Social “Hostile Architecture”

[FIMN]

It is correlated, but not caused by either. Mental health care improvements would help but it wouldn't make a dent in homelessness. IE there is a reason West Virginia doesn't have the highest homeless rate in the country.

What is it caused by?

This should be good.

 

[avenue94]

What is it caused by?

This should be good.

Primarily a lack of affordable housing due to artificial restrictions in housing creation that have led to a multi-decade deficit in housing. It's a pretty straightforward problem with straight forward solutions, albeit massive in scale and political complexity.

 

[Yehudim]

The classism is strong in this thread.

It’s classism when you don’t want homeless drug addicts overrunning public spaces

 

[nhbbear]

So along one of the main throughfares there is a narrow, small, wooded area between that and a parallel smaller road. A year or two ago (hell, maybe it was pandemic times so 2019), I started noticing a splash of color between the trees that turned out to be a tent. Then a few tents, but never more than a handful. Fast forward to January this year and the City (I assume) thinned out the trees which revealed the utter trash heap left there, which they then bulldozed in order to clean up.
Is that "Hostile"?
I saw a similar sequence in a wooded bit between the back of an apartment complex and WaWa.

Our city just recently allotted them a section of land after a long fight about tent removal. The state got sued years ago by the alcu that basically says that public property=property they can camp on, which is insane to me. If I tried to set up a tent, say on the waterfront, we would get kicked out so fast-yet if your homeless, you can pretty much do what you want. And holding them accountable for cleaning up their messes-say, for example, I know the green and yellow tent is John smiths and he leaves a mess-if I were to charge him with littering, it is hostile and malicious prosecution according to the alcu.

And they bitch about most everyone else treating them with respect yet they basically admit that these people can’t care for themselves or be responsible for themselves at all.

 

[avenue94]

The state got sued years ago by the alcu that basically says that public property=property they can camp on, which is insane to me. If I tried to set up a tent, say on the waterfront, we would get kicked out so fast-yet if your homeless, you can pretty much do what you want.

It's likely a constitutional issue. Until housing and shelters is sufficient, homeless folks have to go somewhere. This might get overturned, but this has been the legal standard for a couple decades. Note, it's a constitutional right to camp or shelter in a spot, not every spot or specific spots.

 

[nhbbear]

It's likely a constitutional issue. Until housing and shelters is sufficient, homeless folks have to go somewhere. This might get overturned, but this has been the legal standard for a couple decades. Note, it's a constitutional right to camp or shelter in a spot, not every spot or specific spots.

Look at portland and many other cities. They have infested any park or available area to the point that it is unusable by others. So, by allowing them to do pretty much whatever they want, you are allowing them to deny others the use of a park or green area. Needles, shit, crime, trash, not to mention their crazy ass selves running around and screaming. I get it that you can’t wave a wand and make them disappear-but at least contain them somewhere and not enforce the laws. When did it become a constitutional right to be able to set up a tent anywhere in a city and violate dozens of laws from drug and alcohol use to any number of other issues they cause

 

[avenue94]

So, by allowing them to do pretty much whatever they want, you are allowing them to deny others the use of a park or green area. Needles, shit, crime, trash, not to mention their crazy ass selves running around and screaming.

Yup, it's not ideal, but it's the lesser of the evils for government and most of society. The solution is pretty clear (more shelters, more housing, and removing zoning laws that increase the value of homes), but citizens constantly fight this unfortunately.

I get it that you can’t wave a wand and make them disappear-but at least contain them somewhere and not enforce the laws.

This is how you create Skid Row. Literally, this was the reason it was ever created in LA. It's not a route I really advise for a city, it just leads to citizens kicking the can down the road. Not to mention it leads to shelter hot potato, where every neighborhood wants shelters, but somewhere else.

When did it become a constitutional right to be able to set up a tent anywhere in a city and violate dozens of laws from drug and alcohol use to any number of other issues they cause

It's specifically the 8th Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment), although it touches on other aspects like the 14th. Or looking at it from the other way, there isn't a part of the Constitution that bans sleeping on the sidewalk. The drug and alcohol stuff is another matter and comes down to harm mitigation vs prohibition, etc, not the constitution.

 

[Lucas1980]

It’s classism when you don’t want homeless drug addicts overrunning public spaces

I'm glad the area I moved to is strong with the "Classism" and we don't have any of those junkees milling around our parks where the children play and the seniors get their much needed exercise.

 

[Natural Order]

 

[Helden]

A ton of these "hostile architecture" elements are there to stop.....

If it makes it so that some drugged / drunk bum can't pass out on a bench so contributing members of society can enjoy it too... then I'm good with "hostile architecture". The Left Cult Clowns are complaining about the wrong problem. If their policies did not promote homelessness, perhaps we wouldn't need the "hostile architecture".

"Promote homelessness"

Yeah, cause homeless people chose that lucrative lifestyle, right?


I swear your posts get dumber with every keystroke

 

[tenniswhiz]

It's likely a constitutional issue. Until housing and shelters is sufficient, homeless folks have to go somewhere. This might get overturned, but this has been the legal standard for a couple decades. Note, it's a constitutional right to camp or shelter in a spot, not every spot or specific spots.

I really want to believe that it’s “constitutional”, but time and time again, the same issues that are tested in urban settings are an absolute no-no in wealthy suburbs.

You could easily make a list of upscale suburbs where dozens of various behaviors are simply not tolerated. Yet they are tolerated and looked upon with compassion in a big city just 10 miles away.

 

[Whippy McGee]

"Promote homelessness"

Yeah, cause homeless people chose that lucrative lifestyle, right?


I swear your posts get dumber with every keystroke

You're about as stupid as they come. A true Left Cult moron.

When the government makes being homeless easier, you are promoting it. You're welcome. Now go start thinking for yourself. You do know that critical thought is not a bad thing?

 

[WhiteMousse]

Jesus what is that, a kaleidoscope?

 

[avenue94]

I really want to believe that it’s “constitutional”, but time and time again, the same issues that are tested in urban settings are an absolute no-no in wealthy suburbs.

They are constitutional unless the court reverses this precedent, with the normal caveats of enforcing the law is different from what's on the books.

You could easily make a list of upscale suburbs where dozens of various behaviors are simply not tolerated. Yet they are tolerated and looked upon with compassion in a big city just 10 miles away.

These suburbs are usually one of the primary causes of homelessness given their zoning reduces overall supply and drives up not only the cost of housing but infrastructure. Not to mention a lot of suburbs simply dump their homeless on less affluent areas.

 

[Natural Order]

Jesus what is that, a kaleidoscope?

It's the "Paul VI Audience Hall" in the Vatican. Many claim built as an effigy to the serpent or some sinister bullshit. Not sure if it's just wide-angle photography gone wild or really this blatant. Hostile architecture none-the-less though!

 

[Kassitus]

Imo the architecture is not hostile enough. The Civil designers need to watch a few episodes of battle bots and get back to the drawing board.

 

[woodguyatl]

While I get the Ronald Regan blame game, it's really stupid at this point. It's been 40 years and we've had 6 Presidents and many more congresses since then to fix his error. There comes a point when you can no longer blame Three Mile Island for stopping Nuclear Energy in America as we have had the opportunity to progress from the mistakes made.

I agree 100% and was being snarky but the I idea that liberal policies are causing the homeless issue is absurd. I don’t think liberal policies have made great strides in solving the problem but I’ve not seen much effort by other parties.

 

[High Test With da Best]

Berkeley, CA is guilty of a pretty egregious example of what TS is talking about.

University Ave onramp to the I-80 W.

It was a severe repeat encampment over and over and fucking with the heavy traffic and had unleashed dogs entering the freeway and shit, so I don't mind the results after some fuckton of money was spent on a complete overhaul focused on prevention of repetition of the natural draw of that spot to convince people "this is the best campsite home eva!" which it had been (incredibly) doing for years.

 

[Siver!]

It’s certainly been around for a long time, but only recently becoming a social issue. As with other social issues, it comes with its share of controversy.

Here is the Wiki definition:

Hostile architecture - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

It comes in many different forms.
Barriers on public benches that appear to be elbow rests but are designed to prevent undesirables from lying down
Sloped or curved benches that make sleeping and lying down impossible or uncomfortable
Sewer grates with uneven or spiked surfaces that prevent people seeking warmth from sitting or lying down on top of them
The placement of plants
Spikes or metal detractors on windowsills or alcoves that prevent people from sitting or resting
Areas underneath bridges that have been altered with spikes, gravel, or other uncomfortable surfaces to prevent people from congregating or seeking shelter

The uproar isn’t only reserved over public space. Many people are also disturbed by hostile architecture in private spaces that is designed to keep undesirables out.

Since I first encountered the term and read about it, I have noticed it everywhere I go.

Further reading:

This urban planner says hostile architecture makes public spaces inequitable

Since the 1970s, cities have been employing something called hostile architecture to try to keep certain people from being in certain places — think handles on bus benches to prevent people from laying down on them.Some states are now starting to rethink this, but Jonathan Pacheco Bell says it’s...

kjzz.org

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Hostile Architecture: The Design of a Heartless Society - The Signal

Hostile architecture has become the face of 21st century city designs because it serves heartless city counsels well and puts a bandage on a problem that they aren’t willing to solve. Every person living in [...]

georgiastatesignal.com

This is a good one, it's not something I'd really thought about.

Some of it is bonkers.



I mean, what in the heck is that meant to look like?

I originally thought the reference to "placement of plants" would be like this:



That's the kind of stuff that gets the 15 Minute City CTers up in arms!

 

[fedorthegoat777]

Why can't the homeless sleep under bridges? Who does this bother?

I am against government spending and handouts, but it seems we need more public bathrooms and protected shelters where they can sleep. Put them away from city centers.