aarhus. The idea that policies like this reduce homelessness is a joke and already widely disproven in countries who are experiencing homelessness as an epidemic. Many of the comments here have the amount of tact and empathy I’d expect from a community in dire-straits. The social-insulation Danes experience relating to homelessness and drug use is something else.
I’m sure this will get downvoted, it’s a Danish subreddit after all, I’m mostly just leaving it so other similar commenters don’t feel insane.
Danish people are very soft. We have had it too good for too long.
Crossfit bench.
I've seen a lot of benches where there's a sculpture of a stack of books on the middle of the bench that you can't move
I find some beggars more hostile and aggressive than that bench.
This is a photo I took in Tokyo last year. Saw them multiple times.
As far as I know they are made this way to avoid people from sleeping on them 😊
I don’t find dem hostile.
Exactly and in Tokyo it’s more there to avoid a drunk salaryman collapsing on it and missing his train than for homeless
That’s the definition of hostile architecture.
Edit in case anyone else has another awesome take: https://letmegoogleforyou.com/?q=Hostile%20architecture
Why is it hostile? Benches are for sitting.
Is it hostile because you can’t use it for whatever you want to use it at? Like if I want to use the hood on a car as ashtray but people close the door to the garage🤷🏻♀️
Ok but my sofa at home is meant for sitting. I fall asleep on it sometimes too.
You could replace it with a reaaaallly narrow sofa to avoid this problem in the future.
I cannot refute this logic
A bench like this is the textbook example of hostile architecture. It's what those words mean.
You can dislike it, or appreciate it, but it's still "hostile architecture".
I think someone made “hostile architecture” up because they had nothing else to do.
Sure, homelessness is a big deal in those part of the world where there’s no security net in the welfare system.
But wanting to have benches where people (drunk or homeless or someone working on their tan or whatever) can’t lie down is not hostile. That’s good common sense.
If anything is hostile it’s having benches with people taking up the entire bench because they need a nap so no one else can sit🤷🏻♀️
It is ‘hostile’ because it is literally designed to be uncomfortable. And the purpose for that is to keep away specific groups of citizens.
You may agree with the purpose, but it is still called ‘hostile design’.
They are meant to sit on. You down lie down in public.
The use of very loud classical music in the central train station is another dark design
Ah yes, very naughty to annoy drug dealers and their customers.
Always peps me up when I’m going to Sweden what’s so dark about it
You probably don't want to hangout in that place for long.
Fun side info: At uni, we used to use the same kind of music after the Friday bar when we wanted people to go home (we also turned the lights on).
Bastard Cafe also has 2 very classic kick-out songs that they play when they close down for the night.
I don’t mind people sleeping on benches, but I really prefer a bench with a nice handle, especially when I’m pregnant (hip pain). Maybe they should go for a mix of both?
Jesus fuck, is that eight LOX-recess screws in each one? Was going to suggest a little after-hours neighborly civil disobedience, but that seems like way too much labor to be able to do safely.
Kind of disgusting how much thought and effort went into this.
I tried - there’s adhesive too
Just... wow. That's depressing.
Hostile for fat folks?
hostile for homeless people....
Or maybe it's for people who like armrests?
The one I've noticed is larger scale and outside the city - lack of path all the way around Sjælsø.
You can go 75/80% around. Then there's a section with no bike or footpath, where you have to risk your life to walk/run/cycle along a busy road.
Why?
That's where Udrejsecenter Sjælsmark is.
(I'm sure officialdom would give other reasons, but it's blatant when you see it).
It is also nice you dont fall down while sleeping on the bench 😁
I mean you can still lie down on it if you go under the handrails. Very mild in terms of hostile architecture
No shutters on most of the buildings. Thats a torture during summer.
What do you mean by hostile?
Besides assisting on sitting down and getting up, they prevent people sleeping on the bench from falling of?
Slide in from the side, and you will be safe.
I thought the whole point of those was to stop people from lying down / sleeping in the parks
There are two point to the handles. The help the elderly and disabled, and prevents people from sleeping there. The municipality wants people to sleep somewhere else.
Hostile?
It looks like comfy wood with a lil metal. What's hostile about it?
Benches are for sitting, not to be beds for sleepy people.
This is what is also called dark design - way to design things in the city space directly or indirectly that keeps out homeless people.
Isn’t it more “dark” for a disabled or elderly person to be in pain and unable to take a rest because someone is sleeping on it taking up 3 seats?
i have done a city walk with a project that works with homeless people. From that the guide talked about the various social problems that they face. Many of homeless people are disabled or suffer from different mental or health related problems. Often those that are homeless simply cant live in a appartment - where as for instance lying under a brige while listing to the sound of cars going by, makes the sound of voices inside your head stop.
i might just be me, but i belive in a type of city design where there is both room for the elderly and the homeless to have a moment of rest on a bench. And Dark design dont benefit either really.
I agree with you there - I’d even go as far to build them platforms to sleep on in tucked away areas, just not in the middle of the metro
why are people downvoting? i am pretty much saying the defintion of dark design.
Perhaps because the term in English is "hostile architecture", as in the title of the post.
Isn't hostile architecture a broader term, like spikes on flat surfaces so you can't sit down and dark design a type of hostile architectur that's superficially helpful?
Like "we play classic music because it's nice, riiiiiight, not because we want the young people not to hang out here, well what a shame they don't like classic music".
Luckily we can still put all of our luggage on that bench. Ha, that will, as always, prevent others from sitting. (This message may contain sarcasm)
This is intentional. Why the hell would you lay down in a bench? Are you a bum or something? Hostile architecture are the cactus towers
Hostile architecture are the cactus towers
Hostile towards whom? Architecture students?
I would say everyone's eyes
I don't feel attacked. I find the Danhostel building much worse. Or Blox, not for how ugly it is but how they could've done something better with O2 that does through it. Or the entirety of Kalvebod Brygge. In fact my own apartment building is ugly as hell, but fortunately I don't have to see it.
Not really; but I have seen sofas which are too comfortable in libraries which attracts homeless and ruins the experience of studying in a library.
Here is a good read about the subject from a Copenhagen based ngo
Public benches with arm support has made everything better.. Nobody lays down on a bench Anyways. And if so there is always parks.. And no, it has never been the intention that benches was made for homeless people..
What do you mean by "Have you made any experience with"?
I mean, it doesn't take all that much imagination to get to "Have you had any experience with" ...
Benches are not for sleeping on. We don't want a bunch of dirty homeless people sleeping on the benches.
Who are we? I mean, I doesn't really make me mad to see a homeless person sleep on a bench.
Do you actually use public transport and / or these benches? Have you ever had to sit on a dirty bench?
Yes?
Until they start leaving syringes and other crap all ovwr the place.
Or bombs. They leave IEDs all the god damn time.
Like diarrhea? I’ve definitely seen that
Agreed. Taking up more than 1 seat aswell is kinda a bad move tbh.
No room.for homeless people
If you are slim you can squeeze yourself though those brackets and lay down
Yes. I think it’s a sadistic invention.
An excuse to save money besides a hostile environment makes hostile users
to me the most hostile architecture we’ve got in copenhagen are the leaning-thingies on the metro stations. i have severe back pain and not being able to sit down at metro stations is a daily nightmare
Abschrauben den Shit
It makes me want to bring a metal saw when I’m out and about.
That's stainless steel, save yourself some sweat and carry around a set of 1/4 metric hex keys, which it looks like this is fastened with.
Someone in this thread says it's LOX screws and fixed with adhesive. A lot of effort seems to have gone into making sure this stays.
I am disabled and these actually help me to sit and stand.