This makes me very angry.
These are anti-homeless benches designed to look pleasing. It’s called hostile architecture. They’re meant to be uncomfortable to discourage sleeping on.
The people who designed these are assholes. They’re decorators, not designers.
A designer makes things to improve the world for everyone. A decorator takes otherwise unpalatable injustices and disguises them with aesthetics in an attempt to make them inoffensive or even desirable.
Be a designer, not a decorator.
@aral I'm against hostile design, but I don't see any tangible evidence that these book benchers are in fact that?
@duncanbell Do you need a written confession?
@aral No, I need some tangible proof other than you saying it is so.
Is that bad of me?
@duncanbell Not at all. I’m just wondering what more evidence you need than the object that is in front of your eyes.
As a designer, I can tell you that design is a deliberate process. Things rarely happen by accident.
The possibilities are:
- The designers messed up (it doesn’t look like it, they seem rather proud of it)
- They unconsciously codified their privilege and biases into the object
- They specifically chose the affordances they did
Regardless, the object itself is hostile.
@aral @duncanbell The simple statement was also a little too little for me. So I looked for pictures of these book benches with people. They seem suitable for sitting.
The profile does not seem completely unsuitable for lying down, but ….
Hostile design? I hate it, but in this case I need more evidence.
Personally, I find it extremely difficult to judge the comfort of furniture visually alone. I have already been blatantly wrong in the past.
@aral I'm looking at their size, location, *other services* and I'm not seeing a crime of commission here, at all.
Maybe, maybe the final product could be considered at the beginning of the "hostile design" scale. But I would argue almost certainly not by design.
I've designed seating, just for reference.