What other purpose(s) might this “hostile architecture” be used for?
Stopping skateboarders, keeping traffic moving, preventing loitering,
It is an interesting video… The one thing I don’t like is the new buzz word “hostile architecture” which he says about 100 times in 14 minutes. Architecture is not hostile, that is a human characteristic.
I also had to laugh when the narrator said a bench with arm rests is “hostile”… At that moment I had to write him off as an emotionally driven person with no common sense…
In my opinion, as long as we have a debt-based economy, we are going to have economic losers and homeless people. That is how the system is designed. If we want to eliminate homelessness, we have to start there, it is the ONLY way we can ever hope to tackle the problem… I have seen homeless people trash parks and other areas (I am assuming that is why in some cases there had to be a redesign which is practical not hostile).
I wonder if the recent damage to the 10 freeway by the arson fires here in Los Angeles was started by either homeless people or sleeper cells of muslim or CCP Chinese terrorists.
Think they posted a ‘person of interest’ in YT video.
Will post it if I find it again.
Beaver: Thanks for posting this very interesting video. The New York approach to architecture (in some places?) gave our minds some questions to ponder…
@yyyyythats6ys: You raise worthy points, about how homelessness is a systems design, and also about how parks are trashed, etc. Where we live, homelessness seems to be coupled with drug addiction. In British Columbia, the government now hands out hard drugs like lollipops, and the drug problem (and everything that comes with it) has exploded. There are tents and sleeping bags and broken people all over the place. Some years ago, one of our (very well-liked) colleagues from our workplace was murdered by a drug addict (with a knife) in our city of Victoria, when he went out for his daily coffee break. The murderer received a fairly light sentence (a couple of years).
The graphic tragedy of what goes on on the streets, and the drug problem that accompanies all of that, was captured by Aaron Gunn in two recent films, “Vancouver is Dying”, and “Canada is Dying”. No doubt, Canada is involved in some large scale experiment, as a kind of model or trial balloon on how to take down civilized society.
The question in my mind, when viewing the film that Beaver posted, and what the narrator did not cover, was the big “Why” was New York doing this. Is it only to keep protesters at bay, or is it something deeper? And, where are the homeless people staying, if not on the streets where the narrator was filming? He left several questions unexplored…
Nevertheless, we really appreciated what he did share with his camera, which was the actual design of these features. Very interesting to think about those things, and their overall functionality, and the intent behind that.
I do not think it was his aim to explore these questions. He did mention that during protests, people managed to camp out for at least a month in this uncomfortable situation.
I actually think it is the muslim/CCP terrorist sleeper cells invaders. Some of them could be masquerading as “homeless” as well.
For a normal bench with arm rests just at the sides obviously isn’t hostile, but if they put them in the middle so people can’t lie down to take a nap / sleep at night it can be considered hostile or just a “camping deterrent” might be a more accurate description.
Most major homeless camp in my county is right next to entrance to navy air base, this seems unusual.
You could be right… But I wonder how effectual homeless sleeper cells could be without any resources. But your comment reminds me of that old adage about Chinese restaurants… They are in every city, they deal in cash and some of them (not all) are probably sleeper cells. Another interesting thing about Chinese restaurants is the NEVER advertise, no commercials, no print ads, etc., it’s actually kind of refreshing.
Not the pigeons too lol!!! This thread reminds me of a quote about designing trash cans that keep bears out (i.e. hostile trashcans )
I guess it’s hostile to create attractive architectural features that defend themselves against becoming antisocial landmarks for the cesspool lifestyle.
America’s accommodations to disfunction are no answer for any question. The concept of Hostile Architecture, however, is most definitely the answer to this question: Who’s your daddy?
Who is the father of the houseless then?
That would be the local gangster, Lue the Cipher, no?
BTW, benches made of steel are no fun at all for the elderly or handicapped in cold weather.
Have never heard of this Lue a Cipher individual you speak of.
nope!, there are other, even now employed like Charity and/or Volunteerism for making the Life of Homeless more bearable … social services are also systemic way but more like survival glitch around the problem … and more logical step is introducing Subsidized Rural Communes as fastest mean for resolving this issue … yet someone long for ghettoization of the masses in urban cages so its not even interested in resolving this issue in context of the current system, while longing as fast as possible to rig circumstances for technocracy and planned economy so would secure its utopian euroatlantic agendas!, thus its introducing not hostile but broiler architecture!
in the next linked thread there is some ontopic exploration of the issue, that is far from coherent or final stance of mine, but it gets close to the current dissonance of problems and solutions that we are witnessing due to the splash of Life On Debt and/or broilered chances for progress success and transcendence towards Happy Citizens that are sustaining the system and live long after
But communal living does not solve the fact that for every dollar printed, more than a dollar of debt is owed, who will be your new people who now owe the debt? Besides what if the homeless people dont want to be exiled to a rural commune, what if these homeless strangers who have been relocated to communes don’t like each other, what happens if they don’t contribute (are they kicked out to become homeless again), who is going to pay for it, who is going to teach them how to farm and where would the money come from? If the farm has a bad year, who covers the loss… If it had a good year, who gets the benefits? If the benefits are distributed equally but some people have harder jobs than others, how do you keep them doing the harder jobs.
Our current debt-based fractional reserve system that is based on debt instead of real assets ensures that there is and always will be an underclass. Communes wont fix that in my opinion.
we are going too oftopic in this thread like this, I’ll propose to continue in new thread, hope will find time for it simply its too important to be forgotten, just know if I was living on street and it was offered to me decent home with means to selfsustain it will be rejected only if have second thoughts that could become experimental rat in someones social experiment, lsd and prisoners comes to mind!, yet if things are fully public and with rural commune system that has practical means for compatibility among residents, but also evaluation of behavior and through it chance for advancement to next levels like own housing reached by merit, then dont see why someone would reject such offer, maybe not all homeless will accept such deal but all enough aware that they will loose their health living like hobos without doubt will took the oportunity!
back ontopic I see this “hostile” urban furniture not so problematic from ergonomic aspect but from aesthetic one i.e. gives wrong emphasis on the urban space pulling down or confusing the observer, at least this is my impression from first look interactively!, also the approach looks like braking an fractal in small instead the urban furniture to be contributing if not connected part of all the space around!, maybe workable solution for prisons tho, and hm maybe we are warned aetherically like this that cities indeed will become con.camps!?
anyway, this trend especially with the no-bench-approach on public stations will provoke interesting trends like having folded plastic chairs behind the baggage, useful also if end up nowhere mids the trip, and if that becomes normal routine surely baggage companies will offer such extensions for temporary camping alike stretchable seating as part of the luggage!?, hm hm hm paracord hammock attached on two telescopic poles on heavy wheeled base of two suitcases, hm with detachable ballast before departure on plane coz cheaper weight fees I mean how else to be cornered this kind of lunatic solutions of megacities regards the fear from hobos and the needs of citizens to rest a bit somewhere and that to be free of charge!?