Hacker News Reader

Comment by gillesjacobs | Hacker News Reader

These toilets are an example of high tech hostile architecture. The waterjet spraying and weight sensitive floor "anti-sex features" do not seem to be primarily aimed at sex but prevent the homeless from staying inside:

> "The planning documents detail a range of security features to deter rough sleeping, including an audible warning, combined with the lights and heating being switched off."

> "Each night the toilets would close for 10 minutes while the unit undertakes a deep clean process."

I think these feature are really about preventing the homeless resting in the toilets and automated cleaning primarily. The so-called "anti-sex functionality" is accidental and for marketing purposes. Especially since hostile architecture has received a lot negative public attention lately.

View on HN

> Especially since hostile architecture has received a lot negative public attention lately.

As it should. Brushing the problem aside rather than addressing it like a human being is just sickening. If the homeless aren't even allowed to sleep in public toilets..? Seriously, what's the worst that can happen?

Public toilets are a limited, expensive resource. "The worst that happens" is that they stop being public toilets.

Go ahead and make an argument that we should build hotels for the homeless. Public toilets are not that. Sleeping in them is not even fair to other homeless people who need to use the toilet!

My point was more about hostile architecture in general. I was trying to point out that the homeless have very few places to go - can't even shelter in a filthy public toilet. Anyone desperate enough to try has been stomped on enough without adding salt to the wound.

The better solution is to try and fix the underlying cause rather than hiding the symptoms.

Are you defining the problem as “some people don’t have homes” or “some people are unable to use public toilets because they are occupied by people sleeping and having sex in them”?

Seems like starting there is a good way to begin this topic.

No, that person and the person they replied to are the all to typical example of posters here who are incredibly generous with the property and monies of other people. Quick to demand that others surrender rights to and usage of because of their assumed authority to decide what is right and wrong.

homelessness and such is not solved by taking from others or depriving others the use of goods and services. it is solved by getting off fucking internet and working at shelters, donation centers, and such. Many donation centers love weekend help because people are quick to give stuff but not time. Time is of value, donate yours

No not really, I'm totally in favour of people having the right to say what goes on in their property, I'm just concerned that so bloody much of our public property is now just pseudo-public privately owned, and the homeless have absolutely nowhere to go anymore. I can sympathize with both parties here, but I have more sympathy for the homeless.

> These toilets are an example of high tech hostile architecture

There's a good article on Wikipedia about hostile architecture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_architecture

They could have solved the we don't want homeless persons sleeping-issue by paying for the time used or have the user pay 5 min increments up front and have the doors auto-unlock when the "rental" expires.. Just a thought.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com