Anti-homeless architecture is meant to encourage homeless people to actually go to homeless shelters where they might get help finding affordable housing, not to mention help for whatever issues they have going on in their lives. It’s meant to combat the problem of some homeless people choosing to avoid getting help and continue to bury themselves in drugs/alcohol and sleep on things like public benches, where they prevent other people from using them for their intended purpose.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting people to get the help they need and stop being an inconvenience for the rest of their community. Are you against homeless outreach programs too? Do you think people should just be allowed to set up shack wherever they please in public spaces? I’m not trying to pretend that the lack of affordable housing isn’t at the core of the problem, but even if we had enough of that, there’d still be mentally ill people and drug addicts that would prefer to live on the street, just to avoid social workers pressuring them to address their problems.
Amazingly, you think because someone has a mental illness that they chose to live on the street.
You: “I’m sure if given the chance to have a place to live, an unhoused person would reject it”
They remove benches and rest stops/bus shelters to stop the unhoused from occupying them to the detriment of people using the service. And you see nothing wrong with that.
Amazingly, you think because someone has a mental illness that they chose to live on the street.
No, I don’t. I’m a therapist that works at a mental health clinic, so I’d wager I have a better understanding of the psychosocial conditions affecting these people than you do. And I know the feeling psychosocial impacts have on the homeless better than you do. I’ve seen and worked with people living on the street. Can you claim to have the same experience?
Jesus Christ, do you even know what you’re talking about?
I’m not going to waste my time with you, because you haven’t demonstrated you have even an inkling of an understanding of what you’re dealing with.
No. But since you have experience, let me ask you: did you spend time sleeping on public benches and do you think features that attempt to prevent this are an attack on homeless people? And just to be clear, since this is a text-only format, I’m not being sarcastic or trying to make light of your experience; I’m genuinely curious.
Luckily, I became homeless in very late '99, where at least the area I was in, didn’t have anti-sleeping measures installed on public benches, yet. Until I secured a shitty car to live out of, on the days I wasn’t lucky to have a friend offer a spot to crash, parks were the only hope. I was removed by the police from them a bunch of times, told I cannot be sleeping there. When asked if they know any place I could spend the night, they spent zero time trying to help me. Told me to get out of there already.
It was really tempting to commit a crime, serious enough to get booked for few days, where I could catch up on sleep without freezing.
Fact those benches didn’t have anti-sleeping measures, made for a few great nights where I could get some decent rest, which wouldn’t have happened nowadays. So yeah, hard to say it’s not an attack on homeless people, specially when the public servants have zero fucks to help you out.
I made a neutral comment, stating my opinion without any insults, and have been getting insulting comments like yours ever since. You want to throw barbs, but object to them being thrown back.
Grow the fuck up. I’m done with you in particular.
Tedesche. I really don’t think you are a therapist. If you are one, I feel really bad for your clients. Do you talk to them like that? That’s not good.
Claiming that they have experience working with homeless, but demonstrating that they’re a callous asshole (and probably very bad at their job, if they aren’t outright lying).
Anti-homeless architecture is meant to encourage homeless people to actually go to homeless shelters
Umm no… anti-homeless architecture isn’t meant to encourage people to go to homeless shelters, it’s meant to make it inconvenient to be homeless where “rich people” might have to see and acknowledge you. Its goal is to make the problem easier to ignore not drive people to get help.
Shelters, even if there was enough space, can be dangerous for vulnerable people, do not allow pets, and rarely provide medium term housing or transitional opportunity.
Anti-homeless architecture simply attempts to push the houseless further away from urban centers, and consequently food kitchens, shelters, and other resources. This is deadly when extreme weather occurs or acute health problems arise.
It actively makes the city more dangerous to those most fucked by society.
As far as “wanting” to live on the street, this is a narrative made up to victim blame and deny empathy. It only needs one or two examples for the false narrative to be cast on the population writ large.
You’re stupid if you think this is the effect anti-homeless architecture is having in the places it’s being implemented. They have very little impact to begin with. I don’t pretend to think that shelters can’t be improved, but if people refuse to utilize the resources we have, we must either come up with new resources or reevaluate our investments in the resources we currently employ.
Hey maybe I’m stupid too, but it seems to me it’d be way fucking easier and cheaper to just put some flyers in a little letterbox attached to the bench advertising the nearest homeless shelter or something, rather than inconveniencing literally everyone who wants to use the bench. But what do I know, I’m probably just stupid
Flyers wouldn’t prevent homeless people from using the bench as a bed, preventing other people from using it for its intended purpose, and would be almost entirely ignored.
Literally anyone using the bench potentially prevents someone else from also using the bench. Why is it a bigger deal when it’s a homeless person doing the using? Also, I’m sure there are other more attention grabbing options than a flyer, if we use our imaginations a little bit. Why is your focus on prevention and not education/outreach anyways?
Literally anyone using the bench potentially prevents someone else from also using the bench. Why is it a bigger deal when it’s a homeless person doing the using?
If the homeless person was just sitting on the bench, it wouldn’t be an issue. The bench features we’re talking about aren’t designed to prevent people from sitting on them; they’re designed to prevent people from lying down on them comfortably, thereby taking up more space and using the bench for a purpose it was not intended.
You chided me for calling someone else stupid, so I’m trying to be nicer, but I honestly don’t feel like I should have to explain this to you.
Why is your focus on prevention and not education/outreach anyways?
As I’ve said in other comments, I support outreach attempts as well. My focus is on this prevention technique because it’s the topic of the thread.
What difference does to make if someone is sitting on the bench, laying down, standing, crouching, or in any other comfortable resting position? It’s a public bench, to be used by the public however they see fit, as long as they’re not causing harm.
It’s weird to enforce the “correct” usage of a public bench, or the “correct” amount of space a person is allowed to take up, especially with such drastic elements that you yourself admit are not very effective.
“Welcome! What brings you to the homeless shelter today?”
“Well, it’s that bench. You see, I was choosing the unhoused lifestyle, and I was fine with all the other stigma and physical discomforts, until I realized that the city wants to discourage my presence in public spaces. Fuck these armrests, I decided I’d just come to this shelter, get treatment for my addiction, get counseling for my traumatic past that fed the addiction, get an education, get a job, rent a house, save money, then buy a home instead. It’s just not worth trying to get comfy on that bench.”
Nah, because these people are always going to be here. Do you have a better solution or are you just hand-wringing about people you don’t have to deal with in your daily life?
That may be true in some cases but most of the time anti homeless street furniture is just made to get homeless people to not hang around that particular area.
And what’s wrong with that? These people should be getting help, not taking up public space. I realize that it probably seems to you like an abuse campaign to insist they sleep somewhere else, but I would argue you’re an enabler who naively thinks they’re helping while actually just cooperating with these poor people’s poor adaptation strategies by giving them a place to stay in public space that isn’t actually a safe to stay in. Check yourself. Do you actually have these people’s best interests in mind, or are you just virtue signaling about the homeless, a class you see as less than yourself?
Why do you believe I see homeless people as less than myself? Quite a lot of people are only a short term breakdown away from being homeless, especially in ultra capitalist places like the US. Certainly they need help, but help is not always directly available, and you want to argue that while they look for help, making the world as hostile as possible is a good thing? And then you try to gaslight me with that? I think you need help.
making the world as hostile as possible is a good thing?
Oh, please, seriously? I advocate for a feature in public spaces that disincentivizes homeless people from sleeping on park benches and you think I’m trying to create a living Hell for them? After I’ve already also advocated for more to be put into affordable housing and outreach services for them? Get over your self-righteousness, man. Demonizing me won’t convince me or anyone else.
And for the record, gaslighting is when you lie and manipulate a person ways that specifically cause them to doubt their perception of reality; it’s not a catch-all term for saying something someone else thinks is untrue.
Ok, but the people at Covenant House aren’t the ones who decided to put the anti-homeless architecture in place.
Most charities are just scams. And yeah they might do some good, but charity is a symptom of failure. We are byproduct of our environment.
Anti-homeless architecture is meant to encourage homeless people to actually go to homeless shelters where they might get help finding affordable housing, not to mention help for whatever issues they have going on in their lives. It’s meant to combat the problem of some homeless people choosing to avoid getting help and continue to bury themselves in drugs/alcohol and sleep on things like public benches, where they prevent other people from using them for their intended purpose.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting people to get the help they need and stop being an inconvenience for the rest of their community. Are you against homeless outreach programs too? Do you think people should just be allowed to set up shack wherever they please in public spaces? I’m not trying to pretend that the lack of affordable housing isn’t at the core of the problem, but even if we had enough of that, there’d still be mentally ill people and drug addicts that would prefer to live on the street, just to avoid social workers pressuring them to address their problems.
Amazingly, you think because someone has a mental illness that they chose to live on the street.
You: “I’m sure if given the chance to have a place to live, an unhoused person would reject it”
They remove benches and rest stops/bus shelters to stop the unhoused from occupying them to the detriment of people using the service. And you see nothing wrong with that.
It’s very obvious to most why this is done.
But not you.
No, I don’t. I’m a therapist that works at a mental health clinic, so I’d wager I have a better understanding of the psychosocial conditions affecting these people than you do. And I know the feeling psychosocial impacts have on the homeless better than you do. I’ve seen and worked with people living on the street. Can you claim to have the same experience?
Jesus Christ, do you even know what you’re talking about?
I’m not going to waste my time with you, because you haven’t demonstrated you have even an inkling of an understanding of what you’re dealing with.
Get educated before you spout off, nitwit.
I’ve actually been homeless. Have you?
No. But since you have experience, let me ask you: did you spend time sleeping on public benches and do you think features that attempt to prevent this are an attack on homeless people? And just to be clear, since this is a text-only format, I’m not being sarcastic or trying to make light of your experience; I’m genuinely curious.
Luckily, I became homeless in very late '99, where at least the area I was in, didn’t have anti-sleeping measures installed on public benches, yet. Until I secured a shitty car to live out of, on the days I wasn’t lucky to have a friend offer a spot to crash, parks were the only hope. I was removed by the police from them a bunch of times, told I cannot be sleeping there. When asked if they know any place I could spend the night, they spent zero time trying to help me. Told me to get out of there already.
It was really tempting to commit a crime, serious enough to get booked for few days, where I could catch up on sleep without freezing. Fact those benches didn’t have anti-sleeping measures, made for a few great nights where I could get some decent rest, which wouldn’t have happened nowadays. So yeah, hard to say it’s not an attack on homeless people, specially when the public servants have zero fucks to help you out.
The time you went to Starbucks and left your keys inside your house doesn’t count, Brian
Says they are a therapist and that they know better than anyone. Doesn’t know anything about me.
HOW EMBARRASSING IT MUST BE FOR YOU TO EXIST.
Right, the person throwing insults in all caps says I’m the one who should be embarrassed. 🙄
You still don’t get it, do you?
You have no idea how you appear to be insulting because your head is so far up your ass you smell like meconium.
I made a neutral comment, stating my opinion without any insults, and have been getting insulting comments like yours ever since. You want to throw barbs, but object to them being thrown back.
Grow the fuck up. I’m done with you in particular.
Tedesche. I really don’t think you are a therapist. If you are one, I feel really bad for your clients. Do you talk to them like that? That’s not good.
I’m just responding with the same energy that you gave me.
“Grow up”, that is rich coming from you. Lol You made my day, thanks.
Edit: BTW the meconium statement was a dig at your maturity. I’m sad you didn’t get it but I’m not surprised.
Oh, the irony! 🤣
You do realize you’re just embarrassing yourself all over this thread, right?
Ah yes, sharing they have experience working with homeless, how embarrassed they must be
Claiming that they have experience working with homeless, but demonstrating that they’re a callous asshole (and probably very bad at their job, if they aren’t outright lying).
Umm no… anti-homeless architecture isn’t meant to encourage people to go to homeless shelters, it’s meant to make it inconvenient to be homeless where “rich people” might have to see and acknowledge you. Its goal is to make the problem easier to ignore not drive people to get help.
You can’t disconnect the problems you are pretending are separate.
Shelters, even if there was enough space, can be dangerous for vulnerable people, do not allow pets, and rarely provide medium term housing or transitional opportunity.
Anti-homeless architecture simply attempts to push the houseless further away from urban centers, and consequently food kitchens, shelters, and other resources. This is deadly when extreme weather occurs or acute health problems arise.
It actively makes the city more dangerous to those most fucked by society.
As far as “wanting” to live on the street, this is a narrative made up to victim blame and deny empathy. It only needs one or two examples for the false narrative to be cast on the population writ large.
You’re stupid if you think this is the effect anti-homeless architecture is having in the places it’s being implemented. They have very little impact to begin with. I don’t pretend to think that shelters can’t be improved, but if people refuse to utilize the resources we have, we must either come up with new resources or reevaluate our investments in the resources we currently employ.
Hey maybe I’m stupid too, but it seems to me it’d be way fucking easier and cheaper to just put some flyers in a little letterbox attached to the bench advertising the nearest homeless shelter or something, rather than inconveniencing literally everyone who wants to use the bench. But what do I know, I’m probably just stupid
Flyers wouldn’t prevent homeless people from using the bench as a bed, preventing other people from using it for its intended purpose, and would be almost entirely ignored.
Literally anyone using the bench potentially prevents someone else from also using the bench. Why is it a bigger deal when it’s a homeless person doing the using? Also, I’m sure there are other more attention grabbing options than a flyer, if we use our imaginations a little bit. Why is your focus on prevention and not education/outreach anyways?
If the homeless person was just sitting on the bench, it wouldn’t be an issue. The bench features we’re talking about aren’t designed to prevent people from sitting on them; they’re designed to prevent people from lying down on them comfortably, thereby taking up more space and using the bench for a purpose it was not intended.
You chided me for calling someone else stupid, so I’m trying to be nicer, but I honestly don’t feel like I should have to explain this to you.
As I’ve said in other comments, I support outreach attempts as well. My focus is on this prevention technique because it’s the topic of the thread.
What difference does to make if someone is sitting on the bench, laying down, standing, crouching, or in any other comfortable resting position? It’s a public bench, to be used by the public however they see fit, as long as they’re not causing harm.
It’s weird to enforce the “correct” usage of a public bench, or the “correct” amount of space a person is allowed to take up, especially with such drastic elements that you yourself admit are not very effective.
Imagine trying to spin anti-homeless architecture as pro-homeless.
“Welcome! What brings you to the homeless shelter today?”
“Well, it’s that bench. You see, I was choosing the unhoused lifestyle, and I was fine with all the other stigma and physical discomforts, until I realized that the city wants to discourage my presence in public spaces. Fuck these armrests, I decided I’d just come to this shelter, get treatment for my addiction, get counseling for my traumatic past that fed the addiction, get an education, get a job, rent a house, save money, then buy a home instead. It’s just not worth trying to get comfy on that bench.”
How about we get there first and then you can hand wring about any of these supposed people who are left?
Nah, because these people are always going to be here. Do you have a better solution or are you just hand-wringing about people you don’t have to deal with in your daily life?
Those people don’t exist, they are just an excuse for you to be cruel
Your refusal to acknowledge their existence is what is cruel.
That may be true in some cases but most of the time anti homeless street furniture is just made to get homeless people to not hang around that particular area.
And what’s wrong with that? These people should be getting help, not taking up public space. I realize that it probably seems to you like an abuse campaign to insist they sleep somewhere else, but I would argue you’re an enabler who naively thinks they’re helping while actually just cooperating with these poor people’s poor adaptation strategies by giving them a place to stay in public space that isn’t actually a safe to stay in. Check yourself. Do you actually have these people’s best interests in mind, or are you just virtue signaling about the homeless, a class you see as less than yourself?
Well if it it’s the change of tune.
Why do you believe I see homeless people as less than myself? Quite a lot of people are only a short term breakdown away from being homeless, especially in ultra capitalist places like the US. Certainly they need help, but help is not always directly available, and you want to argue that while they look for help, making the world as hostile as possible is a good thing? And then you try to gaslight me with that? I think you need help.
Oh, please, seriously? I advocate for a feature in public spaces that disincentivizes homeless people from sleeping on park benches and you think I’m trying to create a living Hell for them? After I’ve already also advocated for more to be put into affordable housing and outreach services for them? Get over your self-righteousness, man. Demonizing me won’t convince me or anyone else.
And for the record, gaslighting is when you lie and manipulate a person ways that specifically cause them to doubt their perception of reality; it’s not a catch-all term for saying something someone else thinks is untrue.
Well you do seem Keen to insist in enabling a dangerous and damaging behavior in them
Fuck you.
Ah yes, petty insults
The leftist huckster’s crutch
Fuck you.