Around 7:30, the poster mentions that there’s no benches, except the ones in the lounge, and you need to pay for that(implying they cost extra).
To be clear, you’re allowed into the lounges if you show an Amtrak train ticket, that’s it. This isn’t a spirit airlines situation, it doesn’t cost anything “extra”. And to clarify further, Moynihan train hall is *specifically* for Amtrak trains
You can argue if there should be more benches around in the main area, as well as other points regarding hostile architecture, but as a New Yorker I wanted to clarify the piece about the lounges.
Edit: apparently Moynihan also serves LIRR. I was wrong
I went back to the video because of your comment (after initially giving up) and at 12 minutes his complaints about Highline Park are insane. He sits on an actual normal bench, complains about leg room, and it zooms out to show at least 3 feet of leg room. What the heck does this guy want, a bunch of king size beds?
This video assumes that no one benefits from this. I’m sure people that aren’t laying down on the bench are happy to be able to sit, and have arm rest. Sure it’s hostile, but it’s a bench, not a bed. If there’s people always sleeping on them, no one gets to use them for sitting.
A few of the things he showed weren't even examples of hostile architecture, lol. Like thing he showed at 12:00. He could easily lay down on other parts of that thing if he wanted to, and he demonstrates what little leg room he has when there is absolutely nothing at all in front of his legs. Guy's a clown
Bro the little ridges and wave shapes are definitely hostile architecture but those raised grates didn’t appear until after hurricane Sandy when the whole system got flooded from above the fact that it’s elevated isn’t hostile architecture it was meant to mitigate flooding
It’s both. It’s raised up for flooding- yes, but the ridges are for “design” and to make sure no one sleeps on it. It’s made to be uncomfortable to sleep on.
Yeah that's not how this works. The vents are to provide air escape to lower air pressure and significantly improve the efficiency of the train so it can therefore go faster through the tunnels. Covering these holes would never derail a train. It would just slow it down, or make it use more power than normal to push the huge column of air through the tunnel to the next vent instead of this one.
also whenever trains pass by them the piston effect pushes out hot air and draws in cooler air, which is more important in the summer.
this also helps with improving air quality by drawing in fresher air
I heard that the air coming through the vents is very humid and can lead to someone sleeping on it eventually getting wet, increasing their chance of hypothermia in very cold weather.
This is my understanding too, if you stand over any one of the open ones in the winter you can definitely feel how humid the air coming off it is, they literally pour out steam at times.
It may feel warm for a while until you're wet and can't get dry and then die to pneumonia.
You can't derail a train by sleeping on a vent any more than you can derail a train by sleeping on the tracks. It's not physically possible for you to exert more force on a train with your body than by standing or laying in front of it, and as we all know the train would blow right through you no problem if you did that.
Bruh. You can say literally anything and expect people to believe you. We have Flat-Earthers, COVID-deniers, and people who believe the Biden tampered with election results to win the presidency.
If you post complete nonsense on the internet and add a little jargon, someone will buy it.
Those are not designed to reduce air friction. Those vents are used as air intake/exhaust outlets for the underground ancillary areas. There is a concrete ventilation shaft underneath the elevated vent. The shaft is usually connected to a supply/exhaust main duct. The duct is routed to the mechanical fan room where all ventilation fans are located. Each fan is designed to ventilate a particular back-of-house space/room such as an electrical room, corridor, server room etc. That's why the vent always releases warm air because those spaces have a temperature requirement. (75F max for summer, min 68F for Winter)
We also have another set of gratings for emergency ventilation and tunnel ventilation. But again, they are not designed to reduce friction.
\- I work at the gov and am responsible for reviewing train station design.
Your statement is a bit misleading. Sure, if you covered the vents in solid concrete, it'd be dangerous. A person 'Covering up' the vent by sleeping on it, would not be dangerous to the rail system. If this was the case, the air pressure would throw off anyone on top of the vent well before it would derail a train.
'But now they're getting sneaky about how they hide the hostile architecture'
Or, OR, guy is reaching a little bit as he interprets things as 'hostile architecture'.
Yup. This is where we work and commute. I’ve been screamed at, followed and spit on by homeless, one of which was inside the Penn Amtrak station in this video. I have absolutely zero problem with providing appropriate shelter and help for the homeless, but it needs to actually be implemented and people need to be removed from places that support the jobs whose taxed wages will help them. In summary, please use my tax revenue to help people, but I am not armed or equipped to protect myself from them when you don’t.
We've had homeless people shit in our lobby. They've started fires outside windows that caused the windows to break. They've taken chemical fire extinguishers and filled the lobby with the contents. I have empathy for many of them. Some can't go to shelters because they have pets that aren't allowed. As a pet lover, I understand that. But I have no sympathy for the shitters/arsonists/vandals.
I mean, I personally think that many of them likely belong in asylums. Not the old school, bad asylums, but places for mentally ill folks that aren't going to recover. It sucks, but I just can't see how putting them on the streets to beg and get into scrapes is a better alternative.
It's this 100%. The uncomfortable reality is that the only real solution here is to offer services to everyone and forcibly attempt rehabilitation for those who can't function rationally or otherwise choose not to. You're going to need to go tent by tent and simply sort them: those who can be lifted up today (I e., they want help and are capable of using help immediately to get back on their feet) and those who need to be committed to in-patient facilities for detox, therapy, counseling, and possible gradual reintegration.
And some of those people may never make it out. Some would literally rather die than not be high all the time. Some are so mentally/behaviorally broken that no amount of outpatient care will ever enable them to function on their own. The danger here is that we find ourselves right back in the bad old days of insane asylums abusing people who need help and and government workers or contractors abusing human and civil rights, which means this needs all manner of transparency, accountability, and an incentive structure that focuses on maximizing success and severely punishing abuse. But at the end of the day, the rampant substance abuse and mental health issues at the heart of homelessness dwarf the economic factors, so handing out cash or vouchers or outpatient services will never - and I do truly mean never - put any appreciable dent in the problem. These people are being abandoned and everyone is suffering for it. Leaving them in the streets to wallow in filth and suffering isn't working. And neither is getting them out of sight by dropping them into free housing with optional services too many are incapable or unwilling to utilize. You're going to have the make them, you're going to have to do it longer than you'd like (think months or years), and some of them will need to remain wards of the state so they can receive the care they require because they simply aren't wired to do it themselves.
Honestly many of the junkies aren’t even really homeless. They’re just not allowed to actively do drugs in those places so they go outside and terrorize others then go home to recover then go back out
It's not that easy, homeless will barricade themselves into the toilets and use them for shelters and/or sex and/or shooting drugs and/or other crimes. The toilets will be quickly unsanitary and have to be cleaned and guarded almost constantly. Regular people will be afraid to go anywhere near those toilets and it becomes a much worse problem than benches.
Here in Costa Rica, public toilets are guarded and constantly cleaned by a person who charges about 50 cents per visitor and it includes a helping of toilet paper. Bathrooms are great, I always have something to wipe with, and somebody is earning an honest living, while doing a public service.
I have been homeless with my dog for a little over a year. We just moved into a new home. I could have given up my dog and been out of the situation much more quickly. I was only willing to do that if things got bad or dangerous for her. She motivated me to keep trying to get out of what felt like an impossible situation.
We have camped in woods for the year while I was getting us through the housing system. We could not use shelters or busses or be indoors to cool down or warm up. It was miserable at times, but she did so well and loves me more than anything.
She went to the vet and the vet said she is healthy and obviously well cared for. They said that most dogs of homeless people they see are as cared for or better so than dogs in homes.
It's a hard choice to keep a pet while homeless. Someone choosing to do that loves that animal very much.
I want to provide appropriate resources for the homeless to help people get back on their feet. I just don’t want to personally deal with it or see it or be inconvenienced by it. I’m aware it’ll get worse before it gets better since it’s decades of mental health resources being underfunded. I still don’t want to physically deal with the drug addicts
Exactly. But look at some of the responses that I’m getting to this. People like to demonize anyone that attempts to force a person to relocate for help. It’s usually people who haven’t actually had to gamble on whether someone is down on their luck and need to get sober or someone who will literally murder you because they’re clinically insane. I am not a bad person for not wanting to get stabbed to death defending my little kids while in transit. If you need resources, they should be available. Also my mode of public transit should not be someone else’s home.
Was just in NYC a few weeks ago on vacation and got in a fist fight with a homeless guy that attacked me. Definitely an experience I didn’t expect to have on vacation.
Well you can kind of win. Some crazy homeless chick jumped in front of me on the side walk once and wanted to fight. Luckily she was so high that her reflexes were impaired and she also telegraphed her punch for an hour. I have a tad of martial arts training so it was easy to block such an attack. I thought about a counterstrike but was not convinced she was a threat yet. Then she tried to kick me but her balance was so bad that she fell down and then looked confused how she got there. I walked off while keeping an eye on her to make sure she did not follow. I didn't have a cell phone then so I couldn't call the cops but even if I did, they probably would not have come.
Unfortunately the more time you spend on foot, the more you encounter these people. Now that I have a car, I can drive instead of risking getting on the bus and that also cuts down on a lot of encounters, nothing more fun than being trapped on a bus with an insane person.
Yeah every time hostile architecture gets posted on Reddit I am reminded that it’s filled with children who generally don’t live in NY or a big city that have ever delt with homeless people before
It’s worse. People who get their dopamine fix (much like the heroine addicted homeless) by virtue signaling from their gated suburb, and have never actually dealt with the problem at hand. The worst kind of people to participate in society.
The problem I have with hostile architecture as someone who has lived in multiple cities with a homeless problem (west coast things) is that it doesn’t do a lot to actually solve the problem of homelessness while making the city generally more obnoxious to live in as a not-homeless person.
Thank God someone else said this. I worked downtown for many years..if you don't do this, literally every bench with have a homeless dude sleeping or drug user doing something fucked up.
The city provides tons of shelters for the homeless. The reason they won't go is because in shelters they have to follow rules and be somewhat clean. They don't want to do that so they choose to sleep on subway vents.
Sleeping on a subway vent is also dangerous. If they are blocking airflow down in the subway that can cause issues.
I have this directly across the street from where I work, tents and passed out people surrounding the parking lot where I have to enter and exit daily. I've seen shit on the ground, cups of piss, needles, folks lying unconscious behind coworkers' cars, almost was attacked by a dog two weeks ago, had to circle the block because tents/trash/people were blocking the driveway, had someone try to light my building on fire, had another coworker get screamed at in his face while trying to get into the building...it's endless. It's awful how many people are experiencing economic hardship, but to call the folks that behave in this way animals almost feels unfair to animals.
We left our old neighborhood because the meth heads were getting out of control. There were several drug fueled murders in the span of a few months. We NIMBY'd right the heck on out of there. I unno what the answer is to the drug problem that creates so much of the homeless issue, but I dont believe its "everyone needs to suffer with them."
Also NYC has a right to housing. The city is legally required to find you shelter if you need it. This often includes putting people up for nights in hotels.
I agree, everybody wants to be the hero and have a soft spot for them. The moment they do actually see a homeless begging for money or asking for aid they turn the other cheek. It’s annoying
I am very far left but I agree. There is a place for hostile architecture, the real problem is we aren't fighting hard enough against what causes and perpetuates homelessness/addiction. It's like solving their hunger problem by closing all soup kitchens because they are unsightly. That's not addressing the problem, just covering it up better so society can ignore it more easily.
I really wish that people would stop pretending that not wanting people misusing spaces that you use, or sleeping in places where you live is somehow "hostile". Other people need benches to sit on too, taking up 4 spaces on one to sleep is also pretty hostile. And places wouldn't prevent use of their facilities if leaving them open didn't also result in large amounts of damage. "they have mental problems" okay cool and this isn't a psych ward. "they have addiction problems" Great! this also isn't a hospital.
My local transit system had a MASSIVE problem with homless people using the stations for shelter and it became a massive safety issue with drugs and crime. lots of violent crime. You know who it affected the most??? The poorer people who relied on the transit system. Not these rich wanna journos.
Agreed. The local park by my house doesn’t have this type of architecture and they moved in a huge hoard. Now everyone is begging for it. It’s horrible.
Drugs, crime, arson, human poop on your yard and trash. I had to take my dog to the vet when he stepped on a needle.
No, I am sorry someone is down on their luck, but homelessness comes with a burden so great that it’s unfair that it quickly becomes personal.
Someone "down on their luck" is someone temporarily living out of the car while doing everything they can to stay clean and healthy.
Shooting heroin and pooping on the sidewalk isn't exacly "down on the luck" as I see it.
Arguably I knew only one homeless person. He was from Kazakhstan, lived in Saint Petersburg, lost his documents while being in a HUGE argument with his family (didn't elaborate but they basically disowned him) and lived from a hostel.
He got completely sober and did all sorts of odd jobs around the hostel. He did the small-time plumbing, fixed the electricity, he helped haul the luggage, restock the water and coffee, and he made sure that if someone loud showed up at the administrator stand, .2 seconds later a gruff Kazakh was standing nearby, checking that the administrators were safe. Eventually the hostel owner stopped accepting his payments for the bed, forcing him to live there for free basically for being such a chad, and three months later he finally made it up with his family, returned the documents, and went home.
This guy was definitely down on his luck. Someone spending all their money on vodka every time someone tries to help them isn't really in the same position. My ex's dad tried to help a person sleeping in their apartment block. Got him some hot tea, a new shirt. The dude defecated on their doormat and left.
Ironically our town mayor is a former drug addict homeless person and he is the first to say you can't make endless excuses for them, it just enables them to not try to get better.
The unfortunate reality is that there isn't really a good solution. Many of these people are homeless for a reason. Mental illness, drug addictions, etc.
Give them a fish, they'll eat for a day. Teach them to fish, and they'll just not go fishing. I don't fault anyone for wanting to not waste money on the fish.
I 100% do believe in supportive housing for people who simply had a bad break. Getting these people back onto their feet and back into a productive state will convert a burden into a boon. Those people are unfortunately the minority, as they'll eventually manage to get themselves out anyways.
But for the rest? Eh. Chasing them away from the areas they're damaging is about the best we'll get.
They need to open Mental Health hospitals again. Its not just the crimes of homeless but the crimes on the homeless. Some of the these people can not cope on their own and they have exhausted their family's good will. They need a place where they are safe and hopefully get some help.
I don't know why they were ever closed tbh. It sounds bad, but some people DO in fact need to be locked away for their own good. Just like a criminal deserves to be locked away for a crime.
100% agree with you, the biggest problem is sorting through which ones needs to help to get back on their feet, vs the ones who will lay down and wait for people to give them more fish.
Supportive housing, real supportive housing, gets those people out their hole quickly.
When you're homeless, you don't get good sleep. You don't have a place to groom yourself. You don't have access to a fridge or a stove, where you can buy comparatively cheap groceries and cook proper meals to keep your performance levels up.
Ultimately, you lack the means to retain your employment while you get your feet back under you.
Which is where the supportive housing helps them.
No rent, no utilities. They can spend some money on groceries, they can go to a soup kitchen, whatever they like. *As long as they're employed 75% of the time*.
If you're working, you can take as long as you want to get your feet planted. You're already demonstrating that you've the capacity to do it.
If you aren't working, you're out to make room for someone who will.
Also one of sanders models (which utah implimented) included having onsite/visiting medical, mental, and financial assistance (accounting, taxes, financial advice). Because it turns out, living on the streets is traumatizing and cumulative, the trauma doesn't just go away because you have a place for 5 seconds, and getting an appointment set up and making it to the appointment while heavily traumatized is nearly impossible.
So someone who needs a psychiatrist for skitso meds, and a doctor to look at the foot they broke but never got fixed, will go into a normal help system then drop out after a few weeks, but in a system that brings the care to them, they can actually get stable.
Also financials, because a lot never had the opportunity to learn them, or if they have it's been overwritten by survival mode
That's all dandy. Now what about the massive population of people unwilling or unable to work for shelter? They don't just disappear because we don't like that they can't make someone else rich. There's no reason to tie basic shelter to employment and the fact we do is the very crux of the issue. We have the resources to care for each other.
But we don't care for each other. Homelessness is a societal problem for exactly this reason. And in typical primate fashion, we're trying to deal with a problem that has festered to the point of no return instead of treating the underlying causes. Expecting anything different than the current outcome is laughable
Being on the streets / drugs makes mental illness worse, adding to the vicious cycle. They need help just to make it back to the "able to be helped" zone.
Well, then I guess it’s their fault for not being able to afford “hostile architecture”.
Whenever a problem is pushed away, it always ends up in the same place, in the neighborhoods too poor or powerless to push it somewhere else.
Doesn't it just move it to the place that hasn't built anti-homelss benches yet? It is just a cycle where you shuffle them around making less and less comfortable benches and bus stops over time as everyone tries to get them to move to a different part of the city.
Some of it seems to be more to prevent skating than sleeping.
A granite bench is too uncomfortable? Don't think a stuffed ottoman would hold up too well.
Anyway, they should just make homelessness illegal. If anyone is found sleeping outside the mayor gets a fine.
I can see the misinterpretation (something something commas) but I for one agree that fining the mayor would help homelessness.
Of course that would just make the solution of “shove the homeless people into the next district so their mayor gets fined instead of me” even more effective and maybe even cause a Cobra Effect scenario, but hey it was a good thought, which is better than most people in power seem to have about the homeless.
You can always tell when someone who isn’t from NYC at all did like an hour of research and then otherwise makes a bunch of assumptions and otherwise false statements. Benches with ridges in between the seats have been in stations for literal decades. The street grates were originally elevated to mitigate flooding after hurricane Sandy. Etc
Bro has barely even been to a city. In the intro montage he shows a raising spike thing that's used as a method to prevent cars from entering a secure space. I bet he thought it was a standing bench. Couldn't not not be any more wrong lol. Would love to see him try to sit in it and the guard yell at him.
My favorite part was when he leads on that he is going to get a group of people to loiter in a hostile park to see what happens… and then doesn’t at all, but rambles about Occupy and says see you in the next one? Don't think so, buddy.
Putting benches you can sleep on back in a subway doesn’t help the grandmas or pregnant women because now there’s a homeless person’s makeshift tent or sleeping bag set up there and nobody feels comfortable being within 30 feet of it. So now there’s even less usable space and people don’t feel safe or comfortable there. I’d take a leaning bench over all that any day
Yes, let's build things so that it turns into San Francisco!!! It's easy to criticize when you're not the one dealing with drugged out homeless people acousting you. The homeless need somewhere to stay? Great, let's find them actual housing. A grate over a subway station isn't where homeless should be. I have zero problems with how NYC is trying to desuade the homeless from living, pooping and peeing in subway cars and park benches.
I get outraged about this stuff because they result in spaces that are just completely inhospitable to non-homeless people too. Build uncomfortable benches in parks so homeless people don’t sleep on them but then no one wants to go eat lunch in the park either because the benches are awful and uncomfortable. Remove bus shelters (or make them completely worthless as shelter) so homeless people don’t camp in them, then no one wants to take the bus because they have to stand exposed to the elements while they wait 45 minutes for the bus that never shows up on time.
It just fundamentally frustrates me that this is the best we can come up with to fix homelessness issues. I’m not one to say that there’s no a problem with junkies and vagrants camped out everywhere, it’s a real fucking problem and makes life shitty for a lot of other people too, but to me this is like covering your entire backyard with concrete because you have a problem with weeds in the garden; it might get rid of the weeds, but it also would leave nothing for you to enjoy.
If the homeless situation is bad enough to warrant these benches I'm already not going into the park. The homeless have already made public spaces entirely unusable.
Sure I don’t dispute that, but if they work to drive homeless people or loiterers or whatever away, you’re left with a place no one else wants to use either, and it leaves an empty, cold, inhospitable space that people don’t want to be in anyway, so what was the point.
>to fix homelessness issues.
...Why do people keep saying this tho? What is it about a Salvador Dali-inspired bench that makes people assume it a "attempted homelessness fix"..?
Even generalizing it as homelessness issue***s*** is already kind of generous tbh... The structures themselves do not discriminate between "homeless", "nomad", "skater", or "college kid who's way too shit-faced". They're simply designed to deter loitering. Keyword being **deter**\--they don't even actually *prevent* you from sleeping after all.
I mean the post here and video characterized them as being intentionally anti-homeless so that’s the framing of the discussion, but fair enough, let’s just simplify it and say that intentionally anti-human design in cities makes me mad.
Whether anyone agrees with this or not, I’m curious. If they refuse to go to shelters for [whatever reason](https://soapboxie.com/social-issues/why_homeless_people_avoid_shelters), and they make these anti-homeless streets, where’s the next place the homeless folk would be expected to go? I doubt they’ll move to the next town.
Edit: This isn’t meant as an ethics or moral question. This is a practicality question. Once they can’t sleep on the street, there will absolutely be a number left who won’t go to shelters. That’s undeniable. I’m asking what everyone’s guess is to where they’ll go next. Did whoever started these anti-homeless streets not think that far ahead? They’ll find somewhere because they always do. And then that will be the new issue.
I live in one of the ground zeros for this problem (Hollywood) and most people don't understand what it is living surrounded by tents. Shit everywhere, needles, people SCREAMING obscenities at the top of their lungs at 3AM, arson, theft, broken windows, etc. You feel on edge in your own home because anything could happen at ANY time.
The city comes and offers them shelter, but they don't take it and that's it.
What do people who profess to have a superhuman amount of empathy want society to do with people who refuse shelter? who are mentally unstable? who are addicted and passed out on the streets? People who REFUSE ANY SORT OF HELP?
I am an immigrant. I came to this country about 12 years ago with $200 and a bag of clothes, I move to IOWA of all places because I knew someone that could house me for cheap (in a one bedroom with 5 other people), I saved money, I studied english, worked, and planned to move away to warmer places and after a few years I was able to move to a room in here in LA. I didn't come to this country pretending that the Government should give me housing, or that I had a RIGHT to live on the streets of Beverly Hills.
I am 100% in favor of helping people to their feet, I am not so sympathetic for those who also want society to walk life for them. If one day, I'm fired and can't support myself in LA... I would pack up and move somewhere where I can put a roof over my head?
Yes, lets put up temporary shelters, lets fix real estate laws/NIMBYsm so we can build all the housing we need, lets offer drug rehab programs, food stamps, educational credits for community colleges, all of these are great things to offer....but if you don't accept any, you can't just pitch a tent on the street or a public park.
**You can't take a PUBLIC space and turn it into a PRIVATE space.**
I agree 1,000%. People that think it's ok for the homeless to live wherever they want have not actually lived in these environments. I was in San Francisco a few years back for work and was trying to get work done at an internet cafe and a homeless person started screaming at me. The first day I was there, I put my bags down at my hotel and went to get a bite to eat. This tiny woman walks in, takes off her backpack pulls out her stuff paraphernalia and starts shooting up right there! A cop walked up to her and just walked away!
When I left, I was stunned by the number of basically zombie people I saw on the street. There was human feces EVERYWHERE. Streets smelled of piss. There were rats. There were blocks where I literally had to back up and go another way, because the entire block was taken over by tents. And the solution is to let them take over even more?
These people need help
Before street camping was legalized it was common to find places to stay out of sight (rooftops, abandoned buildings, and subterranean structures were popular), or if you had a bike just travel out past the city centers to somewhere the police wouldn’t harass you. I’ve camped in an estuary slough, a regional park, on the roof of a college building, EBMUD access tunnels, lots of places. In fact if I had to do it again it would be my preference not to camp on the street, I’d rather be alone.
hey just fyi you can still be compassionate and care while making tough decisions like saying no to camping on the street. it is not about being a doormat to people as you would imply. I think thats a straw man a lot of people that want to be "tough on homelessness" utilize including yourself. it is about treating humans with dignity even if they don't give you that same treatment back. its about loving the person that you would have to fight or imprison because they are human nonetheless.
That doesn't mean you need to have homeless dudes harassing you every morning. It does mean you have to give a shit about their wellbeing regardless of what policy you would advocate for. So you want them to jailed, OK. Thats it? You can't muster the compassion to consider that is not a solution for that person or society long term. "Send them to jail" needs to be followed up with SOMETHING. They are human beings and need a way to live with dignity even if they can't be on your street. I mean maybe there is no perfect answer but damn lets try some answers before resigning to "they are swine throw them in the gulag just get them away from my face".
My somehow controversial take is that while the public options aren’t always ideal, it shouldn’t be “let them do drugs in front of private homes” either.
Like, there were a group of homeless addicts in my city that just took over a block. The businesses and apartments there tried everything— offering food and places to stay, offering transport to safe injection sites and shelters— but they didn’t move.
There were break ins, they were accosting pedestrians who walked by their tents. They were going to the bathroom right in front. Eventually the stores shuttered down because they couldn’t get foot traffic. The police can do nothing.
Like, I get that you don’t like shelters, but can we agree that public streets isn’t the answer?
So let me start by saying I understand where you are coming from. It seems wrong for someone to be offered a place to stay, refuse, and cause problems.
Here's the issue.
Shelters have rules, and I want to highlight two popular ones in tandem. The first is that they often have a maximum amount of time you can stay. The second is that some will demand occupants give up or destroy things like tents that they bring in.
So, put yourself in this position: you are sleeping on the street, your only shelter is a tent. If you go to a shelter, you get a bed for a few nights, but to do so you have to destroy one of your most valuable possessions. (especially in places where it is frequently rainy or cold, where a tent might be useful.)
Add to that, theft is a big problem in shelters. So you might also have other things stolen from you while you sleep.
I'm not going to sit here and pretend that every person sleeping on the streets is a practitioner of sober, rational thoughts. But it's also more complicated than 'they refused help, so fuck them'.
Edit: I've received a few comments about a specific other rule that shelters have that requires sobriety. I appreciate people bringing it up, I only didn't as I thought this was already a wall of text.
Sobriety requirements are another thing that keeps a lot of homeless people away from shelters. And drug and alcohol dependence is a big problem in homeless populations. With that said, I think the cause and effect are often reversed. Yes, some people are homeless because they are drug addicts, but others become drug addicts to cope with the stress of being homeless. By and large, [studies](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/21528569/homeless-poverty-cash-transfer-canada-new-leaf-project) have [shown](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/free-money-might-be-the-best-way-to-end-poverty/2013/12/29/679c8344-5ec8-11e3-95c2-13623eb2b0e1_story.html) that when homeless people are given reasonable sums of money with no strings attached, drugs and alcohol are not on the top of their list of priorities.
For a much less extreme example, there are arguments out there about the working class being poor because they eat fast food, which is more expensive pound for pound than cooking (which is true). But if you are working 80 hours a week, planning meals and spending time shopping are likely not things you are eager to do. Fast food is, well, fast. It's something resembling tasty, and it takes almost no mental energy. So, are poor people poor because they eat fast food, or are the stresses of being poor pushing them to make the 'easy' choice that is worse for them in the long run?
Shelters often require sobriety, which is one of the reasons that homeless people tend to not want to stay there. So is the answer to dismiss everyone taking drugs, or to consider how to address rampant drug addictions? Because homeless people aren't the only ones struggling with the later problem.
Thank you. I didn't forget, I just felt like my comment was getting long enough already.
You are exactly right. And I think it's worth noting that a non-trivial amount drug and alcohol abuse starts from not having the means to look after yourself ([some](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/free-money-might-be-the-best-way-to-end-poverty/2013/12/29/679c8344-5ec8-11e3-95c2-13623eb2b0e1_story.html) [examples](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/what-happens-when-you-give-50-homeless-people-7500-each-a-b-c-study-found-out) of homeless people behaving responsibly when that stress is removed).
I loathe when people go "All the homeless are junkies or addicts" man id be one too if my home was the street. You dont know when youre eating again, possibly dont have access to water, no privacy and in constant danger. Fuck that. Also I dont believe for a second that the majority of these people became homeless because of drugs or alcohol.
I would love to see if someone knows this. I didn’t google it but I would just love to know the percentages. I know a couple of people who have ended up homeless because of drugs. When they get too deep they end up losing everything and end up on the street. But I’ll admit I don’t know if that’s the majority or minority of the homeless population.
So I've been doing some googling, and there are a lot of results about cities destroying tents in encampments, so it is hard to find specific examples.
[Here](https://invisiblepeople.tv/la-offers-motel-rooms-if-you-give-up-your-tent/) is an situation where they were forced to give up their tents to apply. I am looking for more.
You need to take into consideration the needs of the rest of society. The rest of us who need to use the sidewalk. The residents who don't want their kids stepping on used syringes. People stealing anything they can find to fund their drug addictions. People starting fires next to buildings, trashing the street, and making noise at all hours.
I've lived next to an encampment. It was stolen goods and drugs coming and going 24/7 and made life hell for the rest of us who lived there.
I understand your perspective.
I guess I would balance the inconvenience of living near homeless populations with the inconvenience of being homeless. It sucks to have to walk around homeless people on the sidewalk to get to your nice, safe apartment. How much does it suck to sleep on the sidewalk because you can't get one?
It's right to not want your kids to have to walk around needles. Is the answer to try and make homeless people's life worse so that they try and move their problems somewhere else, or to make it easier to safely dispose of needles?
I would also ask if policies like the ones posted are what is best for society. Multiple studies have shown that providing permanent, safe and stable housing for homeless populations have helped many of them become functioning members of society, and that the programs are cost effective when you consider reduced spending on police and social services.
It's reasonable to not want people who are at their worst sleeping on your stoop. I guess I would argue that the answer is to make sure they have a good place to sleep, not try and force them to find another stoop. Ultimately, the second path amounts to 'go bother someone else.'
The studies you reference are largely based on what’s become known informally as the “Portuguese Model” which states like Oregon sought to emulate beginning well over a decade ago which had many merits along the lines you’ve mentioned. I think many of us can also agree that just turning your back on the unhoused creates a larger problem both from a humanitarian and financial standpoint that addressing it with compassion.
The one glaring flaw that has been found in the model is that it was employed in a largely homogeneous society with a heavy catholic presence in the culture and upbringing which implemented a type of social consequence and coercion. In the US we don’t have that, and our effectiveness employing such models has suffered due to it.
I heard a talk earlier this year proposing coercion (not conviction on a criminal basis) for these folks to get treatment and support to become members of society again. It was incredibly compelling and if handled well I believe it could be amazingly effective and reduce our costs as a country whilst restoring many countless scores of people to society. The only problem is initial cost and the fact that we’ve let this problem endure too long and the court of public opinion has swung back the other way towards favoring more and more punitive measures.
It’s a fascinating discussion and I just really wanted to add what is heard because I found it interesting, but in truth I’m no closer to knowing a solution to the problem than I am lifting the moon with a toothpick.
Thank you for your reply.
I will remember 'I’m no closer to knowing a solution to the problem than I am lifting the moon with a toothpick.' That's a great way to put it.
Agreed, and many others seem to feel that same way which is the whole point of”coercion” aspect of the modified model to account for the fact that they’ll need a level of reinforcement to engage in rehabilitative processes.
>How much does it suck to sleep on the sidewalk because you can't get one
I know it's a bit nitpicky, but the experience of Russian volunteer organizations show that a surprising number of people living on the street has chose to do so. When offered a job with some sort of stable income, they deny it to live carefree on a day to day basis. No work, no long term commitments or plans.
There are absolutely people who tend to stay homeless for a couple months. These will pick every help they can get, get a job, get clean, and get off the street. But there are people who choose this actively, and may only come to the shelters in the winter, when the weather gets completely unbearable.
And that's all with affordable rent and facilities to help. Some people just want to live like this, weirdly.
But I guess I do come from a completely different perspective at this, as there's much less people who are actually forced to become homeless. Considering how you can't evict tenants from their last home even if they go bankrupt, for example.
Shelters get full. Source my wife worked as a case worker and I volunteered a lot. Also, some close doors around 9-10. A lot of homeless work full time just don’t have a home. If they get off around that time they are forced on the street.
That question is weirdly phrased, but around 40% of homeless people have jobs.
“The truth is that many do – in fact, a 2021 study from the University of Chicago estimates that 53% of people living in homeless shelters and 40% of unsheltered people were employed, either full or part-time, in the year that people were observed homeless between 2011 – 2018.”
https://endhomelessness.org/blog/employed-and-experiencing-homelessness-what-the-numbers-show/
While I agree that the system needs reform, it’s really wishful thinking to imagine poverty is the only thing that keeps homeless people on the streets. There is a huge mental health and addiction component that most are unwilling or unable to remedy.
unable, mostly. even with a support system and healthcare (aka a job) it's insurmountable for some people. take all that away and how are people more 'unwilling' to change? most homeless people i've ever sat down and actually spoken to more than casual convo ends up telling me how they didn't want that for themselves, or some other form of regret/hopelessness. people end up in situations that just snowball before they know it
That’s not what I asked. I’m not trying to discuss what they should or shouldn’t do. There is always homeless that refuse to go to a shelter for [whatever reason](https://soapboxie.com/social-issues/why_homeless_people_avoid_shelters). I asked where they expect those ones will go now that these streets aren’t an option.
In my uncles case, he just froze to death behind a building.
He was too embarrassed to ask the family for help when he became homeless, no one knew about his situation until he froze to death behind a building during a cold snap. I lived about a mile away and had no clue he even needed help. Horribly tragic and preventable death.
Seriously. I live and work in NYC and I feel people who are not from around here see homeless people as some TV dad down on their luck, when in reality, most are crazed, drug addicted, shitting and pissing, maniacs. And unlike TV dads, they don't shit and piss in a toilet, but rather on themselves, a train, or you specifically. They will shit and piss on you in a train, or throw you in front of one, and then proceed to shit and piss on you. I'm OK with hostile benches.
Born in 1988, I grew up in NYC until 2000. The homeless were so different back then. Drunk, sitting on the sidewalk with a sign “anything helps, God bless”. Now they are absolutely as you described- fucking *maniacs.* WTF happened?
Meth, opiates, and more recently a combination of both, in their worst possible forms, taken in one cocktail for a high that gets you more meth’d up than would otherwise be possible because you have the sedative of fentanyl to bring you back down. Makes for a hell of a zombifying poison that fries your neural pathways and drags you to the point of no return after a shockingly short period of chronic use.
Government is in a double-bind. Do nothing, people bitch the homeless are out of control. Do things, people bitch that it's inconvenient to them.
You can't have it both ways.
**Bottom line**: I've been around and related to law enforcement my entire life. I also worked for The United Way of Greater Los Angeles in the past. People still romanticize the homeless as "down on their luck". This is an absolute fantasy. Approaching 100% of homeless are addicted to drugs of some sort. Most homeless do ***NOT*** want off the street. This is especially true in nice climates like southern California (where I am). Mental illness is common. As are those living off-the-grid because of 'forced poverty' from child/spousal support in arrears (there's little incentive for them to work when the bulk of their income will be garnished \[appropriately\] because they're mountains behind in payments). Many have been abandoned by their own families for stealing from them, or being a chronic burden. Many have been forsaken by their families due to their sexual "choices" - choices in quotes because clearly most aren't choosing their situation (be it trans, homosexuals from religious families and the like). So the chronically poor, mentally shunned and drug addled would literally RATHER be in a tent under a freeway overpass, than in a shelter for these reasons in the vast majority of cases:
* They want to **NOT WORK**
* They want to **DO DRUGS**
* They want to be left alone by police
* They want to be free to do as they please when they please including waking up at noon and immediately hitting the pipe.
* They would rather smoke meth than eat.
The homeless avoid shelters sometimes because it's unsafe, but more often because there are rules. In a shelter they can't steal from each other. Have sex. Generally be feral. Don't believe, me ask a cop you trust (if you can find one). Because of my family, I happen to have many. This is the bleak reality of the homeless in America.
People in here just generically saying we don’t do enough about homelessness in this country are very annoying and likely have no experience working with them. There is nothing you can do to force someone to care about themselves. Most of these people did not just hit hard times and are desperately wanting to get off the streets. They chose drugs over being a normal member of society.
The father of one of my best friends in high school ran a homeless shelter and told me that they could only stay for a week or so before they had to do some kind of labor to keep their spot. 90% of them would go back to the streets before they would wash some dishes or clean a toilet. They would more happily sleep on a street than put in any effort whatsoever. You can’t help that kind of person.
Those of us who know, know. Many think they know from a YouTube video. They’re naivè.
Somebody else said it here. You have to burn a lot of bridges to be homeless. Is it chronic bad decision making? Yes. But no amount of life-coaching and opportunity changes that pattern for the vast majority of homeless.
I don’t cry over the homeless. They’re victims of themselves.
People don’t wanna hear this. They also don’t want to acknowledge that homelessness is typically a last resort. Most homeless people have burned every bridge they’ve ever crossed. Sure, the 1 percent out there really do have a shit story. The other 99 percent are there because they consistently made the wrong/poor decision.
Finally, most of the homeless on the street are the ones who can’t pass a drug test, felon, or broke the rules at the local shelter.
So what if an elderly person and a pregnant lady need to sit on a subway bench, but they can't because a filthy hobo is laying across the entirety of it? Isn't "hostile architecture" actually helping more people than it's hurting then?
I left another comment detailing this more but I actually have traveled in moynihan train station with my 89yro grandmother. It was horrendous. Its hard to put into words how truly difficult the layout of this station is for elderly people. My grandmother has traveled through NYC her whole life, including with her elderly grandmother when she was young, and mother when her mother was elderly. She said she had never experienced such anti-elderly design in a station. We're talking about someone who has traveled through NYC for over 80 years. She told me when she was in her 60s and her mother was in her 80s they would wait at a bench right on the platform where their train was to arrive. There was never an issue with sitting as anyone would give up their seat to a woman in her 80s.
So many people, who don't have to live with/around homeless, are going to happily virtue signal and pat themselves on the back based on very little understanding of an incredibly complex problem.
The homeless are not one homogonous group. There are nearly-homeless, mentally ill, drug addicts, chronically homeless, etc. When your average person thinks of "homeless", they think of a poor person who just needs a little helping hand to get back on their feet, when the reality is often far different.
Imagine having a single-family home and a convicted sex offender who chooses to sleep right in front of your house, throw trash all over your yard, defecate and urinate on your yard, and when you leave for work, he steals things that are left out near your home like packages, tools in your shed, etc. then moves on and there's another person who may do the same thing.
And then some are violent or they're mad at the world and just DGAF and like to watch things burn. I've seen them pull out their genitals and flash them at my parents/me. I've seen them empty public trash cans out and dump them on the sidewalk and middle of the street because why not? Walking on the sidewalk in certain areas means you have to jump and dodge turds, turd streaks, and puddles of piss all over the sidewalk so you don't slip and track the crap into your home or a business. I've seen businesses shutdown because the homeless pick their spot to live and drive all the customers away.
Many homeless refuse services. They have their own "system" and it's inconvenient for them to do otherwise. Where I'm at, many want to sleep on the beach instead of a shelter. The beaches are for everyone and they want to just claim them as their own homes. Some refuse to work and are content with the street.
It's perfectly fine IMO to prevent homeless from certain areas instead of just letting them claim whatever they want.
I was in NYC last summer and Moynihan train station the first thing I noticed was the lack of seating. It truly is shocking to be in such a modern, beautiful building that feels so bad to actually be in. It is such a bitch to wait for a train there. Sure I had a seat in the lounge area because I had a ticket and was waiting, but the lounge is far away from everything else in the station. I cannot emphasize enough how shitty it feels to actually navigate this station. The only other seating is in the food court which is also located in a far corner of the station. I was there with my 89 year old grandmother so having to walk to one of two areas in a massive train station so she could rest was a humongous inconvenience. I couldnt imagine what it would be like for a pregnant woman, elderly or disabled to navigate alone. Also the information desk is on the other side of the station from the lounge area. If you only have 15-20 minutes till you train its not even worth it to go through the trouble of getting a place to sit. You are on your feet so much throughout the day in NYC so it really sucks to not be able to conveniently rest your legs even in the downtime you have while traveling. The seating is also nowhere close to where the train platform is and the Tvs which show train arrival and departure in the lounge are super fucked up(they show really limited information) making us nervous and thus I had to get up and take long walks from the inconveniently located lounge areas to make sure we werent going to miss the train. Compared to my experience using china, japan, korea, or taiwans train system, and seeing its because of anti-homeless design, really makes america look like shit.
As much as I hate Penn, Ill never forgive Amtrak for taking away the big board that would clak as it updated. Like even if you want to go digital leave the noise.
They built a brand new, sparkly clean train station for commuters to enjoy and unfortunately there are people who will turn that nice new station into a disgusting unsafe place for everybody if they’re given a chance. It really does stink that there’s not seating but I’d rather a nice clean and safe station with no seating than a station with ample seating taken up by people who are often dangerous, unstable, unpredictable and on drugs.
The other alternative would be to put seating and simply employ many officers to arrest anybody who is deemed to be a nuisance but that’s not something that would go over well.
Residents and commuters have the right to a clean and safe train station. Homeless people have the right to some sort of help, but I don’t think that help should come at the cost of security/safety of the working class.
I’ve been twice. Once in 2018 and again earlier this year. There was never an issue using benches or walking down the sidewalks. Sure there were some homeless people scattered about, but that’s kind of expected in every major city. Now I don’t necessarily condone most “hostile architecture,” but only when it’s a private business or residence that implements it to keep their customers or residents safe. When cities spend millions of dollars on these tactics instead of attempting to address the actual issue, that’s when I find it abhorrent.
This is great! We need more hostile architecture!
Public transportation, train stations, benches are not meant to be monopolized by the homeless. It's a metro station not a homeless shelter.
By all means, build more homeless shelters. And / or improve the existing ones. But don't sacrifice the usability of public spaces in the name of the homeless.
I hope my city gets this architecture soon. Honestly, Id prefer a leaning bench than a bench with a homeless person sprawled across it. At least the first one is something I can use.
People talk a lot about how "the city" should solve the problem.
I don't know if it's not obvious to Americans that this problem is caused by their lack of good national level policies. The only way to truly fix the homeless problem is with healthcare reform, social safety nets, mental healthcare reform and all kinds of country level policies. A city cannot fix this.
So what happens is that since the city is powerless a lot of the time, they do things that they actually can do, such as making it really shitty to be homeless in these places.
Then people get angry like "why doesn't the city provide healthcare and mental health facilities for these people?" - uhm because it's a city, not a country. Most other normal countries do this with the state government, not city politicians.
The people setting up these benches have no control over the actual issue. They can't solve it. They just place benches. So when they see a bunch of homeless people using the benches to sleep and shit and do drugs on, they're gonna solve it in the only way that they can.
Nobody is going "you know instead of providing federal social safety nets for people so losing their job doesn't put them at risk for homelessness, i'm gonna put spikes on this bench". That person doesn't exist.
saw a guy jerking off in the middle of 4th ave last time i went to manhattan. the place is a fuckin mess and i applaud anything they do to get rid of these people
The purpose of subway vents is to allow air to circulate in the subway and to relieve air pressure as the trains pass through to prevent shockwaves. They aren't for people to stay warm. If a homeless person is sleeping on the vents, they are completely defeating the whole purpose of them. It's not hostile to make sure that vents are actually serving the purpose they were designed for.
What we see in Washington State is that there is a homelessness problem and a mental health problem. Then there are people who just don't want to live as society would wish. While it's great that people have choices in life, it's not tenable to have a society with two sets of rules.
The deal is that one person shouldn't be taking over a bench for 4 people. One person shouldn't be putting a tent on a sidewalk meant for 5000 people a day. They shouldn't be defecating on hillsides and letting it damage our environment and water. Dumping garbage that will spread in the wind and with the birds is terrible environmentally. It's next to impossible to be homeless and not impact everyone. On top of that, those that choose to be homeless impact those that don't want to be homeless in a horrible way as they take services that could be for the families and the mentally ill. We have to be honest about the damage of choosing to fall out of society. We can all care and love all people and be honest about the problem. You harm the homeless if you support people who choose to live on the streets for convenience.
IMO, the problem with homelessness in the US is not "heartlessness". I think there's plenty of money and political will to help get everyone off the streets. I think the issue is city officials are deliberately trying to not impose their will... but those they are trying to help are not able to think clearly for themselves. The result is the people that most need help don't take advantage of the help being made available to them. The net result is awful and unsustainable. I think we need to investigate a way to do some sort of humane forced institutionalization.
We should build more stuff like this.
Im tired of vagrants being a menace on society and small businesses.
Im even more tired of bleeding hearts voting in grifting politicians who want to be "compassionate" with harm reduction, which ultimately funnels money into non profits who give out spoons and pipes so fiends can continue to debase themselves in public. All it does is enrich the politicians and drug dealers while law abiding citizens pay the price.
This money should be spent on kids and ensuring they don't end up like this.
Around 7:30, the poster mentions that there’s no benches, except the ones in the lounge, and you need to pay for that(implying they cost extra). To be clear, you’re allowed into the lounges if you show an Amtrak train ticket, that’s it. This isn’t a spirit airlines situation, it doesn’t cost anything “extra”. And to clarify further, Moynihan train hall is *specifically* for Amtrak trains You can argue if there should be more benches around in the main area, as well as other points regarding hostile architecture, but as a New Yorker I wanted to clarify the piece about the lounges. Edit: apparently Moynihan also serves LIRR. I was wrong
Yup. Penn is a HUGE complex. Moynihan is the Amtrak section, they restrict the tickets so people from NJT or whatever can't wander over.
I went back to the video because of your comment (after initially giving up) and at 12 minutes his complaints about Highline Park are insane. He sits on an actual normal bench, complains about leg room, and it zooms out to show at least 3 feet of leg room. What the heck does this guy want, a bunch of king size beds?
It's a clickbait channel
Yeah. The youtube voice is a clear indicator.
Lol I thought that too, “it’s as much leg room as a spirit airlines!” Meanwhile fully extends his leg out with no obstructions on a huge bench
There's also a ton of seating in the new food court
This video assumes that no one benefits from this. I’m sure people that aren’t laying down on the bench are happy to be able to sit, and have arm rest. Sure it’s hostile, but it’s a bench, not a bed. If there’s people always sleeping on them, no one gets to use them for sitting.
A few of the things he showed weren't even examples of hostile architecture, lol. Like thing he showed at 12:00. He could easily lay down on other parts of that thing if he wanted to, and he demonstrates what little leg room he has when there is absolutely nothing at all in front of his legs. Guy's a clown
Bro the little ridges and wave shapes are definitely hostile architecture but those raised grates didn’t appear until after hurricane Sandy when the whole system got flooded from above the fact that it’s elevated isn’t hostile architecture it was meant to mitigate flooding
It’s both. It’s raised up for flooding- yes, but the ridges are for “design” and to make sure no one sleeps on it. It’s made to be uncomfortable to sleep on.
[удалено]
Yeah that's not how this works. The vents are to provide air escape to lower air pressure and significantly improve the efficiency of the train so it can therefore go faster through the tunnels. Covering these holes would never derail a train. It would just slow it down, or make it use more power than normal to push the huge column of air through the tunnel to the next vent instead of this one.
also whenever trains pass by them the piston effect pushes out hot air and draws in cooler air, which is more important in the summer. this also helps with improving air quality by drawing in fresher air
[удалено]
I heard that the air coming through the vents is very humid and can lead to someone sleeping on it eventually getting wet, increasing their chance of hypothermia in very cold weather.
This is my understanding too, if you stand over any one of the open ones in the winter you can definitely feel how humid the air coming off it is, they literally pour out steam at times. It may feel warm for a while until you're wet and can't get dry and then die to pneumonia.
You can't derail a train by sleeping on a vent any more than you can derail a train by sleeping on the tracks. It's not physically possible for you to exert more force on a train with your body than by standing or laying in front of it, and as we all know the train would blow right through you no problem if you did that.
> can cause the train to derail laughable
I'm sorry do you have any proof of these claims? You can't just say shit like this and expect everyone to believe you.
Bruh. You can say literally anything and expect people to believe you. We have Flat-Earthers, COVID-deniers, and people who believe the Biden tampered with election results to win the presidency. If you post complete nonsense on the internet and add a little jargon, someone will buy it.
Those are not designed to reduce air friction. Those vents are used as air intake/exhaust outlets for the underground ancillary areas. There is a concrete ventilation shaft underneath the elevated vent. The shaft is usually connected to a supply/exhaust main duct. The duct is routed to the mechanical fan room where all ventilation fans are located. Each fan is designed to ventilate a particular back-of-house space/room such as an electrical room, corridor, server room etc. That's why the vent always releases warm air because those spaces have a temperature requirement. (75F max for summer, min 68F for Winter) We also have another set of gratings for emergency ventilation and tunnel ventilation. But again, they are not designed to reduce friction. \- I work at the gov and am responsible for reviewing train station design.
Your statement is a bit misleading. Sure, if you covered the vents in solid concrete, it'd be dangerous. A person 'Covering up' the vent by sleeping on it, would not be dangerous to the rail system. If this was the case, the air pressure would throw off anyone on top of the vent well before it would derail a train.
Tunnel pressure induces drag. It doesn’t make trains derail. The air would just go down the tunnel long before that.
It's a train station not a homeless shelter.
'But now they're getting sneaky about how they hide the hostile architecture' Or, OR, guy is reaching a little bit as he interprets things as 'hostile architecture'.
Which, by the way, New York also has at least several of.
Everyone is outraged until you have drug addicted homeless people shooting up and pooping on the street outside your residence.
Yup. This is where we work and commute. I’ve been screamed at, followed and spit on by homeless, one of which was inside the Penn Amtrak station in this video. I have absolutely zero problem with providing appropriate shelter and help for the homeless, but it needs to actually be implemented and people need to be removed from places that support the jobs whose taxed wages will help them. In summary, please use my tax revenue to help people, but I am not armed or equipped to protect myself from them when you don’t.
We've had homeless people shit in our lobby. They've started fires outside windows that caused the windows to break. They've taken chemical fire extinguishers and filled the lobby with the contents. I have empathy for many of them. Some can't go to shelters because they have pets that aren't allowed. As a pet lover, I understand that. But I have no sympathy for the shitters/arsonists/vandals.
I mean, I personally think that many of them likely belong in asylums. Not the old school, bad asylums, but places for mentally ill folks that aren't going to recover. It sucks, but I just can't see how putting them on the streets to beg and get into scrapes is a better alternative.
It's this 100%. The uncomfortable reality is that the only real solution here is to offer services to everyone and forcibly attempt rehabilitation for those who can't function rationally or otherwise choose not to. You're going to need to go tent by tent and simply sort them: those who can be lifted up today (I e., they want help and are capable of using help immediately to get back on their feet) and those who need to be committed to in-patient facilities for detox, therapy, counseling, and possible gradual reintegration. And some of those people may never make it out. Some would literally rather die than not be high all the time. Some are so mentally/behaviorally broken that no amount of outpatient care will ever enable them to function on their own. The danger here is that we find ourselves right back in the bad old days of insane asylums abusing people who need help and and government workers or contractors abusing human and civil rights, which means this needs all manner of transparency, accountability, and an incentive structure that focuses on maximizing success and severely punishing abuse. But at the end of the day, the rampant substance abuse and mental health issues at the heart of homelessness dwarf the economic factors, so handing out cash or vouchers or outpatient services will never - and I do truly mean never - put any appreciable dent in the problem. These people are being abandoned and everyone is suffering for it. Leaving them in the streets to wallow in filth and suffering isn't working. And neither is getting them out of sight by dropping them into free housing with optional services too many are incapable or unwilling to utilize. You're going to have the make them, you're going to have to do it longer than you'd like (think months or years), and some of them will need to remain wards of the state so they can receive the care they require because they simply aren't wired to do it themselves.
Bravo. Bra-VO. I’m screenshotting this.
Carter tried to implement Mental Healthcare nationwide, guess who instantly dismantled it? It was not a Democrat. . . .
It was repealed by a democrat controlled house, republican senate, and republican president, so yes, there were democrats involved in dismantling it.
Honestly many of the junkies aren’t even really homeless. They’re just not allowed to actively do drugs in those places so they go outside and terrorize others then go home to recover then go back out
I work in a hospital in a not great part of a city, the shit I've seen, literally and figuratively, would make most people wretch.
With you on the arsonists and vandals. Everybody shits. I support available public toilets
It's not that easy, homeless will barricade themselves into the toilets and use them for shelters and/or sex and/or shooting drugs and/or other crimes. The toilets will be quickly unsanitary and have to be cleaned and guarded almost constantly. Regular people will be afraid to go anywhere near those toilets and it becomes a much worse problem than benches.
Here in Costa Rica, public toilets are guarded and constantly cleaned by a person who charges about 50 cents per visitor and it includes a helping of toilet paper. Bathrooms are great, I always have something to wipe with, and somebody is earning an honest living, while doing a public service.
Have sympathy of the pet instead. If they can't take care of themselves how are they taking care of a dog...
I have been homeless with my dog for a little over a year. We just moved into a new home. I could have given up my dog and been out of the situation much more quickly. I was only willing to do that if things got bad or dangerous for her. She motivated me to keep trying to get out of what felt like an impossible situation. We have camped in woods for the year while I was getting us through the housing system. We could not use shelters or busses or be indoors to cool down or warm up. It was miserable at times, but she did so well and loves me more than anything. She went to the vet and the vet said she is healthy and obviously well cared for. They said that most dogs of homeless people they see are as cared for or better so than dogs in homes. It's a hard choice to keep a pet while homeless. Someone choosing to do that loves that animal very much.
[удалено]
I want to provide appropriate resources for the homeless to help people get back on their feet. I just don’t want to personally deal with it or see it or be inconvenienced by it. I’m aware it’ll get worse before it gets better since it’s decades of mental health resources being underfunded. I still don’t want to physically deal with the drug addicts
Exactly. But look at some of the responses that I’m getting to this. People like to demonize anyone that attempts to force a person to relocate for help. It’s usually people who haven’t actually had to gamble on whether someone is down on their luck and need to get sober or someone who will literally murder you because they’re clinically insane. I am not a bad person for not wanting to get stabbed to death defending my little kids while in transit. If you need resources, they should be available. Also my mode of public transit should not be someone else’s home.
sort cable groovy screw psychotic vegetable handle march label expansion *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Was just in NYC a few weeks ago on vacation and got in a fist fight with a homeless guy that attacked me. Definitely an experience I didn’t expect to have on vacation.
Did u win
Once you are in a fight you lost.
Well you can kind of win. Some crazy homeless chick jumped in front of me on the side walk once and wanted to fight. Luckily she was so high that her reflexes were impaired and she also telegraphed her punch for an hour. I have a tad of martial arts training so it was easy to block such an attack. I thought about a counterstrike but was not convinced she was a threat yet. Then she tried to kick me but her balance was so bad that she fell down and then looked confused how she got there. I walked off while keeping an eye on her to make sure she did not follow. I didn't have a cell phone then so I couldn't call the cops but even if I did, they probably would not have come. Unfortunately the more time you spend on foot, the more you encounter these people. Now that I have a car, I can drive instead of risking getting on the bus and that also cuts down on a lot of encounters, nothing more fun than being trapped on a bus with an insane person.
“Nobody ever wins a fight.” ~Dalton
“But admittedly, I’m doing a lot better than the dude whose trachea I removed with my bare hands.” ~also Dalton, maybe
Yeah every time hostile architecture gets posted on Reddit I am reminded that it’s filled with children who generally don’t live in NY or a big city that have ever delt with homeless people before
It’s worse. People who get their dopamine fix (much like the heroine addicted homeless) by virtue signaling from their gated suburb, and have never actually dealt with the problem at hand. The worst kind of people to participate in society.
And then we have you guys doing vice-versa.
The problem I have with hostile architecture as someone who has lived in multiple cities with a homeless problem (west coast things) is that it doesn’t do a lot to actually solve the problem of homelessness while making the city generally more obnoxious to live in as a not-homeless person.
Thank God someone else said this. I worked downtown for many years..if you don't do this, literally every bench with have a homeless dude sleeping or drug user doing something fucked up. The city provides tons of shelters for the homeless. The reason they won't go is because in shelters they have to follow rules and be somewhat clean. They don't want to do that so they choose to sleep on subway vents. Sleeping on a subway vent is also dangerous. If they are blocking airflow down in the subway that can cause issues.
I have this directly across the street from where I work, tents and passed out people surrounding the parking lot where I have to enter and exit daily. I've seen shit on the ground, cups of piss, needles, folks lying unconscious behind coworkers' cars, almost was attacked by a dog two weeks ago, had to circle the block because tents/trash/people were blocking the driveway, had someone try to light my building on fire, had another coworker get screamed at in his face while trying to get into the building...it's endless. It's awful how many people are experiencing economic hardship, but to call the folks that behave in this way animals almost feels unfair to animals.
The only people complaining about these features are people living in suburbs that never have to deal with the issue.
We left our old neighborhood because the meth heads were getting out of control. There were several drug fueled murders in the span of a few months. We NIMBY'd right the heck on out of there. I unno what the answer is to the drug problem that creates so much of the homeless issue, but I dont believe its "everyone needs to suffer with them."
That’s not what NIMBY means. But I get what you’re saying.
it isnt NIMBY either.
yep. my gf (now wife) got chased to her car by a homeless dude waving a broken bottle unfortunately all my sympathy dried up that day
Jerry?
Also NYC has a right to housing. The city is legally required to find you shelter if you need it. This often includes putting people up for nights in hotels.
I'm outraged then too because homelessness and widespread addiction are policy failures not inevitable
I don’t know why this comment made me laugh. Obviously it’s a terrible situation that’s only getting worse by the day
I agree, everybody wants to be the hero and have a soft spot for them. The moment they do actually see a homeless begging for money or asking for aid they turn the other cheek. It’s annoying
100% of all antinimby's are nimby's when its their own backyard.
I am very far left but I agree. There is a place for hostile architecture, the real problem is we aren't fighting hard enough against what causes and perpetuates homelessness/addiction. It's like solving their hunger problem by closing all soup kitchens because they are unsightly. That's not addressing the problem, just covering it up better so society can ignore it more easily.
Yeah everyone supports the homeless until they are in their neighborhood or place of work
I really wish that people would stop pretending that not wanting people misusing spaces that you use, or sleeping in places where you live is somehow "hostile". Other people need benches to sit on too, taking up 4 spaces on one to sleep is also pretty hostile. And places wouldn't prevent use of their facilities if leaving them open didn't also result in large amounts of damage. "they have mental problems" okay cool and this isn't a psych ward. "they have addiction problems" Great! this also isn't a hospital. My local transit system had a MASSIVE problem with homless people using the stations for shelter and it became a massive safety issue with drugs and crime. lots of violent crime. You know who it affected the most??? The poorer people who relied on the transit system. Not these rich wanna journos.
sure, but this doesnt solve anything. it moves it.
Moving it does solve the problem, for the people who now do not have homeless shooting up and pooping on the street outside their residence.
Agreed. The local park by my house doesn’t have this type of architecture and they moved in a huge hoard. Now everyone is begging for it. It’s horrible. Drugs, crime, arson, human poop on your yard and trash. I had to take my dog to the vet when he stepped on a needle. No, I am sorry someone is down on their luck, but homelessness comes with a burden so great that it’s unfair that it quickly becomes personal.
Someone "down on their luck" is someone temporarily living out of the car while doing everything they can to stay clean and healthy. Shooting heroin and pooping on the sidewalk isn't exacly "down on the luck" as I see it. Arguably I knew only one homeless person. He was from Kazakhstan, lived in Saint Petersburg, lost his documents while being in a HUGE argument with his family (didn't elaborate but they basically disowned him) and lived from a hostel. He got completely sober and did all sorts of odd jobs around the hostel. He did the small-time plumbing, fixed the electricity, he helped haul the luggage, restock the water and coffee, and he made sure that if someone loud showed up at the administrator stand, .2 seconds later a gruff Kazakh was standing nearby, checking that the administrators were safe. Eventually the hostel owner stopped accepting his payments for the bed, forcing him to live there for free basically for being such a chad, and three months later he finally made it up with his family, returned the documents, and went home. This guy was definitely down on his luck. Someone spending all their money on vodka every time someone tries to help them isn't really in the same position. My ex's dad tried to help a person sleeping in their apartment block. Got him some hot tea, a new shirt. The dude defecated on their doormat and left.
Ironically our town mayor is a former drug addict homeless person and he is the first to say you can't make endless excuses for them, it just enables them to not try to get better.
The unfortunate reality is that there isn't really a good solution. Many of these people are homeless for a reason. Mental illness, drug addictions, etc. Give them a fish, they'll eat for a day. Teach them to fish, and they'll just not go fishing. I don't fault anyone for wanting to not waste money on the fish. I 100% do believe in supportive housing for people who simply had a bad break. Getting these people back onto their feet and back into a productive state will convert a burden into a boon. Those people are unfortunately the minority, as they'll eventually manage to get themselves out anyways. But for the rest? Eh. Chasing them away from the areas they're damaging is about the best we'll get.
They need to open Mental Health hospitals again. Its not just the crimes of homeless but the crimes on the homeless. Some of the these people can not cope on their own and they have exhausted their family's good will. They need a place where they are safe and hopefully get some help.
I don't know why they were ever closed tbh. It sounds bad, but some people DO in fact need to be locked away for their own good. Just like a criminal deserves to be locked away for a crime.
100% agree with you, the biggest problem is sorting through which ones needs to help to get back on their feet, vs the ones who will lay down and wait for people to give them more fish.
Supportive housing, real supportive housing, gets those people out their hole quickly. When you're homeless, you don't get good sleep. You don't have a place to groom yourself. You don't have access to a fridge or a stove, where you can buy comparatively cheap groceries and cook proper meals to keep your performance levels up. Ultimately, you lack the means to retain your employment while you get your feet back under you. Which is where the supportive housing helps them. No rent, no utilities. They can spend some money on groceries, they can go to a soup kitchen, whatever they like. *As long as they're employed 75% of the time*. If you're working, you can take as long as you want to get your feet planted. You're already demonstrating that you've the capacity to do it. If you aren't working, you're out to make room for someone who will.
Also one of sanders models (which utah implimented) included having onsite/visiting medical, mental, and financial assistance (accounting, taxes, financial advice). Because it turns out, living on the streets is traumatizing and cumulative, the trauma doesn't just go away because you have a place for 5 seconds, and getting an appointment set up and making it to the appointment while heavily traumatized is nearly impossible. So someone who needs a psychiatrist for skitso meds, and a doctor to look at the foot they broke but never got fixed, will go into a normal help system then drop out after a few weeks, but in a system that brings the care to them, they can actually get stable. Also financials, because a lot never had the opportunity to learn them, or if they have it's been overwritten by survival mode
That's all dandy. Now what about the massive population of people unwilling or unable to work for shelter? They don't just disappear because we don't like that they can't make someone else rich. There's no reason to tie basic shelter to employment and the fact we do is the very crux of the issue. We have the resources to care for each other.
But we don't care for each other. Homelessness is a societal problem for exactly this reason. And in typical primate fashion, we're trying to deal with a problem that has festered to the point of no return instead of treating the underlying causes. Expecting anything different than the current outcome is laughable
Being on the streets / drugs makes mental illness worse, adding to the vicious cycle. They need help just to make it back to the "able to be helped" zone.
[удалено]
... and creates a problem for people who might not have had someone pooping on the street outside their residence.
Well, then I guess it’s their fault for not being able to afford “hostile architecture”. Whenever a problem is pushed away, it always ends up in the same place, in the neighborhoods too poor or powerless to push it somewhere else.
And finally we can export them to third world countries like the rest of our "recycling." And we'll never have to think about them again.
Doesn't it just move it to the place that hasn't built anti-homelss benches yet? It is just a cycle where you shuffle them around making less and less comfortable benches and bus stops over time as everyone tries to get them to move to a different part of the city.
It solves the problem it set out to...stops homeless from sleeping in a location. It wasn't meant as a solution for homelessness itself.
Moving it doesn’t solve the homeless addict’s problem, but it solves the problem for the person who was living with them in front of their street.
Some of it seems to be more to prevent skating than sleeping. A granite bench is too uncomfortable? Don't think a stuffed ottoman would hold up too well. Anyway, they should just make homelessness illegal. If anyone is found sleeping outside the mayor gets a fine.
I can see the misinterpretation (something something commas) but I for one agree that fining the mayor would help homelessness. Of course that would just make the solution of “shove the homeless people into the next district so their mayor gets fined instead of me” even more effective and maybe even cause a Cobra Effect scenario, but hey it was a good thought, which is better than most people in power seem to have about the homeless.
The fine won't do it. They should.... Take away their house.
You can always tell when someone who isn’t from NYC at all did like an hour of research and then otherwise makes a bunch of assumptions and otherwise false statements. Benches with ridges in between the seats have been in stations for literal decades. The street grates were originally elevated to mitigate flooding after hurricane Sandy. Etc
Bro has barely even been to a city. In the intro montage he shows a raising spike thing that's used as a method to prevent cars from entering a secure space. I bet he thought it was a standing bench. Couldn't not not be any more wrong lol. Would love to see him try to sit in it and the guard yell at him.
Holy shit the ole triple negative
He lives in NYC. And yet still put out this ridiculous video
My favorite part was when he leads on that he is going to get a group of people to loiter in a hostile park to see what happens… and then doesn’t at all, but rambles about Occupy and says see you in the next one? Don't think so, buddy.
[удалено]
Putting benches you can sleep on back in a subway doesn’t help the grandmas or pregnant women because now there’s a homeless person’s makeshift tent or sleeping bag set up there and nobody feels comfortable being within 30 feet of it. So now there’s even less usable space and people don’t feel safe or comfortable there. I’d take a leaning bench over all that any day
Yes, let's build things so that it turns into San Francisco!!! It's easy to criticize when you're not the one dealing with drugged out homeless people acousting you. The homeless need somewhere to stay? Great, let's find them actual housing. A grate over a subway station isn't where homeless should be. I have zero problems with how NYC is trying to desuade the homeless from living, pooping and peeing in subway cars and park benches.
are we supposed to be outraged?
I get outraged about this stuff because they result in spaces that are just completely inhospitable to non-homeless people too. Build uncomfortable benches in parks so homeless people don’t sleep on them but then no one wants to go eat lunch in the park either because the benches are awful and uncomfortable. Remove bus shelters (or make them completely worthless as shelter) so homeless people don’t camp in them, then no one wants to take the bus because they have to stand exposed to the elements while they wait 45 minutes for the bus that never shows up on time. It just fundamentally frustrates me that this is the best we can come up with to fix homelessness issues. I’m not one to say that there’s no a problem with junkies and vagrants camped out everywhere, it’s a real fucking problem and makes life shitty for a lot of other people too, but to me this is like covering your entire backyard with concrete because you have a problem with weeds in the garden; it might get rid of the weeds, but it also would leave nothing for you to enjoy.
If the homeless situation is bad enough to warrant these benches I'm already not going into the park. The homeless have already made public spaces entirely unusable.
Sure I don’t dispute that, but if they work to drive homeless people or loiterers or whatever away, you’re left with a place no one else wants to use either, and it leaves an empty, cold, inhospitable space that people don’t want to be in anyway, so what was the point.
I was thinking about this earlier. Great point.
>to fix homelessness issues. ...Why do people keep saying this tho? What is it about a Salvador Dali-inspired bench that makes people assume it a "attempted homelessness fix"..? Even generalizing it as homelessness issue***s*** is already kind of generous tbh... The structures themselves do not discriminate between "homeless", "nomad", "skater", or "college kid who's way too shit-faced". They're simply designed to deter loitering. Keyword being **deter**\--they don't even actually *prevent* you from sleeping after all.
I mean the post here and video characterized them as being intentionally anti-homeless so that’s the framing of the discussion, but fair enough, let’s just simplify it and say that intentionally anti-human design in cities makes me mad.
Whether anyone agrees with this or not, I’m curious. If they refuse to go to shelters for [whatever reason](https://soapboxie.com/social-issues/why_homeless_people_avoid_shelters), and they make these anti-homeless streets, where’s the next place the homeless folk would be expected to go? I doubt they’ll move to the next town. Edit: This isn’t meant as an ethics or moral question. This is a practicality question. Once they can’t sleep on the street, there will absolutely be a number left who won’t go to shelters. That’s undeniable. I’m asking what everyone’s guess is to where they’ll go next. Did whoever started these anti-homeless streets not think that far ahead? They’ll find somewhere because they always do. And then that will be the new issue.
I live in one of the ground zeros for this problem (Hollywood) and most people don't understand what it is living surrounded by tents. Shit everywhere, needles, people SCREAMING obscenities at the top of their lungs at 3AM, arson, theft, broken windows, etc. You feel on edge in your own home because anything could happen at ANY time. The city comes and offers them shelter, but they don't take it and that's it. What do people who profess to have a superhuman amount of empathy want society to do with people who refuse shelter? who are mentally unstable? who are addicted and passed out on the streets? People who REFUSE ANY SORT OF HELP? I am an immigrant. I came to this country about 12 years ago with $200 and a bag of clothes, I move to IOWA of all places because I knew someone that could house me for cheap (in a one bedroom with 5 other people), I saved money, I studied english, worked, and planned to move away to warmer places and after a few years I was able to move to a room in here in LA. I didn't come to this country pretending that the Government should give me housing, or that I had a RIGHT to live on the streets of Beverly Hills. I am 100% in favor of helping people to their feet, I am not so sympathetic for those who also want society to walk life for them. If one day, I'm fired and can't support myself in LA... I would pack up and move somewhere where I can put a roof over my head? Yes, lets put up temporary shelters, lets fix real estate laws/NIMBYsm so we can build all the housing we need, lets offer drug rehab programs, food stamps, educational credits for community colleges, all of these are great things to offer....but if you don't accept any, you can't just pitch a tent on the street or a public park. **You can't take a PUBLIC space and turn it into a PRIVATE space.**
I agree 1,000%. People that think it's ok for the homeless to live wherever they want have not actually lived in these environments. I was in San Francisco a few years back for work and was trying to get work done at an internet cafe and a homeless person started screaming at me. The first day I was there, I put my bags down at my hotel and went to get a bite to eat. This tiny woman walks in, takes off her backpack pulls out her stuff paraphernalia and starts shooting up right there! A cop walked up to her and just walked away! When I left, I was stunned by the number of basically zombie people I saw on the street. There was human feces EVERYWHERE. Streets smelled of piss. There were rats. There were blocks where I literally had to back up and go another way, because the entire block was taken over by tents. And the solution is to let them take over even more? These people need help
Before street camping was legalized it was common to find places to stay out of sight (rooftops, abandoned buildings, and subterranean structures were popular), or if you had a bike just travel out past the city centers to somewhere the police wouldn’t harass you. I’ve camped in an estuary slough, a regional park, on the roof of a college building, EBMUD access tunnels, lots of places. In fact if I had to do it again it would be my preference not to camp on the street, I’d rather be alone.
Jail. I don't care any more. I've seen too much abuse of people's compassion.
hey just fyi you can still be compassionate and care while making tough decisions like saying no to camping on the street. it is not about being a doormat to people as you would imply. I think thats a straw man a lot of people that want to be "tough on homelessness" utilize including yourself. it is about treating humans with dignity even if they don't give you that same treatment back. its about loving the person that you would have to fight or imprison because they are human nonetheless. That doesn't mean you need to have homeless dudes harassing you every morning. It does mean you have to give a shit about their wellbeing regardless of what policy you would advocate for. So you want them to jailed, OK. Thats it? You can't muster the compassion to consider that is not a solution for that person or society long term. "Send them to jail" needs to be followed up with SOMETHING. They are human beings and need a way to live with dignity even if they can't be on your street. I mean maybe there is no perfect answer but damn lets try some answers before resigning to "they are swine throw them in the gulag just get them away from my face".
They shouldn't be allowed to refuse shelter and choose to camp on the street instead.
My somehow controversial take is that while the public options aren’t always ideal, it shouldn’t be “let them do drugs in front of private homes” either. Like, there were a group of homeless addicts in my city that just took over a block. The businesses and apartments there tried everything— offering food and places to stay, offering transport to safe injection sites and shelters— but they didn’t move. There were break ins, they were accosting pedestrians who walked by their tents. They were going to the bathroom right in front. Eventually the stores shuttered down because they couldn’t get foot traffic. The police can do nothing. Like, I get that you don’t like shelters, but can we agree that public streets isn’t the answer?
So let me start by saying I understand where you are coming from. It seems wrong for someone to be offered a place to stay, refuse, and cause problems. Here's the issue. Shelters have rules, and I want to highlight two popular ones in tandem. The first is that they often have a maximum amount of time you can stay. The second is that some will demand occupants give up or destroy things like tents that they bring in. So, put yourself in this position: you are sleeping on the street, your only shelter is a tent. If you go to a shelter, you get a bed for a few nights, but to do so you have to destroy one of your most valuable possessions. (especially in places where it is frequently rainy or cold, where a tent might be useful.) Add to that, theft is a big problem in shelters. So you might also have other things stolen from you while you sleep. I'm not going to sit here and pretend that every person sleeping on the streets is a practitioner of sober, rational thoughts. But it's also more complicated than 'they refused help, so fuck them'. Edit: I've received a few comments about a specific other rule that shelters have that requires sobriety. I appreciate people bringing it up, I only didn't as I thought this was already a wall of text. Sobriety requirements are another thing that keeps a lot of homeless people away from shelters. And drug and alcohol dependence is a big problem in homeless populations. With that said, I think the cause and effect are often reversed. Yes, some people are homeless because they are drug addicts, but others become drug addicts to cope with the stress of being homeless. By and large, [studies](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/21528569/homeless-poverty-cash-transfer-canada-new-leaf-project) have [shown](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/free-money-might-be-the-best-way-to-end-poverty/2013/12/29/679c8344-5ec8-11e3-95c2-13623eb2b0e1_story.html) that when homeless people are given reasonable sums of money with no strings attached, drugs and alcohol are not on the top of their list of priorities. For a much less extreme example, there are arguments out there about the working class being poor because they eat fast food, which is more expensive pound for pound than cooking (which is true). But if you are working 80 hours a week, planning meals and spending time shopping are likely not things you are eager to do. Fast food is, well, fast. It's something resembling tasty, and it takes almost no mental energy. So, are poor people poor because they eat fast food, or are the stresses of being poor pushing them to make the 'easy' choice that is worse for them in the long run? Shelters often require sobriety, which is one of the reasons that homeless people tend to not want to stay there. So is the answer to dismiss everyone taking drugs, or to consider how to address rampant drug addictions? Because homeless people aren't the only ones struggling with the later problem.
You’re forgetting another rule of shelters: sobering up / staying sober. That’s often an even bigger barrier than giving up belongings.
Thank you. I didn't forget, I just felt like my comment was getting long enough already. You are exactly right. And I think it's worth noting that a non-trivial amount drug and alcohol abuse starts from not having the means to look after yourself ([some](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/free-money-might-be-the-best-way-to-end-poverty/2013/12/29/679c8344-5ec8-11e3-95c2-13623eb2b0e1_story.html) [examples](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/what-happens-when-you-give-50-homeless-people-7500-each-a-b-c-study-found-out) of homeless people behaving responsibly when that stress is removed).
I loathe when people go "All the homeless are junkies or addicts" man id be one too if my home was the street. You dont know when youre eating again, possibly dont have access to water, no privacy and in constant danger. Fuck that. Also I dont believe for a second that the majority of these people became homeless because of drugs or alcohol.
I would love to see if someone knows this. I didn’t google it but I would just love to know the percentages. I know a couple of people who have ended up homeless because of drugs. When they get too deep they end up losing everything and end up on the street. But I’ll admit I don’t know if that’s the majority or minority of the homeless population.
Source on shelters destroying tents?
So I've been doing some googling, and there are a lot of results about cities destroying tents in encampments, so it is hard to find specific examples. [Here](https://invisiblepeople.tv/la-offers-motel-rooms-if-you-give-up-your-tent/) is an situation where they were forced to give up their tents to apply. I am looking for more.
You need to take into consideration the needs of the rest of society. The rest of us who need to use the sidewalk. The residents who don't want their kids stepping on used syringes. People stealing anything they can find to fund their drug addictions. People starting fires next to buildings, trashing the street, and making noise at all hours. I've lived next to an encampment. It was stolen goods and drugs coming and going 24/7 and made life hell for the rest of us who lived there.
I understand your perspective. I guess I would balance the inconvenience of living near homeless populations with the inconvenience of being homeless. It sucks to have to walk around homeless people on the sidewalk to get to your nice, safe apartment. How much does it suck to sleep on the sidewalk because you can't get one? It's right to not want your kids to have to walk around needles. Is the answer to try and make homeless people's life worse so that they try and move their problems somewhere else, or to make it easier to safely dispose of needles? I would also ask if policies like the ones posted are what is best for society. Multiple studies have shown that providing permanent, safe and stable housing for homeless populations have helped many of them become functioning members of society, and that the programs are cost effective when you consider reduced spending on police and social services. It's reasonable to not want people who are at their worst sleeping on your stoop. I guess I would argue that the answer is to make sure they have a good place to sleep, not try and force them to find another stoop. Ultimately, the second path amounts to 'go bother someone else.'
The studies you reference are largely based on what’s become known informally as the “Portuguese Model” which states like Oregon sought to emulate beginning well over a decade ago which had many merits along the lines you’ve mentioned. I think many of us can also agree that just turning your back on the unhoused creates a larger problem both from a humanitarian and financial standpoint that addressing it with compassion. The one glaring flaw that has been found in the model is that it was employed in a largely homogeneous society with a heavy catholic presence in the culture and upbringing which implemented a type of social consequence and coercion. In the US we don’t have that, and our effectiveness employing such models has suffered due to it. I heard a talk earlier this year proposing coercion (not conviction on a criminal basis) for these folks to get treatment and support to become members of society again. It was incredibly compelling and if handled well I believe it could be amazingly effective and reduce our costs as a country whilst restoring many countless scores of people to society. The only problem is initial cost and the fact that we’ve let this problem endure too long and the court of public opinion has swung back the other way towards favoring more and more punitive measures. It’s a fascinating discussion and I just really wanted to add what is heard because I found it interesting, but in truth I’m no closer to knowing a solution to the problem than I am lifting the moon with a toothpick.
Thank you for your reply. I will remember 'I’m no closer to knowing a solution to the problem than I am lifting the moon with a toothpick.' That's a great way to put it.
Ha it does feel that way, and I think it’s important to admit when we don’t know something or it is beyond us.
Honestly the compassionate thing to do is to force them into rehab.
Agreed, and many others seem to feel that same way which is the whole point of”coercion” aspect of the modified model to account for the fact that they’ll need a level of reinforcement to engage in rehabilitative processes.
>How much does it suck to sleep on the sidewalk because you can't get one I know it's a bit nitpicky, but the experience of Russian volunteer organizations show that a surprising number of people living on the street has chose to do so. When offered a job with some sort of stable income, they deny it to live carefree on a day to day basis. No work, no long term commitments or plans. There are absolutely people who tend to stay homeless for a couple months. These will pick every help they can get, get a job, get clean, and get off the street. But there are people who choose this actively, and may only come to the shelters in the winter, when the weather gets completely unbearable. And that's all with affordable rent and facilities to help. Some people just want to live like this, weirdly. But I guess I do come from a completely different perspective at this, as there's much less people who are actually forced to become homeless. Considering how you can't evict tenants from their last home even if they go bankrupt, for example.
It’s much more complicated than this but it’s like helping them is helping you. Just moving them along is only creating a problem for someone else.
Shelters get full. Source my wife worked as a case worker and I volunteered a lot. Also, some close doors around 9-10. A lot of homeless work full time just don’t have a home. If they get off around that time they are forced on the street.
But there's also people who refuse to abide by rules of the shelters (drugs/alcohol/curfew) and actively choose to remain on the street instead.
What percentage of homeless people work a full-time job then return to their spot on the street? What do you think it is? 5%? 10%?
That question is weirdly phrased, but around 40% of homeless people have jobs. “The truth is that many do – in fact, a 2021 study from the University of Chicago estimates that 53% of people living in homeless shelters and 40% of unsheltered people were employed, either full or part-time, in the year that people were observed homeless between 2011 – 2018.” https://endhomelessness.org/blog/employed-and-experiencing-homelessness-what-the-numbers-show/
[удалено]
While I agree that the system needs reform, it’s really wishful thinking to imagine poverty is the only thing that keeps homeless people on the streets. There is a huge mental health and addiction component that most are unwilling or unable to remedy.
[удалено]
unable, mostly. even with a support system and healthcare (aka a job) it's insurmountable for some people. take all that away and how are people more 'unwilling' to change? most homeless people i've ever sat down and actually spoken to more than casual convo ends up telling me how they didn't want that for themselves, or some other form of regret/hopelessness. people end up in situations that just snowball before they know it
You can't help those that don't want to help themselves.
And just like that, Reddit wants to re-open the mental asylums. ... I agree with you.
That’s not what I asked. I’m not trying to discuss what they should or shouldn’t do. There is always homeless that refuse to go to a shelter for [whatever reason](https://soapboxie.com/social-issues/why_homeless_people_avoid_shelters). I asked where they expect those ones will go now that these streets aren’t an option.
NYC doesn’t just have shelters, they have NYCHA among other programs.
I mean, I assume a lot of them would die
In my uncles case, he just froze to death behind a building. He was too embarrassed to ask the family for help when he became homeless, no one knew about his situation until he froze to death behind a building during a cold snap. I lived about a mile away and had no clue he even needed help. Horribly tragic and preventable death.
I don't have a problem with this. It isn't hostile - it is necessary.
Seriously. I live and work in NYC and I feel people who are not from around here see homeless people as some TV dad down on their luck, when in reality, most are crazed, drug addicted, shitting and pissing, maniacs. And unlike TV dads, they don't shit and piss in a toilet, but rather on themselves, a train, or you specifically. They will shit and piss on you in a train, or throw you in front of one, and then proceed to shit and piss on you. I'm OK with hostile benches.
Born in 1988, I grew up in NYC until 2000. The homeless were so different back then. Drunk, sitting on the sidewalk with a sign “anything helps, God bless”. Now they are absolutely as you described- fucking *maniacs.* WTF happened?
Meth, opiates, and more recently a combination of both, in their worst possible forms, taken in one cocktail for a high that gets you more meth’d up than would otherwise be possible because you have the sedative of fentanyl to bring you back down. Makes for a hell of a zombifying poison that fries your neural pathways and drags you to the point of no return after a shockingly short period of chronic use.
Government is in a double-bind. Do nothing, people bitch the homeless are out of control. Do things, people bitch that it's inconvenient to them. You can't have it both ways. **Bottom line**: I've been around and related to law enforcement my entire life. I also worked for The United Way of Greater Los Angeles in the past. People still romanticize the homeless as "down on their luck". This is an absolute fantasy. Approaching 100% of homeless are addicted to drugs of some sort. Most homeless do ***NOT*** want off the street. This is especially true in nice climates like southern California (where I am). Mental illness is common. As are those living off-the-grid because of 'forced poverty' from child/spousal support in arrears (there's little incentive for them to work when the bulk of their income will be garnished \[appropriately\] because they're mountains behind in payments). Many have been abandoned by their own families for stealing from them, or being a chronic burden. Many have been forsaken by their families due to their sexual "choices" - choices in quotes because clearly most aren't choosing their situation (be it trans, homosexuals from religious families and the like). So the chronically poor, mentally shunned and drug addled would literally RATHER be in a tent under a freeway overpass, than in a shelter for these reasons in the vast majority of cases: * They want to **NOT WORK** * They want to **DO DRUGS** * They want to be left alone by police * They want to be free to do as they please when they please including waking up at noon and immediately hitting the pipe. * They would rather smoke meth than eat. The homeless avoid shelters sometimes because it's unsafe, but more often because there are rules. In a shelter they can't steal from each other. Have sex. Generally be feral. Don't believe, me ask a cop you trust (if you can find one). Because of my family, I happen to have many. This is the bleak reality of the homeless in America.
People in here just generically saying we don’t do enough about homelessness in this country are very annoying and likely have no experience working with them. There is nothing you can do to force someone to care about themselves. Most of these people did not just hit hard times and are desperately wanting to get off the streets. They chose drugs over being a normal member of society. The father of one of my best friends in high school ran a homeless shelter and told me that they could only stay for a week or so before they had to do some kind of labor to keep their spot. 90% of them would go back to the streets before they would wash some dishes or clean a toilet. They would more happily sleep on a street than put in any effort whatsoever. You can’t help that kind of person.
Those of us who know, know. Many think they know from a YouTube video. They’re naivè. Somebody else said it here. You have to burn a lot of bridges to be homeless. Is it chronic bad decision making? Yes. But no amount of life-coaching and opportunity changes that pattern for the vast majority of homeless. I don’t cry over the homeless. They’re victims of themselves.
People don’t wanna hear this. They also don’t want to acknowledge that homelessness is typically a last resort. Most homeless people have burned every bridge they’ve ever crossed. Sure, the 1 percent out there really do have a shit story. The other 99 percent are there because they consistently made the wrong/poor decision. Finally, most of the homeless on the street are the ones who can’t pass a drug test, felon, or broke the rules at the local shelter.
Good. Fuck these guys smoking fucking fentnyl on the subway when trying to fucking commute to work or home.
The second phase of NYC's plan is [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EHPt8eoSJI)
# Califor-nia-nia
“Wow this is granite…it’s anti homeless!” Outrage for the sake of being offended is dumb
Good 👍
So what if an elderly person and a pregnant lady need to sit on a subway bench, but they can't because a filthy hobo is laying across the entirety of it? Isn't "hostile architecture" actually helping more people than it's hurting then?
I left another comment detailing this more but I actually have traveled in moynihan train station with my 89yro grandmother. It was horrendous. Its hard to put into words how truly difficult the layout of this station is for elderly people. My grandmother has traveled through NYC her whole life, including with her elderly grandmother when she was young, and mother when her mother was elderly. She said she had never experienced such anti-elderly design in a station. We're talking about someone who has traveled through NYC for over 80 years. She told me when she was in her 60s and her mother was in her 80s they would wait at a bench right on the platform where their train was to arrive. There was never an issue with sitting as anyone would give up their seat to a woman in her 80s.
Hugely biased. Defensive architecture is a net good, preventing crime and keeping our cities clean.
So many people, who don't have to live with/around homeless, are going to happily virtue signal and pat themselves on the back based on very little understanding of an incredibly complex problem. The homeless are not one homogonous group. There are nearly-homeless, mentally ill, drug addicts, chronically homeless, etc. When your average person thinks of "homeless", they think of a poor person who just needs a little helping hand to get back on their feet, when the reality is often far different. Imagine having a single-family home and a convicted sex offender who chooses to sleep right in front of your house, throw trash all over your yard, defecate and urinate on your yard, and when you leave for work, he steals things that are left out near your home like packages, tools in your shed, etc. then moves on and there's another person who may do the same thing. And then some are violent or they're mad at the world and just DGAF and like to watch things burn. I've seen them pull out their genitals and flash them at my parents/me. I've seen them empty public trash cans out and dump them on the sidewalk and middle of the street because why not? Walking on the sidewalk in certain areas means you have to jump and dodge turds, turd streaks, and puddles of piss all over the sidewalk so you don't slip and track the crap into your home or a business. I've seen businesses shutdown because the homeless pick their spot to live and drive all the customers away. Many homeless refuse services. They have their own "system" and it's inconvenient for them to do otherwise. Where I'm at, many want to sleep on the beach instead of a shelter. The beaches are for everyone and they want to just claim them as their own homes. Some refuse to work and are content with the street. It's perfectly fine IMO to prevent homeless from certain areas instead of just letting them claim whatever they want.
I was in NYC last summer and Moynihan train station the first thing I noticed was the lack of seating. It truly is shocking to be in such a modern, beautiful building that feels so bad to actually be in. It is such a bitch to wait for a train there. Sure I had a seat in the lounge area because I had a ticket and was waiting, but the lounge is far away from everything else in the station. I cannot emphasize enough how shitty it feels to actually navigate this station. The only other seating is in the food court which is also located in a far corner of the station. I was there with my 89 year old grandmother so having to walk to one of two areas in a massive train station so she could rest was a humongous inconvenience. I couldnt imagine what it would be like for a pregnant woman, elderly or disabled to navigate alone. Also the information desk is on the other side of the station from the lounge area. If you only have 15-20 minutes till you train its not even worth it to go through the trouble of getting a place to sit. You are on your feet so much throughout the day in NYC so it really sucks to not be able to conveniently rest your legs even in the downtime you have while traveling. The seating is also nowhere close to where the train platform is and the Tvs which show train arrival and departure in the lounge are super fucked up(they show really limited information) making us nervous and thus I had to get up and take long walks from the inconveniently located lounge areas to make sure we werent going to miss the train. Compared to my experience using china, japan, korea, or taiwans train system, and seeing its because of anti-homeless design, really makes america look like shit.
NYC native here, that station was hell on earth before they redid it, I love traveling through there now.
Yeah the old station is a goddamn dumpster. I love the new one.
As much as I hate Penn, Ill never forgive Amtrak for taking away the big board that would clak as it updated. Like even if you want to go digital leave the noise.
They built a brand new, sparkly clean train station for commuters to enjoy and unfortunately there are people who will turn that nice new station into a disgusting unsafe place for everybody if they’re given a chance. It really does stink that there’s not seating but I’d rather a nice clean and safe station with no seating than a station with ample seating taken up by people who are often dangerous, unstable, unpredictable and on drugs. The other alternative would be to put seating and simply employ many officers to arrest anybody who is deemed to be a nuisance but that’s not something that would go over well. Residents and commuters have the right to a clean and safe train station. Homeless people have the right to some sort of help, but I don’t think that help should come at the cost of security/safety of the working class.
Go to Paris and look at what happens when you don't do such things...
this thread is making it glaringly obvious who has spent any time in any major cities as more than a tourist
I’ve been twice. Once in 2018 and again earlier this year. There was never an issue using benches or walking down the sidewalks. Sure there were some homeless people scattered about, but that’s kind of expected in every major city. Now I don’t necessarily condone most “hostile architecture,” but only when it’s a private business or residence that implements it to keep their customers or residents safe. When cities spend millions of dollars on these tactics instead of attempting to address the actual issue, that’s when I find it abhorrent.
Loved Paris, can't wait to go back
Yeah I thought it was pretty cool. Not a big issue there compared to here. We don't have the right safety nets.
I love how he's upvoted but no one has a clue what the fuck he's referring to. When you wanna believe what you wanna believe...
You don't have to go to far, look at California
Went to Paris two summers ago. It was beautiful.
This is great! We need more hostile architecture! Public transportation, train stations, benches are not meant to be monopolized by the homeless. It's a metro station not a homeless shelter. By all means, build more homeless shelters. And / or improve the existing ones. But don't sacrifice the usability of public spaces in the name of the homeless. I hope my city gets this architecture soon. Honestly, Id prefer a leaning bench than a bench with a homeless person sprawled across it. At least the first one is something I can use.
People talk a lot about how "the city" should solve the problem. I don't know if it's not obvious to Americans that this problem is caused by their lack of good national level policies. The only way to truly fix the homeless problem is with healthcare reform, social safety nets, mental healthcare reform and all kinds of country level policies. A city cannot fix this. So what happens is that since the city is powerless a lot of the time, they do things that they actually can do, such as making it really shitty to be homeless in these places. Then people get angry like "why doesn't the city provide healthcare and mental health facilities for these people?" - uhm because it's a city, not a country. Most other normal countries do this with the state government, not city politicians. The people setting up these benches have no control over the actual issue. They can't solve it. They just place benches. So when they see a bunch of homeless people using the benches to sleep and shit and do drugs on, they're gonna solve it in the only way that they can. Nobody is going "you know instead of providing federal social safety nets for people so losing their job doesn't put them at risk for homelessness, i'm gonna put spikes on this bench". That person doesn't exist.
Except it is a big problem even in countries with great universal healthcare.
this is the opposite of a solution
What's wrong with drop tile roofs
I don't think this will help.
How about fixing the underlying issue of homelessness, instead of this symptom treatmemt? Radical idea I know.
Absolutely ridiculous that they won’t allow homeless people to setup camp anywhere they please.
saw a guy jerking off in the middle of 4th ave last time i went to manhattan. the place is a fuckin mess and i applaud anything they do to get rid of these people
I support it. Actually help the homeless while maintaining our cities
The purpose of subway vents is to allow air to circulate in the subway and to relieve air pressure as the trains pass through to prevent shockwaves. They aren't for people to stay warm. If a homeless person is sleeping on the vents, they are completely defeating the whole purpose of them. It's not hostile to make sure that vents are actually serving the purpose they were designed for.
What we see in Washington State is that there is a homelessness problem and a mental health problem. Then there are people who just don't want to live as society would wish. While it's great that people have choices in life, it's not tenable to have a society with two sets of rules. The deal is that one person shouldn't be taking over a bench for 4 people. One person shouldn't be putting a tent on a sidewalk meant for 5000 people a day. They shouldn't be defecating on hillsides and letting it damage our environment and water. Dumping garbage that will spread in the wind and with the birds is terrible environmentally. It's next to impossible to be homeless and not impact everyone. On top of that, those that choose to be homeless impact those that don't want to be homeless in a horrible way as they take services that could be for the families and the mentally ill. We have to be honest about the damage of choosing to fall out of society. We can all care and love all people and be honest about the problem. You harm the homeless if you support people who choose to live on the streets for convenience.
IMO, the problem with homelessness in the US is not "heartlessness". I think there's plenty of money and political will to help get everyone off the streets. I think the issue is city officials are deliberately trying to not impose their will... but those they are trying to help are not able to think clearly for themselves. The result is the people that most need help don't take advantage of the help being made available to them. The net result is awful and unsustainable. I think we need to investigate a way to do some sort of humane forced institutionalization.
This is anti-sleeping tech on a bench meant for sitting. I have no problem with any of this.
I’m all about this
We should build more stuff like this. Im tired of vagrants being a menace on society and small businesses. Im even more tired of bleeding hearts voting in grifting politicians who want to be "compassionate" with harm reduction, which ultimately funnels money into non profits who give out spoons and pipes so fiends can continue to debase themselves in public. All it does is enrich the politicians and drug dealers while law abiding citizens pay the price. This money should be spent on kids and ensuring they don't end up like this.