Hacker News Reader

Comment by scrollaway | Hacker News Reader

One of the most important paragraphs:

> Most of these goals seem noble, but the overall effect is somewhat demoralizing, and follows a potentially dangerous logic with respect to designing for public spaces. When design solutions address the symptoms of a problem (like sleeping outside in public) rather than the cause of the problem (like the myriad societal shortcomings that lead to homelessness), that problem is simply pushed down the street.

Can't agree more. It's so common in France and really depressing. On the linked video (which looks to be shot in Paris, actually), we see dozens of these contraptions right in front of metro ads which cost most than it does to feed and shelter homeless people for several weeks.

View on HN

Also quite often this design mindset hurts the legit users, too. For instance, lean-on bench costs the same as a normal bench, takes up almost the same space, but doesn't give (valid) users the same benefits. If you are old or obese or have varicose veins, etc. you would certainly prefer to be able to sit down while waiting. Leaning against a wall/bench is just not the same thing. Also if you have a bag you can't put it on the bench or in your lap, you have to keep it on the ground (this one really pisses me off, specially when it rains). If you really go into details and analyse all the angles I'm sure you'd find a dozens more of the little sacrifices that've been made just to keep some people off the benches.

Quick hypothetical you have a choice between taking cover from rain in a small bus stop which sadly has only this lean-on bench; or you take cover from rain in the same small bus stop expect this time there's a homeless guy sleeping on the only bench.

Good reminder to start voting in such a way that your government actually starts treating them as human beings. Where i'm from it's absolutely super easy to get a good apartment from the government, and i almost never see homeless, despite having lived in various cities with varying levels of affluence and density.

>>Where i'm from it's absolutely super easy to get a good apartment from the government, and i almost never see homeless, despite having lived in various cities with varying levels of affluence and density.

Genuinely curious. Can you provide the name of your country?

Germany.

More details at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartz_concept#Hartz_IV

If you go through the system, you'll be provided housing. It's only if you actively avoid or can't deal with the system that you can end up homeless in Germany. Part of the deal (it's a contract, actually) is having to look for work. If you can't find any, you may be required to accept any kind of job to continue to receive benefits.

Yep, good summary. Just one detail:

> any kind of job

Within limits. People have successfully sued against having to take jobs unreasonably (physical incompatibility, far away from family, etc.).

In that case, I suppose I'll try not to wake him up, and in general I'd rather a regular bench that's useful even to someone who happens not to be me.

I don't blame people who suffer an ablation of their sense of shared human dignity in response to situations like that often decried in San Francisco. It's hard to be constantly exposed to that kind of privation and not become inured to it, in self-defense if nothing else. But I try not to become that way myself, either.

So you would rather have the homeless sleeping in the rain with no roof to cover, as long as you can't see him?

There are other places to cover from rain than a bus stop, but busses seldom pick up passengers from non-bus stops.

And the comfort of public bus riders is somehow more valid than other segments of society?

Given only those two options, I prefer the world where the homeless guy has a place to sleep.

I also prefer a world where the bus is half an hour to an hour late because the drivers are striking over one where the driver has no rights.

We can have it both ways.

We will live in different places.

I can have my world with unpleasant design, and you can have yours without.

Chances are, we already do.

=) Now If only people did not want global consensus on everything

It might surprise you then that nearly every homeless guy you see "has a place to sleep", they choose (not in the "choose to be homeless sense") to sleep outside. The main reason is that homeless shelters have restrictions on violence, drug, and alcohol use, and people make a choice between comfort hand having their buzz harshed.

Now you can follow this up with a lot of "but.." arguments, but the fact remains that in most places (not all) if someone is sleeping outside rather than inside they actively made that choice.

If you miss the last train, you can no longer just sleep on the bench for a couple of hours until the first one arrives in the morning.

If you feel ill, there's nowhere to lie down for a few minutes.

You can't change your kids diapers on a bum-safe bench.

The ground is perfectly flat as well. It works great for sleeping, laying down, and changing diapers.

Except you get dirtier, you get wetter lying in the rainy puddles, there is a greater risk of rats in a subway station, and you are suddenly visibly demoted from being someone who wants a lie-down on a bench to someone who looks homeless, which decreases passers-by's sense of empathy towards you.

Hey, cool, the Camden bench also dissipates water faster, too!

Not in all climate zones.

On the other hand, I don't think that it's the park bench designers who should directly address the problems of homelessness.

It's like criticizing people for having locks on their doors. It would be great if people didn't need them. Unfortunately, certain "societal shortcomings" make them a necessary risk-mitigating measure.

I, for one, very much like the design of the Camden bench. It's so less obtrusive and aggressive than e.g. spikes on a storefront. It's much harder to accidentally get hurt by it. These things, which are actually hazardous, not merely preventing unwanted usage, are "unpleasant design" to my eyes.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned - in addition to the design features already discussed, the Camden bench makes each person sit facing away from each other, deterring conversation. It's like the ultimate bench for people who don't care about others.

...or a bench providing some privacy when you need to sit next to a stranger.

A bigger problem I see is that such a bench is hard to position on a curb, next to a wall, etc, where both sides cannot be made accessible.

Seems to me that the centre section of the camden bench is big enough for two - also, in one of the photos a lady is sat on the small side of the end section, so sharing a side is certainly possible - also, two people sat on opposite sides but at an angle could almost face each other, like a love seat?

http://cyan-teak-furniture.com/acatalog/garden_bench_gift_id...

The argument is whether or not you view the homeless sleeping in the streets the same as someone breaking in to your house.

The former is unpleasant to see, but not actively hurting you, the latter case scream clear malicious intent.

They're using an analogy to make a point regarding intent behind design, and are not trying to trivialize the homeless problem. There's no need to split hairs.

It is not the same. However, the homeless person sleeping on the bench is hurting others. The purpose of having a bench is to have a place for people who are waiting for the bus, or taking a short break while moving through the city, to have a place to stop. If a person (homeless or otherwise) is using the bench to sleep, that is going against the intent of the bench in the first place. While many of these measures are primarily aimed at making things difficult for homeless people, extended bench stays are still undesirable in general.

That's not an apt analogy. Camden benches, sit/lie ordinances, etc. make the condition of being homeless worse.

If public hospitals suddenly decided to turn away emergency room patients who don't have coverage, I would absolutely criticize them. Emergency rooms are not expected to directly address the lack of health coverage, but it's within their power to mitigate one of the most painful and horrific consequences.

The same goes for city planners. As a taxpayer, I do not want to pay for benches designed to be hostile to the homeless. If you already have it so bad you need to sleep in the park, I should not be spending money to make things more miserable for you.

Doctors give an oath [1] to help all sick people.

Public park designers, and even municipal clerks who actually order benches and suchlike, do not do anything similar.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

You're being downvoted, but you're right. According to the EMTL Act, both private and public emergency rooms can't turn away or delay care to patients that need it.

The EMTALA was a policy decision we made through our representatives (it doesn't have anything to do with the Hippocratic Oath).

For the same reasons the EMTALA passed, we should be killing sit/lie bills - and hostile designs like this - whenever we see them. Park benches are about the absolute lowest form of safety net you can imagine for a night's sleep, just as ER treatment without asking questions is for health. It's so far below the bare minimum that it would be repugnant to deny it.

I didn't say they were one and the same - just showing that it's illegal to turn someone away.

But isn't this just 'separation of concerns'? I'm not trying to say 'not my problem', but when the shopping centre is built, they're not primarily concerned about finding houses for the homeless - they want to make sure there are seats available for those who want to sit there temporarily.

Lots of public areas, like parks, will be funded by the private sector as a condition of approval for a big apartment building or something - I don't see anything wrong with them spending a minimal amount of effort to prevent 'antisocial behaviour' as well.

It's wrong because it means to give up, to close your ears and eyes against the real problem.

Anti-social behavior like "homeless sleeping in cavernous shop entries" does not come from nothing. People aren't normally like this. It comes from their environment being anti-social to them by refusing to aid fellow citizens in need.

Being social means to actively try and be a society. By actions such as putting up these spikes, these companies are only being anti-social themselves.

It seems like you're suggesting that as an alternative, we use collective punishment. City dwellers should be putting up with an unpleasant urban environment until someone fixes the homeless problem. Therefore any stopgap measures should be resisted.

It's not clear whether this works. On the one hand it does keep the homeless visible. On the other hand it also punishes people who can't practically participate in local politics (tourists for example). And in general, politically powerful people aren't waiting at bus stops all that much, so this strategy doesn't seem all that well-targetted.

It may also be counterproductive in that it makes people less rather than more willing to support measures that help the homeless and instead promote measures that punish them in return. That is, punishment may encourage more punishment in response.

But I'm just speculating here. It seems like this is unlikely to be settled without actual evidence.

> On the other hand it also punishes people who can't practically participate in local politics (tourists for example)

Seeing homeless people is punishment?

If homeless people are living in the park, other people aren't using it. (Edited)

Seeing homeless people can be worse than punishment?

You keep calling for people to see the homeless as human, but you're not doing it yourself. You seem to have some infantalized, romantic image of them where they are not capable of doing any wrong and anything that happens to them is the result of external forces out of their control.

But they are human. They may be wonderful people down on their luck. They are also capable of being horrible people, committing crimes without any particular excuse, and making bad decisions that are every bit as much their responsibility as it is mine when I make bad decisions. That is irreducibly part of what it means to be human, and if you take that from a group, you have dehumanized them. And in the aggregate, a group of them will inevitably contain some of the latter.

You can't address the problem by neglecting that fact. Many have tried, and as always happens when the solution doesn't match the real problem in the real world, those solutions failed. If berating people about homelessness was the solution, the problem would be solved already. That solution has been tried a lot.

Maybe not 'every bit as much their responsibility'. People can be backed into a corner, and do things we cannot imagine sitting comfortably in our armchairs. See "Les Miserables" for an example.

Fair enough.

But I refuse to remove all responsibility, because that's dehumanizing itself.

By the point someone is homeless it is abundantly clear that they are faced with a burden of responsibility they are incapable of handling.

You're failing to see the point:

It is anti-social to force everyone to fully take on the responsibility of all their actions, singularly and personally, forever and with no limits.

You hurt only yourself by creating traps that not everyone can escape from, and then having to live with people who have to fight for a living by any means they can.

As for solutions having been tried: Germany does a damn good job of dealing with unemployed and worse off as actual humans and has no homeless epidemic.

As for your first point: Supposition and assumption. My sister is the very first example of a person who has done a LOT in her life wrong and is "paying" for her mistakes by having to live on government aid. I pay fairly high taxes, pretty much half of all i earn, but i do it happily knowing that so does everyone else, resulting in my sister and my nephew living in dignity, with my nephew having access to high quality primary and secondary education and a chance to be something better; without any single person having to sacrifice most of their life to enable this.

The point about Germany is absolutely true, and merits closer examination.

The three main cities in my life are Berlin, Budapest and San Francisco. Budapest and San Francisco have very serious homeless problems; Berlin does not.

It's easy to point at Budapest and say: it's much poorer than Berlin, in a much poorer country, with government not much interested in the poor, etc.

But San Francisco is waaay richer than Berlin, and of the three has (in my experience) the worst homeless problem.

(I realize you probably couldn't "solve" homelessness in SF without simultaneously "solving" it throughout the US, but that's kind of the point: this is not some force of nature we are doomed to live with in an advanced economy.)

>You're failing to see the point:

I think you're not seeing how you're not comparing apples-to-apples in your argument. Look how you criticize the "companies" for being anti-social in a previous comment:

>By actions such as putting up these spikes, these companies are only being anti-social themselves.

Ok... but later you commend Germany which is a country and not a company for managing homelessness better:

>Germany does a damn good job of dealing with unemployed...

In other words, it wasn't Mercedes-Benz or Siemens or a German restaurant that handled homelessness by avoiding spikes, it was a government that fixed it. The "company" that put up the spike cannot address homelessness the way a government can. If society/government has set up a situation where the homeless do not have paid apartments like Germany, it's quite rational for a "company" to work within the bounds of what society has given them and install spikes to "move" the homeless problem somewhere else. The company made a "local optimum" decision.

Companies != Governments, and therefore they use different tools to address homelessness. Governments can pay billions for housing. Companies, on the other hand, have the budget to pay for spikes. In other words, in the USA, it's not the companies being anti-social... it's the government being anti-social.

> it's the government being anti-social

Well, i'm not disagreeing with that.

> it's not the companies being anti-social... it's the government being anti-social.

It's both.

I don't think speaking of 'treating people as actual humans' is productive. It's a rhetorical device to paint people who disagree with your policy proposals as evil. It will get people who already agree with you to give you a pat on the back but it won't convince anyone who doesn't already agree. I say that as someone who probably mostly agrees with your position on this issue

Maybe you think your policy proposals flow directly from 'treating people as actual humans', but they don't. There are lot of (obviously true, from your perspective) assumptions there that will not be shared by people who disagree with you.

Here's the problem though. They aren't being treated as such. They get the same treatment as pigeons.

http://imgur.com/Jp16eNN

And yes, i'm not gonna sweet-talk anyone into "seeing the light". But i'm not looking for headpats either. I'm just tired of this shit where people pretend this is an unsolvable problem.

Anyhow, you have a good head. Please use it better than i do.

Okay, they're getting the same treatment as pigeons. By that logic you could also say they're getting the same treatment as all other humans, since the spikes do not distinguish between homeless and non-homeless people in performing their task.

It's also worth differentiating public and private uses of these methods (for instance, city-funded public spaces vs. private areas where sleeping should obviously not be allowed, like in the photo you linked). I can't blame an establishment for treating the symptom rather than solving the larger problem.

You complain against punishment, but you seem to be accepting of people already being punished for having been failed by their society in the first place.

I'm just pointing out some problems to consider. That doesn't say anything about what solutions I'll support.

> It's wrong because it means to give up, to close your ears and eyes against the real problem.

These aren't mutually exclusive. A shop owner can simultaneously lobby for resolving the root problem of homelessness and lobby for homeless-deterrent benches in the public space in front of their store.

Correct. The article kept referring to "targeted individuals", but in fact it was behavior that was targeted by the design. Disallowing bad behavior is ethical and reasonable.

"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread."

-- Anatole France

>when the shopping centre is built, they're not primarily concerned about finding houses for the homeless //

They're primarily concerned about making profits for the shareholders of the company leading the project, aren't they?

No one is building shopping centres with the primary aim to give great shopping experiences - ensure shoppers have places to sit, etc. - that may become a part of the project if it aligns with making profit but if it's better not to have benches because you want people to shop and get out the way then you'll ditch the benches.

I'm quite happy with demanding some social responsibility on big real estate developers - like fund a homeless shelter for 20 residents for the duration that the shopping centre is open.

> I'm quite happy with demanding some social responsibility on big real estate developers - like fund a homeless shelter for 20 residents for the duration that the shopping centre is open.

While perhaps a decent idea in the abstract, this can quickly become a problem when such things become regular and unpredictable demands. For instance, a community group in Chicago recently chased away a proposed museum by demanding an extra 5% gross receipts tax. In addition to any normal taxes that might apply.

It can lead to really absurd situations. Another example is housing in SF, where some community groups routinely protest against large developments that are 40% subsidized housing on the basis that they're not 100% subsidized housing. Therefore, the logic runs, they should be stopped and a parking lot preserved.

I suppose I'm saying it's easy to get carried away on what "some social responsibility" means. And that unreliability and unpredictability are major problems for businesses.

Ah the self-hating French...

It's not any more common in France than it is elsewhere. If you've been to a major North American city, you'll see that the issue is sometimes way worse abroad, where the social net is literally nothing.

You make it sound like the metro in Paris is somewhat extremely homeless-unfriendly, it's not, I take it every single day and most of the seats are normal ones and lots of homeless people sleep and panhandle there in a form of general laissez-faire. I'm not saying France is treating its homeless people well, it's simply not true, but please don't make it look like to the outside world that we're inhumane or particularly harsh in our treatment of the less fortunate.

I've lived all over Europe and the anti-homeless "ambiance" is strongest in Paris of all places I've visited. I certainly don't compare my country to North America... that'd simply be unfair to north americans.

Simple cost-benefit. If your problem is that homeless people are sleeping in front of your ads and you can A) shelter some homeless people for several weeks or B) install spikes and keep every homeless person away (seemingly) forever.

Installing the spikes moves, but doesn't solve the problem; the homeless people are still homeless. Of course, the people who install the spikes don't (at least directly) bear the societal cost of homelessness.

We're making the mistake of assuming that "move" is not the win-condition in this scenario.

Corporations don't care about solving these problems. Simply moving the problem somewhere else counts as a win for them.

It's more a lamentation than a mistake.

That's not "win-win" - the corporation wins, but nobody else really does.

It is a "win" condition for them. A "win-win" setup could be nice, but it doesn't mean that such result is possible or feasible, and in the absence of solid, realistic "win-win" proposals this is the best option for them.

The comment I replied to used the term "win-win" when I replied, but it has since been edited.

I assure you, my comment was not edited.

>like the myriad societal shortcomings that lead to homelessness

I think the author has oversimplified many important things related to the problem of homelessness. I want to point of some other aspects of this problem.

Let me explain.

How the homelessness of all the homeless people can be blamed on the societal shortcomings? What about the homeless person's shortcomings?

Blaming everything on society and ignoring the personal shortcomings may gain political advantage but it sets very bad precedences and spoils the entire societal fabric. (The Marxists/socialists always use this as a tactic to sway public mood and that is more harmful for the free and humane society.)

e.g. I may be homeless because I sold my house and spent all the money on drugs or in the casinos or on watching movies or on prostitutes or on the internet or on something else to derive various types of carnal/non-carnal pleasures. In this way, not only I became homeless but I made my entire family of 4 children and a wife homeless.

This is just one example. The other major reason is immigration of huge number of people who are unskilled and/or are unwilling to work and migrate to cities which are more popular and hence are more costly and thus find themselves homeless.

How exactly can such homelessness be blamed on the society? In the first example, the person, who enjoyed the freedom of choice, must face the consequences of his/her actions.

In the other case: it is EU leaders' foolish (almost suicidal) decision to allow unchecked immigration to flood the European cities and make the life of the people already living there a hell. One of the very important reasons for Brexit is related to immigration, especially the immigration of people unwilling to integrate: i.e. people from Islamic countries.

I don't deny that there are some people (especially children) who are homeless not because of their own but because of someone else's actions. Let's agree, for the sake of argument, that a more humane society must take responsibility of such homeless people.

But even then, even if the homelessness of such people is partly due to some societal shortcomings, why the rest of people should suffer to provide space (e.g. public benches) for the homeless ones to sleep on?

Are you really using the outcomes of a decision by elected officials as a counter-example to the theory of homelessness as societal shortcomings?

I guess you caught me here logically. Thanks for it.

But I guess with the adoption of the policy of taking such decisions by public referendums is a good way to counter this shortcoming.

I may be homeless because I sold my house and spent all the money on...

Anecdotal, I know... When I was in uni, I worked as a street trader and met quite a few interesting characters. Some of them were homeless or had been homeless or were otherwise not "normal" members of society and a common theme was that the people in the worst situations (homelessness and poverty, as opposed to just leading an alternative lifestyle) were this way due to unfortunate circumstances.

I've been close to poor (soft-poor though; I did have family that I could have fallen back on if things got bad enough) a few times in my life, where I literally didn't have money for essentials and I never spent money I didn't have. I wouldn't say I'm good at budgeting, but I'm not bad at it either. I'm lucky that I work in software and therefore could bounce back pretty quickly, but not everybody is able to. I've got family whose professions were pretty badly affected by the recession, for example, and while they're pulling through, it took years (and a ton of debt) to get to a point where things are starting to look better again.

My point is that, while I'm sure there are plenty of people who are in bad situations because of their own flaws, mistakes or lack of foresight, this isn't a global truth and I think its pretty uncompassionate to treat everyone as if it were the case, especially since I've seen how easily it can happen, in some circumstances.

I believe that many people can and will bounce back, if given the support and opportunity to do so. Especially if they have this support before things get extremely bad. (eg many homeless people take drugs to help them cope. This makes it harder to get out of the situation. If the support were there _before_ this happens, it would be easier)

Again, this is all anecdotal, but I think that society should play a part in managing it by not letting it get out of control to the point where "solving" it becomes as big a burden as it often is.

> How the homelessness of all the homeless people can be blamed on the societal shortcomings?

It is because society (i.e. the legal bodies, but also the culture and the people on average) in the Western world aim for higher standard to all their citizen.

It is a similar issue as with Human Rights in general. Small violation in a Western country has almost people in the street, but harsh human violation in other countries is hardly worth a mention in the news. That's not double standard or obsessive political correctness or western guilt, it is because Western society has declared Human Rights to be its founding principles, and people living in those countries expect the government to enforce it.

In short you live in a society where shelter is a fundamental right, so failing to provide shelter, regardless of the circumstance is a societal failing by definition. If you disagree, that is fine, you need to either find a society inline with you own social vision, or, more realistically, vote for the representative that share your vision of society and endure until it shifts. ( and it shifts, US society is way less forgiving than European society in general for example )

You make an interesting case about the difference between a societal problem and an individual failing. However, consider the options available to society. I think you would agree, we would enjoy society much better without as many homeless people. Now consider the options for solving such a problem. There are as many options as have been tried, and perhaps some that haven't. But I would posit that of the two ends of the spectrum, the side of society working to help people out of homelessness and prevent people from becoming homeless has a greater chance of success than ignoring the problem and locking up the ones who commit crimes in jail. (I mean, isn't that basically providing them a home, but potentially at a greater overall cost than other methods?)

While there will always be people who wind up there of their own poor choices, I hope that you would agree that it is not all of them. And even in the poor choice case, there may be societal systems that helped to enable them to get there.

It is not about blame in my opinion, but solutions. Solutions which at the moment, sadly, seem to be in short supply.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com