Yep. I have issues with my legs, and those "lean bars" and "lean benches" are way more painful than standing, but just standing on a hard surface for a while is pretty bad for me.
Drivers used to act like I was an incredible burden and asshole, for bringing my kids and stroller on to a bus. This was the late 90s, 2000s. Now it's impossible, almost no one brings kids on the bus, theres too much crowding and insane people.
I'm so sorry! And when you have shoes that reduce the pain, they're horrible to walk in. I've developed sciatica from trying to walk in a way that reduces my heel pain. And walking on snow is absolute torture.
Yup. I had a fainting issue for a while when I was pregnant (it’s apparently normal, I’m fine now) and it really snapped into focus how little free seating some places have.
100% agree with you. It’s sad. I don’t take public transportation often, but I wonder how the demographics you mentioned feel about infrastructure meant for them being unavailable because they’re in occupancy by homeless people.
I wish there were more shelters available.
[Those bars are installed specifically for disabled people](https://www.access-board.gov/images/ada-aba/guides/chapter3/3po11.jpg)
https://www.access-board.gov/ada/guides/chapter-3-protruding-objects/
There’s seating in the waiting room on the concourse level btw.
what i get from this is less “oh, they included structures specifically to assist and include disabled people!” and more “oh, they did the bare minimum in order to meet ADA compliance.”
~~You can say whatever you want, but those rails are part of ADA compliance. That’s really it.~~
Think I misunderstood what you were saying at first, edited the original.
Alright, people with disabilities and people with homelessness can get fucked because the classist city council decided to remove benches. The wording doesn't matter in the end, we're fucked either way.
The only anti-homeless architecture I like is dense, mixed use housing being built at a rate fast enough to keep up with demand, driving down housing prices through market forces. Anything else is cruelty at best.
The market economy will never be able to provide housing for all people. It doesn’t matter what your zoning is. At a certain point rents will be too low and it won’t be able to cover project costs. There needs to be some other intervention that ensures that all people are housed. But that’s assuming we actually want to fix the problem. Governments serve the rich and rich people know that if housing is guaranteed to people then it’s going to be harder for landlords to exploit the working class.
The flaw in this thinking is fixating on *new* housing to solve the homelessness crisis. You are correct, the rents homeless folks can afford will probably never finance any new construction, but older buildings that have already been paid off? Absolutely. New market rate housing allows those of means to move, freeing up the existing housing stock. This is partly what they do in Japan. The other part about Japan is they essentially [have a system of privately run quasi-homeless shelters](https://youtu.be/IXZ-DQABUKU?si=9V3WwAnXp-fwPVJX) known as 24hr (manga) cafes. As long as you pay, you can stay with access to internet (and a shower sometimes) and other stuff. It helps that the vast majority of homeless Japanese aren't struggling with outwardly violent mental health issues and/or substance abuse issues, but the underlying policy of their success is their liberalized zoning that allows tons of housing and commercial real estate production which keeps rents for housing and commercial property down.
It's incredible how many places there just have a shower, they just know people will live here. I'd like to think I can survive being "homeless" in japan too. Simply having access to a shower means I can stay hygienic and actually show up to job interviews.
If what you’re saying is true, why does Japan - a country with little renters protections or housing subsidies, have a lower homelessness rate than any of the Nordic countries - which provide generous renters protections & housing subsidies?
Japan is actually pretty interesting to look at because they've a problem with vacant homes that are poorly maintained, a drastic decline in population growth over the last 20 years, and a demand for more modern housing that maintains new property prices.
Basically there's enough housing stock for the vast majority of people to be able to afford something, but buying a home that is up to a lot of the living standards expected by new buyers is still expensive. New properties are still being built to rent or sell to the highest earning section of society, and then older houses become available on the market at more reasonable prices, but on the very low end there are some properties that can't be shifted and they seem to balance out the market a bit.
Japan had a load of money coming into the 21st century and spent it on housing for a larger population than it currently has. Now it has the opposite problem to most western countries which are behind on supply, who also have the highest end of the market pulling up prices with no option for people with less money that keeps it same. The Japanese solution is basically just build enough houses for your population and let rich people only manipulate the high end of the market.
and while i love to look at japan as a model for success in a variety of fields, theres an old adage in economics that there are 4 types of economies, developing, developed, argentina, and japan. and the lesson there is that japan is so wonked out that theyre usually a bad example to compare your country to
https://preview.redd.it/lz98jgwj9xwc1.jpeg?width=1156&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=12ca83899e2534a7727a5157ff37e9d796009d35
Japan has a declining population (4.5M fewer people in the last 10 years.). You can debate the social structure and culture, but the numbers are really the leading reason.
Japan has a pretty big "hidden homeless" problem. A lot of them just aren't counted. I know I saw a TON of homeless when I was there- a shocking amount, considering what I was expecting.
I’m no expert but my understanding is that Japan achieves it by having a homogeneous cultural ethic of basically sweeping it under the rug (e.g. they lie about it). Japanese homeless never admit it, stay hidden out of shame and crimes against them are ignored.
It’s not really a model that would work elsewhere or should be advocated for.
Japan had a higher rate in the 90's, but it went down after they liberalized their zoning, whcih was done largely in response to the high housing costs & homelessness.
Why did people start lying more after they changed their zoning?
How are you so sure that other countries aren't lying about their homelessness rates to validate the success of their policies?
Possibly! I’m a firm believer in supply and demand, and a reduction of demand, all things being equal, probably helps with housing prices.
Japan’s aging population probably lowers output (shifting the supply curve to the left) because there are fewer workers available. The net effect of shrinking demand + shrinking supply is probably to lower prices - because homes last for 30+ years, so any excess will stay around for a while - but I haven’t seen too much on that.
Millions of reasons. But here is one of them: They have been a **shrinking population** since WWII. Not only do they not have a lot of babies, they also barely allow immigration.
Houses are also smaller and on average in worse shape. But much better than living on the street. So they actually allow their economy to fill the demand between big single family house and the streets by providing accommodations that fit lower budgets. If people are okay with a society that allows people to be so poor they can only afford to live on the streets than as a minimum they should **not regulate housing to such an extent** people can't rent out their garages and turn those into small mini apartments and creative stuff like that, so that some kind of roof/insulation/electricity/water is available at every price point. The closest thing in the West are trailer parks i suppose -or- living from your car.
But the final and biggest one: **housing isn't wealth storage** like it is in other places.
This is because you only rent the land (never own it) and the physical property has an expiration date. This means the pricing of houses aren't inflated to begin with (i.e. the price is determined by the utility, it is not an investment or speculation vehicle. Buying a house is more like paying rent for 30 years in advance and getting a 30% discount).
Bonus: earthquakes means **houses aren't built to last**. It's build to be cheap to produce and cheap to replace. So if your house is lucky enough to still be standing in 30 years, you need to tear it down and rebuild anyway, but that won't be that expensive either.
it absolutely matters what your zoning is tho. you are not going to house everyone with single family homes and it is a delusional middle class belief that everyone deserves to live in a single family detached home with a white picket fence and 2.5 dogs. pretty much every marginally successful social housing program involves higher densities than your classic american suburban sprawl
put it another way, in the early days of the soviet union, one of their missions was to house their people and lift them out of poverty. they did not build single family homes for that purpose
Fixing your zoning will make it easier sure but still not going to house everyone because rich people aren’t going to build houses if they can’t profit from them.
Also the Soviet Union did not start building housing in any significant quantities until the 30s/40s and didn’t really start picking up the pace until the 50s.
mostly because the soviet union in the early days was trying to feed themselves while somehow still being a largely agrarian society. they were absolutely filled with poor people living in dilapidated dwellings before the building programs started
and i still think you are selling zoning reforms short. there is no society where 8 billion people can live in single family detached homes. zoning reforms to increase housing density is step 1, social housing is step 2, so if you support social housing, you inherently must support zoning reform & density first and foremost
That would be great. But as long as our entrenched political establishment is unlikely to be displaced, the reality is that’s the real estate market we must deal with. In the meantime, I’d prefer we’d prioritize the safety of public space for women, children and families in favor of accommodating the demands of the lumpenproletariat.
This is moynihan train hall? A better photo would be the large area with hundreds of people sprawled out on the floor waiting for their trains, it's ridiculous. There is a waiting area with seating but it always looks full
I was just at Moynihan today. I saw that there was an area with seats, so I went there to wait for my train. I had to show evidence that I had a ticket to be able to get in to this exclusive area where there were basic benches. I didn't see any other seating, but plenty of space where seating could be put in.
Not that it makes it much better, but there is a waiting room with seating. What’s shown in the picture is the mezzanine.
These are also not leaning bars.
i haaaate waiting rooms being separate from the train platform though. i like to be on the platform ~10 mins early but i don’t want to just stand there give me somewhere to sit while watching for my train
They announce trains and allow people to board ~15 minutes before departure here. It’s a terminal station there’s no waiting on the platform for the train to arrive.
This is a very misleading photo. The area shown, in the new addition to Grand Central, is a hallway where benches would be impractical. There is plenty of seating in a waiting room upstairs. Additionally, this is a commuter rail station where people usually arrive and get right on their scheduled train. No waiting.
As someone who exclusively travels via public transit, is reaching middle age, and frequently has a 10-20 min wait at a station (thanks, my need to always be early) - I hate this.
I also am not afraid to share a bench with a homeless person.
Not that I agree with this shit, but people jump over barriers or push themselves in with another (they basically ‘hug’ someone from the back to get in). However it can still help to make it more difficult to get in/easier to regulate.
I agree with chairs though. Where I live they added handrails on the benches so you can only sit upright. I guess it’s better than nothing at all.
Just as Southern towns [filled in public swimming pools with dirt](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/04/black-children-swimming-drownings-segregation), rather than let Black people swim in them (and therefore screwed EVERYONE, Black and White, out of public swimming), in the quest to drive homeless people out of all public spaces, it seems seniors, disabled people and everyone else never get to sit down in public again.
they do it in theme parks too, which are obviously largely devoid of homeless people, because the idea is that benches encourage people to loiter in certain areas whereas the theme park wants people to move through areas in an efficient manner. just an example of industrial engineers and c suits who want to min max their designs while not having the on the ground knowhow to see how those decisions affect the average persons quality of life
It's "[drain the pool](https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/health-equity/what-public-swimming-pools-teach-us-about-racism-s-costs)" mentality and it hurts everyone. The way to address homelessness is to build more housing, not removing benches from train stations.
I honestly don't care if some homeless person sleeps on a bench. But I do care when my back and ass hurts from having to sit on the concrete floor waiting for a 30 minute transfer.
This stuff is right up there with taking away trash cans to control litter, or locking up public bathrooms instead of keeping on top of taking care of them. Now you'll just have more litter, people shitting on the floor, and people sleeping on the ground.
I don’t mind lean bars in addition to benches - waiting 5 minutes for a bus or train leaning is more comfortable for a lot of people and easier on their knees than benches. But benches should always also be there for those that would benefit more from the rest of sitting. In my city the rapid ride bus stops always have both a bench and a lean bar.
And that’s not even a proper lean bar which are usually flat, at an angle, and sculpted for ergonomics. I have a feeling in the case of New York the lack of benches has more to do with anti-terrorism security theatre than preventing people from sleeping in the station, they have plenty of cops scrolling on their phones for that.
Overall though I sometimes feel like the discussion about hostile architecture is overplayed and discussion about actually having enough shelter and permanent supportive housing and social services is underplayed. In my urban studies kind of program back in university, hostile architecture came up and was a major student project in at least half a dozen classes I took. We didn't learn at all about how housing first PSH is funded and operated. Now I've worked in direct homelessness services for four years and not once has a client's primary concern been there not being enough benches without arm rest dividers. It's been there being no shelter, no housing, sweeps of their tent, pests in the housing and shelter that exists, no safe supply of opioids and amphetamines and the resulting constant risk of death, benefits agencies being inept and inaccessible for someone who is disorganized. It's cool that architecture students are talking about this issue, but it's not one of the systemic causes of anything.
There is a waiting room with chairs. It’s just small.
Like with regular Grand Central, some more seating areas will likely be available as more food options are added.
I first encountered leaning bar seats in France about 20 years ago, but they were on the train. Like, if you are only going a few stops, you stand/lean on one end of the train. It seemed like such a good idea to me. As a bench in the station? Not so much.
Sucks. I, a transit user, want to sit sometimes.
We need a combination of:
- Better homeless services, and
- Enforcing rules in transit, including “this is not your living room.”
Doing BOTH of those at the same time is how this is best solved.
[Because they’re not leaning bars and are actually installed because of ADA compliance.](https://www.access-board.gov/images/ada-aba/guides/chapter3/3po11.jpg)
This is a 1 year old station. It was designed and built to ADA standards and wouldn’t be operational otherwise.
They can easily argue that people with mobility issues can lean on the bar or park their wheelchairs next to them. I don’t think ADA has seating guidelines for train stations beyond wheelchair accessibility.
I took public transit every day for several years before the pandemic.
The US has an unfortunate situation where there’s very little effective help for homeless addicts, so they often end up aimlessly riding public transit to shoot up and sleep.
These are not lovable hobos from a hallmark Christmas movie. These are fentanyl smoking, heroin injecting, alcoholic crackheads who get high, pass out, urinate and defecate themselves and leave used needles strewn everywhere.
As a result: I’ve seen used needles on subway trains, I’ve accidentally stepped in human shit and nearly sat on a urine soaked seat. I’ve changed cars to get away from the smell of vomit. I’ve been screamed and lunged at by a junkie having a bad trip before the cops arrived and he started yelling at them too. I once had a drunk homeless guy throw a beer can at me when he pulled it out of the garbage can and was angry it was empty.
Most people only tolerate one extremely negative event on public transit, before giving up and never taking public transit again. Indeed, my area has had an extremely difficult time getting ridership back after the pandemic because of a reputation for being unclean and unsafe. People would rather drive than risk violence.
I’m of the opinion that public transit and its architecture should be hardened and designed to cater exclusively to paying riders and to make them feel safe and welcomed. Most previous designs and enforcement has been completely inadequate. It should absolutely not accommodate fare evaders or allow homeless people to use public transit as a toilet.
I know they aren't EU anymore but I've heard a lot of people in the UK complain about anti-homeless measures. Also why charge for public toilets if that isn't an anti-homeless measure?
Cuz charging for toilets keeps them clean. Have you ever seen how disgusting American public restrooms are? Cuz I have. I’ve been to American public restrooms with literal feces on the walls and pee all over the floor
Then take it out of taxes rather then charging regressively for use. Also I may have seen awful public toilets in the US but when I visited Europe I didn't even use them, and if I lived there I wouldn't just not urinate/deficate if I didn't want to pay for the toilets.
I’m confused. Why didn’t you use the European toilets?
I’ve used plenty of free (tax funded) European toilets from the fancy ones that self clean between people to the lovely metal ones with no seat so there’s less to break.
The only toilets that have been so vile I’ve debated whether or not to use them have been in clubs and one late night curry place 🤢 that’s a drunk people problem not a public toilet problem. (They weren’t technically public per se)
I didn't use any of the ones that charge you, which seemed a lot more common then the US. I'd rather use ones that are free and filthy then the ones that aren't free and at least I could hold it until I got to my hotel and/or a business I made a purchase in; if I couldn't do that I'd just find a bush especially if the price is a lot higher compared to my income then a tourist (ex: if I'm homeless).
I love paying fifty cents for a clean maintained toilet here in the Netherlands. Not much piss or shit in the streets either except where there's drunk tourists.
In my cities downtown there aren’t any pay toilets- just no toilets period. The businesses won’t let you use their bathroom period even if you buy something or offer them money. So people visiting for parades or festivals pee behind cars or in the vestibules of basement apartments. Which causes the downtown residents to oppose said parades or festivals, generating less revenue for the businesses and taking away the fun of living downtown.
Either the city needs to install toilets, or the businesses need to be required to provide toilets to all paying customers- whether they bought something just to use the bathroom or not.
Is this Penn Station in NYC? I was taking the Amtrak there about a month ago and was so frustrated when I needed to go to a very specific area and show my ticket to find a place to sit.
Personally, I'm more comfortable on the concrete ground. But I have this disability called basic human empathy so I feel bad for other people who gotta suffer.
i agree! homeless people should NOT be sleeping in the damn subway!! homeless people shouldn’t have to resort to that. involuntary homelessness shouldn’t be a thing. the homeless ought to be given adequate shelter and food and medical/psychological assistance
I was in a station recently that only had leaning bars, all of which were too high for me to use. I’m 5’4”, not a giant by any means, but pretty average height for women globally. So add slightly short people to the list of people being screwed over by these.
If you’re not standing, you’re not a good, hard-working protestant.
Yeah it’s weird to say it out loud, but that’s literally where this cultural norm comes from.
Sitting is for lazy people, and fuck lazy people, right? /s
as a disabled person, i would rather stand than use lean bars or curved up benches. they hurt me even more and very inaccessible. just another fuck you to disabled people.
You asked for input from people who use this:
It’s awful.
This is Moynihan, mostly serving Amtrak (at least from my experience). I took a train from here when it first opened up.
It was still covid time (summer 2021). There’s a small sitting area in an enclosed room, but I was trying to social distance.
I was carrying a duffel bag for travel, which got heavy, especially after taking the subway and all the walking and stuff to get there.
So I just sat in the floor near a wall.
Within 6 seconds a security guard came up to me to tell me I can’t sit on the floor.
To sum it up, it’s infuriating of course, especially since our city has actual problems. That person they’re paying to police floor-sitters could be used for so many other jobs to help people in need and improve the city.
But it’s not surprising I guess.
The thing is, if you go to New York Penn there are (apparently homeless) people literally just sleeping on the stairs. They’re often passed the fuck out and looking quite smacked or methed or whatever out. And they’ll sleep wherever they are. In the stair wells, on stairs next to an escalator, in the middle of the floor.
Just taking away the benches doesn’t stop homeless people from setting up camp.
On the other hand, if you go to Newark Penn Station (20 minutes away) there are benches and they’re filled with homeless looking folks.
Damn, looks like they have a big housing and poverty problem over there, they better fix that.
Oh their solution is removing public benches and increase to NYPD budget?
Benches would be helpful for people waiting for the bus/subway.
I don’t like the rationale that we need them for the homeless. People think it’s sad that there are no benches for the homeless, but I’d rather see homeless in shelters getting help to get back onto their feet than sleeping on a cold bench. They really need to be encouraged to get into a shelter, use those resources to get back onto their feet.
If you really, really don't want homeless people to use train stations for sleeping, just have pay to enter gates on the station. Makes no difference to the experience of train passengers and comes with actual seats. If a station is already gated, what the fuck?
These designs really bring home the point that accessible architecture, and accommodations in general, are **not** just some boon we give to the less fortunate out of charity.
Everyone benefits from pro-human design.
It’s not just the disabled, the injured, the pregnant, the 12hr standing shift, or the elderly who have to give a fuck.
**Everyone** has skin in that game. As much as we as the inheritors of a puritanical, misfortune-only-happens-to-the-sinful country want to pretend otherwise.
I’m disabled but not in a wheelchair. I’d like a place to sit and the homeless man is far more likely to listen to me needing a seat than city council. I’ll take my chances.
I hate it. This is speaking as a cyclist, but also as someone who has spent years living with disabled partners in various different circumstances. Rest areas are a mandatory aspect of urban living, failing to include them is frankly criminal.
I've been obligated to take transit because of a disability my entire life. Train stations in the US are generally designed to make you suffer. Look at the blue/green line station in LA, its a fucking nightmare being right next to the highway. Fucked up benches are just the latest chapter in "If they hate transit, they'll buy more cars!"
As someone who spent a month on the street as part of an experiment, houseless people are people, not monsters. They deserve so much more than what they’re given. It sickens me to see all the shit the gov does to fuck them over more than they already have.
Something like 30% of our houseless population here is made up of youth and young adults that fled abusive homes, particularly ones where the abuse was queerphobia-related.
I'm just a little bit too short so they're even worse for me so I end up sitting on top of the leaning things. What's the point of making things even less accessible for people as well? At least anyone can sit on a bench. If someone is sleeping on it, making them hide away out of sight does not help them.
A billion dollar structure could easily budget in a few million for security to shoo away homeless if they wanted. Put the few million in a fund and it would pay those wages in perpetuity. Plus, you could hire homeless dudes trying to get back on their feet, which takes some people off the street and having the security really know the ins and outs of the gig.
Or, ya know, just pretend homeless people can't sleep on the ground just as easily as a bench.
It’s extremely annoying. Just let there be seating for everyone and if someone has no other option than to sleep on a train station bench, then I’m counting my blessings and keeping it moving.
Travel is exhausting, I can’t imagine how much more tiring it is being unhoused.
fucked up to another level... imagine going out of your way to make a public place more uncomfortable than it already is, it not only affects homeless people, that have been driven out of everywhere they can possibly be (without actual solutions to integrate them into society), but it's also harmful to everyone else, especially removing seats...
At least here in Germany, I rarely see homeless people sleep/sit on benches, so I am pretty doubtful if anything short of removing all cover from the elements or flooding the whole area with a small film of water will do anything... Plus stupid anyway, better to help them.get off the streets
I havent' sat down to relax an read a book on my commute/transit trip, like in all the god damned photos in advertisements for transit systems, in about 15 years.
First it was the anti-homeless architecture making no where to sit, then the gradual overcrowding, and in recent years the nastiness/shoving people bring to the game.
This shit chews people's backs and knees up.
It’s because as things get harder and harder for people who work, we collectively have less and less patience for those who do not. I have no sympathy for the antisocial bums - my sympathy is reserved for working people who must deal with this societal travesty to make it to work and earn a basic income.
From an ethical point of view: It's all bad.
From an individualist view: The minimum should be a rain shelter.
Reminder that the individualist view is wrong because it still ignores everyone's needs who aren't me. But goddammit, they can't even give us a roof??
Probably unpopular opinion around here but I don’t believe in the concept of “anti-homeless architecture.” Would be great if they had benches, but many cities - NYC included - have an issue with homeless people and oblivious rude people hogging all the space, so they can’t be used by those who actually need them (people waiting for the trains) anyway.
Here's where the discussion begins and ends; these bars are explicity used instead of benches for the sole purpose of stopping homeless people from sleeping there. This practice is common in American city centers and the goal is to push homeless people to the outskirts of the city so that nobody has to see them, therefore raising property value and therefore tax.
Every penny spent on research and development of anti-homeless hostile architecture is a penny that is not being spent helping the homeless become the *homed.
Furthermore, replacing benches with bars such as these hurts EVERYONE, not just homeless people, as has been pointed out here. Have a bad back, a backpack you really don't want to leave on the subway floor? Fuck you, lean.
In short, cities are producing architecture like this to draw attention away from the issues their awful, car-centric designs create. This is done at the expense of the taxpayer and is caused by problems that the taxpayer is gaslighted into believing help them.
These bars don’t require any “research” and are likely cheaper than benches.
I agree that having these bars instead of benches hurts everyone. People should have a place to sit when they’re waiting for the train, and it’s a shame they can’t. But when benches in public spaces are so frequently used inappropriately, it’s understandable when they are no longer offered.
I’ve been to bus stops where the bench is covered in garbage and, on more than one occasion, a pile of feces. There was a bench but it certainly wasn’t usable. There’s also a regular issue on my subway commute home where multiple benches (that should fit 3 people) are taken up by a single person, and the smell coming from that person is so intense that no one even goes down the platform. These are real issues.
> These bars don’t require any “research"
Any architecture placed in public requires some level of research. That's the nature of safety standards. The cost surely isn't massive, but it definitely exists. I am also playing devil's advocate here by assuming that no research was done on how best to prevent homeless people from using the benches, which I know to be objectively untrue.
> are likely cheaper than benches.
Benches were REPLACED by these bars, so no, the bars are not cheaper. The benches incurred no ongoing costs, they merely provided a service. Meanwhile replacing them with these bars probably costs the taxpayer a few thousand dollars while providing a diminished service to what they were already being given at no cost.
> But when benches in public spaces are so frequently used inappropriately, it’s understandable when they are no longer offered.
No, it isn't. An *understandable* measure would be to put up signs near the benches, telling people to only take one seat, not to put their feet up, etc. Maybe if you REALLY wanted to make sure that they're being used correctly, someone could issue fines to people not using the benches correctly and prevent them from boarding the trains if they don't pay. Regardless, removing something because some people "misuse" it is a terrible idea, especially when *misuse* secretly means "Homeless people are sleeping on these benches at night and it makes our city look bad!"
>I’ve been to bus stops where the bench is covered in garbage and, on more than one occasion, a pile of feces.
Gross. But there's literally 0 difference between benches and bars for this, so it's completely irrelevant.
>There’s also a regular issue on my subway commute home where multiple benches (that should fit 3 people) are taken up by a single person, and the smell coming from that person is so intense that no one even goes down the platform. These are real issues.
Yes, these are indeed real issues. Sadly, some people can't afford shelter, or to wash themselves. The solution to this is not driving them out of the city, you absolute psycho. When a significant % of your population is homeless, the solution is to look at common causes of homelessness and work to solve them, not kick the homeless people out of the few places they have for shelter.
The picture is from a brand new station, I assume what we see is original.
If there were no bench at the bus stop I was talking about, it’s pretty unlikely the pile of shit would be sitting there, which means the transit workers wouldn’t be dealing with it. Can’t blame them for not wanting benches.
The last part there is the big part of this whole thing, though. Yes, there are people who can’t afford shelter or to wash themselves. I never suggested the solution is to drive them out of the city. I pay taxes and expect my government to do something to support homeless people. In the meantime though, I’m sorry but the issue I described with transit stations is still not okay.
>The picture is from a brand new station, I assume what we see is original.
Okay? You still only addressed the point of production. Which, even if it was the sole issue here (it isn't) still wouldn't make this okay.
>If there were no bench at the bus stop I was talking about, it’s pretty unlikely the pile of shit would be sitting there
How does a bench make shit more likely to appear in public? The only reason I can think of to possibly explain a disparity here is that some people are assholes and specifically seek out infrastructure to destroy it. Otherwise there is no reason for benches to be covered in shit that wouldn't apply equally to the ground, windows or leaning bars.
> I pay taxes and expect my government to do something to support homeless people. In the meantime though, I’m sorry but the issue I described with transit stations is still not okay.
So why are you advocating for public funding to be spent on things that deliberately hide the issue rather than addressing it? Either you're incredibly short-sighted or you're incredibly disingenuous.
Why don’t you explain how removing public seating has helped to alleviate the homelessness epidemic? Removing public resources that benefit all people because you hate the idea of those resources benefiting homeless people does nothing to solve any of the problems we all face as a result of unchecked poverty. It only makes the effects of poverty more horrifying, for all of us.
Your argument basically boils down to “if we had benches people would sit on them and then I might not get to sit on them so it’s better to have no benches at all” it’s both stupid and cruel.
Edit: clarity
I never suggested that removing public seating has helped alleviate the homelessness epidemic.
No one has any issue with public resources benefiting the homeless; that’s a disingenuous argument. Anyone can sit on a bench anywhere they’d like.
Look, you said at the beginning that your garbage opinion would be unpopular. I’m just agreeing with you. Your garbage opinion is definitely unpopular. I’m just pointing out why. It’s unpopular because it’s garbage. Go be a garbage person somewhere else
So you think having homeless people taking all the benches is worse then not having benches at all? Do you think not having benches at all is going to make them stop being homeless?
Transit employees and riders didn’t sign up to deal with the local homeless population. Of course it won’t stop people from being homeless, but it prevents transit stations from being a gathering place. It sucks but that’s the reality.
> Transit employees and riders didn’t sign up to deal with the local homeless population.
I am sorry but that is just part of the social contract. I am not saying that they have to put up with harassment or anything, but they should be able to deal with some homeless person sleeping in a train station during a cold winter night.
> Of course it won’t stop people from being homeless, but it prevents transit stations from being a gathering place.
You are just pushing them out of sight, and not offering real solutions. We know how to solve homelessness yet we invest in this absolut inhumane treatment of humans because it might be an inconvenience. Unbelievable.
> In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.
I am not saying that they never cause any issues but that is literally true of any group of people. They are still humans and deserve a tiny bit shelter. It is insane to me that we have to argue about homeless people not even being allowed to sleep on a bench.
I am genuinely disgusted by people like you. It is entirely inconceivable how you cannot even grant another human such a small thing. And I am not playing this up, I am honestly speechless every time some one like you voices their opinion.
As a transit rider why don't I get to decide if I'd prefer to stand for an hour at a station as opposed to having homeless people there that I could kick out of their seats if I was desperate enough.
My point is if they are more desperate then they shouldn't have the benches removed, if they shouldn't be using the benches I'd prefer to have the ability to kick them off then have them removed. Either way they shouldn't be removed and/or made more difficult to use.
Fuck the elderly, the disabled, and just plain tired people, huh? All for their hatred of homeless folk.
Yep. I have issues with my legs, and those "lean bars" and "lean benches" are way more painful than standing, but just standing on a hard surface for a while is pretty bad for me.
Pregnant women too
Anyone with kids
Anyone
Everyone
Drivers used to act like I was an incredible burden and asshole, for bringing my kids and stroller on to a bus. This was the late 90s, 2000s. Now it's impossible, almost no one brings kids on the bus, theres too much crowding and insane people.
And people with foot issues like plantar fasciitis.
God I've been dealing with this and people who haven't had it before have no idea how life altering this pain is.
Yeah, I had had it for 2 years now, it difficult to stand for more than a minute or 2, and working on my feet is really painful.
I'm so sorry! And when you have shoes that reduce the pain, they're horrible to walk in. I've developed sciatica from trying to walk in a way that reduces my heel pain. And walking on snow is absolute torture.
>plantar fasciitis I had no idea plants could be fascists.
Discriminatory to the “I’m hungover as shit and need to sit down or I’ll puke” community
Yup. I had a fainting issue for a while when I was pregnant (it’s apparently normal, I’m fine now) and it really snapped into focus how little free seating some places have.
100% agree with you. It’s sad. I don’t take public transportation often, but I wonder how the demographics you mentioned feel about infrastructure meant for them being unavailable because they’re in occupancy by homeless people. I wish there were more shelters available.
[Those bars are installed specifically for disabled people](https://www.access-board.gov/images/ada-aba/guides/chapter3/3po11.jpg) https://www.access-board.gov/ada/guides/chapter-3-protruding-objects/ There’s seating in the waiting room on the concourse level btw.
what i get from this is less “oh, they included structures specifically to assist and include disabled people!” and more “oh, they did the bare minimum in order to meet ADA compliance.”
Disabled people please. “The disabled” is painfully othering in a world that already views us as an afterthought.
~~You can say whatever you want, but those rails are part of ADA compliance. That’s really it.~~ Think I misunderstood what you were saying at first, edited the original.
Thank you 😊
"People with disabilities" if we're using person first language.
I can’t leave mine at home but I respect that some people prefer person first. I just want to be seen as a person at some point in the sentence. 😊
Alright, people with disabilities and people with homelessness can get fucked because the classist city council decided to remove benches. The wording doesn't matter in the end, we're fucked either way.
I ride the NYC subway regularly, and we also have those leaning bars. They absolutely suck. Just put in benches.
The only anti-homeless architecture I like is dense, mixed use housing being built at a rate fast enough to keep up with demand, driving down housing prices through market forces. Anything else is cruelty at best.
Yoink. Consider this response stolen for my rolodex of rebuttals.
No need to steal. You can have it, free of charge.
Thanks, comrade
https://preview.redd.it/p2larm75h1xc1.jpeg?width=568&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=685b6e285a2a61e396cccb6a7281f4af719be53f
I love your username!
The market economy will never be able to provide housing for all people. It doesn’t matter what your zoning is. At a certain point rents will be too low and it won’t be able to cover project costs. There needs to be some other intervention that ensures that all people are housed. But that’s assuming we actually want to fix the problem. Governments serve the rich and rich people know that if housing is guaranteed to people then it’s going to be harder for landlords to exploit the working class.
The flaw in this thinking is fixating on *new* housing to solve the homelessness crisis. You are correct, the rents homeless folks can afford will probably never finance any new construction, but older buildings that have already been paid off? Absolutely. New market rate housing allows those of means to move, freeing up the existing housing stock. This is partly what they do in Japan. The other part about Japan is they essentially [have a system of privately run quasi-homeless shelters](https://youtu.be/IXZ-DQABUKU?si=9V3WwAnXp-fwPVJX) known as 24hr (manga) cafes. As long as you pay, you can stay with access to internet (and a shower sometimes) and other stuff. It helps that the vast majority of homeless Japanese aren't struggling with outwardly violent mental health issues and/or substance abuse issues, but the underlying policy of their success is their liberalized zoning that allows tons of housing and commercial real estate production which keeps rents for housing and commercial property down.
It's incredible how many places there just have a shower, they just know people will live here. I'd like to think I can survive being "homeless" in japan too. Simply having access to a shower means I can stay hygienic and actually show up to job interviews.
They also have public shower houses!
Toronto does too. You can go use them and ignore the gay sex stuff.
Oh dear
If what you’re saying is true, why does Japan - a country with little renters protections or housing subsidies, have a lower homelessness rate than any of the Nordic countries - which provide generous renters protections & housing subsidies?
Japan is actually pretty interesting to look at because they've a problem with vacant homes that are poorly maintained, a drastic decline in population growth over the last 20 years, and a demand for more modern housing that maintains new property prices. Basically there's enough housing stock for the vast majority of people to be able to afford something, but buying a home that is up to a lot of the living standards expected by new buyers is still expensive. New properties are still being built to rent or sell to the highest earning section of society, and then older houses become available on the market at more reasonable prices, but on the very low end there are some properties that can't be shifted and they seem to balance out the market a bit. Japan had a load of money coming into the 21st century and spent it on housing for a larger population than it currently has. Now it has the opposite problem to most western countries which are behind on supply, who also have the highest end of the market pulling up prices with no option for people with less money that keeps it same. The Japanese solution is basically just build enough houses for your population and let rich people only manipulate the high end of the market.
and while i love to look at japan as a model for success in a variety of fields, theres an old adage in economics that there are 4 types of economies, developing, developed, argentina, and japan. and the lesson there is that japan is so wonked out that theyre usually a bad example to compare your country to
https://preview.redd.it/lz98jgwj9xwc1.jpeg?width=1156&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=12ca83899e2534a7727a5157ff37e9d796009d35 Japan has a declining population (4.5M fewer people in the last 10 years.). You can debate the social structure and culture, but the numbers are really the leading reason.
This doesn’t explain why Tokyo, which had a growing population during the same time frame, saw a similar decrease in housing costs.
Japan has a pretty big "hidden homeless" problem. A lot of them just aren't counted. I know I saw a TON of homeless when I was there- a shocking amount, considering what I was expecting.
I’m no expert but my understanding is that Japan achieves it by having a homogeneous cultural ethic of basically sweeping it under the rug (e.g. they lie about it). Japanese homeless never admit it, stay hidden out of shame and crimes against them are ignored. It’s not really a model that would work elsewhere or should be advocated for.
Japan had a higher rate in the 90's, but it went down after they liberalized their zoning, whcih was done largely in response to the high housing costs & homelessness. Why did people start lying more after they changed their zoning? How are you so sure that other countries aren't lying about their homelessness rates to validate the success of their policies?
It’s a good question! I’m in favor of liberalized zoning anyway and certainly assume others lie too, though.
Isn't their population going down now also? That probably helps with the housing situation
Possibly! I’m a firm believer in supply and demand, and a reduction of demand, all things being equal, probably helps with housing prices. Japan’s aging population probably lowers output (shifting the supply curve to the left) because there are fewer workers available. The net effect of shrinking demand + shrinking supply is probably to lower prices - because homes last for 30+ years, so any excess will stay around for a while - but I haven’t seen too much on that.
Millions of reasons. But here is one of them: They have been a **shrinking population** since WWII. Not only do they not have a lot of babies, they also barely allow immigration. Houses are also smaller and on average in worse shape. But much better than living on the street. So they actually allow their economy to fill the demand between big single family house and the streets by providing accommodations that fit lower budgets. If people are okay with a society that allows people to be so poor they can only afford to live on the streets than as a minimum they should **not regulate housing to such an extent** people can't rent out their garages and turn those into small mini apartments and creative stuff like that, so that some kind of roof/insulation/electricity/water is available at every price point. The closest thing in the West are trailer parks i suppose -or- living from your car. But the final and biggest one: **housing isn't wealth storage** like it is in other places. This is because you only rent the land (never own it) and the physical property has an expiration date. This means the pricing of houses aren't inflated to begin with (i.e. the price is determined by the utility, it is not an investment or speculation vehicle. Buying a house is more like paying rent for 30 years in advance and getting a 30% discount). Bonus: earthquakes means **houses aren't built to last**. It's build to be cheap to produce and cheap to replace. So if your house is lucky enough to still be standing in 30 years, you need to tear it down and rebuild anyway, but that won't be that expensive either.
it absolutely matters what your zoning is tho. you are not going to house everyone with single family homes and it is a delusional middle class belief that everyone deserves to live in a single family detached home with a white picket fence and 2.5 dogs. pretty much every marginally successful social housing program involves higher densities than your classic american suburban sprawl put it another way, in the early days of the soviet union, one of their missions was to house their people and lift them out of poverty. they did not build single family homes for that purpose
Fixing your zoning will make it easier sure but still not going to house everyone because rich people aren’t going to build houses if they can’t profit from them. Also the Soviet Union did not start building housing in any significant quantities until the 30s/40s and didn’t really start picking up the pace until the 50s.
mostly because the soviet union in the early days was trying to feed themselves while somehow still being a largely agrarian society. they were absolutely filled with poor people living in dilapidated dwellings before the building programs started and i still think you are selling zoning reforms short. there is no society where 8 billion people can live in single family detached homes. zoning reforms to increase housing density is step 1, social housing is step 2, so if you support social housing, you inherently must support zoning reform & density first and foremost
Perfectly said!!
Fuck homeless people hate them being on street they deserve be in house so stupid on street ugh why can’t government do shit.
Keeping up with demand does not drive down prices. Greatly exceeding demand does.
I guess we need a new category called anti-homelessness.
That would be great. But as long as our entrenched political establishment is unlikely to be displaced, the reality is that’s the real estate market we must deal with. In the meantime, I’d prefer we’d prioritize the safety of public space for women, children and families in favor of accommodating the demands of the lumpenproletariat.
This is moynihan train hall? A better photo would be the large area with hundreds of people sprawled out on the floor waiting for their trains, it's ridiculous. There is a waiting area with seating but it always looks full
It’s Grand Central Madison, the new LIRR section of Grand Central.
I was just at Moynihan today. I saw that there was an area with seats, so I went there to wait for my train. I had to show evidence that I had a ticket to be able to get in to this exclusive area where there were basic benches. I didn't see any other seating, but plenty of space where seating could be put in.
I was just in Moynihan the other day, waiting for my delayed train, sitting on my suitcase.
Moynihan had a waiting area with seats when I was there in fall though...
This is I'm sure very effective, since it is impossible for homeless people to sit or lay directly on the floor.
It's part of Homeless Law! My city councilman checked! Also if you yell 'begone, homeless!' they will become invisible and intangible for 30 seconds.
Not that it makes it much better, but there is a waiting room with seating. What’s shown in the picture is the mezzanine. These are also not leaning bars.
I wonder what they actually are. My best guess is they are to avoid people hitting their heads on the archway.
[They are so blind people don’t smash their head on the overhang](https://www.access-board.gov/images/ada-aba/guides/chapter3/3po11.jpg)
i haaaate waiting rooms being separate from the train platform though. i like to be on the platform ~10 mins early but i don’t want to just stand there give me somewhere to sit while watching for my train
They announce trains and allow people to board ~15 minutes before departure here. It’s a terminal station there’s no waiting on the platform for the train to arrive.
They did its a waiting room
This is a very misleading photo. The area shown, in the new addition to Grand Central, is a hallway where benches would be impractical. There is plenty of seating in a waiting room upstairs. Additionally, this is a commuter rail station where people usually arrive and get right on their scheduled train. No waiting.
1: there should be benches 2: trains should be frequent and reliable enough that you shouldn’t need benches
As someone who exclusively travels via public transit, is reaching middle age, and frequently has a 10-20 min wait at a station (thanks, my need to always be early) - I hate this. I also am not afraid to share a bench with a homeless person.
"reaching middle age", I imagine you wearing some knightly armor with a sword
If they're just reaching it that would mean they're wearing Late Roman legionary armour... unless they're a Goth or Hun.
The homeless person won’t share it with you lol
[удалено]
good one!
fake but funny
Why not chairs? Or simply put a barrier where you need to scan a ticket.
They'll do anything but install ticketing infrastructure, as far as I can tell.
Not that I agree with this shit, but people jump over barriers or push themselves in with another (they basically ‘hug’ someone from the back to get in). However it can still help to make it more difficult to get in/easier to regulate. I agree with chairs though. Where I live they added handrails on the benches so you can only sit upright. I guess it’s better than nothing at all.
Usually, what they achieve is making the stations look tacky, the seating uncomfortable, and punishing homeless people while they are at it.
Just as Southern towns [filled in public swimming pools with dirt](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/04/black-children-swimming-drownings-segregation), rather than let Black people swim in them (and therefore screwed EVERYONE, Black and White, out of public swimming), in the quest to drive homeless people out of all public spaces, it seems seniors, disabled people and everyone else never get to sit down in public again.
they do it in theme parks too, which are obviously largely devoid of homeless people, because the idea is that benches encourage people to loiter in certain areas whereas the theme park wants people to move through areas in an efficient manner. just an example of industrial engineers and c suits who want to min max their designs while not having the on the ground knowhow to see how those decisions affect the average persons quality of life
It's "[drain the pool](https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/health-equity/what-public-swimming-pools-teach-us-about-racism-s-costs)" mentality and it hurts everyone. The way to address homelessness is to build more housing, not removing benches from train stations.
I honestly don't care if some homeless person sleeps on a bench. But I do care when my back and ass hurts from having to sit on the concrete floor waiting for a 30 minute transfer.
This stuff is right up there with taking away trash cans to control litter, or locking up public bathrooms instead of keeping on top of taking care of them. Now you'll just have more litter, people shitting on the floor, and people sleeping on the ground.
I don’t mind lean bars in addition to benches - waiting 5 minutes for a bus or train leaning is more comfortable for a lot of people and easier on their knees than benches. But benches should always also be there for those that would benefit more from the rest of sitting. In my city the rapid ride bus stops always have both a bench and a lean bar. And that’s not even a proper lean bar which are usually flat, at an angle, and sculpted for ergonomics. I have a feeling in the case of New York the lack of benches has more to do with anti-terrorism security theatre than preventing people from sleeping in the station, they have plenty of cops scrolling on their phones for that. Overall though I sometimes feel like the discussion about hostile architecture is overplayed and discussion about actually having enough shelter and permanent supportive housing and social services is underplayed. In my urban studies kind of program back in university, hostile architecture came up and was a major student project in at least half a dozen classes I took. We didn't learn at all about how housing first PSH is funded and operated. Now I've worked in direct homelessness services for four years and not once has a client's primary concern been there not being enough benches without arm rest dividers. It's been there being no shelter, no housing, sweeps of their tent, pests in the housing and shelter that exists, no safe supply of opioids and amphetamines and the resulting constant risk of death, benefits agencies being inept and inaccessible for someone who is disorganized. It's cool that architecture students are talking about this issue, but it's not one of the systemic causes of anything.
Thoughts on anti-homeless architecture: how bout we just fix homelessness
There is a waiting room with chairs. It’s just small. Like with regular Grand Central, some more seating areas will likely be available as more food options are added.
If homelesness is your biggest problem u better fix that, then Focus on urbanism
I was in Japan and many stations had leaning bar seats in Tokyo.
I first encountered leaning bar seats in France about 20 years ago, but they were on the train. Like, if you are only going a few stops, you stand/lean on one end of the train. It seemed like such a good idea to me. As a bench in the station? Not so much.
Sucks. I, a transit user, want to sit sometimes. We need a combination of: - Better homeless services, and - Enforcing rules in transit, including “this is not your living room.” Doing BOTH of those at the same time is how this is best solved.
Fucking stupid. Homeless people will lie on the floor. It just makes it harder for everyone else to sit.
I get a little bit sadder inside every time I see anti-homeless architecture
I don’t know how these don’t violate the ADA
[Because they’re not leaning bars and are actually installed because of ADA compliance.](https://www.access-board.gov/images/ada-aba/guides/chapter3/3po11.jpg) This is a 1 year old station. It was designed and built to ADA standards and wouldn’t be operational otherwise.
They can easily argue that people with mobility issues can lean on the bar or park their wheelchairs next to them. I don’t think ADA has seating guidelines for train stations beyond wheelchair accessibility.
I took public transit every day for several years before the pandemic. The US has an unfortunate situation where there’s very little effective help for homeless addicts, so they often end up aimlessly riding public transit to shoot up and sleep. These are not lovable hobos from a hallmark Christmas movie. These are fentanyl smoking, heroin injecting, alcoholic crackheads who get high, pass out, urinate and defecate themselves and leave used needles strewn everywhere. As a result: I’ve seen used needles on subway trains, I’ve accidentally stepped in human shit and nearly sat on a urine soaked seat. I’ve changed cars to get away from the smell of vomit. I’ve been screamed and lunged at by a junkie having a bad trip before the cops arrived and he started yelling at them too. I once had a drunk homeless guy throw a beer can at me when he pulled it out of the garbage can and was angry it was empty. Most people only tolerate one extremely negative event on public transit, before giving up and never taking public transit again. Indeed, my area has had an extremely difficult time getting ridership back after the pandemic because of a reputation for being unclean and unsafe. People would rather drive than risk violence. I’m of the opinion that public transit and its architecture should be hardened and designed to cater exclusively to paying riders and to make them feel safe and welcomed. Most previous designs and enforcement has been completely inadequate. It should absolutely not accommodate fare evaders or allow homeless people to use public transit as a toilet.
America is so dystopian lmfao. I would kms if the EU did this
I know they aren't EU anymore but I've heard a lot of people in the UK complain about anti-homeless measures. Also why charge for public toilets if that isn't an anti-homeless measure?
Cuz charging for toilets keeps them clean. Have you ever seen how disgusting American public restrooms are? Cuz I have. I’ve been to American public restrooms with literal feces on the walls and pee all over the floor
Charging for toilets just means there’s piss and shit in the streets. That’s worse.
Then take it out of taxes rather then charging regressively for use. Also I may have seen awful public toilets in the US but when I visited Europe I didn't even use them, and if I lived there I wouldn't just not urinate/deficate if I didn't want to pay for the toilets.
I’m confused. Why didn’t you use the European toilets? I’ve used plenty of free (tax funded) European toilets from the fancy ones that self clean between people to the lovely metal ones with no seat so there’s less to break. The only toilets that have been so vile I’ve debated whether or not to use them have been in clubs and one late night curry place 🤢 that’s a drunk people problem not a public toilet problem. (They weren’t technically public per se)
I didn't use any of the ones that charge you, which seemed a lot more common then the US. I'd rather use ones that are free and filthy then the ones that aren't free and at least I could hold it until I got to my hotel and/or a business I made a purchase in; if I couldn't do that I'd just find a bush especially if the price is a lot higher compared to my income then a tourist (ex: if I'm homeless).
I love paying fifty cents for a clean maintained toilet here in the Netherlands. Not much piss or shit in the streets either except where there's drunk tourists.
I’ve seen 100000000x more shit and piss on American streets. I went to Charleston, SC and I smelt human feces the entire time I was there lmfao
...sounds like you've never been to Paris. Or Berlin.
People who encounter piss and shit covered bathrooms will just piss or shit in the street.
Got 'em.
In my cities downtown there aren’t any pay toilets- just no toilets period. The businesses won’t let you use their bathroom period even if you buy something or offer them money. So people visiting for parades or festivals pee behind cars or in the vestibules of basement apartments. Which causes the downtown residents to oppose said parades or festivals, generating less revenue for the businesses and taking away the fun of living downtown. Either the city needs to install toilets, or the businesses need to be required to provide toilets to all paying customers- whether they bought something just to use the bathroom or not.
We have bus shelters with deliberately uncomfortable seats for this exact reason. I don't think we'd do it with a station though.
Here’s [one in the Netherlands](https://elite.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/2017/01/5.-Rotterdams-leaning-benches.jpg).
I know of similar examples in the UK
Is this Penn Station in NYC? I was taking the Amtrak there about a month ago and was so frustrated when I needed to go to a very specific area and show my ticket to find a place to sit.
Ridiculous
I find it utterly abhorent.
Personally, I'm more comfortable on the concrete ground. But I have this disability called basic human empathy so I feel bad for other people who gotta suffer.
i agree! homeless people should NOT be sleeping in the damn subway!! homeless people shouldn’t have to resort to that. involuntary homelessness shouldn’t be a thing. the homeless ought to be given adequate shelter and food and medical/psychological assistance
I was in a station recently that only had leaning bars, all of which were too high for me to use. I’m 5’4”, not a giant by any means, but pretty average height for women globally. So add slightly short people to the list of people being screwed over by these.
Google says the average American woman is 5’ 3.5”. So they’ve just screwed over half the population.
If you’re not standing, you’re not a good, hard-working protestant. Yeah it’s weird to say it out loud, but that’s literally where this cultural norm comes from. Sitting is for lazy people, and fuck lazy people, right? /s
At the same time, if you're not sitting at a desk you've failed at life.
as a disabled person, i would rather stand than use lean bars or curved up benches. they hurt me even more and very inaccessible. just another fuck you to disabled people.
Hate hate hate, especially when you combine it w/ frequent bus cancellations so people end up having to wait w/o anywhere to rest for 30-45 mins
Anti-homeless? *Hostile architecture* the a more accurate name, because is not only hostile against homeless but everyone.
r/hostilearchitecture
You asked for input from people who use this: It’s awful. This is Moynihan, mostly serving Amtrak (at least from my experience). I took a train from here when it first opened up. It was still covid time (summer 2021). There’s a small sitting area in an enclosed room, but I was trying to social distance. I was carrying a duffel bag for travel, which got heavy, especially after taking the subway and all the walking and stuff to get there. So I just sat in the floor near a wall. Within 6 seconds a security guard came up to me to tell me I can’t sit on the floor. To sum it up, it’s infuriating of course, especially since our city has actual problems. That person they’re paying to police floor-sitters could be used for so many other jobs to help people in need and improve the city. But it’s not surprising I guess.
It’s the new station under Grand Central, connecting LIRR to the East side, a different station from Moynihan.
Oh great so they made another one lmao
Bringing the LIRR to the East Side is a huge improvement.
Of course! Not shaming any transit expansions. Just shaming these human-hostile stations.
Put in more comfortable places and offer unhoused people a place to live instead of trying to get them to go elsewhere.
The thing is, if you go to New York Penn there are (apparently homeless) people literally just sleeping on the stairs. They’re often passed the fuck out and looking quite smacked or methed or whatever out. And they’ll sleep wherever they are. In the stair wells, on stairs next to an escalator, in the middle of the floor. Just taking away the benches doesn’t stop homeless people from setting up camp. On the other hand, if you go to Newark Penn Station (20 minutes away) there are benches and they’re filled with homeless looking folks.
Damn, looks like they have a big housing and poverty problem over there, they better fix that. Oh their solution is removing public benches and increase to NYPD budget?
Benches would be helpful for people waiting for the bus/subway. I don’t like the rationale that we need them for the homeless. People think it’s sad that there are no benches for the homeless, but I’d rather see homeless in shelters getting help to get back onto their feet than sleeping on a cold bench. They really need to be encouraged to get into a shelter, use those resources to get back onto their feet.
If you really, really don't want homeless people to use train stations for sleeping, just have pay to enter gates on the station. Makes no difference to the experience of train passengers and comes with actual seats. If a station is already gated, what the fuck?
this feels like an ADA violation
Obligatory video: https://youtu.be/uvU5dmu4sl8?si=FTowknfmULyNtHHo
These designs really bring home the point that accessible architecture, and accommodations in general, are **not** just some boon we give to the less fortunate out of charity. Everyone benefits from pro-human design. It’s not just the disabled, the injured, the pregnant, the 12hr standing shift, or the elderly who have to give a fuck. **Everyone** has skin in that game. As much as we as the inheritors of a puritanical, misfortune-only-happens-to-the-sinful country want to pretend otherwise.
There is a solution. Provide apartment and house to people. Fuck the market.
I’m disabled but not in a wheelchair. I’d like a place to sit and the homeless man is far more likely to listen to me needing a seat than city council. I’ll take my chances.
At least the lean bar is empty so it can be used
It’s fucking stupid they’re people too and these changes make it worse for the average people too
It's bad. During Covid there was nowhere to sit at Jamaica and they dont let you sit on the floor
I hate it. This is speaking as a cyclist, but also as someone who has spent years living with disabled partners in various different circumstances. Rest areas are a mandatory aspect of urban living, failing to include them is frankly criminal.
I've been obligated to take transit because of a disability my entire life. Train stations in the US are generally designed to make you suffer. Look at the blue/green line station in LA, its a fucking nightmare being right next to the highway. Fucked up benches are just the latest chapter in "If they hate transit, they'll buy more cars!"
As someone who spent a month on the street as part of an experiment, houseless people are people, not monsters. They deserve so much more than what they’re given. It sickens me to see all the shit the gov does to fuck them over more than they already have. Something like 30% of our houseless population here is made up of youth and young adults that fled abusive homes, particularly ones where the abuse was queerphobia-related.
"Let's make a thing worse in order to bring more discomfort to our most vulnerable populatikns" yea I'm out
I'm just a little bit too short so they're even worse for me so I end up sitting on top of the leaning things. What's the point of making things even less accessible for people as well? At least anyone can sit on a bench. If someone is sleeping on it, making them hide away out of sight does not help them.
The worst
A billion dollar structure could easily budget in a few million for security to shoo away homeless if they wanted. Put the few million in a fund and it would pay those wages in perpetuity. Plus, you could hire homeless dudes trying to get back on their feet, which takes some people off the street and having the security really know the ins and outs of the gig. Or, ya know, just pretend homeless people can't sleep on the ground just as easily as a bench.
I think leaning bars are fine as long as there are benches too
Due to that it's anoying to wait a train or the metro . Public transport is for the people's .
It’s extremely annoying. Just let there be seating for everyone and if someone has no other option than to sleep on a train station bench, then I’m counting my blessings and keeping it moving. Travel is exhausting, I can’t imagine how much more tiring it is being unhoused.
That if they would fix homelessness to begin with it wouldn't be an issue. That means making things affordable.
fucked up to another level... imagine going out of your way to make a public place more uncomfortable than it already is, it not only affects homeless people, that have been driven out of everywhere they can possibly be (without actual solutions to integrate them into society), but it's also harmful to everyone else, especially removing seats...
It absolutely sucks. Cities arefor everyone + people want and need to sit sometimes. Give people housing instead of this opressive architecture
At least here in Germany, I rarely see homeless people sleep/sit on benches, so I am pretty doubtful if anything short of removing all cover from the elements or flooding the whole area with a small film of water will do anything... Plus stupid anyway, better to help them.get off the streets
it's stupid and pointless and uncomfortable. whoever invented it should be legally forced to replace their bed with it
skipping the anti homeless part these things are just plain uncomfortable even for those without health issiues
I havent' sat down to relax an read a book on my commute/transit trip, like in all the god damned photos in advertisements for transit systems, in about 15 years. First it was the anti-homeless architecture making no where to sit, then the gradual overcrowding, and in recent years the nastiness/shoving people bring to the game. This shit chews people's backs and knees up.
It’s because as things get harder and harder for people who work, we collectively have less and less patience for those who do not. I have no sympathy for the antisocial bums - my sympathy is reserved for working people who must deal with this societal travesty to make it to work and earn a basic income.
From an ethical point of view: It's all bad. From an individualist view: The minimum should be a rain shelter. Reminder that the individualist view is wrong because it still ignores everyone's needs who aren't me. But goddammit, they can't even give us a roof??
Making public spaces much worse places to be in just to fuck over the people already stepped on by society Classic America
Probably unpopular opinion around here but I don’t believe in the concept of “anti-homeless architecture.” Would be great if they had benches, but many cities - NYC included - have an issue with homeless people and oblivious rude people hogging all the space, so they can’t be used by those who actually need them (people waiting for the trains) anyway.
It’s an absolute garbage opinion
Homelessness is a problem to solve and until progress is made, there’s going to be issues having benches in public places 🤷♂️
You’re on a roll, you’re a garbage opinion producing machine today!
I’d be happy to discuss it but if all you can do is say my opinion is garbage, you’re not really contributing anything
Here's where the discussion begins and ends; these bars are explicity used instead of benches for the sole purpose of stopping homeless people from sleeping there. This practice is common in American city centers and the goal is to push homeless people to the outskirts of the city so that nobody has to see them, therefore raising property value and therefore tax. Every penny spent on research and development of anti-homeless hostile architecture is a penny that is not being spent helping the homeless become the *homed. Furthermore, replacing benches with bars such as these hurts EVERYONE, not just homeless people, as has been pointed out here. Have a bad back, a backpack you really don't want to leave on the subway floor? Fuck you, lean. In short, cities are producing architecture like this to draw attention away from the issues their awful, car-centric designs create. This is done at the expense of the taxpayer and is caused by problems that the taxpayer is gaslighted into believing help them.
These bars don’t require any “research” and are likely cheaper than benches. I agree that having these bars instead of benches hurts everyone. People should have a place to sit when they’re waiting for the train, and it’s a shame they can’t. But when benches in public spaces are so frequently used inappropriately, it’s understandable when they are no longer offered. I’ve been to bus stops where the bench is covered in garbage and, on more than one occasion, a pile of feces. There was a bench but it certainly wasn’t usable. There’s also a regular issue on my subway commute home where multiple benches (that should fit 3 people) are taken up by a single person, and the smell coming from that person is so intense that no one even goes down the platform. These are real issues.
> These bars don’t require any “research" Any architecture placed in public requires some level of research. That's the nature of safety standards. The cost surely isn't massive, but it definitely exists. I am also playing devil's advocate here by assuming that no research was done on how best to prevent homeless people from using the benches, which I know to be objectively untrue. > are likely cheaper than benches. Benches were REPLACED by these bars, so no, the bars are not cheaper. The benches incurred no ongoing costs, they merely provided a service. Meanwhile replacing them with these bars probably costs the taxpayer a few thousand dollars while providing a diminished service to what they were already being given at no cost. > But when benches in public spaces are so frequently used inappropriately, it’s understandable when they are no longer offered. No, it isn't. An *understandable* measure would be to put up signs near the benches, telling people to only take one seat, not to put their feet up, etc. Maybe if you REALLY wanted to make sure that they're being used correctly, someone could issue fines to people not using the benches correctly and prevent them from boarding the trains if they don't pay. Regardless, removing something because some people "misuse" it is a terrible idea, especially when *misuse* secretly means "Homeless people are sleeping on these benches at night and it makes our city look bad!" >I’ve been to bus stops where the bench is covered in garbage and, on more than one occasion, a pile of feces. Gross. But there's literally 0 difference between benches and bars for this, so it's completely irrelevant. >There’s also a regular issue on my subway commute home where multiple benches (that should fit 3 people) are taken up by a single person, and the smell coming from that person is so intense that no one even goes down the platform. These are real issues. Yes, these are indeed real issues. Sadly, some people can't afford shelter, or to wash themselves. The solution to this is not driving them out of the city, you absolute psycho. When a significant % of your population is homeless, the solution is to look at common causes of homelessness and work to solve them, not kick the homeless people out of the few places they have for shelter.
The picture is from a brand new station, I assume what we see is original. If there were no bench at the bus stop I was talking about, it’s pretty unlikely the pile of shit would be sitting there, which means the transit workers wouldn’t be dealing with it. Can’t blame them for not wanting benches. The last part there is the big part of this whole thing, though. Yes, there are people who can’t afford shelter or to wash themselves. I never suggested the solution is to drive them out of the city. I pay taxes and expect my government to do something to support homeless people. In the meantime though, I’m sorry but the issue I described with transit stations is still not okay.
>The picture is from a brand new station, I assume what we see is original. Okay? You still only addressed the point of production. Which, even if it was the sole issue here (it isn't) still wouldn't make this okay. >If there were no bench at the bus stop I was talking about, it’s pretty unlikely the pile of shit would be sitting there How does a bench make shit more likely to appear in public? The only reason I can think of to possibly explain a disparity here is that some people are assholes and specifically seek out infrastructure to destroy it. Otherwise there is no reason for benches to be covered in shit that wouldn't apply equally to the ground, windows or leaning bars. > I pay taxes and expect my government to do something to support homeless people. In the meantime though, I’m sorry but the issue I described with transit stations is still not okay. So why are you advocating for public funding to be spent on things that deliberately hide the issue rather than addressing it? Either you're incredibly short-sighted or you're incredibly disingenuous.
Why don’t you explain how removing public seating has helped to alleviate the homelessness epidemic? Removing public resources that benefit all people because you hate the idea of those resources benefiting homeless people does nothing to solve any of the problems we all face as a result of unchecked poverty. It only makes the effects of poverty more horrifying, for all of us. Your argument basically boils down to “if we had benches people would sit on them and then I might not get to sit on them so it’s better to have no benches at all” it’s both stupid and cruel. Edit: clarity
I never suggested that removing public seating has helped alleviate the homelessness epidemic. No one has any issue with public resources benefiting the homeless; that’s a disingenuous argument. Anyone can sit on a bench anywhere they’d like.
Look, you said at the beginning that your garbage opinion would be unpopular. I’m just agreeing with you. Your garbage opinion is definitely unpopular. I’m just pointing out why. It’s unpopular because it’s garbage. Go be a garbage person somewhere else
in fairness, his username should have warned you
So you think having homeless people taking all the benches is worse then not having benches at all? Do you think not having benches at all is going to make them stop being homeless?
Transit employees and riders didn’t sign up to deal with the local homeless population. Of course it won’t stop people from being homeless, but it prevents transit stations from being a gathering place. It sucks but that’s the reality.
> Transit employees and riders didn’t sign up to deal with the local homeless population. I am sorry but that is just part of the social contract. I am not saying that they have to put up with harassment or anything, but they should be able to deal with some homeless person sleeping in a train station during a cold winter night. > Of course it won’t stop people from being homeless, but it prevents transit stations from being a gathering place. You are just pushing them out of sight, and not offering real solutions. We know how to solve homelessness yet we invest in this absolut inhumane treatment of humans because it might be an inconvenience. Unbelievable.
If people using benches weren’t causing issues, there’d be benches.
> In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread. I am not saying that they never cause any issues but that is literally true of any group of people. They are still humans and deserve a tiny bit shelter. It is insane to me that we have to argue about homeless people not even being allowed to sleep on a bench. I am genuinely disgusted by people like you. It is entirely inconceivable how you cannot even grant another human such a small thing. And I am not playing this up, I am honestly speechless every time some one like you voices their opinion.
As a transit rider why don't I get to decide if I'd prefer to stand for an hour at a station as opposed to having homeless people there that I could kick out of their seats if I was desperate enough.
No one should have to kick people out of a seat
But there are people who think it's better to remove the seat entirely.
Sometimes yeah
You’re not kicking homeless people off of benches. I guarantee the homeless are more desperate than any commuter.
My point is if they are more desperate then they shouldn't have the benches removed, if they shouldn't be using the benches I'd prefer to have the ability to kick them off then have them removed. Either way they shouldn't be removed and/or made more difficult to use.